WI Wilson issued a VERY strict nuetrality proclamation at the start of WWI?First, he says no trade with ANYONE-Allies and Central Powers. Second he issues an executive order FORBIDDING ALL travel by everyone to Europe for the duration. I think there are ways to get around THIS. When the Lusitania is sunk with NO Americans and evidence IS found of contraband what next?
Wilson-STRICT neutrality in 1914
- Thread starter edvader
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
Ever read Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Beyond Thirty"?
Description:
By the year 2137 Europe has become a largely forgotten, savage wilderness. Fierce bands of hunters rove the crumbling ruins of once mighty, war-ravaged cities. On the other side of the Atlantic a prosperous Pan-American Federation has emerged, claiming all lands and seas between the 30th and 175th longitudes and forbidding contact with the rest of the world. All who cross beyond thirty are sentenced to death.
Beyond Thirty is the story of Captain Jefferson Turck and the crew of his aero-submarine, who through accident and sabotage are forced beyond the thirtieth longitude and embark on an epic quest to rediscover the legendary lands of the Old World. Their adventures stand as one of Edgar Rice Burroughs's most imaginative and subtly crafted tales. Burroughs wrote the story in 1915 in reaction to the growing horrors of the First World War, and his devastating vision of its consequences provides a haunting and enduring warning for the twenty-first century.
Description:
By the year 2137 Europe has become a largely forgotten, savage wilderness. Fierce bands of hunters rove the crumbling ruins of once mighty, war-ravaged cities. On the other side of the Atlantic a prosperous Pan-American Federation has emerged, claiming all lands and seas between the 30th and 175th longitudes and forbidding contact with the rest of the world. All who cross beyond thirty are sentenced to death.
Beyond Thirty is the story of Captain Jefferson Turck and the crew of his aero-submarine, who through accident and sabotage are forced beyond the thirtieth longitude and embark on an epic quest to rediscover the legendary lands of the Old World. Their adventures stand as one of Edgar Rice Burroughs's most imaginative and subtly crafted tales. Burroughs wrote the story in 1915 in reaction to the growing horrors of the First World War, and his devastating vision of its consequences provides a haunting and enduring warning for the twenty-first century.
German victory is pretty much assured in this scenario. Unrestricted submarine warfare will begin in earnest and the British will be starved to the peace table. If Britain goes, the French Army may mutiny in the trenches, forcing France to exit the war out of sheer panic. Without a Western Front to worry about, Germany can turn its full attention to the East. Without a blockade of the German coast, Germany won't be starved for goods. America may not sell to them, but there are other potential sellers out there.
Without a Western Front to worry about, I'm not entirely sure whether or not the Germans would unleash Lenin upon the Russians. Whether or not the Russians would continue the war with the French and British bowing out is up in the air.
Some ideas for a peace treaty would be:
-Poland (comprised of the land taken by the Germans in the 1915 offensive) would be carved out of Russian territory. Germany would get the islands off the coast of Estonia and Finnish independence is a possibility, but if the Germans want to create an independent Ukraine, asking for Finland to be free just may be too much.
-Luxembourg would be wiped off the map as it would be absorbed into Germany. Belgium would maintain its independence, but would be a demilitarized zone. The only forces permitted in Belgium would be militia units. Belgian fortifications would have to be dismantled. Germany may also get the Congo from Belgium.
-Ireland would probably be an issue forced by Germany, assuming they manage to get a revolution off the ground while they find time to starve Britain into submission. The entire island would become free of British rule.
-France may have a hard time getting off light. A Versailles style treaty may be implemented against France. However, since Germany wouldn't be able to occupy all of France's empire (considering Britain, which had only been forced to the peace table, wouldn't allow this), they'd be able to keep most of their colonies. North Africa would become a German mandate. Considering France will be able to keep a good majority of her empire, it's quite possible that they will be able to keep a navy, although a small one due to treaty limitations. Whether Germany tries to claim all of Lorraine is worth a coin toss. This may be an idea for a plebiscite area. Depending on which side Italy joins, Savoy and Nice may become plebiscite areas as well. Also depending on Italy is the fate of Monaco. If Italy maintained her treaty obligations, Monaco would become an Italian protectorate. However, since Italy would probably still go the historic route, I say it becomes a German protectorate. Also, the final indignity will be that France will have to sign off all claims to Alsace-Lorraine.
-Italy, quite possibly having gone the historic route, will be the easiest to punish. The Dodecanese Islands and Libya will be returned to the Ottoman Empire. If Germany took Djibouti from France, Germany may grab Eritrea and Italian Somaliland for good measure. I doubt if Austria-Hungary would be able to assimilate any territory taken from the Italians, so Italy may get off very light in Europe.
-Britain is worth mentioning simply because they were forced to the peace table. Britain may be forced to make the Suez Canal an international zone. The Ottoman Empire may also get Cyprus back. Granting the independence of Ireland is a given.
-Romania would probably experience no territorial losses, simply because Austria-Hungary would be unable to assimilate the nation into its empire. However, Romania may receive a puppet king in the form of a German prince.
-Serbia would lose Macedonia to Bulgaria and would also have to pay a fine to the Habsburg family.
-Japan may be allowed to keep the colonies she took from Germany. That's up to a coin toss.
-Australia and New Zealand will have to return the German colonies they seized in the Pacific. The British could also force this issue to placate the Germans for the loss of territory to the Japanese.
-Egypt may or may not become independent. If Egypt becomes independent, then they may attempt to nationalize the Suez Canal. However, one way of keeping this potential crisis from fomenting would be to give the Sinai to the Ottoman Empire, allowing one of the Central Powers to keep a close eye on the Suez. Also, if Egypt is not in Britain's orbit, the idea of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan will be butterflied out. Sudan will just be another British colony.
-Canada will get off light simply because they are in the Western Hemisphere. The idea of an independent Quebec will not suit the Germans simply because they don't want to free a Francophone nation.
Well, that's all I was able to come up with.
Without a Western Front to worry about, I'm not entirely sure whether or not the Germans would unleash Lenin upon the Russians. Whether or not the Russians would continue the war with the French and British bowing out is up in the air.
Some ideas for a peace treaty would be:
-Poland (comprised of the land taken by the Germans in the 1915 offensive) would be carved out of Russian territory. Germany would get the islands off the coast of Estonia and Finnish independence is a possibility, but if the Germans want to create an independent Ukraine, asking for Finland to be free just may be too much.
-Luxembourg would be wiped off the map as it would be absorbed into Germany. Belgium would maintain its independence, but would be a demilitarized zone. The only forces permitted in Belgium would be militia units. Belgian fortifications would have to be dismantled. Germany may also get the Congo from Belgium.
-Ireland would probably be an issue forced by Germany, assuming they manage to get a revolution off the ground while they find time to starve Britain into submission. The entire island would become free of British rule.
-France may have a hard time getting off light. A Versailles style treaty may be implemented against France. However, since Germany wouldn't be able to occupy all of France's empire (considering Britain, which had only been forced to the peace table, wouldn't allow this), they'd be able to keep most of their colonies. North Africa would become a German mandate. Considering France will be able to keep a good majority of her empire, it's quite possible that they will be able to keep a navy, although a small one due to treaty limitations. Whether Germany tries to claim all of Lorraine is worth a coin toss. This may be an idea for a plebiscite area. Depending on which side Italy joins, Savoy and Nice may become plebiscite areas as well. Also depending on Italy is the fate of Monaco. If Italy maintained her treaty obligations, Monaco would become an Italian protectorate. However, since Italy would probably still go the historic route, I say it becomes a German protectorate. Also, the final indignity will be that France will have to sign off all claims to Alsace-Lorraine.
-Italy, quite possibly having gone the historic route, will be the easiest to punish. The Dodecanese Islands and Libya will be returned to the Ottoman Empire. If Germany took Djibouti from France, Germany may grab Eritrea and Italian Somaliland for good measure. I doubt if Austria-Hungary would be able to assimilate any territory taken from the Italians, so Italy may get off very light in Europe.
-Britain is worth mentioning simply because they were forced to the peace table. Britain may be forced to make the Suez Canal an international zone. The Ottoman Empire may also get Cyprus back. Granting the independence of Ireland is a given.
-Romania would probably experience no territorial losses, simply because Austria-Hungary would be unable to assimilate the nation into its empire. However, Romania may receive a puppet king in the form of a German prince.
-Serbia would lose Macedonia to Bulgaria and would also have to pay a fine to the Habsburg family.
-Japan may be allowed to keep the colonies she took from Germany. That's up to a coin toss.
-Australia and New Zealand will have to return the German colonies they seized in the Pacific. The British could also force this issue to placate the Germans for the loss of territory to the Japanese.
-Egypt may or may not become independent. If Egypt becomes independent, then they may attempt to nationalize the Suez Canal. However, one way of keeping this potential crisis from fomenting would be to give the Sinai to the Ottoman Empire, allowing one of the Central Powers to keep a close eye on the Suez. Also, if Egypt is not in Britain's orbit, the idea of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan will be butterflied out. Sudan will just be another British colony.
-Canada will get off light simply because they are in the Western Hemisphere. The idea of an independent Quebec will not suit the Germans simply because they don't want to free a Francophone nation.
Well, that's all I was able to come up with.
Not a neutral act
Under The Hague Treaties of 1907, a neutral nation is supposed to trade with everyone who can show up at their ports, and the neutral's merchants are supposed to continue to trade with beligerant powers. Breaking off all trade is a hostile act towards both powers. No immeadiate consequences, but after the war, the US will have an unfriendly Europe. In addition, the economy of the USA goes CRUNCH, along with much of the restof the world.
South America may do well, as all that American tonnage starts to trade down there.
However, if Wilson objected strongly to British trade practices on the high seas, he could probably force them to modify them. If nothing else, an embargo to enforce compliance with American rights is not a hostile act under The Hague 1907, if I understand it correctly.
Either that, or American escorts for American ships, combined with laws prohibiting Americans from travelling in warring nations or their ships, could enforce neutrality. Neither side would want to have the American ambassador hand their government a declaration of war...
Under The Hague Treaties of 1907, a neutral nation is supposed to trade with everyone who can show up at their ports, and the neutral's merchants are supposed to continue to trade with beligerant powers. Breaking off all trade is a hostile act towards both powers. No immeadiate consequences, but after the war, the US will have an unfriendly Europe. In addition, the economy of the USA goes CRUNCH, along with much of the restof the world.
South America may do well, as all that American tonnage starts to trade down there.
However, if Wilson objected strongly to British trade practices on the high seas, he could probably force them to modify them. If nothing else, an embargo to enforce compliance with American rights is not a hostile act under The Hague 1907, if I understand it correctly.
Either that, or American escorts for American ships, combined with laws prohibiting Americans from travelling in warring nations or their ships, could enforce neutrality. Neither side would want to have the American ambassador hand their government a declaration of war...
Grey Wolf
Donor
Ace, looking at your scenario, a few comments 
Serbia - yes it would lose Macedonia, it also may lose the rest of the vilayet of Kosovo to Albania if the Central Powers decide to help William of Wied get his kingdom back. The Habsburgs also HATED the Karageorgevics, so I see a dynastic change - IIRC there is a bastard of Milan around who strutted his stuff as if he were an Obrenovic prince. He would be acceptable.
Romania - well, Carol was a German prince, the problem was his heir, his nephew Ferdinand. You could posit Ferdinand's forced abdication and Carol II becoming king with pro-CP advisors, but it is probably unnecessary as Rumania is not going to enter the war against the Central Powers in this scenario
Luxembourg will only vanish in the same way that Bavaria or Saxony has vanished - i.e. it will continue to be sovereign over its own territory to an extent, but within the German Empire (where arguably it historically belonged)
Poland - German and Austro-Hungarian plans up to and including 1916 were to create a Polish kingdom out of Russian Congress Poland, cede it Galicia and give it an Archduke as King. Given greater CP victory in the East, this plan seems likely to see fruition.
France - "France will have to sign off all claims to Alsace-Lorraine." Well, it already legally HAS, reaffirming it won't make massive difference. Deafeat will make the most difference and may well spell the death knell of the republic
Italy would be stupid to enter the war against the Central Powers in mid 1915 in this scenario. I tend to think they will hesitate longer than in OTL and see that the writing is on the wall for the Entente.
Grey Wolf
Serbia - yes it would lose Macedonia, it also may lose the rest of the vilayet of Kosovo to Albania if the Central Powers decide to help William of Wied get his kingdom back. The Habsburgs also HATED the Karageorgevics, so I see a dynastic change - IIRC there is a bastard of Milan around who strutted his stuff as if he were an Obrenovic prince. He would be acceptable.
Romania - well, Carol was a German prince, the problem was his heir, his nephew Ferdinand. You could posit Ferdinand's forced abdication and Carol II becoming king with pro-CP advisors, but it is probably unnecessary as Rumania is not going to enter the war against the Central Powers in this scenario
Luxembourg will only vanish in the same way that Bavaria or Saxony has vanished - i.e. it will continue to be sovereign over its own territory to an extent, but within the German Empire (where arguably it historically belonged)
Poland - German and Austro-Hungarian plans up to and including 1916 were to create a Polish kingdom out of Russian Congress Poland, cede it Galicia and give it an Archduke as King. Given greater CP victory in the East, this plan seems likely to see fruition.
France - "France will have to sign off all claims to Alsace-Lorraine." Well, it already legally HAS, reaffirming it won't make massive difference. Deafeat will make the most difference and may well spell the death knell of the republic
Italy would be stupid to enter the war against the Central Powers in mid 1915 in this scenario. I tend to think they will hesitate longer than in OTL and see that the writing is on the wall for the Entente.
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Donor
ED(Mister) said:
The mention of the Ruhr is illogical because its German and 'always' was German. Alsace-Lorraine as ceded in 1870 is also gone, and gone again. ANy movement focused on getting back territory would take as its starting point the losses in this ATL war's peace treaty - in France these could include the rest of A-L including Verdun, Metz etc, and perhaps parts of Picardie (I think, not got the map to hand)
But I don't think that this is going to be the Number One priority - it would be good for rhetoric, but if you look at Hitler's Germany for some examples, it starts with getting back national pride - armed forces, any demilitarised areas, proud nationalism.
Your idea of De Gaulle or Mussolini are very much trying to apply players from one reality into a completely different one. Mussolini may still have a role to play IN ITALY, but De Gaulle will only become relevant twenty years down the line, if that.
The Third Republic will have been seen to have failed. In the French way of things it will be replaced by a radically different Fourth Republic (think more centralised power, perhaps combining the roles of president and prime minister) or by a restoration of the monarchy. Turtledove bases his ATL's on reality, and at this time the Orleanists really were involved with a semi-fascist spearhead militia. so its possible that you see an Orleanist Restoration. Though one mustn't overlook the potential that a suitably energetic Bonaparte might have in these circumstances, though I am not sure that Victor is your man for that
Grey Wolf
Less money spent by the UK?
The UK would have had no restrictions on money or manpower till around 1917. Then they hit the wall. Out of money to pay for US wheat, out of men to attack. Would they have run a more conservative war without American financial support?
Or would they have signed an alliance with the Germans and shipped the Canadian army home. Then, after the Canadians had had a few weeks home leave, the Canadian army, all veterans, all well armed with planes and tanks and artillary and poison gas, swoops in on the US and conquers it!
The WI regiments show up in southern ports in a simultaneous invasion!
The Germans cheerfully sell the UK all the ammunition they want!
The UK would have had no restrictions on money or manpower till around 1917. Then they hit the wall. Out of money to pay for US wheat, out of men to attack. Would they have run a more conservative war without American financial support?
Or would they have signed an alliance with the Germans and shipped the Canadian army home. Then, after the Canadians had had a few weeks home leave, the Canadian army, all veterans, all well armed with planes and tanks and artillary and poison gas, swoops in on the US and conquers it!
The WI regiments show up in southern ports in a simultaneous invasion!
The Germans cheerfully sell the UK all the ammunition they want!
What would they gain?
What possible reason would Britain have for invadeing the USA? Even if they were spectacularly successful, what's the benefit. RThey couldn't easily conquer the entire nation--the sheer space works against them, although they may seize the East Coast.
Besides, Britain is concerned historicly about a threrat to the home islands--in this scenario, there is only one serious threat-Germany.
And a war with the US will tie up substantial portions of the Royal Navy, giving Germany at least a temporary advantage in the North Sea and channel...
Incidently, for the rules of neutrality (and a host of other treaty info) go here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/usmulti/multimen.htm
What possible reason would Britain have for invadeing the USA? Even if they were spectacularly successful, what's the benefit. RThey couldn't easily conquer the entire nation--the sheer space works against them, although they may seize the East Coast.
Besides, Britain is concerned historicly about a threrat to the home islands--in this scenario, there is only one serious threat-Germany.
And a war with the US will tie up substantial portions of the Royal Navy, giving Germany at least a temporary advantage in the North Sea and channel...
Incidently, for the rules of neutrality (and a host of other treaty info) go here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/usmulti/multimen.htm
Redbeard
Banned
Hi Ace Venom
Why should the unrestricted submarine warfare be any more unrestricted because USA stays neutral? The Germans in OTL did start unrestricted sub warfare, put in all available resources, pressed the British hard - but not enough.
The US expeditionary force in France was not deployed in significant numbers until the summer of 1918, when the Germans had long lost their spring offensive, but if no US forces contribute to the allied autumn offensive in 1918 I guess the German defeat isn't as total, and the following armistice not as humiliating to Germany (i.e. Hitler stays a painter). Unless of course that war goes on into 1919 and the Fuller plan is lived out.
The USN will be void of some very important lessons from operating with the Grand Fleet from 1917-18. This will seriously reduce the combat efficiency of the USN in the next decade or two (as long as the heavy gun and the battle line reign).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Why should the unrestricted submarine warfare be any more unrestricted because USA stays neutral? The Germans in OTL did start unrestricted sub warfare, put in all available resources, pressed the British hard - but not enough.
The US expeditionary force in France was not deployed in significant numbers until the summer of 1918, when the Germans had long lost their spring offensive, but if no US forces contribute to the allied autumn offensive in 1918 I guess the German defeat isn't as total, and the following armistice not as humiliating to Germany (i.e. Hitler stays a painter). Unless of course that war goes on into 1919 and the Fuller plan is lived out.
The USN will be void of some very important lessons from operating with the Grand Fleet from 1917-18. This will seriously reduce the combat efficiency of the USN in the next decade or two (as long as the heavy gun and the battle line reign).
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Less need for USW
Under the original post, the Americans just did a huge part of what USW was intended to acomplish--cut off Britain from American war materails. Even without the US in the war, the one sided American neutrality did a world of good for Britian--end that, and Germany has a better chance.
USW may still happen, but with no American ships heading for the war zone anyways, who over here would care enough to get violent?
Under the original post, the Americans just did a huge part of what USW was intended to acomplish--cut off Britain from American war materails. Even without the US in the war, the one sided American neutrality did a world of good for Britian--end that, and Germany has a better chance.
USW may still happen, but with no American ships heading for the war zone anyways, who over here would care enough to get violent?
Grey Wolf said:
That french way of things...
If france loses after November 1917, would it go communist?
"Commune de Paris", the second run, together with a civil war? I could imagine a civil war between a "white" dictatorship run by a general, with it´s power base in the country side and the colonies (cheap troops) and a city- and fed-up war veteran based communist republic.
Any thoughts?
Redbeard
Banned
Steffen said:
I think that is a very plausible TL, and it holds many parallels to what happened in OTL Germany and Spain in the interwar years. I also think this could very well lead to fascism/nazism being born and developed with France as the heartland and with Italy, Spain and Portugal as the main allies.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Fascism could very well develop in France. If that happens, Germany and Britain may move closer together because the threat just across the Channel would be much greater than what would be possessed by the Germans.
But what room does France have to exercise an aggressive foreign policy? Other than occupied Andorra and Monaco and bullying Switzerland for land held by their French-speaking population, the French dictator would not have the same amount of leg room as Hitler. While Germany was conveniently located in Central Europe, France will constantly have to challenge the threat across the Channel with even more ferocity.
It is for those reasons why I don't see French fascism as much of a threat.
But what room does France have to exercise an aggressive foreign policy? Other than occupied Andorra and Monaco and bullying Switzerland for land held by their French-speaking population, the French dictator would not have the same amount of leg room as Hitler. While Germany was conveniently located in Central Europe, France will constantly have to challenge the threat across the Channel with even more ferocity.
It is for those reasons why I don't see French fascism as much of a threat.
Redbeard said:
In the event of a French loss in the Great War I think you would see two distinctive flavors of Far Right struggling with each other as much as the Far Left. One flavor is Super Catholic and monarchist--more authoritarian than totalitarian. The other is AntiCatholic (or at least anticlerical--think Mexico), antimonarchist and supernationalistic--probably looks on Clemenceau as a father figure.
Ace Venom said:
The problem with room to exercise an agressive foreign policy is that the room always belongs to someone else, it does not quite matter where it is.
but of course, french fascism would be something else then just replace lebensraum with terre nouveau (oh my french is so abysmal)
it would be irredentistical, surely wanting Alsace-Lorraine back, maybe also luxemburg , belgium, the left bank of the rhine. So it´s clear that it would revert to the classic french pattern of aggression, across the rhine, into south-western and western germany.
Furthermore, As a colonial power, france can project any lust for more soil anywhere else in the world.
with france isolated, they will develop some kind of "cauchemar des coalitions" and be arming to the teeth, being industrial power with a fairly large population to draw from, esp. with the colonies to draft men from.
And domestically, it would look for "un-french" activities with all the consequences for "un-french" persons usually associated with fascism.
The reasons why I say French facism might not be as threatening is because if they are only allowed to keep West Africa, the supply lines from the French coast to Dakar are rather long when you have to worry about being harrassed by the Royal Navy. This would especially be true if the French had lost most of their naval power as a result of losing the Great War.
On the continent, the French would indeed be strong. Whether or not Germany could survive the French assault is up for debate. It depends if Mussolini is willing to strike at Austria-Hungary while the Germans are busy with the French. It also depends on whether the French can keep air supremacy over their own country because northern France will be a major target zone for the British and this is probably where the French will want to attack: through the Low Countries.
Quite simply, France would be doomed.
On the continent, the French would indeed be strong. Whether or not Germany could survive the French assault is up for debate. It depends if Mussolini is willing to strike at Austria-Hungary while the Germans are busy with the French. It also depends on whether the French can keep air supremacy over their own country because northern France will be a major target zone for the British and this is probably where the French will want to attack: through the Low Countries.
Quite simply, France would be doomed.