The Pacific Purchase of 1914

What if, immediately upon the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914, the US became interested in the fate of the German Pacific colonies, and decided that US interests would best be served by acquisition of a large part of the German Pacific as a link in the chain of US defenses between Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and the Philippines. The prospect of Japan acquiring the territory is distateful, both threatening supply lines to the Philippines and uncomfortably tangling US-Japanese security interests. The prospect a Germany that wins in Europe retaining those islands is also frightening, leaving it hypothetically with central Pacific bases along with West European and Atlantic bases. And American possession is still better than possession by the UK.

President Wilson therefore makes a bid to purchase German Pacific territories. (Interestingly during WWI Wilson purchased the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean from Denmark for security reasons). The maximum purchase would be for everything except Tsingtao. The minimum purchase would require the US to get the Palaus, the Carolines and the Marshalls, providing the island chain connector between Hawaii, Wake, Guam and the Philippines (and leaving the Marianas, New Guinea, Samoa and Nauru for the Germans to fight over with the Japanese, Australians and New Zealanders).

In the face of criticism, Wilson could definitely cite the Jeffersonian precedent of the Louisiana Purchase. Maybe the Kaiser is a bad guy, but Jefferson bought territory from Napoleon.

wison calls in the German ambasasador. He proposes that the US purchase
German possessions in the Pacific that are not yet occupied by Allied
forces. "You are in quite a fix in the Pacific, sir, just like Napoleon
was with an indefensible Louisiana in 1803, you will shortly lose your
Pacific Empire to the Japanese and Australians and New Zealanders, or
you can sell them to the US and at least get paid for them and deny them
to your enemies. Time is of the essence, you will soon be in no
position to get this deal. You may win the war in France next week, but
disgorging territory from the Japanese and Australians will, and I think
you and I are in agreement here, be very challenging."


The Germans mull it over and accept the offer. The details are then
worked out. The minimum purchase will be the Palaus, Carolines and
Marshalls, providing an uninterrupted chain of bases between Hawaii and
the Philippines. The Marianas, and German territories south of the
Equator may be left out because the Allies could occupy them within
days. The Japanese campaign in Micronesia in OTL did not start until
October, the Australian campaign in New Guinea started in September.
Alternatively, the purchase could include the Marianas, the Bismarcks
and Nauru if the deal is concluded early enough. The Germans are no
longer in any position to sell Samoa or Tsingtao of course, and the fate
of northern New Guinea is pretty predictably in Australia's hands, so Wilson
probably won't want to mess with it, although the Bismarck Archipelago may be an option.

Other details to be worked out include amount and form of US payment. What's a reasonable price?

How would payment be arranged and get around the British blockade?

Preparation of the US Navy for occupying the new acquisition, and
deadlines for all German forces to vacate the premises.


The deal goes through.
The press in Allied countries criticize Wilson for doing business with the
"Huns", some elements of the US press also denounce the deal. Some think we are acquiring worthless territory, other see merit to the purchase.
The Hearst Press, generally in favor of activisim in the Pacific and
isolationism in Europe, applauds the deal.

Australia and Japan are the most miffed, but they know they cannot
interfere with the implementation of the agreement without great risk.

What are the long-term effects?

Will it affect the likelihood of the US getting in to war with Germany?

Britain is displeased, but cannot do anything about it-----or at least would get more trouble than it wants if it tries. German ships in the Pacific may need
to skedaddle from the region faster.


Whether or not the US does get into the war, on the Allied side of
course, the Japanese will be more insistent on holding on to Tsingtao (which they agreed to relinquish in 1922 in OTL), and may even be more strident about the 21 demands on China.

Holding on to Tsingtao can affect the Japanese reaction to the rise of the Chinese Nationalists in the late 20s, or change the specifics of Japanese expansion in China in the 30s.

--Could we possibly get a "Tsingtao Army" playing a similar role to OTL's "Kwangtung Army"? With its center of interest in Shantung so much closer to the Yangtze delta, does this make fullscale Sino-Japanese warfare likely by the late 20s or early 30s (especially if the GMD's northern expedition is not butterflied away)? Hmm, voracious wartime demand for imports in Japan and China prevent the Depression from getting as deep?


The many actual and potential bases in US controlled Micronesia
will greatly complicate any Japanese planning for war with the United
States.

Japan will be both more threatened by the US but, lacking so many of its island bases as a buffer zone, would probably be more deterred.



Later historians, except for die-hard anti-colonialists, may praise wilson's
decision as a 20th Century version of the Louisiana Purchase.

----------------Does this concept founder upon anything you can think of? I'm wondering if there would be time for the deal.

In theory, the idea of a colonial power that will fight Britain, anticipating that development and selling off indefensible colonies sounds like a good one. Yet, as far as I know, Napoleon is the only guy who ever pulled that off, because he managed the Louisiana purchase before he was actually at war with Britain but when he anticipated it was inevitable.

Could we get other examples of the colonial sell-off? Could we get the Germans interested in selling their African empire or their Pacific empire, and get neutrals like the Dutch, Italians, Swedes, Danes, Americans, or Japanese (before their declaration of war) interested in buying? The Germans naturally wanted to expand but might figure their distant colonies are doomed to fall to the commonwealth while if victorious Germany could compensate itself with nearer colonies.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Except in the case of the US buying them, I don't think the UK or France would just sit back and watch other colonies fall away. If Japan or the Netherlands or who ever tries to get German Afrika colonies, the purchase will be halted by the Commonwealth.
 
An interesting question would be what would happen if after the U.S. purchases a territory and before the German garrison hands over control, the territory is occupied by Australia or Japan. Would those countries be willing to hand over territory they had paid blood to get? Would the U.S. be willing to fight to get what they paid for? Australia or Britain would probably be willing to hand over control in order to curry favor with the Americans but I wonder about Japan.
 

MrP

Banned
Were the Germans this defeatist so soon? Once you reach the Marne and the Schlieffen Plan is buggered, then it makes sense to dump the colonies. But at the war's very opening, the General Staff is planning for a six week conquest of France and then a massive swing back across Germany to take out the Russians. Given the Kaiser, I think he might get very uppity about such an offer at the start of war, and say something . . . ill-advised in response - possibly so ill-advised that he gives the USA a casus belli for a very limited Pacific War to seize the islands without paying for them.
 
Were the Germans this defeatist so soon?

I don't think so.

Once you reach the Marne and the Schlieffen Plan is buggered, then it makes sense to dump the colonies. But at the war's very opening, the General Staff is planning for a six week conquest of France and then a massive swing back across Germany to take out the Russians.

Yeah, it's pretty early for this. However, even at the beginning of the war, it was quite clear that all colonies will be lost to occupation quite soon. And as soon as the war is over (before christmas...:rolleyes:), everything the French and British possess would be open for German annexation, at least following the plans of the General staff. So why not sell some of the minor colonies to the US, avoid fighting, and lateron get something British or French in exchange for this?
 

MrP

Banned
Yeah, it's pretty early for this. However, even at the beginning of the war, it was quite clear that all colonies will be lost to occupation quite soon. And as soon as the war is over (before christmas...:rolleyes:), everything the French and British possess would be open for German annexation, at least following the plans of the General staff. So why not sell some of the minor colonies to the US, avoid fighting, and lateron get something British or French in exchange for this?

I dunno. It'd indicate a less than complete confidence in one's military to the citizenry. Obviously, nobody can hold onto those islands - but it's the principle of the thing - i.e. mild idiocy. ;) If they can crush France in 6 weeks - as they planned - then there's no need to lose the islands, as they can augment them with ceded French colonies like Indochina.

What were the German plans for the various French colonies, btw?
 
There's also the minor detail that anti-colonialism was strong enough in the US at this point that even the racist Woodrow Wilson would soon be making negotiations for gradual Philipino independence. The US had moved into corporate colonialism (using cultural/economic dominance enforced by the Big Stick rarely needed) shortly after the Philipino insurgency was mostly quelled. An actual colony would be about as politically possible as Britain changing its entire grand strategy in Europe. IE, not likely.

Now, something else might appear, but not outright colonialism.
 
Well, we are not really talking about colonies, but more in the line of military bases, coaling stations, etc. We are talking a few island chains, not major colonies, islands that the Germans really have no use for without major colonies in the Pacific. The sale would not involve much population transfer.
 
Well, we are not really talking about colonies, but more in the line of military bases, coaling stations, etc. We are talking a few island chains, not major colonies, islands that the Germans really have no use for without major colonies in the Pacific. The sale would not involve much population transfer.

and the US has use for these islands why? Guam and Wake in the age of Steam are not enough in the way of way stations across the Pacific to the Phillipines and China. Is this worth risking the Ire of the Entente powers.

They will after all quite rightly interpret this as materially aiding the War effort of the Central powers and by extension damaging theirs. If Paris and London are not downright yelling at the American Ambassadors (in most diplomatic language of course, or perhaps not...after all for the Americans to even think of such a proposal speaks of idiocy really). They would be urged quite stridently to withdraw their offer because it was tantamount to a declaration of war on the Entente, and if not most definitely an unfriendly act.

No the US will not enter the War after this gaff...thats a certainty. Relations between the Entente powers and the US will be decidedly "Frosty" for some time. Besides, I don't think the US could really decide to purchase once war has been declared. They would be legitimate targets of the Entente powers. A US purchase would be depriving them of those legitimate goals that they themself might wish to use as bargaining chips themselves. This would be a diplomatic Faux-pas of great magnitude. I doubt any would out right declare War on the US over it, but it will definitely colour the Trans-Atlantic relationship for some time. There will be a greater rivalry between the US and the European powers in the postwar ( Germany will still be defeated, but on more even terms, so that is not really a bad thing really). Repayment of the Wartime loans will probably be affected as well with the Entente allies stalling almost certainly because of their Frosty relationship with the US. there isn't likely to be a Washington Naval treaty...but then Britain is anot likely to be in a position to keep up anyway because of finances and will fall behind the US in its absence. Japan won't have any limitations.

And the Japanese view of China could definitely be affected as well in the postwar..Does this affect their contribution to the War efforts of the Entente.

If the US has taken up such a Pacific striding position they will want to entrench their position as well as much as possible...and the Anglo-Japanese treaty no doubt is renewed as well. Will this keep Japan from sliding into the arms of the military... hard to say...But the IJN will have a much bigger voice if they do.
 
The US committed faux pas

and made overly grand gestures at multiple points when it thought it could get away with it. The Louisiana Purchase (which the UK held illegal mind you) and the Monroe Doctrine being two of the more famous examples.

If the Entente react with anything more than the mildest complaints, they are, for lack of a better word, fucking themselves over in the long run, and I think many of the leading minds of the Entente would see that (Kitchener for one).

Declaring war over this would be the height of folly. Threatening war, making any of the US leadership feel humiliated, in order to cause a retraction would be nearly as dumb - and not worth it.

The most a wise Entente leader would do would be to cite the un-neutral precedent when justifying the blockade of Europe against American complaints.

If the Entente does either of these, no American loans for them, and the US would spend more building up its own forces than selling to the Entente.

I can certainly accept this "(Germany will still be defeated, but on more even terms, so that is not really a bad thing really)." as being a possibility if the only difference is no US entry into the war...though one can debate that proposition.

But the idea that Entente can win minus US loans and minus US entry does not wash.

Again - as for the motive, the idea is to keep the US and Japanese possessions disentangled. There's been orange planning since 1897 by this point.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
If the US offered to buy anywhere IMHO it would be Samoa - Germany and the USA almost went to war there in the late 19th century and of the German colonies its the one most resented in the US. Of course, that might make it harder for the Germans to stomache the sale, but on the other hand it might make them see sense

But I would think that the Americans might have to offer something other than money, for it to seem worthwhile...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

The Sandman

Banned
Well, after the war the Japanese probably say "buzz off" when the Americans ask them to leave Siberia; without any German colonies to add besides, maybe, the treaty ports in China, the Japanese government would want to get something out of the war.

The other question, though, is what would the Germans do with the cash? Would it have any noticeable impact on their war effort?
 

MrP

Banned
Well, after the war the Japanese probably say "buzz off" when the Americans ask them to leave Siberia; without any German colonies to add besides, maybe, the treaty ports in China, the Japanese government would want to get something out of the war.

The other question, though, is what would the Germans do with the cash? Would it have any noticeable impact on their war effort?

I don't see that there's anything they can do in terms of buying war materiel from the USA. Instead, it'd be poured back into the US market in propaganda to counter Entente propaganda. Assuming any of this could happen, which I still regard with considerable scepticism.
 
MrP, let me clarify

I believe that with just US loans and material support, but not combat participation, the allies can still win.

I believe that with US combat participation in Europe, but without loans (which I can't imagine happening), the allies can still win.

I believe that an entente without any US loans for the duration, cannot win, and allied exhaustion may become apparent to all by 1917.

Has a thread ever argued that, all operational choices being equal (no allied luck in 1914 or 1915 beyond OTL's), that the allies could win a long war without any US subsidy whatsoever?

Harshing on the US in as vehement terms as Aurora Borealis describes it in his post is the kind of thing to endanger US subsdidies, and quite possibly part of the arms trade.
 
Good points all -

Hmm, keeping money in the US market for propaganda is a creative and possibly productive use for it.

Now getting war materiel, that is, weapons or ships, across for sale will be impossible. But I don't know if the UK had started blockading out things like cotton, food or fertilizer in the first six months of the war. In OTL at least, there was a tit for tat escalation of the submarine and surface embargoes, which consolidated the surface blockade in particular only in 1915.

In the early part of the war I'm also not sure how much this effected the reexport trade through Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

The other thing too, is I don't know how much US assets were invested in Germany in 1914, but possibly liquidating those would be more than a fair price. A bit into the war I know there was ever increasing economic control, where paper assets did not matter, but maybe in 1914 Germany was still doing some of its finances by free market rules and US desposits in German banks could have been handy buying up supplies from European neutrals, of which there were more in 1914 than 1917 (Italy, Romania among them). Gold payment might have been useful to.

Also I don't know if supply subs had been invented, but they could circumvent blockade.


---The Japanese reaction is among the most fascinating of all among the Entente. They may reeally be insistent on the 21 demands, which can force US-Entente tensions to greater levels unless the Entente disowns Japanese aspirations.

---Though unlikely, you could have a situation where either the Entente and Japan cooperate and the US is a hostile neutral, or the rest of the Entente is more placatory to the US, and Japan decides to switch sides once Russia weakens.

The Japanese might seek compensation elsewhere - Siam?

Look for bigger tensions over Siberia as you pointed out.

One step the Americans could try to take to mollify the Entente would be to insist that the purchase would be limited to the Marshalls, Caronlines and Palaus - the three island chains between Hawaii and the Philippines. This would deliberately leave out the Marianas, which throws Japan a bone and gives it a prize and security buffer, and the US could also leave out everything south of the Equator, so that New Zealand and Australia get all they got in OTL. Even in the most expansive version of the Pacific purchase, I think the US would want to completely stay out of New Guinea because of its larger, darker population and the borders it would give with other powers like the Dutch and Australians.

As Grey Wolf pointed out, Samoa might be the most desirable for the US, however, Samoa was the very first German Pacific territory seized, I think still in August 1914.

A Wilhelmian verbal outburst giving the US a casus belli? I highly doubt it...but stranger things have happened.

Anything go differently if we reverse the scenario---Wilhelm offers it to Wilson?
 
Don't assume Germans thought it would only take 6 weeks

this is actually now under dispute. more sources,including
Fromkin and these guys, say that Moltke expected a longer war, and
that the opening campaign was designed to seize key terrain for a war
that would last longer than a single campaign in the west.
Additionally, leaving the Netherlands out of the western campaign was
in part motivated as a measure to survive a blockade during a long
war

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.155?co...


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200106/ai_n8980084/print
 
I believe that an entente without any US loans for the duration, cannot win, and allied exhaustion may become apparent to all by 1917.

Its a possibility but I don't think a major one. After all Germany, without any access to foreign resources and with a significantly weaker financial system managed to last distinctly longer, despite less skilled economic leadership. Having the US to sell food and raw materials and also to provide loans is useful but I don't think essential. Even presuming the western allies don't avoid all the mistakes they made in the conflict they still have massive resources. It took extended near starvation, appalling government and military defeat to force Germany it her knees. I doubt if Britain and France would have been defeated by a lack of loans from the US.

Steve
 

MrP

Banned
Apparently its participation was not needed in either World War

Who argues that it wasn't needed in WWII? :confused:

Moreover, even if (as quite a few of us believe) American participation in WWI wasn't necessary for Allied victory, it was jolly handy for America, since it gave chaps like Patton and Eisenhower an idea of what the future held.
 
Top