AHC: Central Powers USA

[FillyofDelphi]

I had stated before that a isolationist US would not out of the blue in 1914 without any other pod join the war. It would be isolationist. But it seemed people just ignored that and started talking about an iOTL US invading Canada.

If the OOD is before then forces on both sides not be iOTL.

It seems there was a slight misunderstanding then. We spent alot of the first half of the thread fumbling around with the cause of the US entry into the war, but realized it required such radical alterations diplomatcally and had so many knock on effects for military set-up for both sides of made discussion of the actual war not really possible. There seemed to be an agreement that we just took the outbreak for granted and go with the "cold start", though I've still been passively interpreting it as coming about from some British agrivation. Whatever the case, 1914 US is unlikely to be going out looking for trouble

 

[sarahz]

The war was won in the factories and in the resource fields as the Armies requires logistics. Without access to the American industrial base and credit, the Allies would've collapsed in 1917 with American neutrality; outright cut off due to hostile action, they collapse in a matter of weeks if not months elsewhere as they've lost American oil, steel and grain. American diplomats can likewise cut off access to most of the Americas, as they managed to do historically to the Germans.

Maybe in 1917, but not as US triumphalists have been suggesting within weeks or months. Secondly if the US joins in early the Entente will probably have to fight a different war so we can not assume the vastly expensive wasteful strategies used by the Entente in the early part of the war continue unchanged. It could well benefit France especially to fight defensively for a year or two.
We CAN assume the Japanese fleet has more to do than fight a few German cruisers and will help the RN and French even the odds, we can assume the RN will try to use its lead before the US builds up, we might wonder how technology works. It was the RN pioneered air power at sea, it was Britain that invented the tank. Absolute production capacity and capital are important, but they do need to be properly deployed, US forces are very inexperienced and in 1914 considerably out matched.
Having said all this if there is a POD that gets the USA into a war in 1914 the British would not have been taking the route they did as this would need to be years earlier. They would have been building production capacity in Australia, Canada and India and preparing to fight a different war knowing US capital would not be available, rather than restricting development of industry abroad.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

It seems that you have a very low opinion of Canadians and our ability of better yet our willingness to defend our country. Why is that? What about Canadians gives you the right to question our patriotism? If Canadians volunteered in greater numbers that the US (as % of population) during the war to fight in Europe why would you think we would not volunteer in 2 or 3 those numbers to stop a bellingerant country from invading.

So get off your high horse and accept the fact that just like in war of 1812 when US had such great and devastating numerical superiority we volunteered and fought the American invasion. It too was a war that had absolutely nothing to do with us but still the mighty US chose to attack Canada because it was easier to attack Canada than to attack the true culprit of US anger.

So stop all statical arguments and other bullshit and accept that hundreds of thousands of men and women will volunteer to defend our country. We may loose but we are not cowards and we will fighting for our freedom and liberty from tyranny and belingerant invader.

??? I'm not discounting Canadian patriotism,at least any more than I would the notion of uniform, unyeilding resistance being driven by it in any country. I'm asserting that patriotism and jingoism is far easier to build and sustain in practice when you're vastly outmatched, there's no strong preexisting hostility to the enemy to grab onto, and you can't attiquettly explain what it is your violence has a chance of improving/accomplishing. In such a scenario, when the reprecussions of the violence are hitting alot closer to home rather than "over there", I'd assert you'll find many among the residents of the provinces (especially since the most fit for military action and dedicated to the cause will have self-selected themselves out of the area by joining up with the formal military units mustering) who are "Summer soldiers and Sunshine Patriots" (Who also exist everywhere else, the US inciuded... but when you're winning and not directly facing the want and wear of the war happening in your backyard its easier to sustain that relatively low cost support). This is a counter on a provencial and partisan level, of course, and as I said in my initial point on the matter applies to the Prarie Provinces/behind the main battle lines specifically (the front obviously being evacuated of civilians or under stricter marshal law), since they will quickly be cut off, lack the resources/position for effective resistance,contain a large population of American expats, and will rapidly become dependent on the US for the restoration of normal movement of civilian goods into the region.

I think you may be blending my points in particular with the more general statements being pushed by folks like @History Learner. That or I'm not being as clear as I thought I was, in which case I apologise. Breakdown in Canadian resistance will be a peicemeal affair, in my opinion, but I'm saying that the Canadian government (if they did honor the declaration being issued on their behalf from Britain. Though, you as a Canadian probably have a better hand on the pulse in terms of that so I'll readily concede they will jump into the fire with no qualms) will start seeing major cracks as the frangile communications/logistics network holding the country together is cut

 

[Riain]

It seems there was a slight misunderstanding then. We spent alot of the first half of the thread fumbling around with the cause of the US entry into the war, but realized it required such radical alterations diplomatcally and had so many knock on effects for military set-up for both sides of made discussion of the actual war not really possible. There seemed to be an agreement that we just took the outbreak for granted and go with the "cold start", though I've still been passively interpreting it as coming about from some British agrivation. Whatever the case, 1914 US is unlikely to be going out looking for trouble

I agree, I've got nothing on the diplomatic front, not a thing. However the balance of forces is really interesting to me so I'm not about to let something as trivial as the fact the cold start war would be virtually impossoble stop me from looking into that, using OTL as a guide.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I agree, I've got nothing on the diplomatic front, not a thing. However the balance of forces is really interesting to me so I'm not about to let something as trivial as the fact the cold start war would be virtually impossoble stop me from looking into that, using OTL as a guide.

That's what we've been working off (handwaving the outbreak) so we can focus on the war in and of itself. There's be a great deal of focus on the Canadian front, less so the impact elsewhere (Though, that's partially because there isen't an agreement as to what exactly the British DO in response to an American front. Some seem to think its a BEF to the Americas and diversion of the Grand Fleet to the Atlantic, while I personally hold the British would focus on supporting the rest of the Entente in a great "Germany First" push instead in hopes of recovering the position on the European front and checking the Austrains and Germans enough that, eventually, they can divert some attention to NA once the Teutonic States are driven back and eventually flattened under the Russian Steamroller. There was some mention the British deploying the forces they'd send against the Ottomans to try to releive the Americas and move on Panama and the American Carribean, I believe, as well as the question of German Commerce raiders having ports that are willing to coal and house them.

I'm particulary curious as to where Argentina would go in this event. They did alot of commerce with the British and French, but if the American Navy is in place and the Monroe Doctrine essentially rendered moot would they take this this chance to twist some arms to try to get the Falklands? If I recall Spree did some impressive actions down in that region, and if the US is trying to court Buenos Ares to cut off its exports to GB and possibly even join the war might they take this oppritunity to get German support for the claim as well?

 

[Lusitania]

??? I'm not discounting Canadian patriotism,at least any more than I would the notion of uniform, unyeilding resistance being driven by it in any country. I'm asserting that patriotism and jingoism is far easier to build and sustain in practice when you're vastly outmatched, there's no strong preexisting hostility to the enemy to grab onto, and you can't attiquettly explain what it is your violence has a chance of improving/accomplishing. In such a scenario, when the reprecussions of the violence are hitting alot closer to home rather than "over there", I'd assert you'll find many among the residents of the provinces (especially since the most fit for military action and dedicated to the cause will have self-selected themselves out of the area by joining up with the formal military units mustering) who are "Summer soldiers and Sunshine Patriots" (Who also exist everywhere else, the US inciuded... but when you're winning and not directly facing the want and wear of the war happening in your backyard its easier to sustain that relatively low cost support). This is a counter on a provencial and partisan level, of course, and as I said in my initial point on the matter applies to the Prarie Provinces/behind the main battle lines specifically (the front obviously being evacuated of civilians or under stricter marshal law), since they will quickly be cut off, lack the resources/position for effective resistance,contain a large population of American expats, and will rapidly become dependent on the US for the restoration of normal movement of civilian goods into the region.

I think you may be blending my points in particular with the more general statements being pushed by folks like @History Learner. That or I'm not being as clear as I thought I was, in which case I apologise. Breakdown in Canadian resistance will be a peicemeal affair, in my opinion, but I'm saying that the Canadian government (if they did honor the declaration being issued on their behalf from Britain. Though, you as a Canadian probably have a better hand on the pulse in terms of that so I'll readily concede they will jump into the fire with no qualms) will start seeing major cracks as the frangile communications/logistics network holding the country together is cut

The issue I had with many points that many articulated was that Canadians would realize the futility to fight and abandon the empire
And throw in the towel.

I also had issue with the fact that certain people were stating that US forces iOTL or shortly after suddenly overpower Canadian forces forgetting that Canadians would be mobilizing just as fast. They failed to understand the level of Canadian resolve and what it was able to do.

Lastly yes US will out produce and recruit soldiers and by 1915-1916 defeat the Canadians but it will be costly.

 

[Riain]

Maybe in 1917, but not as US triumphalists have been suggesting within weeks or months. Secondly if the US joins in early the Entente will probably have to fight a different war so we can not assume the vastly expensive wasteful strategies used by the Entente in the early part of the war continue unchanged. It could well benefit France especially to fight defensively for a year or two.
We CAN assume the Japanese fleet has more to do than fight a few German cruisers and will help the RN and French even the odds, we can assume the RN will try to use its lead before the US builds up, we might wonder how technology works. It was the RN pioneered air power at sea, it was Britain that invented the tank. Absolute production capacity and capital are important, but they do need to be properly deployed, US forces are very inexperienced and in 1914 considerably out matched.
Having said all this if there is a POD that gets the USA into a war in 1914 the British would not have been taking the route they did as this would need to be years earlier. They would have been building production capacity in Australia, Canada and India and preparing to fight a different war knowing US capital would not be available, rather than restricting development of industry abroad.

Good points, the Entente was so prolifigate with their resources and filled with unjustified enthusiasm that they didn't build trenches as carefully as they could have because they didn't expect to occupy them for long, they'd be on the advance in the near future.

Everyone knew the US' potential, but IOTL Germany judged that it could launch the knockout blow before the potential became reality on the battlefield. This was a correct assessment, the AEF didn't become a serious factor on the battlefield until after the Spring Offensive had been tried and failed.

ITTL similar opportunities exist, but on the Entente side. Once Germany is held after the Race to the Sea, which may be different due to some of the garrisons used to make up 7th and 8th divisions remaining in place, the Anglo-French will look around for opportunities much like they did IOTL and found the Dardanelles. It will be obvious that the situation against the US is only going to get worse but in 1914 the balance is semi-tolerable on land and reasonable to good at sea. I could imagine an RN offensive against the USN in 1915, and in the process gathering as much war materials as possible to ship to Canada. The British would be able to find naval guns that Canada could use on the defensive on land and maybe scrape up other artillery from places like India. This would make the situation on the ground in Canada semi-tolerable again for 1915, particularly if the RN has the upper hand at sea.

 

[Riain]

diversion of the Grand Fleet to the Atlantic,

I'm starting to lean this way, not totally because it doesn't take 30 capital ships to defeat 10, but holding in the North Sea with half the Grand Fleet and the Channel Fleet and send half the GF to Canada. IOTL the GF didn't stay at Scapa Flow for long, the threat of uboats meant that it spent most of late 1914 operating from Loch Ewe In western Scotland and Lough Swilly In Ireland. This put the GF way out of position to defend against attacks on Britain and to cut off a breakout into the Atlantic by the HSF. Given the British already accepted this risk IOTL I don't see too great a leap for them to accept the risk of send half the GF to Canada if the Channel Fleet isn't sent to the Med.

 

[Riain]

The issue I had with many points that many articulated was that Canadians would realize the futility to fight and abandon the empire
And throw in the towel.

I also had issue with the fact that certain people were stating that US forces iOTL or shortly after suddenly overpower Canadian forces forgetting that Canadians would be mobilizing just as fast. They failed to understand the level of Canadian resolve and what it was able to do.

Lastly yes US will out produce and recruit soldiers and by 1915-1916 defeat the Canadians but it will be costly.

No participant in WW1 lacked resolve, suggesting that Canada will roll over just because of the threat of the US ignores what every other participants did. By the same logic Belgium should have allowed the Germans through since it was futile to resist. But resist they did, holding a tiny sliver of territory through the entire 4 years of war.

I find it frustrating that people ignore historical facts concerning troop numbers and OTL trajectories on the buildup of the AEF in favour of "Murica, fuck yeah!". The US is going to beat Canada, nobody doubts that, but they aren't going to do it by chest thumping. Instead they are going to have to wade in and lose thousands and likely tens of thousands of men to destroy the Canadian will to fight. IOTL the CEF suffered over 60% casualty rate, not quite up to Australian standards we were awesome at being killed and wounded in WW1, but in the top 3. The US is going to have to kill and maim a lot of Canadians to win and that won't come cheap.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I'm starting to lean this way, not totally because it doesn't take 30 capital ships to defeat 10, but holding in the North Sea with half the Grand Fleet and the Channel Fleet and send half the GF to Canada. IOTL the GF didn't stay at Scapa Flow for long, the threat of uboats meant that it spent most of late 1914 operating from Loch Ewe In western Scotland and Lough Swilly In Ireland. This put the GF way out of position to defend against attacks on Britain and to cut off a breakout into the Atlantic by the HSF. Given the British already accepted this risk IOTL I don't see too great a leap for them to accept the risk of send half the GF to Canada if the Channel Fleet isn't sent to the Med.

I do. First off there's the difficulty in building up and replenishing the stockpiles of fuel, material, shells, ect. in Halifax to support high-intensity operations by the GF over an extended period of time, especially since shipping is going to be right in path of a short hop out of Atlantic ports by the USN. To go with a safe, Icelandic route ties down even more of the already-limited Entente shipping (Since we've already established that, to keep Britain fed without US or Canadian wheat, you need to dedicate way more tonnage to extracting food from the further reaches of the Empire). There's also the hedging against uncertainity/"bad die rolls" factor: Scotland and Ireland are both far closer to the North Sea blockade zone and diden't leave the fleet "exposed" in the event of a relocation like an operation out of Halifax would. Yes, the odds are in the British favor in the event of a battle between them and the HSF, but what if if the incidental factors of the battle favor the Germans and they get lucky? If the German navy gets damaged to the point they can't contest the sea, its no big lose: so long as the British are in place they aren't getting any tangible advantge out of their fleet being sorte-ready anyways, but if the BRITISH get damaged to the point the Germans can contest the blockade that shifts the balance much more dramatically. Are the British willing to risk that gamble?

 

[VoidStalker]

I'm starting to lean this way, not totally because it doesn't take 30 capital ships to defeat 10, but holding in the North Sea with half the Grand Fleet and the Channel Fleet and send half the GF to Canada. IOTL the GF didn't stay at Scapa Flow for long, the threat of uboats meant that it spent most of late 1914 operating from Loch Ewe In western Scotland and Lough Swilly In Ireland. This put the GF way out of position to defend against attacks on Britain and to cut off a breakout into the Atlantic by the HSF. Given the British already accepted this risk IOTL I don't see too great a leap for them to accept the risk of send half the GF to Canada if the Channel Fleet isn't sent to the Med.

Unless you butterfly deployments Audacious will be lost to a mine before the last of the QEs launch so 29, combine with the number of German DNs and halving your force risks being outnumber more so if any ships are in for repair or refit. As it is units will not be ready for any such adventure until 1915 and they will need a division to replace the 1st Canadian which in this situation is focused against the US forces. Probably the 1er french division will be deployed to France. Also there are chances that some or all of the 29th British division will be used to bring the 7th and 8th to full capability and cover casualties. That leaves the Royal Navy Division and the two Anzac divisions free for Canada at the beginning of the year keeping in mind that OTL they were using a mix of old artillery supplemented by pre dreads that were too old for the line of battle.

After that we need to see what each country can produce internally as all of them should be operating under reduced imports due to the naval and merchant marine situation. I imagine the shell crisis this time will be worse without american inputs and merchant ships plus the need to source resources including food from further distances decreasing the supply throughput.

Edit-
Also on how long Canada fights that depends on a couple things, what can she manufacture herself to keep her forces armed, how much support is she getting from the rest of the empire, how quick for American units to get equipped and trained, plus when does Winnipeg fall, and finally what sort of terms is the US offering, the lighter the terms the more likely late 1915 moving into 1916 that Canada would accept.

 

[AnonymousSauce]

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.

So basically the current Los Angeles Rams defensive strategy, crash Aaron Donald and Suh and hope they get to the QB before he burns them 80 yards for 6.

I suspect it will work out as well for the Entente as it did for the Rams in Nola earlier this year.

 

[History Learner]

Maybe in 1917, but not as US triumphalists have been suggesting within weeks or months. Secondly if the US joins in early the Entente will probably have to fight a different war so we can not assume the vastly expensive wasteful strategies used by the Entente in the early part of the war continue unchanged. It could well benefit France especially to fight defensively for a year or two.

The Entente fought the way it did during the war because everyone was learning how to fight a modern warfare; they can't adopt new tactics out of the blue because no one understands how it works.

We CAN assume the Japanese fleet has more to do than fight a few German cruisers and will help the RN and French even the odds, we can assume the RN will try to use its lead before the US builds up, we might wonder how technology works. It was the RN pioneered air power at sea, it was Britain that invented the tank. Absolute production capacity and capital are important, but they do need to be properly deployed, US forces are very inexperienced and in 1914 considerably out matched.

In 1914, the Anglo(22)-French(4)-Japanese(2) fleet has 28 dreadnoughts to 28 for the Austro(3)-German(15)-American(10) fleet. There is no clear advantage for either side in the naval department.

Having said all this if there is a POD that gets the USA into a war in 1914 the British would not have been taking the route they did as this would need to be years earlier. They would have been building production capacity in Australia, Canada and India and preparing to fight a different war knowing US capital would not be available, rather than restricting development of industry abroad.

Sure, but we're operating off the assumption of no changes before August of 1914 for ease of use.

 

[trajen777]

I find it very difficult to believe gb would move that portion of the fleet to canada. In harsh terms if the usa does not com out of its ports you end up with rusting gb ships in Canada. The hsf on the other hand would be able to sorte into the channel disrupting gb shipping to france. The hsf wet dream was a battle with part of the gb fleet and this would insure that. So most likely you would see such a battle with the hsf having a 1-2 bb advantage. Considering the poor shells of the Brits at Jutland this most likely ends bad for gb.

Anyway thoughts

1 german invasion of France etc goes same
2 Anzac attacks Philippines so no invasion of oe. Italy neutral . Japan neutral
3 usa invasion makes some headway takes Winnipeg and maybe some of Ontario
4 gb gives up canada and keeps hsf at bay, and med supply chain open.
5 without Canadian forces gb attacks in France go even worse.
6 France gb credit and supply chain begin to get squeezed (15)
7 german attacks in 15 in east go better with more ah forces. italy builds up forces to jump either way
8 Serbia gone in 15 with ah forces and Bulgaria hitting them from all fronts
9 canada loses big in 15 as usa army, massively enlarged goes on offensive. Does canada give up ? Most likely .
10 usa massive emphasis on naval buildup
11 in 16 gb and France bankrupt, Russia near collapse as ah without itialian drain have many more troops in the field, with more experience. Italy, japan and Romania (opportunists) jump in on cp side.
12 in 16 usa has 2 mm troops, larger navy, and invades, Bermuda etc. if canada still in the war gives up.

 

[Riain]

In 1914, the Anglo(22)-French(4)-Japanese(2) fleet has 28 dreadnoughts to 28 for the Austro(3)-German(15)-American(10) fleet. There is no clear advantage for either side in the naval department.

Britain had 9 battlecruisers as well as 22 dreadnought battleships, Germany had 5 bcs.

 

[Riain]

So basically the current Los Angeles Rams defensive strategy, crash Aaron Donald and Suh and hope they get to the QB before he burns them 80 yards for 6.

I suspect it will work out as well for the Entente as it did for the Rams in Nola earlier this year.

What?

 

[Riain]

In harsh terms if the usa does not com out of its ports you end up with rusting gb ships in Canada.

What you get is uninterrupted British shipping in the Atlantic: worth it!

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What you get is uninterrupted British shipping in the Atlantic: worth it!

Not likely. Even assuming the other nations of the Americas don't cut their exports to Western Europe due to a lack of civilian shipping, fear of and additional costs to sailing through a major war zone, and American pressure ships based in Halifax can't sorte out to chase US commerce raiders in the South and Centeral Atlantic and the Carribean, since the main body of the USN is in ports between there and the sea lanes. You'd need to sail out in force every time to avoid the risk of the Americans concentrating and picking you off, and they unlike the British have (in the hemisphere) virtually unlimited fuel and so don't have to economize in speed. The GF in that position has the nasty fuel problems of slowly deteriorating ability and being in a situation where the US gets to pick the time of battle

 

[Arkenfolm]

The Great Lakes just make Canada so vulnerable that it doesn't matter how good your troops are motivated, your industrial heartland is painfully exposed. In summer, American shipbuilders can build the ships to move supplies/soldiers across. These can be converted into auxiliary cruisers or similar before some purpose-built warships come online. In winter, the Lakes freeze and can be crossed with vehicles and horses to ease the stress on the Southern Ontario roads. While the US probably won't get Toronto by winter, the Canadians better have a plan to move industry north before spring. The US could probably spread effective propaganda in Quebec as well to further weaken the war effort (Quebec gave far less soldiers proportionately than Anglo Canada).

 

[sarahz]

I'm starting to lean this way, not totally because it doesn't take 30 capital ships to defeat 10, but holding in the North Sea with half the Grand Fleet and the Channel Fleet and send half the GF to Canada. IOTL the GF didn't stay at Scapa Flow for long, the threat of uboats meant that it spent most of late 1914 operating from Loch Ewe In western Scotland and Lough Swilly In Ireland. This put the GF way out of position to defend against attacks on Britain and to cut off a breakout into the Atlantic by the HSF. Given the British already accepted this risk IOTL I don't see too great a leap for them to accept the risk of send half the GF to Canada if the Channel Fleet isn't sent to the Med.

I would note the Japanese forces were underused in WW1 secondly the Entente should consider just paying Italy what it asks early. With Italy on side and removed as a threat RN and French forces do not have to worry much about the Med as a theatre and can re-allocate and threaten A-H and Germany on another land border.
[As for the commerce raiding point,. Britain does have other bases and options than Halifax and I am not convinced the USN has in 1914 the naval superiority that is being assumed. If one can get submarines into the theatre, admittedly a challenge, then the US would be quite vulnerable to that threat too.