| RMS Titanic and RMS Lusitania | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 22 2014, 09:45 PM (342 Views) | |
| Vonar Roberts | Mar 22 2014, 09:45 PM Post #1 |
|
So several questions for the members of the community. 1: What happens if RMS Titanic is not sunk on her maiden voyage and continues in service? 2: What happens to the first world war if RMS Lusitania is not sunk, and the United States does not declare war? - the British were in serious financial troubles, and American entry into the war was a bit of a godsend to them. Is the sinking of the RMS Lusitania the turning point for the allies in the conflict? |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Mar 22 2014, 10:09 PM Post #2 |
|
Well, as to 2, the Lusitania was, if anything, the straw that broke the camels back, that is to say, it was just the last in a string of run-ins with Germany, so eliminating that only would probably make little difference, in the long run, something else would happen. As to finance, they'd probably just keep loaning Britain money, or letting them purchase on credit, I don't think their direct involvement in the war was what enabled that. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Mar 22 2014, 10:24 PM Post #3 |
|
Based on my understanding of things wartime loans up to 1917, in particular loans to the British by America or American banks were covered with British collateral stateside. Up to 1917 the British had plenty of collateral to secure loans from America. After that they had no collateral which would have made securing loans to pay for wartime needs much more difficult. If RMS Lusitania is not sunk could it be safe to assume that the allies would half to default on existing obligations or cut back on wartime expenditures because American bank's won't give them loans without collateral? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 23 2014, 02:38 AM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The British would carry on, but it would have a greater impact on Russia, Italy and France which relied on British loans and capital to a large extent. It isn't the silver bullet that some portray it as. The British still had collateral; up until late 1916, they had been getting unsecured loans. Lusitania was a trigger, not the trigger. If it had not been sunk, another event would have been found. Titanic would probably continue on and then be sunk in WW1 or scrapped in the early 1930s. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 23 2014, 11:17 AM Post #5 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I wouldn't say the Lusitania was the straw that broke the camel's back, if only because it wasn't the last provocation and did not lead to immediate intervention. It was clearly a turning point in popular opinion, but other factors were at play. The end came when the Germans abandoned any pretense of abiding by neutrality rules and tried to instigate Mexico, with the suggestion of bringing Japan onside as well. At that point it was clear the United States could not avoid a fight even if it wanted to. |
![]() |
|
| John | Mar 23 2014, 02:51 PM Post #6 |
|
I feel as though the Lusitania issue has been adequately addressed. As for the Titanic, the important changes in history would have been in transportation safety. None of the regulations that followed largely due the accident would have occurred, which would have had a dramatic impact upon ocean-going vessels during the war. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 24 2014, 01:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Why do you say Titanic would have been scrapped in the early 1930s? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 24 2014, 09:40 PM Post #8 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
All of the other pre-Great War superliners that survived were scrapped around then, such as Mauretania and her sister ship Olympic. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Mar 24 2014, 09:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Perhaps the addition of steam turbines might make its continued service more economical.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 24 2014, 09:50 PM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It was further due to the impact of the Depression on shipping companies, with the merger of Cunard and White Star and all funds being channelled towards Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. In a different situation, the ships kick on for a bit. |
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | Mar 25 2014, 02:36 AM Post #11 |
|
Yeah, the depression would have been what killed the great liners. What kind of cultural and social butterflies would no Titanic disaster have generated? Beyond the obvious safety standards which probably would have been addressed in World War One. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 25 2014, 08:45 AM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
There would be a few notables of the Gilded Age around for longer, such as Astor, and there is always the possibility one of the unknown dead could have turned out to be something much more in their life, or their child. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |






8:39 AM Jul 11