Could we get an Entente victory without the US with this PoD?

[raharris1973]

The US falls into a significant economic catastrophe due to leaving the New York stock exchange open in 1914 would both keep the us out of the war (due to the Entente being seen as both causing said economic collapse as well as profiting from it) and allow the Ententes collateral to last a lot longer thanks to a better negotiation position.

Basically in 1914 British and French drawdowns of funds invested in the US (which were halted by a brief financial freeze in OTL) continue and throw the US into Depression, while boosting Entente financial reserves early in the war.

When the Entente needs to source American raw materials, they are cheaper than OTL because of Depression/deflation in the USA.

US exporters, in a Depression economy, will take any sale they can get, so they will see Entente orders as a relief.

The Entente will take longer to fall into debt to the US and can secure eventual loans off higher value collateral, and sell collateral off more slowly through 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 if needed.

Owing to the 1914 war caused recession, that isn’t over by 1916, Wilson loses. But knowing involvement in the war isn’t popular, Republicans don’t run on that platform. Maybe Hughes wins or maybe Hiram whatzisname the progressive governor of California.

During the Depression the US passes ‘travel at your own risk’ legislation which lowers the temperature on the U boat issue with Germany. Because first Wilson and then his successor are less confrontational about U boats the Germans don’t write off US neutrality, and decide against unrestricted sub warfare against neutral and US ships.

The Germans still drive the Russians out of the war by the end of 1917. But the Germans are starving of blockade and have to quit in late 1918 or 1919, on terms similar to OTL’s armistice.

 

[WolfBear]

What if, in order to avoid losing the war in this TL, the Germans decide to strip Eastern Europe of much more of its food in a Nazi-style manner, deciding that if Eastern Europeans starve en masse as a result of this, then it's the Western Allies' fault rather than their own fault for attempting to starve them (as in, the Germans) out?

 

[raharris1973]

What if, in order to avoid losing the war in this TL, the Germans decide to strip Eastern Europe of much more of its food in a Nazi-style manner, deciding that if Eastern Europeans starve en masse as a result of this, then it's the Western Allies' fault rather than their own fault for attempting to starve them (as in, the Germans) out?

The Eastern Europeans have famine. And, it either wins the Germans the war, or it doesn't. It depends on the Germans being able to move food in sufficient quantity from the east to German civilians and workers in Germany and to its soldiers on the western front, not just into the tummies of soldiers at the point of acquisition in the east.

 

[WolfBear]

The Eastern Europeans have famine. And, it either wins the Germans the war, or it doesn't. It depends on the Germans being able to move food in sufficient quantity from the east to German civilians and workers in Germany and to its soldiers on the western front, not just into the tummies of soldiers at the point of acquisition in the east.

Yes, but the Germans had good logistics, did they not?

 

[PsihoKekec]

In the occupied east they didn't. Basically they didn't capture enough of rolling stock for Russian gauge railway and they didn't try to regauge the network.

 

[bintananth]

Keeping the NYSE open instead of halting it wouldn't have changed much.

If anything, it would have brought the US into the war sooner because the panic selling by Europeans would have made US exports less expensive.

Remember: the US basically wrote the Allied cheque for both WWI and WWII with a "don't worry, we've got this" in the FOR line.