To what degree did British naval superiority cause the victory of WWI?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,631
SoCal
Do you know if Britain's blockade of Germany was legal or not?
That I don't know.

Wasn't Germany also trying to blockade Britain?
AFAIK, they were trying to starve out Britain using USW, but how could they have blockaded Britain when their navy was so much weaker than Britain's and when the bases of their navy are located very far away from the locations that German ships would have to be in if they would have actually wanted to blockade Britain?

Britain's geography and more powerful navy both worked in its favor in WWI. Germany thus had to retaliate through unconventional means such as USW.

Would the Zimmerman telegram have been enough to get the U.S.A. involved in WWI?
Probably not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,631
SoCal
Both sides intended to make the loser pay reparations. These reparations would have repaid the war debt. Had America extended credit to both sides of the war, half of their debts would have defaulted. By only lending to one side, the US had a vested interest in Allied victory. But it was also all or nothing in terms of whether the loans would be repaid or not.
What about not making loans to anyone during WWI just to be safe?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,469
Could Germany have taken out loans?
This is my understanding anyone who knows it better feel free to correct.

The USA did not loan any money to the entente till after the US Entry into the war,
Such loans as the Entente raised in the US were with private banks on a strct commercial secured basis, required US assets to back those loans (of which Britain large amounts)

The British Government would compulsorily acquire American share stock held by British Citizens compensated them with War Bonds, it would then raise commerical loans on wall st backed by those stocks. JP Morgan acted as the British agent for most of this. These loans would them be used to found purchurses of stuff in the USA. JP Morgan getting his percentage on both sale and purchase.

Germany did have similar stocks but a much less. As Britian was buying all it could , pretty much all aviailoble thngs teh Germans and Birtish would be in buying war. As both would be seeking ti import much the same things. They would them need shipping,

In the Absecnce of a sea blockade/u -boat cmapaign I suspect the dominions would do better out of the war (and maybe South America) with more shipping available to cover the longer hauls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,469
Do you know if Britain's blockade of Germany was legal or not? Wasn't Germany also trying to blockade Britain? Would the Zimmerman telegram have been enough to get the U.S.A. involved in WWI?
Legal-ish. Powers were allowed to blockade ports and confiscate "contraband". The British were implementing a pretty distant blockade sea regions rather than the ports and as the war went on increasingly labelled almost everythng as "contraband".

Generally international agreement was the Hague conventions 1899-1907 but the British did not ratify the naval blockade stuff of 1907 but were govern by the first Geneva convention of 1864.

Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - Wikipedia
First Geneva Convention - Wikipedia
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,442
Dispargum
What about not making loans to anyone during WWI just to be safe?
That's not the American way. The Americans extended credit so that the Europeans could buy American goods, especially munitions but other things, too. In wartime almost everything is needed - fuel to run military vehicles, cloth for uniforms and tents, food to feed the armies, horses for cavalry, artillery, and supply wagons, the list goes on. If the Americans hadn't extended credit, the Europeans couldn't buy, and Americans will never pass up a profit opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,469
That's not the American way. The Americans extended credit so that the Europeans could buy American goods, especially munitions but other things, too. In wartime almost everything is needed - fuel to run military vehicles, cloth for uniforms and tents, food to feed the armies, horses for cavalry, artillery, and supply wagons, the list goes on. If the Americans hadn't extended credit, the Europeans couldn't buy, and Americans will never pass up a profit opportunity.
My understanding is creidt was only exteneded AFTER the US declared war. Beforehand it was all comerical loans at banks, and they would not do so with out something backing those loans. (Generally British owned assets in the USA)

The Germans did some limited trading with the USA. While neutral the US was perfectly happy to sell to the Germans

Merchant submarine - Wikipedia
German submarine Deutschland - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
4,955
Iowa USA
My understanding is creidt was only exteneded AFTER the US declared war. Beforehand it was all comerical loans at banks, and they would not do so with out something backing those loans. (Generally British owned assets in the USA)

The Germans did some limited trading with the USA. While neutral the US was perfectly happy to sell to the Germans

Merchant submarine - Wikipedia
German submarine Deutschland - Wikipedia
Interesting topic for sure.

(I believe our public education in the USA is designed to downplay the importance of figures such as Morgan, but thanks for links should be some good references for further reading.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist