AHC: Central Powers USA

[Riain]

Of course it is because the US Army was extremely small for the size of the country, and the Navy got most of the love when it comes to budget. Which if you assume a neutral/friendly British Empire and Mexico makes a lot of sense since anyone has to come at the US by sea. Which gives time to build up the army.

True, I'm just highlighting the odds the US has to face in this 1914 cold start scenario. In particular I wonder how the Regular Army will expand from 65 man infantry companies to 150 while being on the offensive against a Canda that has in regional terms a significant army.

I initially thought that the CP would win in 6-12 months but am now thinking it could easily be 12-18 months in the American theatre.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

True, I'm just highlighting the odds the US has to face in this 1914 cold start scenario. In particular I wonder how the Regular Army will expand from 65 man infantry companies to 150 while being on the offensive against a Canda that has in regional terms a significant army.

I initially thought that the CP would win in 6-12 months but am now thinking it could easily be 12-18 months in the American theatre.

You'll not be getting high quality divisons, certainly. Than again, the Canadians and Brits are going to be running into the same problem and the US at the very least has the manpower and supply pool to absorb some "school of hard knocks" training compared to His Majesty's men. There's also the fact that the warfare on large sections of the front is going to be more irregular and low intensity: the perfect place to slot in troops fresh out of basic to ease them into field conditions. If the US starts practicing rotation like the French did, moving formations that have suffered casulties on the Ontario-St.Lawrence front over to, say, Saskatchuan to refit and relax while passing on experience to the incomers (who will,in turn, be filling up space opened by occupation duty forces being cycled back into the thick of it) than you'll be guranteed to always have a core of veterans to gradually build up instiutional expertise. Given the relatively low demand on US manpower with Canada on the defensive and Britain unable to materially threaten the mainland, they have the slack to do this as well as the political motivation to (public demands from a front so close to home that "our boys" be treated well and get regular access to leave,hot meals,ect.from a population not set to expect war to be hell.)

 

[Ascendant Warrior]

Have we figured out a likely POD? I do have an idea for one, though not bullet proof:

In the early 1900s, the Germans start to court a closer relationship with the United States, increasingly mindfull of thier isolation, and needing a strong trading partner to supply thier needs in case war breaks out. Initially, this starts out very lightly with reinforcing trade agreements and building new ones, with Germany subtly courting American Public Opinion as they slowly expand the relationship. One of the Entente powers starts to pressure the United States against this growing of ties, which the US sees as Patronizing, and thusly causing relations between the US and one or more of the Entente powers to cool. Germany seizes on this, and backs up the United States, making sure to play up the German Empire seeing the United States as a Peer; both in Diplomatic Events and in the papers and materials aimed at the public of both nations. As ties get stronger and the nations get closer, the United States gets in on the 'Oh no, the (Insert other block power here) is doing (Insert provocative act here), THERE'LL BE A WAR!@!!!#" and so the Sleeping Giant starts to awaken, as the US Industry and Military start to ramp up with a collapsing nation to thier south, and a potentially hostile empire to the North. The British, likely with French urging, starts saber rattling with the United States as they do this build up, wanting to scare them out of the hands of the Central Powers. Not only does this not work, but Germany goes: "I gotchu fam!" with the United States and backs them up. By the time the war comes, the United States is in a place similar to the UK is with the Entente, willing to join, but looking for a provocation first. that provocation can come in two places: The British joining period, but that requires ALOT more hostility across the 'pond' than I'm ready to say exsists...or we go with an idea brought up here, and have the US Navy with some Merchant Marine guys try to deliver on a trade route with Germany, only to get confronted by the Royal Navy. When it's mentioned that the goods onboard is mostly food and not war material, the British don't seem to care and decide to force the Americans out of the area.

as I said, it's likely not bullet proof, but it's an idea to explain the US joining on the side of the Central Powers in the early days of the war, as well as remove that issue of the US almost having no real military force

 

[HunterX]

There's been some talk of the diplomatic ripples this would send, but no one has mentioned early Bulgarian entry in the war. This is quite possible and it would doom Serbia, and give Austria some critical relief. And would send further ripples down the line with regard to other neutral states. A Central Powers aligned USA would simply be devastating to the Entente's diplomacy as public perception would be that they are true underdogs who cannot do much more than stall the inevitable.

And thoughts of sending the Grand Fleet to the Atlantic are not politically feasible. British politicians of the era simply did not think in a way that enabled them to risk the Home Isles in such a manner. The tendency will always be to overprotective Britain. Canada will be sacrificed well before they countenance giving the HSF any hope of superiority in the North Sea.

 

[Chicken Nugget man]

No idea how the US would join the war, but if they did they would've had a failed offensive into Canada as their army and navy was small and not fit for mobilization, Britain could rush maybe 100,000 troops there to reinforce their lines before the Americans got started with an offensive. I think Germany would win as French soldiers would mutiny on mass, (due to no morale boost with the US entering the war, though I'm not quite sure if this is fact or not). The American war machine would start to warm up with America's massive population steam rolling Canada however Britain wouldn't want a war after the French agreed to an armistice.

 

[Riain]

What is the US going to do with the Regular Army units stationed outside CONUS? These units were at a slightly higher peacetime establishment, 72 men per company rather than 65 against a war establishment of 150.

• Phillipines: 3 1/2 rgt inf, 2 rgt cav, 1 rgt arty, 2 coy eng
• Hawaii: 3 rgt inf, 1 rgt cav, 1 rgt arty, 1 coy eng
• Panama: 1 rgt inf
• China: 2 btns (849 men)
• Alaska: 1 rgt inf (862 men)
• Vera Cruz: 4 rgt inf, 2 trp cav, 1 arty btn, 2 coy eng
• Porto Rico: 2 btns (707 men)

That's 14 or 15 infantry regiments or equivalent, very close to the 17 infantry regiments stationed in CONUS. It was also 2 1/2 of the 6 artillery regiments the RA had on strength.

SecWar also stated that while the US had small arms, ammo, uniforms and gear on hand for 500,000 men they didn't have nearly enough artillery or artillery ammo.

 

[History Learner]

Collapse of credit is not the same as collapse of economy. Related but not the same.

Sure but for our purposes there is no distinction. The inability of the Entente to finance the war has the same material outcome.

And here you are not making an important butterfly. Without the USA market, the UK is spending a lot less gold, so its gold reserves last a lot longer.

They've also lost the New York Stock Exchange, which was very critical to keeping the Pound Stable. More importantly, however, the Brit have lost 20% of their import right of the bat; imports from America was 40% of the British total by 1918 as well.

As to food shortages, one year is too fast for France to collapse. It takes time for morale to collapse. France and the UK could have rationed much more aggressively. And a quite frankly, each Frenchman has fat reserves to burn off. There are also things like you will liquidate you breeding stock of cows and pigs often before giving up. There are also typically a good bit of food in storage in the food supply chain. Pig food can be eaten by humans. A lot of stuff has to happen before a nation-state that is otherwise stable gives up over food. A good illustration is stories about how hard it was to find small mammals in the German countryside late in the war.

If the French don't have food, it's not going to take time for morale to collapse because the people are starving. The same can be said for the UK, which IOTL needed to import 60% of its foodstuffs, overwhelmingly from the Americas; to put that into perspective, the USSR collapsed to 42/43% of 1940 production in 1942/1943 and saw millions die, with the Red Army only sustained by American food imports. The Anglo-French are realistic enough to see where the situation is going and to make peace before risking Revolution or outright collapse in their home territories.

And to food, a second point. There is a near 100% chance the Empires will create famine in the empire before the capitals. As an illustration, in WW2 the UK cut shipping in the Indian Ocean by 2/3 or more. It cause a lot of hunger and starvation. Churchill did not care.

The British diverted shipping for food, not food itself. Diverting divisions to Africa or to India to outright take food is a good way to collapse the British Army and this still doesn't ensure they'd get enough food to sustain themselves as British merchant production and German U-Boat successes of IOTL reveal.

While you GF situation is possible, it is not the only possible outcome. The UK has the best naval officer corp in the world with the possible exception of the Japanese. They have the fighting tradition of Nelson. We can look to WW2 to see how aggressive the UK can be. "It takes 3 years to build a ship, 300 years to build a tradition". So let's look at what is possible.

I should think the experience of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII should show what happens when the material is placed against the will.

• The UK, not USA/Germany have the interior lines of communication.
• UK has best port system in the world.

And neither of these are sufficient to readdress the existing naval balance nor the disparity in Naval production.

UK knows that 50% ratio will deter attack. All the studies done to show how hard it is to attack German Blight. They know the reverse is true.

The UK has 22 modern battleships. Presuming all Battleships are diverted to British waters in 1914 and thereafter the plan is to hit the Americans as you suggest below, just to achieve a 1:1 parity with the USN would leave them with 12 Battleships to Germany's 15. In other words, extremely vulnerable to the HSF.

On equal ship battles in open waters, UK expects to win every time.

Are you saying they will or they can expect to? Because in either case: Jutland

UK also has to deal with Japan. You need to add Japan to ratio. Looks like 2-4 dreads for the war, lot more predreads.

And none have the ability to reach U.S. territorial waters. They might be good for the Philippines, but that's it.

Need to add French Fleet.
Need to add Russian Fleet.

The Russian Navy doesn't exist in 1914, it has no modern battleships. The French fleet is just three battleships to three Austro-Hungarians, pull them out of the Med and the Central Powers suddenly control that sea even without the entry of the Italians. Honestly, doing this is sure to bring the Italians in because they know the industrial strength of the U.S. and Germans is unbeatable and now have been presented with no forces to challenge them in the Med.

So we then need to go through the mental exercise the Sea Lords have to do. Sitting back and losing will be the last option chosen. We have to start assigning ships to regions. Baltic Sea. North Sea/Channel. Med. Atlantic. Caribbean. Pacific. I guarantee the UK will have parity in some areas, and superiority in others. Lots of options but WI.

• UK lets Japan handle Indian Ocean and Pacific.
• USA puts 1/4 of fleet in Pacific (Sea Lord Planning Assumption).
• France handles Med Sea and takes gamble Italy will not join war. Transfers bulk of fleet to channel.
• French transfer fleet, plus subs, plus UK channel fleet hold North Sea.
• Grand Fleet plus forces used at Gallipoli (4-12 Divisions) are used to Carib campaign in winter/spring of 1914/15. I have available everything at Scapa Flow plus QE lead task for from Med. Plenty of forces to allow victory. Once I take PR, Key West, Panama Canal, UK then moves forces to operate at NYC or farther north in hurricane season.

The Med is lost to the CP and the British fleet is lost off the Atlantic and in the North Sea. Game over for the Entente by Christmas.

 

[History Learner]

How I stated it was the way it worked. What you are showing is what happened for foreigners, not citizen of the empire. What happened in the UK is they UK neither issue you gold (money) or bills (receipt for money). The UK issued you bonds payable after the war. If the bonds were transferred to foreigners, the terms did not change. So the UK was effectively printing money, and we get into what would wreck the world economy in the 1920s.

That's not how Bonds work. Bonds are bought using existing money already in the supply, either by foreigners using their own currency or domestic purchasers using cash already on hand; Bonds in effect are transfers, not new money creation. In the long term the British, and I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about them when its the French my example cited, do agree to pay more back, but that doesn't mean new money creation. It just means more of the budget is devoted to paying it off in the long run. Further, Bonds do not create inflation, at least in the short to medium term, because of their low velocity as no money is being introduced into the economy until the later date.

The UK paid gold for imports. The merchandise was paid for in gold before the ship left port.

They've also lost 20% of their imports here.

You also bring up France, not the UK. The UK did the heavy lifting in WW1 before April 1917. The French and Italians were relying upon UK credit (1915-17), then later USA (1918) credit to stay in the war. What you are showing in your quote is France after France had largely be locked out of international credit markets.

This is not accurate:

Also, at least in the UK, taking bonds not gold was not a voluntary event. The government made you take them.

But were IOTL bond purchases sufficient to support the war economy?

 

[History Learner]

The stats you provide had 1917 1.5 mil tonne from UK, 1.3 from US, 1918 it was 800k from UK, 1 mil from US and in 1919 the ratio was more in favour from the US, this is consistent with the US entry into the war underwriting the French war finance. In 1915 France only imported 1 million tonnes of steel in total; I don't have a breakdown, but if the 1917-19 increasing US ratio is any indication the US would have provided a small portion of that, maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of that. The total French usage of steel in 1915 was 2.1 million tonnes, losing 1/8 of that isn't going to push them out of the war, it going to push them to economise further and seek other sources of steel. The same applies for other commodities.

You're mistaken, unless you're citing something else? French imports in 1917 were 1.2 and 1.4 from the Americans and UK, respectively, and then falling to 1 million and 788 in 1918. The trend is thus actually "up to down" in terms of imports for the United States. American imports thus constituted about half (~45% to be exact) of the 2.7 million tons imported for 1917.

No worries, we do have to compare apples with apples. People seem to have jumped the PoD hurdle now and are looking at forces available in 1914.

I think @FillyofDelphi has the right idea in that we should all assume cold start August 1914 no matter how unrealistic that is for ease of comparison.

I agree that the US will send the vast bulk of its forces against Canada, but these other commitments will siphon off 'divisional equivalents' in dribs and drabs; a few divisions to Mexico, a brigsade here, a battalion there. I also think US entry into the war will drastically change events in Mexico and the Caribbean that the US will have to guard against or accept the risk; for example the US had 4 regiments of infantry in Vera Cruz in November 1914 resulting from the invasion in June, do these get withdrawn or reinforced? If they get withdrawn do they go to Panama and Puerto Rico, or back to CONUS and if CONUS do they become training cadres or go to Canada?

More important question: Were these factored into your assessment of three divisions for Mexican duty?

Dunno about the BEF. The USN is in the same position as the Army, it has to balance its ongoing commitments guarding the Caribbean and supporting/withdrawing the Army at Vera Cruz, Panama, Puerto Rico against the need to keep a powerful, balanced fleet available to fight a major battle with a large portion of the RN's Grand Fleet. In the USN's case the limiting factor will be the drastic shortage of destroyers and cruisers in 1914; with only 34 destroyers and 3 armored and 3 scout cruisers that could be considered 'modern' in 1914, so I'm guessing the USN would only be able to gather and support 10-12 dreadnoughts in a 'striking fleet' in 1914.

They had 10 dreadnoughts in 1914, so that fits. The problem is that none of the Entente can mobilize a 1:1 for ratio against them, as the Royal Navy would give the HSF a three ship advantage in the North Sea to just achieve a 1:1 for ratio. If the French pull out of the Med to cover the North Sea, then the Austro-Hungarians thus control the region. The Italians could enter the Entente side of course to readdress this but, being honest, do we really expect Rome to enter in such a situation? Even if they did, it's still a 1:1 ratio in the Med, dangerous odds in such a tight situation.

I don't know about which units will go where, but with the 4:1:1 Canadian deployment the US will have to do a deployment to match and defeat as they see fit, keeping in mind that the offensive requires a handy superiority in numbers at the decisive point. Will the US risk a 5 division FF being held and bled white against the 4 division Canadian FF so that it can have spare units to gobble up less important areas of Canada?

I was imagining more of a sit and watch method instead of massed U.S. attacks. They'll keep their divisions in close contact with the Canadians to prevent them transferring elsewhere and both sides know the Canadians can't risk offensives themselves. As long as the U.S. has one or two divisions freed up, they can effectively cut Canada in two.

 

[VoidStalker]

No idea how the US would join the war, but if they did they would've had a failed offensive into Canada as their army and navy was small and not fit for mobilization, Britain could rush maybe 100,000 troops there to reinforce their lines before the Americans got started with an offensive. I think Germany would win as French soldiers would mutiny on mass, (due to no morale boost with the US entering the war, though I'm not quite sure if this is fact or not). The American war machine would start to warm up with America's massive population steam rolling Canada however Britain wouldn't want a war after the French agreed to an armistice.

The USN was actually quite large with 10 dreadnoughts finished and several more under construction, only the Royal and German navies had more. The US army was small though but it is more likely to be deployed to defend and wait until spring of 1915 given how bad winters get along the US, Canada border.

Also if Britian is rushing 100k troops to Canada she is doing so at expense of troops in France in which case the Germans are in a much better situation and France has had her pre war armies bleed even further. Depending on when she is sending troops to Canada then that may very well be the BEF, in which case best case the Germans are in Calais, worst case is that the French are pushed back past Paris with at least one army destroyed.

 

[BlondieBC]

That's not how Bonds work. Bonds are bought using existing money already in the supply, either by foreigners using their own currency or domestic purchasers using cash already on hand; Bonds in effect are transfers, not new money creation. In the long term the British, and I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about them when its the French my example cited, do agree to pay more back, but that doesn't mean new money creation. It just means more of the budget is devoted to paying it off in the long run. Further, Bonds do not create inflation, at least in the short to medium term, because of their low velocity as no money is being introduced into the economy until the later date.

?

What you say maybe normally true, but it is not what they did IOTL. The UK directly converted assets into bonds and skipped the gold/bills process.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What you say maybe normally true, but it is not what they did IOTL. The UK directly converted assets into bonds and skipped the gold/bills process.

I think it's fair to ask, without the stablizing factor of American capital market access to at least indirectly peg the value by denominating the debt in dollars, that the hard vs soft Pound Sterling in gold backed bills vs bonds would continue trading at the same value. Inevitably, your merchants are going to start running into problems if they pay for forgein supplies with "hard" money but only ever get paid in "soft" because that's what the people want to spend and have available (as well as the government oblugating you to accept the two at the same face value). This would, alongside the supply shortage in general and the coming home to roost of over a decade of cultivated invasion/isolation panic (particularly among the Southeast) to trigger a hoarding rush following the harvest and ashift to the grey market that could prove sudden andmajor enough to at least temorarily destabluze the economy and homefront. If nothing else,it would create public pressure to take actions to gurantee food supplies that will hamper the Entente's military and diplomatic position in the critical early months

 

[BlondieBC]

I think it's fair to ask, without the stablizing factor of American capital market access to at least indirectly peg the value by denominating the debt in dollars, that the hard vs soft Pound Sterling in gold backed bills vs bonds would continue trading at the same value. Inevitably, your merchants are going to start running into problems if they pay for forgein supplies with "hard" money but only ever get paid in "soft" because that's what the people want to spend and have available (as well as the government oblugating you to accept the two at the same face value). This would, alongside the supply shortage in general and the coming home to roost of over a decade of cultivated invasion/isolation panic (particularly among the Southeast) to trigger a hoarding rush following the harvest and ashift to the grey market that could prove sudden andmajor enough to at least temorarily destabluze the economy and homefront. If nothing else,it would create public pressure to take actions to gurantee food supplies that will hamper the Entente's military and diplomatic position in the critical early months

That sounds generally right. Bad money drives out good money. Hoarding. Profiteering. Host of evils.

I believe we started this talking about if the UK could make it to 1 year into the war, and this was part of the reason I said "yes the can". I still think the Entente likely loses, and loses big in 1916. And there is economic ruin as bad as OTL Germany for France and UK in most ATLs.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What is the US going to do with the Regular Army units stationed outside CONUS? These units were at a slightly higher peacetime establishment, 72 men per company rather than 65 against a war establishment of 150.

• Phillipines: 3 1/2 rgt inf, 2 rgt cav, 1 rgt arty, 2 coy eng
• Hawaii: 3 rgt inf, 1 rgt cav, 1 rgt arty, 1 coy eng
• Panama: 1 rgt inf
• China: 2 btns (849 men)
• Alaska: 1 rgt inf (862 men)
• Vera Cruz: 4 rgt inf, 2 trp cav, 1 arty btn, 2 coy eng
• Porto Rico: 2 btns (707 men)

That's 14 or 15 infantry regiments or equivalent, very close to the 17 infantry regiments stationed in CONUS. It was also 2 1/2 of the 6 artillery regiments the RA had on strength.

SecWar also stated that while the US had small arms, ammo, uniforms and gear on hand for 500,000 men they didn't have nearly enough artillery or artillery ammo.

Panama, Alaska, and Hawaii more or less have to retain garrisons for polical reasons (The Canal, being on the Canadian Border, and being the Pacific base all very high profile. Real bad OR tothrow them under the bus), while the Philippine garrison is going to have a hell of a time getting out under Japanese guns and so seems most likely to be staging a fighting defense

 

[History Learner]

What you say maybe normally true, but it is not what they did IOTL. The UK directly converted assets into bonds and skipped the gold/bills process.

I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to get at now? We were talking about France and then hyperinflation? As for the point at hand, converting assets, that's not creating new cash and thus not inflation. If I'm being a dolt on not recognizing on what you're getting at, my apologies, I'm just genuinely confused.

 

[History Learner]

The USN was actually quite large with 10 dreadnoughts finished and several more under construction, only the Royal and German navies had more. The US army was small though but it is more likely to be deployed to defend and wait until spring of 1915 given how bad winters get along the US, Canada border.

Also if Britian is rushing 100k troops to Canada she is doing so at expense of troops in France in which case the Germans are in a much better situation and France has had her pre war armies bleed even further. Depending on when she is sending troops to Canada then that may very well be the BEF, in which case best case the Germans are in Calais, worst case is that the French are pushed back past Paris with at least one army destroyed.

If the Germans are in Calais, the war is over as the Bethune coal mines have been overrun or otherwise cut off. This was the coal supply for Paris and the only remaining deposit of note in French hands; without it production in Paris will collapse and Paris was 70% of French war production. IOTL 1918, the Germans merely shelling the railways out of the area were enough to cause production disruption.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

If the Germans are in Calais, the war is over as the Bethune coal mines have been overrun or otherwise cut off. This was the coal supply for Paris and the only remaining deposit of note in French hands; without it production in Paris will collapse and Paris was 70% of French war production. IOTL 1918, the Germans merely shelling the railways out of the area were enough to cause production disruption.

Which means, let's be blunt, the only viable Entente response (Which I beleive I already suggested earlier) would be doubling down on the offensive at all costs against Germany and Austria strategy. That fits into the political and popular war paradigm of the time in those counteries, and if British and French higher ups process the need to rescue French industry, make a show of strength/success to bolster their diplomatic position and economic connections with the neutrals ect. they'd realize, that while absolute advantage over time is with the CP, they can gain local supremacy over the Teutonic nations in the short term and, if they can be crippled/knocked out, will let them pull in minors by offering pieces of the corpse (Romania, Italy in particular) and allow them to turn around and concentrate on the Americans afterwards. Now, would this suceed? A blind man with a crooked peashooter has a better shot. But I can't see the Entente doing anything other than attempting that kind of show of force.

Likely the Russians will be called on to come down on Silesia hard in hopes of hitting German industry and coal production there and freaking out the Austrians as to the possibility of a move directly on Vienna and their industrial hearland in Bohemia.

 

[History Learner]

Which means, let's be blunt, the only viable Entente response (Which I beleive I already suggested earlier) would be doubling down on the offensive at all costs against Germany and Austria strategy. That fits into the political and popular war paradigm of the time in those counteries, and if British and French higher ups process the need to rescue French industry, make a show of strength/success to bolster their diplomatic position and economic connections with the neutrals ect. they'd realize, that while absolute advantage over time is with the CP, they can gain local supremacy over the Teutonic nations in the short term and, if they can be crippled/knocked out, will let them pull in minors by offering pieces of the corpse (Romania, Italy in particular) and allow them to turn around and concentrate on the Americans afterwards. Now, would this suceed? A blind man with a crooked peashooter has a better shot. But I can't see the Entente doing anything other than attempting that kind of show of force.

Likely the Russians will be called on to come down on Silesia hard in hopes of hitting German industry and coal production there and freaking out the Austrians as to the possibility of a move directly on Vienna and their industrial hearland in Bohemia.

I was operating off the suggestion VoidStalker made, in that the Brits redirect the BEF (or at least some of it) to Canada and thus lose the Race to the Sea. By that point of 1914 the Russians have been firmly checked. As for the Anglo-French, they can't attack as their logistics have forced them behind the Somme; 50% of the BEF's supplies came from the ports of Calais and the other 50% from channel ports from below the Somme. IOTL 1918 the BEF planning in the face of the German attacks showed that, if either route was taken, they'd be rendered combat ineffective as the railways of either just can't support their logistical needs. Granted, the BEF of this ATL 1914 is much smaller than the BEF of 1918, but that isn't necessarily an advantage. Further, the Germans taking Amiens means they've cut the French off from the British, necessitating the French fall back on Paris to restore their flanks.

Most decisively, however, is the coal issue. IOTL the Germans shelling it was enough to create disruptions, taking it would have immediate and massive material effects on the French that the Entente would not have time to respond to before things fall apart.

 

[History Learner]

Useful for the Naval discussions.

 

[VoidStalker]

I was operating off the suggestion VoidStalker made, in that the Brits redirect the BEF (or at least some of it) to Canada and thus lose the Race to the Sea. By that point of 1914 the Russians have been firmly checked. As for the Anglo-French, they can't attack as their logistics have forced them behind the Somme; 50% of the BEF's supplies came from the ports of Calais and the other 50% from channel ports from below the Somme. IOTL 1918 the BEF planning in the face of the German attacks showed that, if either route was taken, they'd be rendered combat ineffective as the railways of either just can't support their logistical needs. Granted, the BEF of this ATL 1914 is much smaller than the BEF of 1918, but that isn't necessarily an advantage. Further, the Germans taking Amiens means they've cut the French off from the British, necessitating the French fall back on Paris to restore their flanks.

Most decisively, however, is the coal issue. IOTL the Germans shelling it was enough to create disruptions, taking it would have immediate and massive material effects on the French that the Entente would not have time to respond to before things fall apart.

That was my own response to someone suggesting British send 100k troops to Canada. If they wanted to do so in 1914 campaign season it would have to be the BEF which would be disastrous for France.