What if the Lusitania had not been sunk?

What if the Lusitania had not been sunk, propelling the US into WW I ? I believe that the sinking of the Lusitania was one of the two early events that pushed America onto the larger geo-political world stage. Prior to this event, Americans had been waffling as to wether be pro- Allied or German. After this event, the United States and the British became much closer.
I believe that if the Lusitania had not been sunk, Wilson could not have garnered enough support to enter the Great War. This then leads to two questions which greatly affect the world afterwards:
1) The Allies would still have won, but could they have received the demands they did at Versailles? Would the new peace accord have decimated the post-Great War Germany as much as the treaty of Versailles?
2) Would as forward a thinker as FDR been elected? As a Wilsonite, he was brought to the larger American stage by WW I. And without FDR, the entire course of the world would be different.

 

What other big liners had been sunk before? This was the drop that tipped the cup, the cup was full enough already...

 

None that I am aware of. The other geo-political event I was thinking of was the Spanish American War.

These are what made America into a world player

 

Without the US entering the war I would think the likely outcome would be a stalemate and negotiated peace on more favorable terms to the Germans. Germany had knocked Russia out of the war. Then Italy collapsed. The Germans then launched the Kaiserschlact offensive(s) against Britain and France. Britain took the brunt of these offensives. France was in poor shape to go on a large scale sustained offensive. Without US intervention the British and French likely would have had to settle for some sort of peace as both sides were now pretty much on their last legs. Yes, the Allies were in better shape but without the US many of the offensives of 1918 would not have been possible. Without these Germany would not have collapsed morally.
Thus, this outcome would not have had the onerous Versailles Treaty as an outcome. Hilter likely would not come to power, although there is still some chance this might happen in the economic collapse that occurs in the early 30's.
The US military would have languished instead of having an unprecedented buildup that historically occured. I would think that the lack of war experiance would have left the Army the historical pariah it was while the Navy might have still built up post war to some strength as it was less constrained by law.

2) Would as forward a thinker as FDR been elected? As a Wilsonite, he was brought to the larger American stage by WW I. And without FDR, the entire course of the world would be different.[/QUOTE]

First off, the League of Nations would have been still born and Wilson would have had no influence in Europe whatsoever. FDR likely would still get elected as the economic collapse in the US was not primarily a function of WW 1 like it was in Europe. In the 30's the two economies were less interconnected than they are today.
Socialism would still have had its heyday in Europe on the heels of the economic hardship that the war brought on the peace that followed. Some other possibilities are that Germany holds onto much of the territory they gained in the East outside Russia proper. The Czech Republic and Poland never get formed but instead remain part of a German empire. Austria-Hungary likewise remains a tenious empire instead of being broken up. Without Versailles these are very possible outcomes.
This would have made Germany by 1940 much more powerful while Austria-Hungary would be undergoing local revolts and internal political turmoil that could have resulted in Hitler ending up in power there rather than in postwar Germany. He is Austrian after all.

Well, there are some interesting possibilities to debate.

 

McMark, I think you are putting too much weight on the Lusitania here, she was sunk early on in the war years, and ignored as "la raison d’être" for war being declared by the US. Since it was on May 7th, 1915 that the Cunard Royal Mail Ship (RMS) Lusitania was sunk by the U-Boat with heavy loss of life (1,198) including 139 Americans, and it was TWENTY THREE MONTHS later; April 6th of 1917, when the United States declares war on Germany.

There were more important events after her sinking, although the Lusitania’s loss was one of the "straws on the camel’s back", she didn't break it. She was sunk while Germany was using "unrestricted" U-boat attacks, her demise and two other passenger ships being sunk by U-boats caused such an outrage globally that Germany dropped that policy for the year between early 1916 and when unrestricted U-boat war was re-announced in Jan. of 1917.


That policy coupled with the Zimmerman note to Mexico were the driving factors for Wilson’s going to Congress and asking for a war declaration in April. Not the RMS Lusitania, not the later RMS Arabic in August of 1915, again with American casualties (3 this time), or when in March of 1916 the French cross-channel ferry Sussex was also attacked with another 25 American casualties.

The White Star line giants, Olympic and Britannic were in service during WW1, Britannic was converted into a hospital ship and sunk in the Mediterranean (by mine ?) while Olympic survived WW1 . Of course Titanic had "kissed" an iceberg on her maiden voyage and was long gone. The three giant Cunard liners, Lusitania, Mauritania, and Aquitania were listed in Jane’s as Armed Merchant Cruisers, so the sinking of Lusitania was likely "legal" even if a bit dastardly and/or dispicable.

As to whether or not the Treaty of Versailles would have been as it was, it was probably Wilson’s influence that kept it as mild as it was, and Wilson still thought it was too harsh. BTW, the policy of war reparations were the norm, not the exception, and those demanded of Germany were less draconian than those the Germans had imposed on the French after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71.

The French paid their reparations on time in gold even though the entire war had been fought on French soil and the new Unified German nation suffered almost NO damage to itself from the war. There was NO WAY the French weren’t going to demand the reparations this time as they were on the side of the winners. The French were without doubt going to demand reparation money, and so that would have been there no matter who was at the table setting up the Treaty terms. And don’t forget that the borders which came into being after WW1 had been unilaterally claimed by the respective nations while the Treaty was still being finalized, the Treaty of Versailles recognized the borders claimed, it didn’t establish them.


The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in the process of "tearing itself apart" before WW1, the war was simply the end of the suspense. The Ottoman Empire was a barely an empire anymore, and would have probably fallen apart with or without their joining the Central Powers in WW1.

As to Franklin Roosevelt, FDR was going to get into national politics whether or not he was Wilson’s Assistant Secretary of the Navy (just like his distant cousin Teddy) since he had also followed T.R. into the governors mansion in Albany in 1928, if polio wasn’t going to stop him in the early twenties, nothing else would either. FDR also imitated his cousin Teddy in labor reform, public works spending, government sponsered old age pensions, while still governor of NY before he became President. So let’s see, Wilson would still be President as he was historically, the Lusitania wouldn’t be any more important than she was historically, the Versailles Treaty may have been more harsh without Wilson’s calming effect.

The "roaring Twenties" would probably still happen in America as they did historically as America would have made beucoup bucks selling arms and stuff to the warring factions. We would have sold to Germany as well if she could have gotten to America for the material, we never embargoed them in WW1 until we declared war in 1917. They even got that giant U-boat over here and filled it full of stuff for the return trip to Germany running the British blockade, and we (America) were more than willing to sell them the goods, we just wouldn’t ship to Europe in our own hulls. This period of excess financial spending would have still brought on the Great Depression (probably just as historically), and Germany was actually in better shape before the Wall Street Crash than most of the rest of Europe, their unemployment was in the single digits, and their hyper-inflation had been completely controlled by 1923/24 (I think) and the Dawes Plan.

I just don't think the sinking of the Lusitania was a tipping or "trigger" point. One of many actions which cast the Germans in less than a favorable light in America of course. Even though the Germans were one of the largest groups of Americans by heritage, they (as a European group) were suspect through most all of America's young history.

Some Germans hired themselves out to fight for the British in our War of Independence (Hessians), they also trained and supplied both the Mexicans when America fought Mexico in the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish when the Spanish-American War broke out.

 

Thank you both for the well-thought responses. I guess I had gotten mixed up on the time-line of the Lusitania sinking, and forgotten about the Mexican letter. The points about Austria-Hungary I would never had thought about.

 

McMark, here is a great link to a set of State Dept. documents especially concerning the Dawes Plan. But also sublinked to the Paris Peace Conference (Versailles), and other facets of this period of time.

The Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, German Reparations, and Inter-allied War Debts

Makes for interesting reading.

 

The American were at a crossroads with The Great War and yes as a result of the sinking of the Lusitania was one of the catalysts for American Involement in WW1 but let us not forget that the Lusitania was essentially a gun runner for the Americans supplying Britain and Germany was well justified to sink her, after all if we use the modern day excuse that the Israeliis use and that is Germany was defending herself and that America was using passenger ships with their human cargo as human shields.

Morally the Americans can claim no high ground on this, they deliberately used civillian ships for military purposes, the only way that America would involve itself in other peoples wars was to have something done to it and the Lusitania was the American WW1 answer to Pearl Harbour or should that be Pearl Harbour was America's WW2 answer to the Lusitania.

America was desperate to get into WW1 but sat on their hands in 1914, 1915, 1916 and a bulk of 1917, Britain was also desperate to get the Americans involved she could not defeat Germany without the influx of several million new troops and that America could supply and the equipment and supplies for her own army.

One aspect of America's influence post war would be nadda had she had not gotten involved she would have been condemned by the western alliances for doing nothing she would be seen as a cowardice nation, no American involement in WW1 for lack of a better wording was pure politcal postioning in world affairs, America wanted and needed to claim some relevence in post WW1 or she would be further isolated.

v.R