Thread: What if? The US entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers

I'm going to take an independent post to clarify my thoughts on armistice. I think any reasonable person would agree this is a reasonable outcome given the circumstances.

Britain naturally has had a very advantageous position that makes invasion difficult. It's been invaded by the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, and if you count William in what was more a political revolution, 6 times in the past 2000 years. The invasion of American men of English women twice last century is a separate case.

I believe Britain has very favorable circumstances to seek a separate peace, come off somewhat close to the status quo. To do so it has to screw over France.

The Germans aren't in any position to invade, or in any position to demand the Royal Navy. Neither is the US.

If the United States is to go to war with the Allies, and Britain faces the extreme challenges and adversities it would, I think it screws over France, gives back the German colonies, keeps its navy, and withdraws its army back to Britain. Given Wilson's "peace without victory" mantra he maintained prior to and after entry into the war, the US may make limited demands based on popular and congressional demand (Wilson went to war on such demand).

France has a hell of a reckoning ahead of it. It's going to have to surrender if the British make a separate peace. If Britain undertakes the strategy you've laid out and doesn't succeed - it's going to have a hell of a reckoning ahead of it.

I think this is the most worthwhile option Britain has.

When you lied about the distance from Wilhelmshaven to New York?

I stated the distance around the north of the British Isles. You stated the distance through the English channel. Citing a different route is not lying.

I'm going to have to redact this - not only is the 3500nmi route around the north of Britain 3500nmi, through the Channel 3500nmi.

The only way to get to New York in 3250 nmi as you've claimed is as the crow flies.

Chuck Norris may be able to swim through land, but a U-Boat cannot sail through Scotland, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

Can you clarify this? You're not seeding to consume the seed grain?

The loss of American exports is goign to spur other wheat producers to increase production= seed not from British stocks.

Your figures for pounds and tons are exactly the same as mine. Where else are you slaughtering every cow?

I never said slaugter every cow... go back and reread... 400,000 allotted to meat production can turn out 200,000 calves a year so that there are 200,000 cows for slaughter

I weighed the chickens at 100 million pounds. So instead of 7 ounces of chicken per week, for 5 weeks, it's 5.25 ounces. As far as your grain is concerned, you reach that figure in 5 weeks, and it still at most is parity for caloric loss in US non-grain exports to the UK.

Better off than they would be if feeding chickens...

If your reaching parity to non-grain caloric losses in 5 weeks, with no eggs or chicken meat thereafter, you're worse off.

No, the closer to the sun the food source the more calories you get. 187 pounds of wheat in a feild gives you a renewwable surplus 1623lbs of harvested grain and 187lbs of seed stock on a 30 bushel per acre farm. 187 pounds of wheat will feed 10 fryer chickens from chicks to maturity at 24 weeks giving you 11.25lbs of meat or 2-3 already adult layer chickens for a year laying 300-520ish eggs and then 2.75-4lbs of meat.

The average Briton is eating 5.8lbs wheat per week. 43 million Britons, 294.4 million pounds per day. Britain is eating 124,700 tons of wheat per day. Your 105,000 tons is less than Britain eats in a day. You've added less than a day to reserves, and have still only reached parity with caloric losses from US non-grain exports.

So you have a loss of 760,000 tons of wheat. That's a 7-day decline in reserves.

NO NO NO, 5.8 pounds of bread is not 5.8lb of wheat. A 60lbs Bushel of wheat milled to flour will produce 90-150lbs of bread. Living on bread alone you need roughly 2.5lbs a day so a Bushel of wheat making 100 loaves equals enough raw food requirement to feed 5.7 people for a week.

As previously posted and cited, Argentinian wheat production fell 40% from 1915 to 1917. So Australia and China are out. On top of that going to increased competition for what remains due to falling US food exports elsewhere.

bad use of numbers as usual, 1915 was a bumper year not a normal year. Argentina produced 109.6 million bushels in 1913.

From a single seed Tracing the Marquis wheat success story in Canada to its roots in the Ukraine - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

A look at Argentina's exports April 1915 v April 1916 reveals that while wheat fell from 570,000 tons to 285,000 tons, Corn increased from 67,000 tons to 114,000 tons and oats from 38,000 tons to 62,000 tons.

The Americas - National City Bank of New York - Google Books

Wheat 1 pound= 1400 recverable calories
oats 1 pound= 1800 recoverable calories
Corn 1 pound= 1500 recverable calories.

So the actual caloric loss isn't as great as the declien in wheat production would suggest without context.

I'm still here. Like I said, I didn't have the time to address a bunch of injected argument in addition to the core of the debate, and you rudely demanding 2 or 3 times I do so doesn't incline me to do so.

Its critical to the entire debate...

I said the mindset of Americans. "Kill 'em all, nuke Arabia into glass". I also stated the US has never done so.

Why haven't we?

I said given that the U-Boats have twice or better the range at 8kn, they ought to be able to 10kn. Penalization was implied.

No, at least not obviously so.

I still think the US could pull a Singapore. Land at an undefended point across undefended waters and avoid all things naval or naval defense. I seem to recall you arguing the US could take Vancouver earlier in the thread.

could= might not will.

I'd really like you to find where I stated that. I haven't said a word about Canadian arms.

Exactly!

I still think your argument is bunk and I always will.

which is why you won't play Wilson...

They can't. The distance between the beaches of Brooklyn and Manhattan is more than the range of the RN dreadnoughts. So no, they can't fire over the top of Brooklyn. It's too wide.

Try again...

Coney Island to lower manhatten centered on the NYSE is 17600 yards

15"/42- 25000 yards
14"/45- 19900 yards
13.5"/45- 22500 yards
12"/45- 20450 yards

Where did I say that?

Every time you say American's wont surrender.

What wars has the US surrendered in? There's an status quo armistice in Korea and the Paris Peace Accords, but I've yet to know of any wars the US has surrendered in.

Now your trying to change the parameters.... but a surrender is a surrender... that we haven't surrendered in war is due more to geography than anything else.

$4.2 billion in exports against a $60 billion economy, an economy that's about to go to war (economic boost). You argued that the British would collapse on the lack of credit alone.

4.2 billion is exports gone may not seem like a lot until you realize that in AUG 1914 the US had 8% unemployment and in march 1917 that rate was 3%. The loss of the European trade is going to throw that 5% back out of work and more as a domino effect takes over. its not just 4.2 billion in trade lost, but 10+ billion in money and material. You claim the US can pull itself up by its bootstraps how.... the industrialists who just got screwed are not going to take paper ever again. The banks who did the screwing while getting the Uncle Sam/ Fed Reserve Reach around are collpasing as people make a run on them to try and convert paper bank notes to specie. The Only option is to flood the domestic market with federal specie which will cause inflation.

Plus that loss relflects not money that won't be made, but that is now gone. the money not spent buying bonds to make loans to the allies got loaned to industrialists to expand facilties and payrolls, to farms to buy seed (already bought) and tractors, was waged on the commodities exchange and stock market. On Black Thursday the US lost an estimated 4 billion dollars in stock market value (1.96% of GDP) and the 1929 high of 203.6 billion GDP would fall 17 billion by 1930 It dropped a total of 62.2 billion by 1933. Yet in 1917 we are talking about a 2.95% hit primarily to the financial sector first.

http://econ.duke.edu/webfiles/arg/data/npdata.dat

Furthermore, if the US economy collapses due to war, they're not going to go to war, which pretty much destroys the whole point of this thread.

Broke countrie are the ones who go to war the most often... And the US is not immune

Prior to the civil war the US was in a recession.
prior to the Spanish American war the US had a recession in 1897....
They'll get them plus interest after Britain loses the war.

You argued that China has rice to export, that you can reduce Chinese consumption to 100kg per year (and not much else) against 138kg of wheat per year for the British (plus other foods).

I never said reduce chinese consumption, Chinese consumption is 92kg a year and I allotted 100kg a year roughyl a 10% surplus. Nor are the British eating 138kg a wheat per year per capita in breads. That number also refelcts grains diverted to feeds for the production of meat.

China isn't going to give you the food, and you're not going to take it. The Chinese down to 100kg per would mean a famine.

No famine, and no take, I'll buy it by traty concession and trade. China needs manufactired goods, weapons and technology. Plus does China really want to piss Britain off with the UK allied to Japan....

I stated total US cheese exports were 12,000 tons per week. Total US exports means to everybody in the world. Most US exports at this time were to Europe. Of which Britain is getting a chunk.

you implied it was all going to England.

I stated the distance around the north of the British Isles. You stated the distance through the English channel. Citing a different route is not lying.

The distance you stated for the route you gave was wrong

I don't know what seaplane carriers are attached to the Grand Fleet, and I don't really care. I think your strategy is preposterous.

oxymoron... generally speaking not caring requrings not thinking not the opposite. Those who think care, those who don't- don't. Hence the Wilson thought experiment.

I've paid zero attention because you have 2-3 hours worth of shells. A response isn't even justified.

I have 30-70 shells per gun depending onHE shells loaded, plus what ever the replenishment fleet brought along. Roughly 370 big guns or 11100 shells minimum. thats before the cruisers that will do the bulk of the work if it needs to be done, the battle wagons are for things like Ft Hamilton and its 10" guns the only sea coast fort in Brooklyn that can protect Lower Manhatten. New Jersey has nothing.

No, I don't think the Canadian raiders are going to advance 250 miles into the United States.

There is that pesky don't think again... instead of not thinking about something, do think about it. Why won't raiders travel 250 miles? In 1916 Pershing went 300 miles into Mexico, the most famous of the wild west gangs travelled 250 miles with ease, the redlegs, jayhawkers and bushwackers travelled that far... So why exactly will feircly loyal and suprisingly anti-American Canadians not do it?

I didn't dispute US vessels in Allied ports could be seized. I didn't even dispute 250 ships at sea. What I did say is 84% of the world merchant fleet in 1917 is non-US, most of it Allied, there are going to be more Allied ships in US ports than vice-versa, so the balance is against the Allies.

Again not in dispute, it was simply showing the loss wasn't as bad as it might be portrayed.

You've said it yourself - very real chance of total victory. How about, as you've said, Russia collapses without US credit and German and Austro-Hungarian mass forces on the Western and Italian fronts, pouring soldiers from the Eastern Front with reserves due from the East, and the fronts break?

yup, all of that holds true but its also time consuming. The shift in the balance of continental power, the threat to food and fuel stocks, the threat to imperial control of the colonies, the threat a treaty with Germany will leave the UK vulnerable to future japanese, American or German domination are all reasons for the RN to try and win whule it can.

So over a thousand or so sentences typed, I've missed a few things. I'm only human. Jellicoe, according to nearly every contemporary or postwar account, is characterized as cautious. Your RN strategy isn't Jellicoe. Beatty, maybe.

Please pretty ptretty please tell me what Jellico could ahve done differently. Historians are good people, but we are not admirals for the most part.

Realistically, I think Britain and France are going to sue for an armistice and the RN isn't even going to sail for the US.

Possibly, but FDR thought Japan would back off China... can we say oops....

Nearly every contemporary and postwar account of Jellicoe's performance during the battle was characterized as cautious. As well as his attitude throughout the war. He was eventually sacked for it. He wasn't just characterized as cautious - he was characterized as very cautious. Beatty, Churchill ("he could lose the war in an afternoon") - Lloyd George sacked him precisely for adopting a very cautious and defensive strategy.

1. He was fired over u-boats not his handling of the GF.
2. DLG didn't fire him

If setting sail in 2.5 hours to cautiously engage the High Seas Fleet once in battle is your definition of non-cautious, you're scraping the barrel.

WTF? Seriouslty WTF? And you wonder why I think your stupid.... The Grand Fleet left Scapa Flow and the Firth Of Roysth 2.5 hours before the German HSF left thier bases... They sailed within 48 hours of Jellico learning there was a move planned by the HSF. Thats not caution.... not in anyway shape or form.

The definition of mothball is to put something "out of operation but maintain it so that it can be used in the future". That's the same thing as reserve.

really lets compare using the free dictonary for both

Mothball

1. A marble-sized ball, originally of camphor but now of naphthalene, stored with clothes to repel moths.
2. mothballs
a. A condition of long storage for possible future use: put the battleship into mothballs.
b. A condition of being set aside or discarded: have put the plan into mothballs.
tr.v. moth·balled, moth·ball·ing, moth·balls
1. To remove (a ship, for example) from active service or use and put into protective storage.
2. To defer indefinitely; shelve: mothball a project.

Reserve

. To keep back, as for future use or for a special purpose.
2. To set or cause to be set apart for a particular person or use. See Synonyms at book.
3. To keep or secure for oneself; retain: I reserve the right to disagree. See Synonyms at keep.
n.
1. Something kept back or saved for future use or a special purpose.
2. The act of reserving.
3. The keeping of one's feelings, thoughts, or affairs to oneself.
4. Self-restraint in expression; reticence: "One feels it everywhere, a quality of reserve, something held back" (Rollene W. Saal).
5. Lack of enthusiasm; skeptical caution.
6. An amount of capital held back from investment in order to meet probable or possible demands.
7. A reservation of public land: a forest reserve.
8. An amount of a mineral, fossil fuel, or other resource known to exist in a particular location and to be exploitable: the discovery of large oil reserves.
9.
a. A fighting force kept uncommitted until strategic need arises. Often used in the plural.
b. The part of a country's armed forces not on active duty but subject to call in an emergency.

Do you see anything about long storage in reserve?

The HMS Lion was under repairs for 7 weeks and out of commission for nearly 11.

Yup, made damage from 14 large caliber hits and only 7 weeks to repair... so explain 5 weeks to get a possibly tired ut otherwise functioning ship fromr eserve to commissioned status.

I stated the Germany built a total of 366 U-Boats that could easily reach the US before the end of WWI. You went onto think the Germans had 366 U-Boats, and that I said they would all sail the US.

No, you claimed the u-boats required less logistics.

What does boat building have to do with anything? If a ship or U-Boat exists and is active, and the only factors to take into consideration are supplies.

You don't build them out of air... Germany started with 29 so those 366 boats built represent choices on the allotment of steel, copper, rubber, lead, diesel, man power (crew) man power (builders) etc. Once built the materials and crew allotted equal about 5 dreadnoughts but more fuel.

I stated 50 U-Boats to the US.

In reality 7 u cruisers made war patrols to the Us and 1 was sunk...

[quote]Your premise is "the Royal navy is going to sail to the US, and it is going to bombard the US into surrendering.[/quite]

No, my premis is that the GF sailing to North America under the threat of doing that will force the USN to fight, where I can destroy it and then use the thrat of bombardment and its effect on the population, financial, political and industrial sectors to force the Wilson Administration to accept a peace.

Your entire argument absolutely rests on that, and you've never once taken into consideration whether or not the UK would actually do such a thing.

Would the UK shell NYC? Hrmmmm... Desden, blockade of Germany, Tea laws in India.... No moral reservation as part of the English character would seem to suggest that they wouldn't.

[quote] It absolutely has no choice. [/quite]

If America jumps in on the side of the CP the UK has two choices- capitulation or a quick strike. 2 choices is not an absolute.

The US is absolutely going to surrender.

Never said the US would absolutely surrender, but its a winning bet.

Jellicoe is not cautious and absolutely carry this strategy.

I never said he was or wasn't I asked you what he could have done differenlty at Jutland.

The only factors you've proffered are on the basis of your absolutes.

learn how to read and reason please.

UK dependence on food and fuel is a factor to consider. U-Boats sailing to the US is a factor to consider. The High Seas Fleet making trouble in the North Sea is a factor to consider. Imminent starvation in Britain is a factor to consider.

kaiser Willie going for broke is a factor, long term consequences to France is she loses need to be considered, German domination of Eastern Europe, treaty enforced dismantling of the Grand Fleet, loss of the colonies loyalty, the Dominions breaking away, Japan's ambitions, the post war economy.... lots of things to consder and the only way to try and avoid them is to knock the US out quick. Germany when faced with a similar problem launched the Spring Offensive of 1918.... it failed but thats what desperate nations do. Japan attacked when it was in a very similar posistion....

The odds are clearly stacked against the Allies in this scenario. You've got 2-3 hours worth of shells, and you're quickly running out of time. That is objective.

No thats bean counting... 2-3 hours worth of shells is a 5 shot revolver when facing 6 attackers... are you somewhere between 1 and 5 or are you lucky number 6? Do you want to findout or are you going to decide the fight an't worth it?

All of them are hurting badly with trade from the US cut off. Their war industries are going to be on the verge of collapse.

If the Royal Navy does nothing then Britain, France and Itaky lose the war, while Serbia, Luxemberg and Belgium lose their very existence.
If the Royal Navy does act, those things still might happen, but they might not.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

I stated the distance around the north of the British Isles. You stated the distance through the English channel. Citing a different route is not lying.

I'm going to have to redact this - not only is the route around the north of Britain 3500nmi (even with going around Shetland, as I avoid Orkney to avoid Scapa Flow), through the Channel it's 3500nmi.

The only way to get to New York in 3250 nmi as you've claimed is as the crow flies.

Chuck Norris may be able to swim through land, but a U-Boat cannot sail through Scotland, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine.

Tell you what bet me... you prove I said Germans u boats only had to sail 3250 nautical miles from their base to New York via direct quote and I'll concede defeat, if I didn't say it, you stipulate to my economic conditions for the purpose of the Wilson thought exercise and you play Wilson.

deal?

Originally Posted by zraver

Tell you what bet me... you prove I said Germans u boats only had to sail 3250 nautical miles from their base to New York via direct quote and I'll concede defeat, if I didn't say it, you stipulate to my economic conditions for the purpose of the Wilson thought exercise and you play Wilson.

Here.

But I'll bet you pick a bone over me reading it, and having chosen to round it up 4nmi, or that you didn't cite 3246nm as "sailing distance" but only as "short line distance."

If that's the case, no deal.

Z,

Let's suppose you are right, there are vast reserves of food and oil elsewhere and they are all willing to be handed to the Brits.

Are there secure sea routes for those goods, with RN concentrated on US? - What are Ze Germans doing?
2. What's the cost of these? Can UK pay those supplies? For how long? Is it enough?

Bombardment of US cities...

Are you sure US will surrender after let's say 6 months bombardment of NY? Or they will get more determined to regroup?
Are there supplies of ammo on RN side support that campaign?
Do you have enough infantry to land on US shores? Assuming you can make the landings fom subs and DNs

Finally, being so focused on US front... what happens on the land in Europe? In terms of reinforcements and supplies.

Direct quote from you, "The only way to get to New York in 3250 nmi as you've claimed is as the crow flies."

1. Or you can check the distance from Zeebrugge to NYC.... pssst it is 3246 nautical miles by sea not air don't need chuckie....

2. My bet involved the world "only" and I clearly add distance to avoid the Royal Navy in your copy and paste.

3. My claim of distance is just that distance: u-boat specific sailings are not mentioned.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

I think the figure for the British working class man was 2200 calories per day.

So if you add 600 + 200 + milk + sugar + beer + fruits & vegetables, you're going to get a day's worth of food per week or more.

Keep in mind that a day is 14.3% of a week.

you need to make a stronger case if you are arguing that Britain cant replace 1/7
of their imports if needed.

Originally Posted by tgbyhn

I can cite the exact proportions of US foreign trade from the US statistical abstract later if you wish.

since so far you have enlighten us on what fraction of British consumption , us exports to the whole world mean , perhaps you should.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Z,

Let's suppose you are right, there are vast reserves of food and oil elsewhere and they are all willing to be handed to the Brits.

I don't need vast reserves, I need enough extra to last 12-14 weeks of war and 3 weeks sailing. If its not over by then famine in the UK. Since I am pretending to be British famine elsewhere will gets lots of hand wringing but little else until the famine is over and I can appoint a commision.

Are there secure sea routes for those goods, with RN concentrated on US? - What are Ze Germans doing?

Those sea routes are covered by the same number of small escorts as before, the German surface raiders are gone by 17. The HSF might try a breakout, but as I said earlier a might is a lot better bet than a sure thing when the only sure thing is defeat if I don't act.

2. What's the cost of these? Can UK pay those supplies? For how long? Is it enough?

what ever the price its cheaper than defeat.

Bombardment of US cities...

Are you sure US will surrender after let's say 6 months bombardment of NY? Or they will get more determined to regroup?

no 6 month bombardment of NYC...

1. defeat USN at sea as brutally as possible... send as many hulls down as possible and chase the retreating fleet on to the rocks. At sea is where I want 10,000 dead. I want to rub America's nose into the fact they have no battle fleet anymore and no Farraguaght or Decatuer to save them.... just the sons of Nelson and Hood smugly sailing where they please beciase the Britannia rules the waves...
2. shell Nantucket hard with cruisers and destroyers as the Island has a special place in America's self image of herself at sea. Maybe occupy it and burn its industrial facilities.
3. shell and silence Ft Hamilton.
4. Put 1 15" shell into Wall Street as a door knocker
5. Ask President Wilson if he is ready for terms yet....
6. rely on the fear of a bigger shelling, the shock of the naval defeat and the fate of Nantuckett and the crashing American economic and financial sectors to force him to terms.
7. This is when I want France to declare war and promise troops to North America to aid the returned Canadian Corps... add shock pressure and now the fear of invasion. In 1917 the french Army is still held in awe in the US.
8. If he delays hit point targets that are designed to inflict political pressure- Brooklyn Navy Yard, Occupy Staten Island to fly the Union Jack from the Statue of Liberty, shell the Hamptdens, raid Boston or Savannah, shell the GW and Brooklyn Bridges..... or have London papers start talking about how a US defeat means no debt to the US... those rumors will be in NYC before the ink dries... American papers will give me the pulse of the nation and guide the strikes, though to be honest I think Wilson will fold like a kicked dog....

Are there supplies of ammo on RN side support that campaign?

see above, if all goes well I fire one dreadnought shell at a land based target.
Do you have enough infantry to land on US shores? Assuming you can make the landings fom subs and DNs[/quote]

Easily on the troops, bringing the Canadian Corps of 3-4 divisions with me on fast liners turned troop transports.

Finally, being so focused on US front... what happens on the land in Europe? In terms of reinforcements and supplies.

Haig gets told to sit tight and no 2nd Arras with its 158,000 casualties, Neville hopefully does the same and his offensive never goes in and saves France 187,000 casualties or the french poulis still mutiny. Germany is gonna smash Italy on schedule but until autumn they are not able to do much becuase she s still chasing Russians around yelling, "zitting inzee here and zign thiz dam treaty..." while Lenin's cronies yell, "neyt nyet nyet" at the kaiser and, "nuk nuk nuk" at Kerensky

If I can force Wilson to throw in, I've saved the allies 345,000 casualties....

rec

The loss of American exports is goign to spur other wheat producers to increase production= seed not from British stocks.

You're not going to have any extra production in time. From the following (source):

• Argentina plants in May-June, next harvest in mid-November 1917 through mid-January 1918.
• India grows winter wheat and the next possible increased harvest in October through December 1918.
• Australia plants in May through July and and the next harvest is available in October through the end of December 1917.
• Egypt plants in fall 1916 and acreage can't be increased until fall 1917, next possible increased harvest April through August 1918.
• Chinese winter wheat (most) is planted in the fall next possible harvest increase May-June 1918. Chinese spring wheat is not available until July or August.

I never said slaugter every cow... go back and reread... 400,000 allotted to meat production can turn out 200,000 calves a year so that there are 200,000 cows for slaughter

Slaughter them all or not - you've got an increase in meat consumption of 80 calories a week against a loss of 600 calories per day in meat from the US.

No, the closer to the sun the food source the more calories you get. 187 pounds of wheat in a feild gives you a renewwable surplus 1623lbs of harvested grain and 187lbs of seed stock on a 30 bushel per acre farm. 187 pounds of wheat will feed 10 fryer chickens from chicks to maturity at 24 weeks giving you 11.25lbs of meat or 2-3 already adult layer chickens for a year laying 300-520ish eggs and then 2.75-4lbs of meat.

So your talking about increased grain allotted for the next harvest?

NO NO NO, 5.8 pounds of bread is not 5.8lb of wheat. A 60lbs Bushel of wheat milled to flour will produce 90-150lbs of bread. Living on bread alone you need roughly 2.5lbs a day so a Bushel of wheat making 100 loaves equals enough raw food requirement to feed 5.7 people for a week.

Thanks for pointing that out - I did make a mistake the bread/flour figure with what.

According to this source), British grain consumption is 7 sixty pound bushels per person per year (5.5 imported, 1.5 produced). That 5.5 bushel per person figure (236 million total Britain) corresponds perfectly with 231.8 million bushels Britain imported in 1916 according to do The Price Grain Reporter 1917. That's 190kg per capita.

British consumption is 174,000 tons per week. So the 105,000 tons over five weeks is 21,000 tons per week. So that's +12% to your stock of grain

bad use of numbers as usual, 1915 was a bumper year not a normal year. Argentina produced 109.6 million bushels in 1913.

According to the Argentina, 1516-1987: from Spanish ... - David Rock - Google Books I previously cited, Argentina wheat production fell 30% from 1916 to 1917? Is that better?

100% of production are accounted for historically, whether consumption or export. Corn, oats, or wheat, any extra for Britain is taking it out of the mouths of the natives or those importing.

I never said reduce chinese consumption, Chinese consumption is 92kg a year and I allotted 100kg a year roughyl a 10% surplus. Nor are the British eating 138kg a wheat per year per capita in breads. That number also refelcts grains diverted to feeds for the production of meat.
No famine, and no take, I'll buy it by traty concession and trade. China needs manufactired goods, weapons and technology. Plus does China really want to piss Britain off with the UK allied to Japan....

British per capita consumption of wheat is actually 190kg of wheat.
"China is producing 285 billion pounds/ 129.7 billion kilos of rice with a population of 465,000,000 each eating 100 kilos a year"
129.7 billion kg / 465 million comes to 279kg. At 1650 calories per pound, that comes to 2767 calories per day per person in China. Figures for the average Chinese laborer per day are at 3400 calories per day, in a population that almost entirely consists of laborers, overwhelmingly rural, with a diet based almost entirely on rice.

I was surprised at the figure for the US laboring man ate, 6485 calories per day. I knew people ate way more food before we were sedentary, but not that much. Must be 12 hours a day/6 days per week.

Back to the China subject, I don't think the Chinese have anything to export. The Japanese laborer next door is eating 4400 calories per day. British children in school age 9-14 eat 3400 calories per day, and the Chinese kids that age are laboring.

As is the case with all consumption and exports, it's historically accounted for, and whatever Britain on top of what they did historically is food out of the mouths of the natives or nations importing.

Grain-fed livestock (cattle, sheep) besides oats are a post-WWII innovation and pretty much unheard of at this time. Livestock would be eating mostly grass and hay in 1917.

Its critical to the entire debate...

I don't think it is.

Why haven't we?

Despite the immediate mindset of many Americans when we're attacked, we're not Nazis.

No, at least not obviously so.

Given the ranges at 8kn are fact, if 10kn is "my opinion" there's obviously another variable at work, and there's only one candidate: increased fuel consumption.

Exactly!

Not mentioning Canadian arms is not the same as assuming they don't have any. There's guns in Canada is a given like the Pope is Catholic is a given.

which is why you won't play Wilson...

You're asking me to play Wilson, when the Jellicoe you have would be akin to the Jimmy Carter turning into Stalin on the turn of a dime.

Every time you say American's wont surrender.

Now your trying to change the parameters.... but a surrender is a surrender... that we haven't surrendered in war is due more to geography than anything else.

The Korean Armistice and Paris Peace Accords were not surrenders. Period.

4.2 billion is exports gone may not seem like a lot until you realize that in AUG 1914 the US had 8% unemployment [....]

Broke countrie are the ones who go to war the most often... And the US is not immune

If the US enters the "Great Depression of 1917", than this thread is a catch-22.

The US will not enter the war if that is true. Then there's no point to this thread. It's a catch-22.

I still think the depression argument is BS.

you implied it was all going to England.

For exports that went to Britain, or France or Britain, they were included by name. Totals didn't. Most of those exports are going to Europe.

The distance you stated for the route you gave was wrong

Are you serious? Really? OK, 4000nmi to the US. Add 500 for whatever. You're just splitting hairs. At 4000nmi, the German subs are still within reach.

I have 30-70 shells per gun depending onHE shells loaded, plus what ever the replenishment fleet brought along. Roughly 370 big guns or 11100 shells minimum. thats before the cruisers that will do the bulk of the work if it needs to be done, the battle wagons are for things like Ft Hamilton and its 10" guns the only sea coast fort in Brooklyn that can protect Lower Manhatten. New Jersey has nothing.

British dreadnoughts carried 2-3 hours worth of ammunition at a steady firing rate.

There is that pesky don't think again... instead of not thinking about something, do think about it. Why won't raiders travel 250 miles? In 1916 Pershing went 300 miles into Mexico, the most famous of the wild west gangs travelled 250 miles with ease, the redlegs, jayhawkers and bushwackers travelled that far... So why exactly will feircly loyal and suprisingly anti-American Canadians not do it?

Every major city in Canada is 30-60 miles from the US except Calgary and Winnipeg (70 and 90), versus Seattle, Buffalo, and Detroit for the US. Yet the Canadians have a leg up with these 250 mile raids.

This is like arguing the Allies have an advantage of in 750 ships seized, when there are more Allied ships in US ports.

Again not in dispute, it was simply showing the loss wasn't as bad as it might be portrayed.

We've gone from a net +750 in Allied seizures to the Allies recouping a portion of their losses.

yup, all of that holds true but its also time consuming. The shift in the balance of continental power, the threat to food and fuel stocks, the threat to imperial control of the colonies, the threat a treaty with Germany will leave the UK vulnerable to future japanese, American or German domination are all reasons for the RN to try and win whule it can.

I still think Britain is in a great position to screw over their Allies by making peace with the US and Germany, and maintain their status quo antebellum. They're isolated from invasion, and nobody can make demands on their fleet.

The bombardment strategy has a multitude of unforeseen variables that could undermine, and a very real chance (I believe total chance) of failing. If they fail in their bombardment strategy, they're going to utterly collapse and be at the mercy of their enemies. If I were the British, I would go for option one. It is a choice, and it's a better choice.

Please pretty ptretty please tell me what Jellico could ahve done differently. Historians are good people, but we are not admirals for the most part.

When Jellicoe crossed their T the first time, he had a unbelievable advantage. Scheer was completely shocked to even see the Grand Fleet. I think he could have inflicted a serious defeat on the German fleet. From what I understand, most of his dreadnoughts didn't even open fire despite being favored by the position of the sun. I think he failed to capitalize on this advantage when victory was within his grasp due to his cautious nature.

Furthermore, having headed the Atlantic and subsequently the Grand Fleet since 1910, I believe he bears a strong degree of responsibility over the lack of innovation and modernization of practices. Clearly he knew of the innovations in German naval practices, and pushed for some early on, but, for example, the British clung to flags and lamps instead of radio which had serious consequences at Jutland, among several other practices. So I don't think it's just a mistake of the day (the first T) but a sum of 6 years of mistakes.

Possibly, but FDR thought Japan would back off China... can we say oops....

The US isn't China. It's not backward and politically fragmented among warlords.

1. He was fired over u-boats not his handling of the GF.
2. DLG didn't fire him

OK, technically the First Lord of the Admiralty sacked him. With Jellicoe, I believe there were a history of problems. He was pessimistic about Britain's chances of winning the war, he was overly cautious, his U-Boat strategy, criticism about Jutland, and so on. And I don't think that the First Lord was alone in his decision - others were involved.

WTF? Seriouslty WTF? And you wonder why I think your stupid.... The Grand Fleet left Scapa Flow and the Firth Of Roysth 2.5 hours before the German HSF left thier bases... They sailed within 48 hours of Jellico learning there was a move planned by the HSF. Thats not caution.... not in anyway shape or form.

Jellicoe was cautious at Jutland, and he was cautious the rest of the time he was commander of the Grand Fleet. So he sailed about 2.5 hours ahead of the Germans - and fought a battle that by any objective standard could have been to at least some degree better fought.

really lets compare using the free dictonary for both

I just don't really care about splitting hairs. If you want your pre-dreadnoughts in 5 minutes, you've got 'em.

Yup, made damage from 14 large caliber hits and only 7 weeks to repair... so explain 5 weeks to get a possibly tired ut otherwise functioning ship fromr eserve to commissioned status.

My exact quote:

7 pre-dreadnoughts (1 Med, rest mothballed) and 15 cruisers (entire Med/Adr/Aeg deployment) available in several weeks.

That entire force is going to take several weeks, at a time you were withdrawing your entire cruiser fleet form the North Sea. I pressed you on a timeframe for the pre-dreadnoughts, and you quoted the HMS Lion. I know the HMS Lion is 7 weeks - but how long does a dreadnought take to take out of reserve?

No, you claimed the u-boats required less logistics.

I never said Germany had 366 U-boats at her disposal, or they were all going to the US. I never envisioned 366 U-boats going to the US. There are less logistics involved in 50 U-Boats than 35 dreadnoughts, 20 cruisers and however many oil-burning destroyers your bringing along.

You don't build them out of air... Germany started with 29 so those 366 boats built represent choices on the allotment of steel, copper, rubber, lead, diesel, man power (crew) man power (builders) etc. Once built the materials and crew allotted equal about 5 dreadnoughts but more fuel.

I could talk about how much material, manpower and builder it takes to build 35 RN dreadnoughts - but I only ever meant U-Boats that exist in April 1917. It's maniacal to think I meant 415 or 366 and ones that haven't been constructed.

In reality 7 u cruisers made war patrols to the Us and 1 was sunk...

In reality, the US was never a friendly neutral, then an enemy. But in this scenario, the US is a friend, German U-Boats are welcome and wanted in US waters, and they can easily get there. Even you argued that U-Boats would be going to the US when you were on this side of the argument.

Come on, this is akin to saying the US would be akin to somebody arguing that the US is going to lay 70% of the North Sea mine barrage on behalf of the RN in this scenario. Because in reality it did so.

No, my premis is that the GF sailing to North America under the threat of doing that will force the USN to fight, where I can destroy it and then use the thrat of bombardment and its effect on the population, financial, political and industrial sectors to force the Wilson Administration to accept a peace.

I disagree that the US is going to be forced to fight, I disagree that this scenario would be plausibly considered by the British, I disagree that with 2-3 hours worth of shells you can force a surrender, and I disagree that the US is going to experience a depression.

I'll be back later to wrap up a few unaddressed points from the last post. Tonight or tomorrow. I've been spending way too much time on this.

ditto a reply I've been working on all day just nuked...

A more comprehensive picture of the logistical situation.

Weekly Caloric Decline for Losses of Non-Wheat Imports from US (all figures are US exports to Britain exclusively)

• Meat: US exports to Britain were 10,000 tons per week (source). Of this 3220 tons are bacon (source) for a loss of 317 calories per day and the remainder ham and beef for 335 calories per day.
• Lard: 1100 tons per week imported by Britain from the US (first source), a decline of 200 calories per person per week.
• Butter: 142 tons per week imported from the US by Britain (source), a decline of 22 calories per week per person.
• Sugar: the British was dependent on Cuba, a client/puppet state of the US, for 50% of its sugar imports, a total of 784,000 tons (source), a loss of 1234 calories per week per person. An additional 41,000 tons per year from the US is an additional 66 calories per week for a total of 1300 calories per week per person lost.
• Molasses: The UK imported 140,000 tons in 1917 (source), of which 75.3% is from the US and Cuba (source), for a loss of 124 calories per week per person.
• Milk: Britain imported 191 million pints of condensed milk a year in 1917, 54% from the US (source) for a loss of 29 calories per week per person.
• Apples: Imports of 28,000 tons in 1917 from the US (source) for a loss of 6 calories per week per person.
• Flour: 84% of British imports are from the US and Canada. Imports of 451,250 tons in 1917 from the US (59.2% of total) (source), for a loss of 662 calories per person per week.***
• Canned salmon: Imports of 25,000 tons per year from the US (source 1, source 2) , for a loss of 14 calories per week.
• Dried Peas: Britain imported 77 tons of dried peas per week from the US (source), a loss of 6 calories per week.
• Corn: The British are eating 50 million bushels per year (page 76), their entire import, of which 42.7% if from the US (source) for a loss of 1283 calories per week per person.
• Dried Fruit: 213 tons per week from the US (source) for a loss of 30 calories per week per person.

Between just these foods, there is a drop of 4311 calories per week. There are numerous other foods that were imported by Britain from the US, and all of this leaves the British even more dependent on what remains of their food supply.

The Wheat Situation in 1917 (source, not including flour imports***)

• Consumption: 237 million bushels (150kg per person per year)
• Imports from US: 101 million bushels (+34 million Canada)
• Loss: 135 million bushels raw wheat

With a consumption of 237 million bushels per year, Britain's remaining stock of wheat for all purposes should be about 27.4 million bushels.

British Wheat Reserve

With 100% of that wheat used for human consumption, that leaves 38lbs per person, total, 0.9lbs per day for six weeks, or 1483 calories per day for each person in Britain.

On March 26, 1917, Argentina placed an embargo on wheat exports (source). It supplied 7.3% of Britain's wheat supply in 1917, or 240,000 bushels a week.

Given that Britain's next harvest is in August, and assuming a steady flow of wheat imports from remaining suppliers, Britain is importing 548,000 bushels of wheat per week, enough to provide only 164 calories per day per person.

With the loss of 4311 calories per day (from just the US imports listed) and addition of 164 calories per day from remaining sources of wheat, and 235 calories per day from chicken, the British are going to have to take an extra 2.4lbs per week each from their remaining wheat supply to make up for it. This is at a time when food shortages and high prices were generally at their worst.

Britain will run out of wheat in 30.5 days, after which point starvation ensues.

Other Sources of Food in the United Kingdom

• Oats: The British are consuming 46.7 million bushels per year of their oat production, out of a total (source) out of a production of 170.7 million bushels per year (source). There are 32lbs of oats in a bushel, which means Britain would have 92lbs of oats per capita a year in 1917. Any significant increases in oat consumption will have serious consequences on livestock nutrition. The British would have to eat 3.3 pounds of oats per week instead of increasing wheat consumption to make up for the loss in American calories, and the supply of oats would last 28 days. Britain will run out of wheat in 38 days.
• Cattle: the modern steer has a dress weight of 714lbs (as you cited), however, the average British cattle has a dress weight of 510lbs in 1917 (source), very lean. Given an average of 63% yield dressed, and the 140 pound skeleton removed from the carcass, there's going to be a meat yield of 370lbs per cattle. At a 1000 calories per pound 85% lean, the slaughter of 2 million cattle would offset losses from the US for 4.4 days. Combined with oats, the British will run out of wheat in 43 days.

So now Britain has completely exhausted its supply of oats, wheat, chickens, and two million cattle, and its at 37 days.

Challenges to increasing imports from other nations and increasing food production

• All Allied nations, colonies, and many neutrals will be cut off from US supply, of which they'll have to make up from remaining stocks of food they have.
• Any increase in production in food crops would be seen at earliest in fall of 1917, with most of the increase well off in 1918.
• Any increased imports to Britain would be taking food out of other people's mouths, as all of this consumption would be historically accounted for. This problem would be especially aggravated in any Allied nations, colonies, or neutrals effectively embargoed that were importing food from the US.
• In addition to taking food out of other people's mouths, any hypothetical increased British imports from other countries would need to be transported to a port for shipping.
• British merchant ships would then need to make a round-trip journey of several weeks, and it would be folly to use oil-powered ones.
• It's a mistake to assume that if a given nation has X amount of production of food Y in a given year, that it's seasonally available, or 100% available at any given point in time, or if exported that it wouldn't cause starvation before a future harvest in given nation.
• France, Italy, and Japan, as well as neutral nations in Europe effectively embargoed are going to be hit hard and are going to compete for exports from other nations.
• Food prices were reaching record and rather extreme highs in 1917. Now they're going to be rocketing in price further, and Britain does not have the credit to pay for much if anything at all.
• For the Rhodesian beef example, the cattle are going to have to be brought to Cape Town and slaughtered, or have their meat shipped there in refrigerated rail cars. The meat will have to be loaded onto refrigerator ships (of which there won't be enough) that have to make a journey to get there, and a journey to get back. This isn't logistically possible on a time-frame of several weeks. A miniscule proportion, if any, will reach Britain in time.
• In 1917, US food imports were $679 million, while exports were $1529 million. Instead of freeing up imports destined to the US to instead go to Britain (e.g. South Africa), there is going as much as a net 70% loss in the balance of imports and exports, further increasing internal demand in other countries on their own existing food supplies.
• To repeat the first point, any food imported from other nations would be taking out of the mouths of others, as all the consumption of all production would have been historically accounted for.

British Oil Stocks

• In May 1917, the oil consumption of patrolling waters off Britain was 7 million barrels per month (source).
• In May 1917, total stocks of oil in the entirety of Great Britain were 900,000 tons, or 5.85 million barrels (^)
• If used for naval patrol of domestic waters alone, 25 days supply.
• If used for a trans-Atlantic naval operation, much less.
• Due to difficulties in the scant oil supply, "the fleet was unable to exercise properly." (^).
• If they're unable to exercise properly, one can only imagine the difficulties in a trans-Atlantic campaign.
• Every Royal Navy destroyer built since 1905 (except for 16 Beagle class) were oil-burning. Dreadnoughts lose on average 35% of their range unless they have oil.

Logistical Circumstances of Importing from the East

• Most of the ships are going to be in the North Atlantic, with many seized in US ports, and would need to be gathered up beforehand.
• There would have to be enough fuel along the way - which would involve sending hundreds if not a thousand or more colliers out in advance to stock up various fueling stations at Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria, Aden, Oman, Bombay, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai to handle 3-5 times normal shipping tonnage.
• None of these ships could be oil powered - there just isn't any oil to fuel them.
• A fast convoy in World War II would take 15 days to reach Britain from Halifax. At that speed, it would take 20 days to reach the Suez Canal from Britain.
• After that, they have to reach India or China, which lie at distances of 2.5 to over 4 times greater than the trans-Atlantic crossing from Britain.
• The food would need to be brought to port to be able to ship it.
• After they return to the Mediterranean from India or China, it would be 20 more days in a convoy back to Britain.
• To give an idea of the sheer scale involved, the British would need the cargo capacity of 115,000 C-130 cargo planes making one round-trip flight per day each to bring in enough grain to offset wheat from North America alone.

We're talking three to five months before the food shortage would really start to begin to have been partially relieved.

Ship Seizure Disparity and Trade Imbalances (source)

• In 1917, 20.7 million tons of Allied shipping were cleared at US ports.
• In 1917, 11.3 million tons of American shipping were cleared at US ports.
• Britain imported $2 billion from the US in 1917, while the US imported imported $300 million from Britain. Full ships in American ports, empty ones in Allied.
• American shipping is coming and going from across the entire world, not just Allied countries.

The logistics involved in the time-frame necessary make this strategy impossible.

I really can't see how this operation could be successful with less than 28 days before starvation sets in en masse, and a 25 day supply of oil suitable for patrolling duties near Britain.

I still think Britain sues for peace, screws over France, and maintains for the vast part a status quo antebellum. With your strategy, the US only has to wait 4 weeks until the bankrupt British completely collapse. Meanwhile, a lot of things are going to go badly within that four weeks if they decide not to hang their hat up right away. Of course, they'll start collapsing the first day - four weeks maximum to complete collapse.

What happened with the maps of US shallow waters denying Z's ships to bombard US cities?