POD is that the Zimmermann telegram is never sent leading to America never entering the War. Entente doesn't have anything left as collateral for new American loan. This forces the Entente to downsize their war effort. This results in a successful German offensive on France. After Entente loses France to Germany and default on it's debt to America. Britain will face financial collapse after America seizes Collaterals leading to a Landslide victory of the Labour party in the 1918 United Kingdom general election
CP Victory:Labour wins 1918 election
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Derek Pullem
Donor
To some extent the PoD mitigates the impact of the default as more than half the US war loans to UK occurred after US entered the war.
Also it's not good business to put your major customer out of business so a full on seizure of collateral assets is unlikely.
I'm also not convinced that the war debt is going to lead to a Labour victory - the defeat in the war will be far more important and a labout victory will mean it is much more likely that UK will repudiate its war debts to US causing a collapse in international trade. Which US will recognise so some kind of fudge is more likely.
Too big to fail applies to nations as well as banks.
Plus the telegram was not the reason for entering the war unrestricted submarine warfare was the main cause. If that has not happened the UK is in a much stronger position in a number of ways, including economically. Additionally I also don't believe for a moment that US banks even without an entry into the war would allow the bankruptcy of the allies, if that looked likely to happen to sink their existing loan book. They had seen the Russian example. .
Derek Pullem
Donor
Not to sovereign nations.
Latin American debt crisis - Wikipedia
Also interesting and perhaps more relevant example
London Agreement on German External Debts - Wikipedia
Last edited:
No it wasn't. That telegram was what turned the public and Congress in favour the war
Won't happen
Doesn't matter banks are in control of collateral
most bank clients can't fight back when the repo men come knocking.
Now if those bank clients happened to be a planet spanning empire with a massive fleet at its command... well bank disputes would become far more interesting
Not if those banks are backed by America which they will be because if neither interests nor collateral is coming then America will face financial panic and Britain can't afford another war
Garrison
Donor
You're POD doesn't really work, as long as USW is in play, and as has been pointed out a great many people in the USA didn't believe the telegram was real. The USA had forced the Germans to back down from USW by threatening action the last time Germany tried it, so yes it would lead to war with the Americans. The idea that the British, with an empire that still spans a third of the globe, can't come up with some means to raise capital. Add to that when the American troops arrived in Europe in 1918 most of their weapons and equipment came from the British and the French and the British had significant reserves that were held back precisely because they were waiting for the Americans to arrive. And as has been pointed out the last thing the Americans want is to collapse the British economy I also love that yet again an economic setback leads to an Entente collapse while its always implicitly assumed that the Germans can always find a work around.
Checking the Wikipedia UK election pages, Labour got 21% of the popular vote in the OTL 1918 general election. The best Labour results in popular vote before 1945 were 38% in 1935, and 37% in 1929. The Labour Party first got a majority of the seats in the House of Commons in 1945.
IOTL, the Conservatives and the coalition Liberals polled 53% of the vote in 1918, which is 21% greater than Labour, with three quarters of that going to the Conservatives.
By 1918, the best the Central Powers can likely do is the status quo ante bellum in the west, and confirmation of their gains against Russia in the east. The UK loses nothing other than the humiliation of fighting a massive and expensive war over nothing. If do to butterflies, they avoid trying to introduce conscription to Ireland, they wind in a better position in Ireland.
Also, if Lloyd George can't secure victory in World War I, there is a good chance that the Conservatives stop backing him and fight the election on their own. Most of the coalition Liberal MPs go back to the Asquith led Liberals and the Liberals fight the election as a united party. That will make a difference in the results. The two Liberal factions got a combined 26% of the popular vote IOTL in 1918, but I think taking the UK into a losing war and the lack of prestige by Lloyd George, who likely is on the sidelines in the election, would mean a united Liberal Party gets something more like 21%.
But I don't see a Labour majority in the House of Commons in this situation. This is still the first election they are fighting as an organized party independent of the Liberals. I see something more like the 1929 results, with Labour at 37% to 38% to the Tories, and this would still mean almost doubling their OTL 1918 popular vote percentage. This is probably the best possible situation. I think either the Tories still win, albeit more narrowly, or there is a Labour government, but it is a minority government dependent on Asquith.
Also likely after the compromise peace, Lloyd George resigns before the election, and the incumbent PM is Bonar Law, or possibly Bonar Law declines to form a government in this situation, since it only hurts the Conservatives political standing, and Balfour is interim PM.
IOTL, the Conservatives and the coalition Liberals polled 53% of the vote in 1918, which is 21% greater than Labour, with three quarters of that going to the Conservatives.
By 1918, the best the Central Powers can likely do is the status quo ante bellum in the west, and confirmation of their gains against Russia in the east. The UK loses nothing other than the humiliation of fighting a massive and expensive war over nothing. If do to butterflies, they avoid trying to introduce conscription to Ireland, they wind in a better position in Ireland.
Also, if Lloyd George can't secure victory in World War I, there is a good chance that the Conservatives stop backing him and fight the election on their own. Most of the coalition Liberal MPs go back to the Asquith led Liberals and the Liberals fight the election as a united party. That will make a difference in the results. The two Liberal factions got a combined 26% of the popular vote IOTL in 1918, but I think taking the UK into a losing war and the lack of prestige by Lloyd George, who likely is on the sidelines in the election, would mean a united Liberal Party gets something more like 21%.
But I don't see a Labour majority in the House of Commons in this situation. This is still the first election they are fighting as an organized party independent of the Liberals. I see something more like the 1929 results, with Labour at 37% to 38% to the Tories, and this would still mean almost doubling their OTL 1918 popular vote percentage. This is probably the best possible situation. I think either the Tories still win, albeit more narrowly, or there is a Labour government, but it is a minority government dependent on Asquith.
Also likely after the compromise peace, Lloyd George resigns before the election, and the incumbent PM is Bonar Law, or possibly Bonar Law declines to form a government in this situation, since it only hurts the Conservatives political standing, and Balfour is interim PM.
Only became the Victory in WW1 vindicated the old order but TTL defeat and financial crisis will tarnish it.
No the best British can do is survive. France can't be saved without American support after the Eastern Front is lost. 1917 scale of war effort Entente was unsustainable without American credit which they ran out of and ot isn't coming further without American legislation which can only happen with American entry.
UK loses the European market.
Irish revolution has already begun years before attempts to introduce conscription to Ireland. Independence is coming with or without it.
This will atleast be a labor victory or at most a Communist revolution
USW wasn't what turned the public opinion for the war. It was the Zimmermann telegram that made entering the war acceptable to America.
Irrelevant because OTL Entente did run out credit.
Paid for my American loans which won't be legislated without American entry
That's because OTL Entente was fighting a rich man's war and did run out credit whereas Germany did not
Garrison
Donor
You understand that repeating that doesn't make it any more accurate? USW was what outraged the US government, being a direct threat to their shipping and something they had already forced the Germans to stop once. The Germans resumed it gambling that it would achieve results before the Americans could decisively intervene. The whole point of the Zimmermann Telegram was to divert the attention and resources of the Americans, hence why the offer was couched in terms of actions to be taken after the USA entered the war. Large parts of the US media refused to believe the telegram could be real and had a big part of the US public behind them, after all it was such an absurd thing for the Germans to do. No one really bought into it, among the public at least, until Zimmermann confirmed its authenticity. It was the U-Boats in the Atlantic that set the USA on an almost inevitable path to intervention. Also there are all manner of expedients the USA and Britain could have found to keep the flow of supplies going so long as the will was there, the British might have found themselves minus some bits of Caribbean real estate for example but if the political will was there the means could be found.
USW wasn't even that much more effective than what they had been doing before anyway, so the UK would be in similar dire straits without it. Compound that with US loans drying up and the Entente is pretty cooked. Britain can probably sustain itself, but I'm much less sure on its allies. Russia might dip out in summer 1917 without US loans, which means they only have to cede the Ober Ost lands and Poland; basically the areas already lost to Germany. The border could be anywhere from the Curzon line to OTL interwar Poland's eastern border. Without the Bolshevik policy of No War, No Peace, the Germans don't launch Faustschlag and take Ukraine and the rest of the Baltics. With this much gentler peace deal and likely successful CP offensives in both Italy and France/Belgium, the Entente is probably much more willing to negotiate. This timeline is ironically better for Russia than OTL, since I doubt Ukraine would declare independence without the Bolsheviks.
Certainly not, there are other ways of having loans for one and much more importantly the government categorically refuses to surrender, the only ones who could accept peace (but even they didn't accept to lose Poland, Courland and Lithuania before the ultimatum) were the Bolsheviks who have absolutely no way of getting in power in Summer 1917.
It's unlikely it's enough, a lot of troops are free for the Western Front but if the same strategy as OTL is applied (and Ludendorff probably will have the same plan) then there is no chance they're going to win, the extra troops would only delay the inevitable.
Why "ironically"?
They refused to surrender when the US was in the war. Without American loans the Entente would be in dire straits financially speaking. It's probably not enough to end the war on its own, but their war efforts would suffer significantly.
The Germans could've won in OTL in 1918 with a different plan. If they launch Operation George, Hazebrouck and Amiens might very well be taken, forcing the BEF to abandon most of their heavy equipment, and it would take months if not a year to rearm, and they lose their key logistics hub. France would lose the mines supplying the vast majority of its coal. And even if they launch Michael, with more troops it could very well be more successful, and George would be launched as a follow-up.
Because they lost the war and suffered a revolution.
Go look at Kerensky and tell me how he has changed without the US in the war. And he wasn't alone, everyone except for the Bolsheviks didn't want peace, the Left SRs (the ones coming closest to the Bolsheviks) going as far as killing the German ambassador hoping to relaunch hostilities after Brest-Litovsk.
You will go talk with the guys in this thread, anyways they maybe could but I don't see how Ludendorff is any different from OTL in his planning and follow up.
So you're saying the downfall of the provisional government was extremely likely due to a refusal to make peace, which wouldn't change without US loans? I know nobody wanted to make peace in OTL, but I always assumed it was because the US was in the war.
I think you should check out this thread for why George probably could've worked. Also, who said Luddendorf has to be in charge? There are plenty of PoDs that could result in a CP victory.
Without the Bolsheviks (or more precisely Lenin to tell them what to do), Russia wouldn't've surrendered. The US was on the other side of the Atlantic, it wasn't why Kerensky didn't surrender, simply everyone (except Bols) considered that Russia could not abandon its Western allies and no matter the cost would continue the war.
Garrison
Donor
This keeps getting repeated and it isn't remotely going to happen. The resumption of USW was what caused US entry into the war, the telegram was just the icing on the cake.
And? perhaps you could explain what you think will happen after this?
And its also amazing how its assumed Germany can somehow soldier on regardless but the Entente is eternally teetering on the brink of disaster because the USA is stupid enough to pull the plug on support for them despite the ruinous consequences for US business.