Who Wins WWI if America Doesn't Enter the War?

[grumbler]

US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

Are you just making stuff up here?  "US banks weren't gonna take IOUs" for loans?  What do you think a loan is, if not an IOU?  The financial position of Britain and France was certainly eased by the US government's guarantee of their loans, but British and French credit was by no means exhausted.  The issue was the terms of further loans, not the possibility of them.

Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps.  Those are always fun.

[Ed Anger]

Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps. Those are always fun.

WHAT THE HELL. You so crazy.

[grumbler]

Maybe you should restrict your fiction to your maps. Those are always fun.

WHAT THE HELL. You so crazy.

When has he shown one of his maps without hilarity ensuing?

[jimmy olsen]

US banks weren't gonna take IOUs.
The US guaranteed loans to Britain and France when they entered the war, that won't happen here.

Are you just making stuff up here?  "US banks weren't gonna take IOUs" for loans?  What do you think a loan is, if not an IOU? 

Normally that is the case, however the risk here was much higher than normal. If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back. The Brits put up collateral in the form of property (railroad lines and the like) to guarantee their war loans between 1914-early 1917. They were out of collateral at that point but the US entered the war and the Fed guaranteed loans to the Entente. Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

[grumbler]

If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

They were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

[jimmy olsen]

If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

They were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

2 & 3 - All my searches are bringing up Jstor and Muse articles.

I'm reduced to looking through Googlebooks. This might take a while, so please be patient.

[CountDeMoney]

I honestly wish we had access to all the archives to all the board systems we've used for Languish, so I can demonstrate with raw data that Timmay has started this thread 27 times since 2003.

[Warspite]

If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

They were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

So, the risk adjuster in the alternative universe 1916 knows that in the real universe 1932, the UK defaults on Inter-Allied Debt - itself in response to Germany halting its own payments - in the midst of an unprecedented global depression? And it is on this basis that the UK's ability to fight a total war is going to dry up?

[jimmy olsen]

If the Entente losses then the banks are likely to not be paid back.

Cite?

They were out of collateral at that point

Cite?

Without that it will be much more difficult to for Britain to get credit.

It would be more expensive, yes.  Your argument is that it would be impossible.  I have yet to see you offer evidence for such a claim.

1. Britain won and still defaulted on its war loans, it's not exactly rocket science to suspect that if things go bad for them that they might not be able to repay what it owes.

So, the risk adjuster in the alternative universe 1916 knows that in the real universe 1932, the UK defaults on Inter-Allied Debt - itself in response to Germany halting its own payments - in the midst of an unprecedented global depression? And it is on this basis that the UK's ability to fight a total war is going to dry up?

The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

[Admiral Yi]

My understanding is that the occupation of the Ukraine came too late iin 1917 for that year's harvest to feed Germany.  Theoretically the food situation should have eased in 1918, although still no coffee.  (Germans are a naturally crabby people--can you imagine what they were like after four years of no coffee?)  What a US abstention from the war probably wouldn't change however is the the collapse of Austria Hungary in the Balkans.

[Viking]

The US entry into the war caused the Germans to take rash decisions to end the war. The 1918 offensive was the quickest and best way to kill off the most motivated and best trained German soldiers. The allied counter attack (Combined Arms beats Stormtroopers) took the land lost back at far lower casualties, not to mention not getting stalled. All of this was done without important US contributions, this was basically the war winning move.

So the question is really what if Germany had not been forced by US entry to launch the 1918 offensives or if Germany had not tried to maintain a blockade of the UK. Either case, Germany not provoking the US or the US refusing to be provoked by Germany, the question remains the same. Could the Germans have broken the French Army in 1918 or 1919 without US help to the allies. I can't help but think that the question remains the same with or without US entry into the war. By 1918 the Western Allies had solved the trench warfare issue technologically and tactically, while the Germans had an improvised tactical solution without technical support. The allies tank and aircraft superiority meant that the allies could mount methodical and well organized attacks that almost guaranteed victory when done with much preparation while the germans had to mount risky and costly attacks provided they had enough trained manpower left.

If the Germans do not blockade the UK they will need to mount this last ditch attempt at victory earlier, rather than later. Germany is crashing, while the Entents worst problem is a strike in the French army where the soldiers refuse to make suicidal attacks, but will defend tenaciously. In late 1918 Entente attacks are no longer suicidal and pointless, they are quick, successful and reasonably cheap in blood.

So I don't think the US entry really did anything to change the outcome of the war, it merely forced the germans hand in 1918 since in 1919 the germans would be badly outnumbered on the western front with the US joining.

[Ideologue]

I honestly wish we had access to all the archives to all the board systems we've used for Languish, so I can demonstrate with raw data that Timmay has started this thread 27 times since 2003.

[Neil]

There's always more collateral.  You can take loans using the fleet as collateral, and then when you can't pay, crawfish and tell the Americans to get fucked.

At any rate, it was too late.  The British were already working their way inexorably through Belgium towards Germany, whether or not newly minted US troops are throwing themselves face-first onto machine gun nests in France.  In the meantime, the German homefront is trying to decide what inedible things they're going to eat in order to scrape by enough calories to keep their bodies running.  Jellicoe is the hero of the war.

[Razgovory]

Would the food situation in Germany have improved with the Ukraine in the German camp?  I don't think the morale factor should be discarded though.  Still, even without the US the hundred days offensive would probably still have gutted Germany.  If Entente morale was high enough to do it, the war would still likely go to the Entente.

[jimmy olsen]

British finances were on the verge of collapse if the Americans didn't enter the war.

Great Britain found itself nearly bankrupt in 1917, a sharp contrast to its dominant position in international finance in the prewar years. It owed $400 million on a maturing loan to JP Morgan and Co., but the US advanced almost $700 million to Great Britain allowing it to continue the war effort.

page 78
link

Also look here, page 197-98. At the end of August 1916 Britain floated a $250 million dollar loan with $300 million in collateral and were only able to raise $200 million. 
link

Page 199 of the above book

In the five months ending on 30 September 1916, three fifths of British spending in America had been covered by gold or existing British investments in the United States, and two fifth by loans.

The allied agreement to raise £100 million in gold could contribute $500 million towards the $1,500 million required, but prudence required that half this gold should be kept back. Thus perhaps five-sixths of allied spending over the next half year would have to be founded by loans, a total of $1,250 million.

Borrowing on this scale would clog the market as each issue would compete with the last. The principle problem was its pace: "the question" as Keynes, "is whether the money can be turned over in America and brought back to us in the form of loans as fast as we can spend it. Furthermore, nobody had any idea how the war could be financed beyond April 1917. McKenna, reflecting advice from Keynes, reckoned that by July 1917 the United States would be in position to dictate terms.