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

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Molly pointed out that the UK had an economically better position than Germany. That doesn't explain how the war could have been financed without the rather large American loans Keynes came hat in hand to the US to negotiate. (IIRC, they still haven't been repaid.)

Keynes came cap in hand to negotiate loans after ww2 and they have just been repaid.

All ww1 loans between all countries were suspended in the 1930's.

The US became a financial superpower because of the liquidation of UK assetts during ww1, so if it wasn't for ww1 you would all be speaking Japanese

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Other than being allied with Belgium and France,

I understand as an American standing by allies is only done when your own national security is at risk

As Ned pointed out, UK had no formal alliance with France, despite the entente, and the guarantee to Belgium didnt necessarily imply a DOW on Germany when Belgium was invaded, IIUC. OTOH to not honor the guarantee would have been a blow to UK prestige, AND Britain was hardly going to accept a great power, and the one with whom she was in a bitter naval race, dominating the Flemish coast. So UK entry was clearly based on UK national security.

Now can you tell me when the US refrained from aiding an ally to whom it was bound by treaty obligation? The US had no alliance with Britain in 1914 or 1939. Are you referring to 1956? I dont necessarily agree with the US position in 1956, but I must note that the formal US alliance with UK was the Atlantic Alliance which did not extend to the UK's position in Suez.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TheStinger


My point was that the financial positives of WW1 enabled the US to realise that its already large economy could be used as tool of power.

Id say its almost the reverse - they used their neutrality to make financial and economic gains. Later they learned that they could use their economy as a tool of power, but Im not sure how the sale of British assets during WW1 contributed to that realization, as opposed to contributing to that economy (contributing marginally - the US already had the largest GDP in the world, was growing fast, and had a newer industrial base than UK)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Molly pointed out that the UK had an economically better position than Germany. That doesn't explain how the war could have been financed without the rather large American loans Keynes came hat in hand to the US to negotiate. (IIRC, they still haven't been repaid.)

IIRC they made the last payment just a couple months ago.

[DinoDoc]

WWII they still owe us for saving thier asses in WWI.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



As Ned pointed out, UK had no formal alliance with France, despite the entente, and the guarantee to Belgium didnt necessarily imply a DOW on Germany when Belgium was invaded, IIUC. OTOH to not honor the guarantee would have been a blow to UK prestige, AND Britain was hardly going to accept a great power, and the one with whom she was in a bitter naval race, dominating the Flemish coast. So UK entry was clearly based on UK national security.

Flimsy pretext at best. The Germans said they had no long term designs on Belgium and would evacuate once the conflict with France was over.

The real reason Britain declared war on Germany (and Austria) was the growing rivalry between the two for critical resources such as oil. The Brits were trying to get exclusive deals for oil across the Middle East. But the Ottomans were in charge of much of that area and were aligning with Germany because of their long battles with Russia, France's ally in the war.

Now can you tell me when the US refrained from aiding an ally to whom it was bound by treaty obligation? The US had no alliance with Britain in 1914 or 1939. Are you referring to 1956? I dont necessarily agree with the US position in 1956, but I must note that the formal US alliance with UK was the Atlantic Alliance which did not extend to the UK's position in Suez.

We didn't help France at Dein Bien Phu despite their formal request for aid. France was an "ally" of America since the Revolution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


We didn't help France at Dein Bien Phu despite their formal request for aid. France was an "ally" of America since the Revolution.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Flimsy pretext at best. The Germans said they had no long term designs on Belgium and would evacuate once the conflict with France was over.

I doubt the Brits believed them, and with reason. In any case a defeated France would mean a German dominated continent, which would effectively mean a Belgium subordinate to Germany anyway.

[Ned]

Many, Kitchener not one of them, thought the war would be short otherwise one side or the other would concede due to bankruptcy. What seems clear is that Britain was substantially harmed by the war (even though she was on the winning side) and never really recovered. It is a wonder that more people in London in 1914 hadn't figured this out and had voted to stay out of the war, or to get it stopped.

[Ned]

LotM, and a French/Belgian victory would have left the ports open to the French navy.

But the problem England had in the ME was not with France. It was with Germany.

[Ned]

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.

In 1982 (IIRC), Argentina attacked Britain, but not in Europe. We came to Britain's aid when she asked.

We were also helping France quite a bit on the QT in battling the commies in Indochina. But Ike refused them when France asked for the use of American airpower against the commie positions at Dien Bien Phu. Obviously, given the subsequent events, this was a gigantic mistake.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, and a French/Belgian victory would have left the ports open to the French navy.

But the problem England had in the ME was not with France. It was with Germany.

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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, and a French/Belgian victory would have left the ports open to the French navy.

But the problem England had in the ME was not with France. It was with Germany.

Britain also had problems in the ME with Russia, but Germany had been so much more aggressive, both in the ME, and in the naval race, and elsewhere, that Britain chose to prioritize containing Germany over Russia.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


In 1982 (IIRC), Argentina attacked Britain, but not in Europe. We came to Britain's aid when she asked.

We were also helping France quite a bit on the QT in battling the commies in Indochina. But Ike refused them when France asked for the use of American airpower against the commie positions at Dien Bien Phu. Obviously, given the subsequent events, this was a gigantic mistake.

In both those instances the US CHOSE to render aid. While strenghtening the alliance was certainly a motivation for the US in both cases, in neither did we have a treaty obligation to do so.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Many, Kitchener not one of them, thought the war would be short otherwise one side or the other would concede due to bankruptcy. What seems clear is that Britain was substantially harmed by the war (even though she was on the winning side) and never really recovered. It is a wonder that more people in London in 1914 hadn't figured this out and had voted to stay out of the war, or to get it stopped.

Again because a German victory was such an obvious disaster for Britain. Ferguson who thinks Britain should have stayed out, does so with the benefit of decades of hindsight (like if britain had stayed out and germany had won, no WW2, USSR, or EU - which britain didnt know would happen in 1914, and couldnt know)