WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not sure what you mean by a French/belgian victory, since Belgium was only defending its territory. France would not have annexed Belgium and a French victory would have not have meant French domination of Europe, France being far weaker than Germany. And France was not aggressively building up its navy, as Germany was.

LoTM, there are pretexts even from Belgium Belgium nominally was fighting for its "neutrality." In fact, it was fighting with France and against Germany and considered themselves allies of France.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Belgium/Diary_01.htm

Even after the fall of their forts on the Liege, Belgium refused a German offer of peace (povided they allowed German military access to France). This offer was flaty refused while French and British forces moved into Belgium to fight alongside the Belgians.

[Merkin Muffley]

Looking at the events in Yugoslavia in 1990 does anyone feel a sense of chagrin that so many millions died to defend the dignity of Serbia? I can't help but feel that everytime I hear someone sing "In Flanders Fields" or "I Vow To Thee My Country". It's like: "Wow! Were ever so many so screwed over so little?"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, from my understanding of the 1800's treaty, the Belgian neutrality clause was added at Britain's instance to an agreement among the Netherlands, France, Germany and England when Belgium was separated from the Netherlands. The Brits did not want the Belgian ports to be bases for other European powers.

When German troops entered Belgium in 1914, it was not to attack Belgium per se, but to get to France. Belgium's neutality vis-a-vis Britain was not threatened by Germany.

You really need to read up on the relations between the Germans and the Belgians, prior to the outbreak of war. Albert's predecessor was asked before 1914 (on a visit to Berlin in 1904) what his attitude would be if a German force used Belgian territory to attack France (presumably because the Germans felt that Leopold's cupidity would guarantee them free passage).

Also, on the details of the Schlieffen Plan. Why you keep trying to exonerate the Imperial German war machine, I really have no idea.

They had planned to violate a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality and independence which had been around since 1839, and to which the German Reich (as successor to Kingdom of Prussia) was a signatory.

As early as 1899, Schlieffen's plan was predicated on a drive through neutral independent Belgian territory.

Later, both French and British forces entered Belgium as well. The Belgians did not attack them

Err, because Belgium was their ally ? Because they were co-guarantors of her neutrality and independence ?

King Albert of the Belgians made the call for 'concerted and common' military action by the treaty's guarantors against the violation of the treaty by the crossing of Belgium's borders by German troops and their march towards Liege.

Britain's entry into the war was legally unwarranted, even if Britain thought it necessary to thwart growing German power.

Nonsense. See above.

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC Britain's guarantee of Belgium's sovereignty and neutrality was necessary for Belgium's recognition as a nation independent of the Netherlands. In 1830 the fear was that Belgium would become a vassal of a resurgent France, not a marching field for ambitious Germany. Furthermore I believe that Britain was not the only nation to sign this treaty, but the treaty did bind Britain to intervene on Belgium's behalf. It had no time limit on it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


IIUC the formal alliance terminated with the treaty that ended the Amer Rev in1783. In fact we fought an undeclared war with France in 1798 or so. We did not ally with France again till 1917 - i dont know the formal structure of that alliance. We never even established a formal, treaty bound alliance with UK in WW2, we were informal allies, and as of the end of World War Two we were no longer in alliance with any European power until the formation of NATO/Atlantic Alliance in 1948. Again, that bound treaty members only to come to each others aid in the event of attacks in Europe or North America - it did NOT apply to Indochina.

During WW2 FDR stated publicly that the US would not fight to restore or maintain the colonial empires of the European powers. That was one reason why the US did not send substantial forces to aid the British in Burma, though the US did send some light forces and construction equipment in an effort to establish a supply line to China. After the war the US made a policy of encouraging the allies to free their colonies. In fact during the post-war period the US made a point of threatening to withhold aid from Britain and France if they did not make a timetable to relinquish their colonies in Asia and the Middle East. Lending assistance to the French in Indochina was never an option for the Truman administration, instead the question was how to dissuade the French without hurting them to such an extent as to accidentally trigger a communist victory in French elections.

[Ned]

molly, or anyone, do you know whether King Albert made his decision to go to war against Germany before or after receiving guarantee's from Britain and France.

Regardless of the answer, I am sure he regretted his decision when the Germans destroyed so much of Belgium during the war, and imposed harsh conditions on occuppied cities. Just allowing the Germans through would have been the smarter thing to do from Belgium's point of view, but not, of course from the British and French point of view, which makes me suspicious.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC Britain's guarantee of Belgium's sovereignty and neutrality was necessary for Belgium's recognition as a nation independent of the Netherlands. In 1830 the fear was that Belgium would become a vassal of a resurgent France, not a marching field for ambitious Germany. Furthermore I believe that Britain was not the only nation to sign this treaty, but the treaty did bind Britain to intervene on Belgium's behalf. It had no time limit on it.

Yeah, the Brits and Germans built a whole string of forts, the Liege being one of them, to defend agains the French.

[Ned]

Here is a web page that has all the diplomatic moves on the those critical days in early August 1914. http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/Ju...yCrisis05.htm.

It does appear that Britain was initially inclined to neutrality. Churchill seems to have takes matters into his own hands on August 1 by mobilizing the fleet and attacking the Turkish navy even before the Germans had done anything. Chuchill's party was gung ho about going to war with Germany, and finally prevailed over the rest of the government.

From text, it does appear that Albert was convinced he would receive British and French support against Germany if he asked, which clearly is one of the reasons he stood fast against a much stronger power, Germany.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
molly, or anyone, do you know whether King Albert made his decision to go to war against Germany before or after receiving guarantee's from Britain and France.

I'd say his decision to 'go to war' against Germany was made for him when the Belgians received an ultimatum from the Germans demanding right of passage through their country to attack France.

Albert was already aware of German intentions- he had been since November 1913, on a visit to Berlin.
Far from making a secret of their plans, the Kaiser indicated von Kluck as the commander designated as the general to lead the march on Paris, and von Moltke told him that 'war with France was coming'

This time we must make an end of it. Your Majesty cannot imagine the irresistible enthusiasm which will permeate Germany on The Day.

von Moltke to King Albert, as reported by Albert to Baron Beyens, Belgian Ambassador to the German court.

The Belgian military attache, Major Melotte, had also been collared by von Moltke at the same Royal dinner and treated to a similar anti-French outburst. It was at this dinner that he enquired of Melotte precisely what would Belgium's response be if a foreign force invaded Belgian territory.

Melotte's response was unequivocal:

We will oppose with all our forces whatever power violates our frontiers.

On the King's return to Brussels, mobilization plans were put in place.

On August 2nd, 1914, in response to a German ultimatum which alleged French military operations along the Givet-Namur line (and which were in fact non-existent) and demanded right of passage for German troops and offered a bribe of reparations from a defeated France, the Belgian king said:

Our answer must be 'No' whatever the consequences. Our duty is to defend our territorial integrity. In this we must not fail.

The Belgian Premier, M. de Broqueville, aptly summed up what would become of the German promise to 'respect' Belgian independence and sovereign rights after the conclusion of a war with France:

If Germany is victorious, Belgium, whatever her attitude, will be annexed to the German Empire.

At 02.30 a.m. on August 3rd, the Belgian Council of State (after further attempts at 'persuasion' by Herr von Below who claimed that France had bombed Germany by dirigible and thus lacked respect for international law!) gathered again to approve Belgium's response to the unwarranted German demands.

Here's how the Belgian ambassador to Berlin saw it:

"If the Belgian army," the Secretary of State replied, "allows us to pass freely, without destroying the railways, without blowing up the bridges and tunnels, and if it retires on Antwerp without attempting to defend Liege, we promise not only to respect the independence of Belgium, the lives and property of the inhabitants, but also to indemnify you for the loss incurred."

Secretary of State Herr Jagow to Baron Beyens

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/belgianreportongermanultimatum.htm

That's a really remarkably trustworthy promise isn't
it ?

'If you let us violate your neutrality and break an international treaty of which we are guarantor and allow us to attack another sovereign state which is also a guarantor of that same treaty, then after we've used your territory as a battleground, we promise to respect your independence and neutrality in the future.'

Believe that, and I've a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.


As I said earlier, Albert issued the appeal to the other guarantors of the treaty of 1839, only after refusing the German ultimatum, blowing up the bridges over the Meuse at Liege and the railway tunnels and bridges on the border with Luxembourg, and waiting for the Germans to violate Belgium neutrality, which they promptly did on August 4th, two minutes past 8 o'clock, at Gemmerich, near Liege.

Albert's appeal went out at noon.

...but not, of course from the British and French point of view, which makes me suspicious.

You seem puzzlingly intent on casting anyone, except the aggressors, as the guilty parties, despite all the evidence from pre-war Europe and all the research of historians such as Fritz Fischer in the Wilhelmine archives.

If we're assuming a neutral US, why would we still be implicitly assuming the loans the US made to the Allies to fund thier war effort still happens?

DinoDoc

Because American business and suplliers were doing well out of the war and the economies of France and the British Empire were better placed to continue making orders from the U.S. .

One cannot ignore that by resuming unrestricted submarine warfare (with the ensuing loss of American lives and shipping) and by sending the Zimmermann Telegram, the Germans 'torpedoed' their chances of getting the U.S. to stay neutral.

Then there is the matter of Britain attacking Turkey. Turkey had not attacked Britain, nor had it violated any agreement to which Britain was a party. Britain actually attacked Turkey before declaring war on her.

Ned


A formal declaration of war wasn't required between Russia and Germany before hostilities began. Another case of trying to cast perfidious Albion as the war mongerer, Ned ? When exactly did the Germans formally declare war on Belgium ?

By the way, your timeline for the British attack on the Ottoman Empire seems non-existent. Could you flesh out the details of your allegation ?

Would the alleged British attack be before or after the Ottomans attacked Russia's Black Sea ports on 29th October ?

But the results of her greed and ambition undid that Empire, did it not?

I'd say the greed and ambition of Kaiser Wilhelm II and a military clique undid the rather short-lived German Empire.

Austria-Hungary ('the corpse shackled to us', as one German put it) was also undone.

The Russian Empire gave up the ghost in 1917.

The Young Turks and Enver Pasha (who had made a 'secret' alliance with Germany) also helped bring about the downfall of the Ottoman Empire- a somewhat longer-lived empire than the German one, but I note that of the four empires that were the casualties of World War One, none of them were British.

In fact, the British Empire reached its greatest extent after the end of World War One.


Again, you keep trying to imply that somehow the British were responsible for World War One, or that they should simply have overlooked treaty responsibilities or violations of international law.

Not related to any Hohenzollerns, are you ?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Here is a web page that has all the diplomatic moves on the those critical days in early August 1914. http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/Ju...yCrisis05.htm.

It does appear that Britain was initially inclined to neutrality. Churchill seems to have takes matters into his own hands on August 1 by mobilizing the fleet and attacking the Turkish navy even before the Germans had done anything. Chuchill's party was gung ho about going to war with Germany, and finally prevailed over the rest of the government.

From text, it does appear that Albert was convinced he would receive British and French support against Germany if he asked, which clearly is one of the reasons he stood fast against a much stronger power, Germany.

When did the UK attack the Turkish navy, do you mean we didn't send the battleships that were building for them. Would the US have sent aircraft carriers to another country who might be potentially hostile if they knew war was imminent.

[Ned]

Originally posted by TheStinger


When did the UK attack the Turkish navy, do you mean we didn't send the battleships that were building for them. Would the US have sent aircraft carriers to another country who might be potentially hostile if they knew war was imminent.

"The Royal Navy seizes the newly constructed Turkish battleships Sultan Osman I and Reshadieh in the Tyne "

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/JulyCrisis/JulyCrisis05.htm

Why, of course Churchill was trying to calm things down and further the peace movement, just as he did in 1939-40 when he rejected German peace offers. Churchill was a man of peace.

[Ned]

Molly, in July, Britain was questioning both France and Germany about their respect for Belgian neutrality, and was openingly saying they would defend the French ports facing England if the Germans were to attack them. In other words, Britain was making it clear that any German (or French for that matter) invasion of Belgium would be met with British arms.

Clearly, Albert could also rely on French support.

So, I assume his thinking was along these lines:

I resist, but I will have British and French support. Without their support, I know I cannot win and will only devesate my country for no good reason.

Well, British and French support was not enough, his country was overrun and virtually destroyed. Tens of thousands, if not more, lost their lives, etc., etc., etc.

But it did by Britain time to get its troops to the continent, which was the British plan all along, I submit.

Contrast the horror that happened to Belgium with what happened to Luxembourg. Germany occuppied that country and simply passed its troops through. No devastation. No massive loss of life. And its citizens rightly proud that it didn't have a mad patriot running things who was willing to sacrifice their lives for his honor.

[Ned]

Molly, I'm not saying that Britain is responsible for WWI, but that she could have stayed out of it herself and perhaps have pursuaded Belgium and France to stand down as well. When Britain told Germany that it could guarantee French and Belgian neutrality, the Kaiser told the army to stop its plans regarding France and direct their efforts towards Russia. When Britain later clarified its message, the war was back on.

But, what would have happened had Britain actually persuaded France and Belgium to stand down?

And all through this same period, the Kaiser was desperately trying to get the Russians to stand down. They refused.

The people who were pushing for war were the Russians, the French and Churchill's party in Britain.

This all began, we should note, when the Serbs assassinated the Austrian Archduke. If there is anyone truly responsible for the war, it is the Serbs.

[One_more_turn]

France was allied with the Russia, and Russia with Serbia.

On the other hand, Germany was allied with Austria; and if Austria invaded Serbia, France and Russia would be at war.

Britain was only allied with Belgium. Had Germany not invaded it, Britain would not have been at war. If Britain hadn't go to war, US would have stayed out as well. So with 20/20 hindsight, the German invasion of Belgium was a total strategic folly, the result of being enslaved by the Schlieffenplan.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


"The Royal Navy seizes the newly constructed Turkish battleships Sultan Osman I and Reshadieh in the Tyne "

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Wars/JulyCrisis/JulyCrisis05.htm

IIRC neither of the ships were completely finished nor had the Turkish navy taken possession of them, therefore they were not Turkish property. If I order a car from you even if I pay in advance it isn't mine until you hand me the keys. Were any Turkisn sailors or naval officers taken into custody?