Are we thinking the Hindenburg economic plan helped caused the Turnip Winter???? Or was there some particular thing that made that worse OTL???Just to clarify, does the Turnip Winter definitely still happen if Falkenhayn remains Chief of Staff?
Are we thinking the Hindenburg economic plan helped caused the Turnip Winter???? Or was there some particular thing that made that worse OTL???Just to clarify, does the Turnip Winter definitely still happen if Falkenhayn remains Chief of Staff?
If your not picking on these small countries then your pretty close to a white peace, that seems a hard sell for a pretty optional war on the Germans part after a what a couple million dead. The Germans can claim the encirclement, we had to back Austria, etc.. Its an easier sell to your people that it wasn't an optional war when Germany is getting something. Plus the Japanese are occupying a bunch of German stuff, along with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, Germany needs a lot of compensation if those people aren't giving that stuff back. Seems tricky even if everyone is somewhat agreeable.That is more or less the thrust of Zelikow’s book.
Also, pretty hard to justify dismantling neutral Portugal’s colonial empire in a peace conference.
Have we though, because I have not seen anything that has shown me that Britain could financially survive past July 1917, hell I have never even hired of this new revenue source manly because I'm pretty sure Britain has been doing that sense September 1914 and that was running out leading to that crisis.Wilson did instruct the Reserve to discourage unsecured loans to foreign interests, which did close that avenue of finance to the entente, and damaged the confidence of borrowers in general in lending to entente interests. From what I can tell, this was indeed an attempt to force the European powers to the negotiating table. He was very convinced of the American destiny of bringing the squabbling European powers to civilized discourse in a similar fashion to getting children to play nicely with one another. However, the move said nothing specifically about secured loans. This would depend on the ability of the Entente to come up with suitable collateral (American or neutral securities and gold mostly).
It is also true that the British Treasury's report on the financial situation at the time was somewhat bleak. However, we have gone over this issue a few times on this forum and a couple things do look different on closer inspection of the British situation. Specifically, the Treasury report shows the situation to be unsustainable under the current rules. IOTL after the US entered the war, the British government more actively pursued, and eventually sequestered, American securities held by British citizens. They were able to find enough that they likely could have funded the war for some time if they could achieve anything close to the collateral-to- capital rate that they had received thus far. They also had a considerable amount of gold in the vaults of a section of the private banks that did not really need it for the discharge of their (now mostly domestic) business. France still had a very considerable amount of gold that they were loath to touch as they believed it was important to securing the Franc post-war (not an unreasonable belief but they did not end up needing all of it by far AIUI).
In short, the ability of the Entente to continue the war, even in the environment that Wilson's instructions to the Fed had created, was still significant. It would have required more disruption than was preferred to the financial institutions of Britain and France but not necessarily more than they could handle. However, it is possible that even with this reserve there to be found, the belief in the impossibility of continuing could have brought the combatants to the table. The success of the negotiations would then depend on the willingness of those involved to compromise and, to a smaller degree, the Entente not realizing that they have more in the tank then they thought.
On the whole, I think the idea of diplomatic talks occurring is at least plausible, but I am not so sure that even if they did, they would be successful.
I am not sure if TR would take the same path as Wilson when it came to trying to force the Entente to the table. If he was trying to reach a negotiated end of the war it seems like he would work more by personal and presidential appeal to the warring powers and offers to mediate. Its also possible he simply commits the US to making as much money off the conflict as it can while trying to stay out of it and improving their own forces as insurance should he fail.
This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that. No bank in America was stupid enough to be exposed to a war time nation spending unforcen amount of money on a war. Hell if Britain goes bank rupt after the war then the banks are payed back by the American tax payers, at no point was the American banking system at risk against Britain. Wilson and the banking industry didn't even like each other, he's more likely then not to crow about American banks breaking the law (sense unsecured loans are liligal) then he is to do anything to help them.The reality is the US is already financially committed to the entente, if the entente loses or even doesn't win it likely defaults or force a restructure and that hurts the US as well.
Hindenburg plan caused havoc with the agriculture industry, supply chain, wiking did a whole thing on that before.Are we thinking the Hindenburg economic plan helped caused the Turnip Winter???? Or was there some particular thing that made that worse OTL???
This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that. No bank in America was stupid enough to be exposed to a war time nation spending unforcen amount of money on a war.
Hell if Britain goes bank rupt after the war then the banks are payed back by the American tax payers, at no point was the American banking system at risk against Britain. Wilson and the banking industry didn't even like each other, he's more likely then not to crow about American banks breaking the law (sense unsecured loans are liligal) then he is to do anything to help them.
We have:Have we though,
You responded to me on that second one, so you have obviously seen some of this before:because I have not seen anything that has shown me that Britain could financially survive past July 1917, hell I have never even hired of this new revenue source manly because I'm pretty sure Britain has been doing that sense September 1914 and that was running out leading to that crisis.
British War finance was somewhat handicapped by the perceived need to maintain the high value of the Pound. This led the British government to go to great lengths to fund the war while also propping up the Pound. One of the methods they used was to transfer gold and American securities for sale in New York or as collateral for loans. These securities were held privately, and the government needed to buy or acquire them. They did this first by voluntary action but in May 1916 they started to add an addition to income tax for every Pound of Securities that someone possessed. This encouraged sale and the Government already held monopoly on buying such securities. Most important to this discussion, is the fact that they had not yet hit the bottom of the well. Of the estimated $4.5 Billion in American Securities in Britain before the war, about $2 Billion had been acquired by January 1917.
When people say that Britain was broke by the middle of the Great War they are actually exaggerating slightly. The National debt was certainly enormous by British Standards of the day, and their position had very much deteriorated from their pre-war position, but they were broke in the same way that a man is that has to sell his penthouse apartment to buy a house in the suburbs. Certainly a step down, but never in danger of starving. If the American market does not open up in the way it did with the US entry into the war Britain will certainly have to prioritize its wartime programs more than they have done so far, but they will not collapse into defeat from that alone and will almost certainly be able to continue to support their allies. More likely they would put a fine comb through their current programs to see what they think they can do without. That is a far cry from throwing in the towel.
The problem being where your getting your numbers, because the treshury itself didn't think it had enough to last untill April. Especially sense thos numbers are wrong, the total alide security was 4.5 billion, Britain never had more then 3 billion, France had about 1 billion (and had already run out and was leaning heavily on the British by 1917) and russia had about 450 million.
Perhaps now we can compare sources, since it seems you didn't get a chance to answer in that one?"World War 1 and Its Effects on British Financial Institutions" by Benjamin H. Higgins from the book "Lombard Street in War and Reconstruction" by the National Bureau of Economic Research
World War I and Its Effects on British Financial Institutions
Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.www.nber.org
Might I ask for where you found your own numbers?
This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that.
All temporary sources say unanimously that they thought they would have to make peace in summer 17.
Grant and Temperley [1] who were contemporary with the events, expressed the view that Britain could have found "expedients" to maintain her credit up to about March 1918. They did conclude, though that "without America the Entente could not have been victorious and might have been defeated."
[1] Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 1789--1950 Sixth Edition, Ch xxix.
I'd say with the US not in the war, Russia should see the war as unwinnable, and the price for getting out of it insurmountable (mostly lands that are poor and troublesome).Germany can't know this and with the Russians really hurting without USA loans, and after the April 1917 offensive fizzled out, The major opportunity for a peace is May 1917. I would think the Allies would try this April 1917 offensive for the win before settling. At that point the Germans and Allies both feel they have weaknesses and an opportunity for peace can happen.
After that if the Russian revolution happens and Caparetto happens peace becomes a lot less probable because the Germans are starting to feel a win coming.
TDM the collaterals were USD backed papers sitting in the USA. If an ASB had the UK vanish from the earth they would still have their nominal value.
No its the other way round what gets cited is that in 1917 the treasury is weighing up options it doesn't really like and doesn't want to take but well that's war! It's especially fully mobilised industrialised total war after 2-1/2 years. But there is a point of comparison on bad options hereAlso to the ever upcoming fact that the CP‘s had trouble. Yes they had but we knew they did fight on until Oct 18. So the question is, could the Entente continue this long.
And fun fact: No one has been able to bring up any source by any competent person in power at the time that claimed they could. All temporary sources say unanimously that they thought they would have to make peace in summer 17.
So even for allowing that they underestimated their ability by a whopping 75% it would still mean game over Summer 18.
Again actually show me a source where it says that Britain would be forced to make peace by summer 17! Because I'm betting what you'll see is it's some version of "by spring 1917 Britain was worried that if the current situation went on it would be forced to do X or Y financially and they didn't want to' and that's really not the same thing.TDM please go on and show one contemporary source from a politician, military or treasury guy that claims that without the USA backing the Entente it will last longer than summer1917.
After 6 or 7 threads in which I have demanded to see such a source you and nobody else has been able to.
But I am giving you that theses guys are all (!) of them so incompetent that the war can be fought 5 times longer than they thought (even though we know at least the Russian estimate was pretty correct) and I will give you that without the USA entering the CP and with the Entente needing to cut down the war by a large percentage Germany will not fight a day longer than it did OTL.
But even under those assumptions the Entente will be out September 18 and Germany did last October 18.
Just to get this one clear. Unless somebody from the Entente group either backs up the claim that there are poeple with power who thougt the Entente could win
or comes down with a detailed plan what exactly could the UK use for the repayment of the 400 million overdraft (if not the UK is broke) where to get the 1,000 million that were needed to keep Russia going, and what exactly are the means to pay for all the war material April to June and please not somehow….
We are talking some guys from the internet against every single guy in the Entente who was running the war.
The French morale issue is overblown or misunderstood. the mutinies weren't about "we don't want to fight the Germans any more" it was about "we don't like the kind attacks you sending us out for". For instance they didn't desert or strike in mass numbers, and they continued to man and defend positions. It was orders to attack that were refused. Ironically the US not instantly arriving at the front in their millions days after declaring war was also a cause! (that's not a criticism of the US it was never going to happen like that but the come down from the euphoric reaction to the US declaration and the result of the Nivelle offensive coming so quickly on top of each other was double whammy here).Realistically speaking, with no US involvement, what will fix French morale?
How will the Entente counter the Kaiserschlacht with poorer morale, and much less manpower?
And that's presuming that the UK (can) wants to continue underwriting the war effort for everyone.