AHC: The Most Plausible Way for United States to Join the Central Powers

[Rex Romanum]

So, what is the most plausible way to make United States join the Central Powers, and what would be the outcome of WWI in that condition...?
(yes, I'm too lazy to use search function... )

[yourworstnightmare]

Originally Posted by Rex Romanum

So, what is the most plausible way to make United States join the Central Powers, and what would be the outcome of WWI in that condition...?
(yes, I'm too lazy to use search function... )

Some pre- 1900 PoD that butterfly away the good US- British relations and make them fierce rivals instead. Relations SO bad, that the US are more leaning towards the dastardly Krautz (Even more German emigration to the US perhaps?).

[Emperor of Scandinavia]

How about this

Britain decides to formally recogonize the confereracy in 1862.
France formally follows.
Confederacy ultimately defeated in 1866 or 1867.
America is really pissed about British interference in american affairs.
U.S decides to actively fund and equip the Fenians in their invasions of canada.

this seems realistic, but its the best thing i can think of at the moment.

[NothingNow]

The Japanese accidentally invade Guam while trying to take the Northern Marianas islands from Germany in late 1914. the Entente is fucked, and the war ends by Christmas 1915, with the RN being destroyed in piecemeal, the IJN resting almost entirely at the bottom. Thus the resultant stresses on the British, French and Russian war machines are more than they could handle, resulting in revolution.

EDIT: Seriously, without the Japanese as an Active partner, and the Americans neutralized or friendly, the RN can't hold the Kaisermarine in harbor, or engage in a blockade, as there simply is too much for the force to do. Without the RN, the whole of the Entente battleplan (or the closest thing to it) utterly colapses.

[Beer]

Yup, the "confederacy-angle" is one of the best, there are some points in history more, which could sour US-GB relations, but open support for the South would piss off Washington most assuredly.
As for WW1: The US on the CP side is a sure CP victory. Without the money and supplies (and troops) from the United States the Entente got OTL, TTL they are doomed.

[Geekhis Khan]

Or TR is replaced ATL by someone just as loud-talking and jingoistic, but far less willing to meet behind closed doors to come to accomodations. Hence the Venesuelan affair and Alaskan border dispute go "hot". The war is brief and mostly confined to naval engagements and a few spradic border clashes, but its long term effect is to sour US-UK relations. US trade moves to Germany, which ATL becomes the primary US trade partner.

Come the Great War, whatever its ATL trigger/excuse, the US begins the war pro-CP. British "interference" with US shipping to Germany and some high-publisity border incidents eventually brings the US into the war. The North Atlantic turns hella-ugly, but how the US is going to get boots onto the continent until if/when the RN is supressed is anyone's guess.

[Mikestone8]

Delay the invention of the submarine by a generation or so.

Anglo-American relations were frequently very strained due to British blacklists and other blockade measures, and Colonel House, as intelligent and well-informed as anyione, expressed the opinion that hostilites would have been unavoidable had German u-boat outrages not caused even greater offence.

[Jim Smitty]

The best way for this to happen would be the UK and France to formally recogonize CSA and actively support them. This would piss everybody in Washington off, thn US those most of its trading with Germany and AH. Then when the war starts the US sends the Navy to allow its ships to kept trading with Germany. In 1915 their a naal battle beween the RN and USN. Some ships are lost on both sides, ut America cries out for war. The Us launches an invasion of Canada later the same year and out British outpost in the Western hemisphere, most likely taking Canada with in a year two on the outside. At the same the North Atlantic becomes a total mess, with battle between the USN and RN. The RN would lift is blockage of Germany and the German HSF sorites taking control of the North Sea. Britian become unable to feel her self a two after America enters the war and the Entente fold soon after.

Canada becomes a US territory, America also picks up a number of Carribean islands along with the Bahamas. Germany picks up some territory in France and Russia and maybe India, it depends on how badly the Entente is beat. Ah gets a foothood in Africa and the Ottomans pickes up Egypt. Most likely their still is a second world war but with some major changes, I dont see some or any naval treaties of the 20s happen and the war starts early most like md to late 30s. this is because the CP powers dont but the disarmemnt parts in its peace treaty to the level the Entente did. Again America enters the war late but again the CP win and they have a total surreneder of the Entente powers and divade their terriorty and totally disarm Russia, UK, France, and Japan.

[Beer]

Originally Posted by Geekhis Khan

Or TR is replaced ATL by someone just as loud-talking and jingoistic, but far less willing to meet behind closed doors to come to accomodations. Hence the Venesuelan affair and Alaskan border dispute go "hot". The war is brief and mostly confined to naval engagements and a few spradic border clashes, but its long term effect is to sour US-UK relations. US trade moves to Germany, which ATL becomes the primary US trade partner.

Come the Great War, whatever its ATL trigger/excuse, the US begins the war pro-CP. British "interference" with US shipping to Germany and some high-publisity border incidents eventually brings the US into the war. The North Atlantic turns hella-ugly, but how the US is going to get boots onto the continent until if/when the RN is supressed is anyone's guess.

Hi, Khan! It gets much more complicated for GB on the high seas. The HSF and the USN combined are roughly equal in numbers to the RN. Britain has to spread out more and open holes. In addition, German ships and U-Boote are able to operate out of US ports, cutting off Canada and interupt more of the british supply lines.
And what was even more important in WW1: Attrition. It was a war of attrition and OTL the CP lost only because they faded a bit faster than the Entente. The difference was made by the supplies and money (troops too, but to a far lesser extent, since most US troops saw few action) the Entente got from the US.
Most experts are sure had the CP been able to win in the east earlier and hitting the west in summer 1917, the CP would have won, since the materials and supplies the Entente needed/had to stop the spring offensive 1918 were not there at that time. In 1917 France was willing to throw the towel were it not for the supplies from the US. There was even a small window in 1918 where the CP with a bit more luck could have gotten the Entente to the green tables.
Now think about that these supplies TTL go to Germany and her allies. Even if only a trickle comes through by submarines for some years until the RN is finally beaten, a more important point is that Britain and France will never get the supplies they need to win against the Central Powers, since the supplier is on the German side TTL.

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

In a post-1900 POD, it's an ASB but before 1900, its plausible and the easiest way is to have the France and UK allied with the Confederates and when the Confederates wins, US will take a grunge against these nations.

[wcv215]

Originally Posted by Joseph Solis in Australia

In a post-1900 POD, it's an ASB but before 1900, its plausible and the easiest way is to have the France and UK allied with the Confederates and when the Confederates wins, US will take a grunge against these nations.

The Confederates don't even have to win. The Confederacy will probably still be crushed but relations will have soured. The United States moves closer to the other power in Europe, Germany, because Washington will still be pissed off at Britain and France.

[Geekhis Khan]

Originally Posted by Joseph Solis in Australia

In a post-1900 POD, it's an ASB but before 1900, its plausible and the easiest way is to have the France and UK allied with the Confederates and when the Confederates wins, US will take a grunge against these nations.

A post-1900 PoD isn't ASB by the scenario I mentioned. Have the US/UK differences over Alaska and Venesuela go hot and you have it.

Very improbable and requiring much more idiotically jingoistic responses to easily negotiated differences on both sides of the pond (with massive opposition by business interests on both sides), but a post-1900 PoD is *just* possible in 1900-1905.

[stevep]

Guys

In the event of Britain and France recognising the south in ~1861, then the question is what WWI? There's so many butterflies that you're highly unlikely to have anything that similar to OTL conflict.

Something post-1900 is possible but would need a significant change to break the strong trading and cultural links between Britain and the US. It's unlikely that an accidental clash would cause it and I very much doubt the IJN would attack the wrong island for instance.

Steve

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by stevep

Guys

In the event of Britain and France recognising the south in ~1861, then the question is what WWI? There's so many butterflies that you're highly unlikely to have anything that similar to OTL conflict.

Something post-1900 is possible but would need a significant change to break the strong trading and cultural links between Britain and the US. It's unlikely that an accidental clash would cause it and I very much doubt the IJN would attack the wrong island for instance.

Steve

Which is why the "Venezuelan border dispute goes hot" idea is probably the best, as it's close enough to OTL's WWI to not butterfly it or something very like it completely away.

[Tothlord]

One idea I've had to turn the U.S. from pro-UK to pro-German is to have the Lusitania suffer an accident in a U.S. port. The resulting clean up reveals the weapons the British were transporting in violation of U.S. neutrality. This and the number of Americans killed on the docks cause pro-UK papers to go on the defense instead of talking of German visciousness. Pro-German papers now talk of how the Germans were right that the British had deceived the U.S. and were using its citizens as cover. Now the Germans look as our friends for warning us.

[Rex Romanum]

This is really interesting guys...
I think I will make a full-fledged TL for this...
(but in pre-1900 forum, of course)
Btw I have some questions, and I'd like to know ALL of your opinions about it:

1. About the title...I have thinking about "The Kaiser and The President", but any suggestions?

2. What would be the best POD for doing this? How about the Confederate victory at Antietam?

3. If UK and France allied themselves with the Confederacy, would the Unions lose?

4. Any suggestions about what kind of changes that occured in this ATL WWI because of the POD?

5. About the nations that getting involved in ATL WWI...would it be UK, France, Russia, Japan vs United States, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire...?

[imperialaquila]

Originally Posted by Rex Romanum

This is really interesting guys...
I think I will make a full-fledged TL for this...
(but in pre-1900 forum, of course)
Btw I have some questions, and I'd like to know ALL of your opinions about it:

1. About the title...I have thinking about "The Kaiser and The President", but any suggestions?

2. What would be the best POD for doing this? How about the Confederate victory at Antietam?

3. If UK and France allied themselves with the Confederacy, would the Unions lose?

4. Any suggestions about what kind of changes that occured in this ATL WWI because of the POD?

5. About the nations that getting involved in ATL WWI...would it be UK, France, Russia, Japan vs United States, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Empire...?

A Confederate victory at Antietam would butterfly away WWI as we know it. A US-British war over the Venezuelan border dispute in the late 1890s is much better, because it would probably not butterfly away WWI, while creating substantial US-UK distrust.

[Claudius]

Here's two possible PODs:

1. In 1862, Grant dies just before Shiloh ( it almost happened IOTL) and A.S. Johnston has a striking victory. Combined with a CSA victory at Antietem, the BE and France support the CSA with recognition but no military force. US victory takes place in 1865 or 1866 but with much higher casualties on the Union side. Anti-English positions become a standard part of Republican speeches for years thereafter (particularly in heavily Irish voting districts.)

or

2. In the election of 1892, James Weaver decides not to run as a third-party candidate on the Progressive ticket. Harrison carries the mid-western states that he lost IOTL and ekes out a victory over Cleveland. Harrisons's wife died shortly before the election and distracted, handles Venezuela badly with the above cited results

[SlickWilly]

If German rather than English had won the battle to be selected as the nation's first language the world and subsequent wars would have been vastly different. I think English won by 7 votes!

[Don Lardo]

Originally Posted by SlickWilly

If German rather than English had won the battle to be selected as the nation's first language the world and subsequent wars would have been vastly different. I think English won by 7 votes!

Sweet Fanny Adams...

That old chestnut has been refuted so often and for so long it's almost impossible to believe anyone would seriously mention it again.

Here's a link to Snopes for you. Spend some time at that site, it should clear up lots of other things for you.