Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the early 20th century GB and Germany were in cahoots together, picking on a South American country or two, don't recall who exactly. It had to do with unpaid debts.
TR was involved in some intense secret negotiations with both powers, and the word was passed that should they seize the port they were after, the US would act.
At that point, neither power having the brute force immediately available in the Atlantic that the US did, both backed off.
IIRC this was around the time the NY invasion was being considered. German troops would have landed within range of Roosevelt's Oyster Bay home.
TR's aggressive approach to threats, personally as well as internationally, apparently facilitated an attitude adjustment in London and Berlin.
Being thought of as a reckless wildman has its advantages.
See, I would argue with your thesis about the United States and Britain. There was incredible alarm in Britain over Germany's sudden naval expansion. While the Germans had been Europe's dominant land power since the end of the Franco Prussian War, England felt secure because the Germans had historically ceded the need for a strong navy, choosing a more defensive role for the Kriegsmarine.
An enormous flotilla like the kind needed to pull off this kind of operation, along with the ongoing logistical support this operation would have entailed, would have created nothing less than absolute panic from Dover to Scapa Flow. I mean, if British had already guaranteed the sovereignty of the Low Countries in order to act as a strategic buffer for their own country, what the heck do you think they would have thought of this?
Further, American imperial interests were somewhat limited after the Spanish American war, which meant that Britain didn't see the United States as threatening its own imperial interests. Instead, the United States was content to settle, civilize, and assimilate its huge frontier, a colonial venture in itself. As evidence, one can look no further than the United State's lack of interest in Chinese concessions after the Boxer Rebellion and its refusal to participate in the scramble for Africa. The United States and the United Kingdom had patched up their relationships after the Civil War and, by the time 1903 rolled around, relationships were mostly cordial.
I am not suggesting that the Americans would have launched a full-scale retaliatory invasion of Germany, for the Americans would thereupon face the exact same logistical challenges that a corresponding assault on the United States would have had from Bremerhaven--not to mention a deeply ingrained attitude against getting involved in a European land war prevalent at the time. My contention is that the United States would have picked off the German colonies of the Pacific and Africa with little trouble, thereby winning the conflict on the peripheries.
What's more, the players in World War I had really not chosen sides at this point. To be sure, Russia and France were in bed together to check Germany. However, Italy was nominally allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Also Britain had, up to this point, had a better relationship with Germany than France due to the intertwined royal families and Britain's centuries-long opposition to French interests on the continent. It was the German naval expansion that really pushed Britain into the Triple Entente.
I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the situation. At the same time however, I guess I don't exactly see the motivation for Britain to come to the assistance of America. True, relations between the two countries were much better than they had been. It just doesn't seem to me that they had yet reached the level of friendliness and co-operation seen much later on. And while I'm sure the appearance of such a fleet would have caused some degree of panic, if the target was not Britain itself or one of its’ territories, why would they do anything to stop it? Canada aside, after our Civil War, Britain had pretty much conceded that the Americas and what transpired there were of concern to no one but the United States. I am just inclined to believe that once it became clear that Britain had nothing to fear, they would have simply sat back and waited to see what happened and intervened only if it suited them.
As to the U.S. going after German colonial possessions in the Pacific or Africa, I don't think this country had the force available to do such a thing during that time period. Significant expansion/upgrading of the U.S Navy didn't commence until 1904 and was largely undertaken in response to the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. Between 1904 and 1907, the bulk of the U.S. fleet was concentrated in the Atlantic, with just a few armoured cruisers in the Pacific to protect the Philippines. Shifting naval assets from the Atlantic to the Pacific was no small task given that the Panama Canal was still under construction. The voyage of the "Great White Fleet" in 1907 demonstrated that the U.S. could project power anywhere in the world if it wished, but it didn’t guarantee it could successfully wrest away control of other countries colonies should it decide to go down that road. Consider too that, try as they might, the British were never able to defeat German forces in Africa during the whole of the First World War. So I am not exactly convinced that America would have had any better luck trying to do the same thing.
Lastly, I don’t agree that the table wasn’t already set for World War One in the years 1903/1904. “The Dual Alliance” between Germany and Austria-Hungary had been in place since 1879. “The Triple Alliance” was signed between Italy, Germany, and Austria-Hungary in 1881. However, Italy subsequently signed a secret alliance with France that effectively negated the aforementioned treaty, at least from Italy’s point of view. But the secret pact ended up drawing Italy into World War One anyway. “The Franco-Russian Military Convention” signed in 1892 bound both of those countries to act should either of the countries be attacked by a Triple Alliance member. And while you are correct about why Britain signed on to the “Triple Entente”, it was not this agreement that Britain used as reason to enter into the First World War. Rather, it was the “Treaty of London” of 1839 which bound Britain to defend Belgium’s neutrality, which Germany had done when it launched the invasion of France. So at least in the context of the “what if” posted by “6 foot 3”, I still believe that most if not all of the players that participated in the First World War would have ended up going to war against each other.
Regardless, the war happened when it happened. I do wonder though if a world war had broken out in 1903/1904, would the end result have been the same?
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,306 posts, read 8,652,146 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6 FOOT 3
Maybe he's thinking about Devonshire along the southwest coast .
Hmmm it could be, it was a long time ago......
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
