Theoretically, did it make more sense for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I?

[T. A. Gardner]

Absolutely not. Because Britain could and did effectively blockade Germany and the Central powers, the only way the US could have supported them was by physically and actively entering the war. That was not to the US's best interests either way. As a balance of trade, it goes like this:

Prewar, Germany was receiving about $69,289,775 in exports from the US. Britain and France about $824,860,237.

By 1916 this had gone to Germany $1,159,653 and Britain and France S3,214,480,547.

The US banking system had loaned huge sums to Britain and France to cover their debts and export purchases. The US had nothing to gain by aligning itself with Germany or the Central Powers given that the Allied powers were spending huge sums on war goods from the US and Germany had next to no means to curtail or stop that.

So, unless the US was willing to go to active war and start spending huge sums on a military to pursue that war for gain, something the US typically in the past had been loathe to do outside their immediate borders, Germany was screwed in trying to get a US alliance.
It would have taken the US the better part of a decade of concerted effort to build a navy capable of challenging the Royal Navy at sea, and there was really no guarantee on the part of Germany that the High Seas Fleet would aid the US in taking on the RN on far flung stations were the USN would be fighting the later.
Sure, with say 4 to 6 years of preparation, the US could have demolished most of the British empire, probably, almost certainly taken Canada, and become an even greater colonial, imperialist, power than Britain had, but it wasn't in the American psyche to do that. If it was, Mexico would be part of the US today.









After all, as the above shows, the US was involved heavily in trench warfare along the Mexican border during this period due to the Mexican Revolution. Had the US fully mobilized rather than just defended their border, Mexico was doomed. So, if Germany had gotten the Zimmermann telegram to work, Mexico stood to lose big time.
The US already had plenty of reason to find that diplomatic entreaty extremely hostile as you can plainly see just by the photos presented.

[Rob Stuart]

Theoretically, did it make more sense for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I?

Futurist,

At what point would you see the US entering the war? August 1914? If not at that time, then when would it have entered the war and why would it have delayed until then?

Would you foresee the US simply marching into Canada without warning, or would there be a series of US ultimata to the UK? If the latter, then what grievance would the US cite?

[glenn239]

What US flagged ships?. The US was relying on Britain to ship most of it's troops and supplies into France and would be relying of them to ship the US troops home. Food was no longer blockaded, the initial problem was that the Germans didn't want to use their ships. There was a relief effort organised.

The US built 3 million tons of shipping during the war, and captured another 500,000 tons or more of CP shipping. Germany was blockaded, meaning food blockade, into 1919.

" Historian Sally Marks claims that while "Allied warships remained in place against a possible resumption of hostilities, the Allies offered food and medicine after the armistice, but Germany refused to allow its ships to carry supplies".

Not only was the food blockade maintained into 1919, but it was extended to cut off German fishing in the Baltic,

https://books.google.ca/books?id=-3JGDw ... ng&f=false

Even when, by mid-January 1919, it appeared that the Big Four…had agreed that Germany should be supplied with food…the blockade remained in place. The Allied Blockade Committee refused to issue the necessary orders and the British navy stubbornly resisted any attempt by Hoover’s ships to enter German waters…..It wasn’t just that a watertight blockade was maintained, it was extended and remorselessly enforced. The Admiralty ordered the cessation of all German fishing rights in the Baltic…The German people were even forbidden to fish for their own food.

My point is US objections to the blockade and the rights of neutrals vanished once the US entered the war.

Right, and mine is that once Germany surrendered its heavy weapons after November 11th, that the United States should have ordered Britain to stand down and started sending food to Germany under escort from US warships, after the German weapons were surrendered, say by December 1918. The Royal Navy would not have dared challenge the United States in such circumstances and the Wiemar German republic may have survived.

[T. A. Gardner]

One has to remember the actual peace treaty wasn't signed until June 28 1919, more than six months after the armistice. It didn't help anything that the US had a rather Progressive Democrat as President (Wilson). Wilson went about the diplomacy of the peace as if he were God's messenger and everyone had no choice but to listen to him. That got his League of Nations kicked to the curb at home were it was soundly rejected by Congress and voters. His fourteen points was likewise trashed by the other Allied heads of state. The final Treaty of Versailles had nothing in it from Wilson. For all intents, the US was ignored as a party.

In the previous years of the war, Wilson both kept the US out and made little preparation for America's entry should it occur. That too turned out a massive blunder. So, on the whole, even if the US did side with Germany it would go into the conflict a largely toothless tiger who would have required years to get fully mobilized for war.

[South]

Good afternoon T.A. Gardner,

The US did get a rep on the Reparation Commission.

Believe it was Premier Clemenceau who said "Wilson has 14 points. God only needed 10".

The best indicator of the future.....anyone who moves from Virginia's Shenandoah Valley to New Jersey is ......

Sidebar; Love those Arizona 1916 military photos.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[pugsville]

The US built 3 million tons of shipping during the war, and captured another 500,000 tons or more of CP shipping. Germany was blockaded, meaning food blockade, into 1919.

So? the US was using 1.7 million tons of British shipping when the armistice was signed, more than half the US troops were transported on British ships.

Food was shipped into Germany during the blockade in 1919. Part of wrangling was whose ships, the Germans did not want to use theirs. Feeding Belgium and other countries was also a factor. The End of war there were all sorts of demands on shipping, Sorting out which ships, who was paying for it, these were problems. The fact the Entente was not instantly making feeding the German population their number priority is understandable.

[pugsville]

. His fourteen points was likewise trashed by the other Allied heads of state. The final Treaty of Versailles had nothing in it from Wilson. For all intents, the US was ignored as a party.

The US was not ignored, but major player the peace talks. That they didn't totally dictate the terms and unilateral statements like the 14 points were not embraced by the other Allies when they were not consulted about them should not be surprising. Many often 14 points were implemented.

The US had massive leverage with the regard to the inter allied debt, if the US was willing to trade off it's interests in full payment on loans it would have had a chance to get other allied powers to trade off their interests. The US chose not to but seek full payment in it's selfish interests, being unwillingly to reduce it's full claims in the interests of more workable settlement, other powers were not inclined to reduce their claims in the settlement.

The Blockade was an allied Blockade not a British Blockade, it was a combined decision. The British were only 1 vote out of 4, do you haven evidence that the US member argued against the blockade being continued?

And let's not forget that the German management of their food economy throughout the war was appallingly bad. If they cared about feeding their population they really should have organised it a lot better,

[glenn239]

The fact the Entente was not instantly making feeding the German population their number priority is understandable.

The Allied decision on extending the blockade in 1919, and things like preventing German fishing in the Baltic Sea were both punative and incomprehensible. The US should have ignored its allies on this matter and supplied food to Germany under USN escort the moment the German army's specified war material was handed over. Any British protests should have been answered with warnings not to attempt to prevent humanitarian supply by force. US warships should have entered the Baltic and, based at German ports, escorted German fishing vessels with orders to prevent by any means necessary any RN or French warship attempting to stop them from fishing.

[maltesefalcon]

In the end Germany was reluctant to sign the Peace treaty as it found the terms rather harsh and was not even allowed to participate in the negotiations.

As such the Allies needed a means to force the issue if it came to that. The first would be resumption of hostilities, which no one wanted. So they used the blockade instead.

[The Ibis]

Of course one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but what about its publisher?

Not only was the food blockade maintained into 1919, but it was extended to cut off German fishing in the Baltic,

https://books.google.ca/books?id=-3JGDw ... ng&f=false

Even when, by mid-January 1919, it appeared that the Big Four…had agreed that Germany should be supplied with food…the blockade remained in place. The Allied Blockade Committee refused to issue the necessary orders and the British navy stubbornly resisted any attempt by Hoover’s ships to enter German waters…..It wasn’t just that a watertight blockade was maintained, it was extended and remorselessly enforced. The Admiralty ordered the cessation of all German fishing rights in the Baltic…The German people were even forbidden to fish for their own food.

Glenn, really??? Quoting a book entitled "Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years" that is published by Trine Day???? Now, I haven't had the "pleasure" of reading this particular volume, but perusing one online review was enough to scare me off. A quick look inside using Google Books shows a great deal of discussion about a "Secret Elite" -- heavens to Betsy. As I said, I haven't read this, but given what I've seen so far, I'm not about to seek this volume out. Perhaps you might provide a more ... ummm ... mainstream source to support your point, please.

[Terry Duncan]

The fact the Entente was not instantly making feeding the German population their number priority is understandable.

The Allied decision on extending the blockade in 1919, and things like preventing German fishing in the Baltic Sea were both punative and incomprehensible. The US should have ignored its allies on this matter and supplied food to Germany under USN escort the moment the German army's specified war material was handed over. Any British protests should have been answered with warnings not to attempt to prevent humanitarian supply by force. US warships should have entered the Baltic and, based at German ports, escorted German fishing vessels with orders to prevent by any means necessary any RN or French warship attempting to stop them from fishing.

Glenn, I presume you are aware that the US was in favour of maintaining the blockade and even supplied ships to enforce it? Also, the US was in no position to demand or enforce anything given they were using British bases for their ships in Europe. Remember, the US was also rather interested in seeing the war concluded quickly and not resumed as was feared, so the blockade makes sense to apply pressure. In the end, it was partly due to requests from a British general, Plumer, that the blockade was relaxed.

[Terry Duncan]

Of course one shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but what about its publisher?

Not only was the food blockade maintained into 1919, but it was extended to cut off German fishing in the Baltic,

https://books.google.ca/books?id=-3JGDw ... ng&f=false

Even when, by mid-January 1919, it appeared that the Big Four…had agreed that Germany should be supplied with food…the blockade remained in place. The Allied Blockade Committee refused to issue the necessary orders and the British navy stubbornly resisted any attempt by Hoover’s ships to enter German waters…..It wasn’t just that a watertight blockade was maintained, it was extended and remorselessly enforced. The Admiralty ordered the cessation of all German fishing rights in the Baltic…The German people were even forbidden to fish for their own food.

Glenn, really??? Quoting a book entitled "Prolonging the Agony: How The Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years" that is published by Trine Day???? Now, I haven't had the "pleasure" of reading this particular volume, but perusing one online review was enough to scare me off. A quick look inside using Google Books shows a great deal of discussion about a "Secret Elite" -- heavens to Betsy. As I said, I haven't read this, but given what I've seen so far, I'm not about to seek this volume out. Perhaps you might provide a more ... ummm ... mainstream source to support your point, please.

I think it is quite positive that the five star review on Amazon comes from someone who thinks the Earth is flat and the globe idea is a lie fed to people from 'the establishment'!

[Sid Guttridge]

No.

The struggle, in very simplistic terms, was to see who was to be leading central land mass power in Eurasia (Russia or Germany) and who was to be the leading peripheral maritime power in the Americas, Africa and Australasia (USA or UK). As the British were prepared to surrender their position in return for US aid against the Axis, the USA had no need to go to war with GB in order to achieve its goals. The cultural affinity between the UK and USA made the process easier.

The central competition in WWII was between Germany and Russia over who was to control the Eurasian landmass.

Cheers,

Sid.