AHC Americans join Central Powers but Entente wins anyway

[SsgtC]

Well, sure, a victory is possible, if by victory you mean the United States doesn’t annex Canada and maybe the UK

I doubt they annex the UK. Canada is gone. No way to realistically avoid that. It's going to the US. As for the UK, I think the US insists on full Independence for Ireland.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

When was this? I'm not disputing the statement, I'd just like to see what was discussed.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/realistic-length-of-tl-191-great-war.287398/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...tene-victory-in-first-great-war.121263/page-2

It comes up every time the scenario is proposed, these are just the two best threads I could find.

A while back I floated the idea of Britain 'Copenhagenizing' the German navy in port. If that happened and they manage to blow up a chunk of the KM, that would obviously bring the Central Powers in against them, France and Russia, and could later spark a confrontation with the Americans as well further down the line.

That's a pretty terrible idea diplomatically. Pearl Harbour incensed America really really bad (and the rest of the world wasn't too pleased with them either). This would be worse, because unlike Japan the British weren't really provoked at all, and it's also much larger. And I find it hard to believe that the entire German navy (one of the top few navies in the world) would be caught off guard enough to see the RN get away unscathed. They had something like a dozen or more dreadnaughts (can't remember the exact numbers). That's enough to give any sized force of the RN a bloody nose, especially when coastal defences &c are factored in.

The Americans are obviously outraged by Britain arbitrarily destroying foreign navies that get too big. That won't be enough to get them in on the fighting, but will be to chill relations with London considerably. Then say some clash with the German East Asia squadron leads to some collateral damage in South America, and then that US merchant shipping starts getting interdicted, and later even outright destroyed, by the Royal Navy. America gets fed up and declares war on the Entente, with a weaker Germany a sympathetic ally for the general public. The US tries to invade Canada. By this point, chilled Anglo-American relations has the British reinforcing their border defences, but not dramatically. The place is not exactly an impenetrable fortress, but the fighting is still somewhat tough and the Americans don't rapidly seize the place as they hope. Meanwhile, without having to worry about the Kaiserliches Marine the Royal Navy can concentrate on fighting the American Navy, taking some losses but ultimately coming out on top. Meanwhile, the war in Europe gets too tough for the Germans and they sign an armistice, ceding Alsace-Lorraine and possibly some East Prussian border provinces to the Russians. A-H possibly loses East Galicia and, if Italy joins the Entente, South Tyrol and Dalmatia as well, depending on how the fighting went. Now the Americans are left on their own, but they still hold lots of Canada. The British move to retake the Dominion and end up narrowly beating back the US in a Second War of 1812. They don't penetrate far (or maybe at all) into America proper before a peace is made, essentially restoring the status quo except for some border reductions, war reparations and possibly some reductions on American fleet tonnage.

So after committing diplomatic suicide, the UK goes out of its way to provoke the US? Which they rely on for a good % of their imports? If your leadership is that bad, winning a war were you begin outmatched quite significantly is unthinkable.

If the war starts a little earlier – perhaps 1908 – over something else, like an Anglo-German naval skirmish in which the British come out on top, then you might have something. Germany will be marginally weaker, as will Austria-Hungary since their economies and military doctrines will have had less time to grow and mature

The Entente powers are also weaker if we pull the start date back. Especially Russia, which did embarrassingly badly against Japan whose strategy was literal human waves in 1905. Maybe not as much weaker, but still some.

- BNC

 

[FBKampfer]

while I with you agree with you that Royal navy will focus on the KM, Its not a clear cut decision.

As Britain imports 60% of it's food during this period. Allowing the USN a free hand in the Atlantic puts those imports in grave danger of US interdiction by said USN.

It's a lose-lose situation really either you contest the USN in the Atlantic to protect British trade. And hope the now freed KM can't threaten the channel. Or you do the reverse and hope the USN does not erase your merchant marine.

Ah, so it is.

Though I suspect that if the US rolls a bunch of 1's, and the coast gets bombarded, it may have a similar effect to terror bombing (ie fuck those guys, we'll kick their asses in the long run).

Assuming the war in Europe is a done deal, I'm pretty sure Canada is no longer a part of the empire no matter what.

The reality is that Britain wants Canada more than the US wants to step in with the Germans.

The UK has 3 years at best before hundreds of US destroyers and cruises make her merchant fleet effectively non existent. Again, remember the build disparity. In two years the US built more of a single destroyer type than the Germans had in the total of their torpedo boat and cruiser fleets from years of building.


If the USA gets things rolling in 1914, then by 1918 you have 200+ destroyers, 90+ cruisers, and at bare minimum 15 battleships, unless the USA manages to get everything they built prewar sunk in the first battle.

Even against just the US navy, the Royal Navy and France combined are absolutely hosed.

 

[606jae]

get the neutrals to join in with the entente

 

[HunterX]

get the neutrals to join in with the entente

But the very premise makes this less likely.

 

[History Learner]

British and French economy collapses in August of 1914 if the U.S. is even slightly hostile.

 

[Redcoat]

Interesting thread, I wonder if maybe America is less successful in ramping up their military capability this could work. IDK how to do that though....

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Interesting thread, I wonder if maybe America is less successful in ramping up their military capability this could work. IDK how to do that though....

IMO you don't really need to do it, you just need to have the US enter the war with extremely little warning and not have changed from OTL's minimum level of military effort. Any TL-191 comparisons fall flat when one realizes that TL 191 US was roughly as militarized as Germany with a larger population and higher GDP/Capita (arguably 191 US is more militarzed, given Remembrance is compared to French Revanche and France was more militarized than Germany), OTL US is not close to that militarized

The OTL US standing Army is small enough that Canada's active army and 1st line reserves had effective parity and the US Navy is unbalanced, no battlecruisers, almost totally lacking in modern cruisers and lacking in destroyers, only in Battleships and subs is the USN really adequate. As such the US probably won't overpower Canada for at least a year, possibly two, and the US navy would be limited in its ability to protect its coasts. If the US isn't exactly committed to the war, than it is quite possible that the US decides to peace out on a near status quo ante offer, and that the Entente can still manage a win if A-H screws up enough, not the most likely scenario but possible

Of course this isn't exactly a Central Power US, more a CP cobelligerent US. An actual committed CP US would basically require A-H completely imploding in the opening phases in order for the US to be basically left standing alone in less than a year. If the US was committed CP and was prepared before the war, that is nigh impossible for the Entente to win

 

[Redcoat]

IMO you don't really need to do it, you just need to have the US enter the war with extremely little warning and not have changed from OTL's minimum level of military effort. Any TL-191 comparisons fall flat when one realizes that TL 191 US was roughly as militarized as Germany with a larger population and higher GDP/Capita (arguably 191 US is more militarzed, given Remembrance is compared to French Revanche and France was more militarized than Germany), OTL US is not close to that militarized

The OTL US standing Army is small enough that Canada's active army and 1st line reserves had effective parity and the US Navy is unbalanced, no battlecruisers, almost totally lacking in modern cruisers and lacking in destroyers, only in Battleships and subs is the USN really adequate. As such the US probably won't overpower Canada for at least a year, possibly two, and the US navy would be limited in its ability to protect its coasts. If the US isn't exactly committed to the war, than it is quite possible that the US decides to peace out on a near status quo ante offer, and that the Entente can still manage a win if A-H screws up enough, not the most likely scenario but possible

Of course this isn't exactly a Central Power US, more a CP cobelligerent US. An actual committed CP US would basically require A-H completely imploding in the opening phases in order for the US to be basically left standing alone in less than a year. If the US was committed CP and was prepared before the war, that is nigh impossible for the Entente to win

Well you could stack more neutrals with the Entente and it could work.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Well you could stack more neutrals with the Entente and it could work.

Realistically more neutrals only matters in Europe, IE putting more stress on Germany, and it's much easier just to have France/Russia do better (Italy as well) and A-H to do worse than to get more neutrals on the Entente side in order to overwhelm Germany

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What it says on the tin in 2 or fewer pods.

Winning doesn't have to mean the Tricolour flying over Berlin (didn't even happen in OTL) but can just be a negotiated peace that obviously favours the Entente. The U.S. can join whenever you want but they should do some fighting (to rule out things like the U.S. symbolically joining the day before an armistice is signed and not fighting a single battle.

If they join around when they did OTL then America's actually in for a very rough time. By then Canada has a massive number of veterans back home, an experienced officer corps, and produces a surplus of arms and munitions. Additionally the Conscription Crisis would immediately end and the full manpower of French Canada could finally be tapped into. In contrast America actually has a smaller army, an unmobilized economy, and OTL it took them a full year before they were capable of engaging in independant action, even if we subtract the time needed to ship the AEF over seas it should be very apparent that the US quickly walking over Canada is pure fantasy. It's entirely possible that the American Army gets stalemated on the Niagara Peninsula long enough for things in Europe to be settled.

 

[Legofan4]

If they join around when they did OTL then America's actually in for a very rough time. By then Canada has a massive number of veterans back home, an experienced officer corps, and produces a surplus of arms and munitions. Additionally the Conscription Crisis would immediately end and the full manpower of French Canada could finally be tapped into. In contrast America actually has a smaller army, an unmobilized economy, and OTL it took them a full year before they were capable of engaging in independant action, even if we subtract the time needed to ship the AEF over seas it should be very apparent that the US quickly walking over Canada is pure fantasy. It's entirely possible that the American Army gets stalemated on the Niagara Peninsula long enough for things in Europe to be settled.

Except for the reason that America had the army that it did is because it saw no need for it because the enemies that it was expected to face were far away and that they would have the time to build up, which is OTL. If it isn't all of a sudden America decided to declare war without some souring of relations over several years then yes, but that really doesn't make sense because if they think that their might be a war that could be fought on American soil than they wouldn't have the army or attitude of OTL.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

but that really doesn't make sense because if they think that their might be a war that could be fought on American soil than they wouldn't have the army or attitude of OTL.

OP just asked if it was possible, no requirement for it making the most sense.

He also didn't rule out contrived PoDs, like some Irish Americans trying Fenian Raids 2.0 as revenge for the suppression of the Easter Rising followed by the Canadian militia doing something that constitutes a violation of American Sovereignty in retaliation (OP actually allowed for 2 PoDs, so you could get a lot more contrived than that).

 

[Legofan4]

OP just asked if it was possible, no requirement for it making the most sense.

He also didn't rule out contrived PoDs, like some Irish Americans trying Fenian Raids 2.0 as revenge for the suppression of the Easter Rising followed by the Canadian militia doing something that constitutes a violation of American Sovereignty in retaliation (OP actually allowed for 2 PoDs, so you could get a lot more contrived than that).

In a situation like that I would think that the British would do whatever it takes to keep America on side because of the benefit that America being neutral and Entente leaning brings to the table.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

In a situation like that I would think that the British would do whatever it takes to keep America on side because of the benefit that America being neutral and Entente leaning brings to the table.

They'd certainly try, but something like a cross-border raid to kill Americans on American soil (regardless of what they did to warrant it) would be an awfully big hole to paper over.

 

[Riain]

I see this as 2 parallel timelines;
the course of the war in Europe
the time it takes for the US to build a million man army without buying artillery from France and Britain/the time it takes to build enough cruisers, destroyers, escorts to bring enough USN battleships into action to be decisive.

IOTL the USA did a lot of low key organisational work to better mobilise the Army and NG: independent state artillery batteries were formed into battalions and regiments for example. Then in 1916 they passed a defense act to expand the army and navy AND very importantly mobilised the Army and NG (all 170,000 of them) on the Mexican border for 9 months. This had massive benefits when the USA declared war in April 1917 and was the key reason why the US was able to get its mass army into action in only 15 months.

I don't think it's an open and shut case, the entemte could win in the time it takes (at least a year and maybe 2 or more) before the US can bring its power to bear in a decisive way.

 

[HunterX]

Well you could stack more neutrals with the Entente and it could work.

Except US entry is a devastating blow to the Entente's diplomatic situation. It becomes immediately clear that the Entente is in a terrible bind and if anything it makes OTL allies less likely to side with the Entente. A neutral Italy or early Bulgarian entry into the war alone would be really significant.

 

[Mikestone8]

Except US entry is a devastating blow to the Entente's diplomatic situation. It becomes immediately clear that the Entente is in a terrible bind and if anything it makes OTL allies less likely to side with the Entente. A neutral Italy or early Bulgarian entry into the war alone would be really significant.

And what happens at sea?

Given that the bulk of the RN has to stay in home waters to balance the HSF, can't the USN easily capture British etc merchantmen on the high seas? They can certainly cut off Mexican oil.

 

[Riain]

And what happens at sea?

Given that the bulk of the RN has to stay in home waters to balance the HSF, can't the USN easily capture British etc merchantmen on the high seas? They can certainly cut off Mexican oil.

The US can do quite a bit at sea, but would be hampered in a fleet action by the unbalanced nature of their fleet. While the USN had a lot of battleships in 1914 they only had a handful of cruisers and many of these were flotilla leaders rather than light scouting cruisers, and I think only 54 destroyers, enough for 4 or 5 flotilla.

In contrast the RN had about 200 destryers, including patrol destroyers, in 11 flotilla of 15-20 ships: 3 with the Grand Fleet, 1 at Harwich, 1 in the Med, 1 at Dover and the rest in local patrol flotilla. Germany had about 150 destroyers in flotilla of 10 and even France with way less battleships than the US had 75 destroyers.

So the USN might be restricted to gurre de course for the most part, keeping a medium sized balanced battlefleet concentrated for special occasions.

Edit: it appears that modern cruisers would be the restriction on a balanced fleet with 3 St Louis and 3 Chester class being the only cruisers built between the flurry of the Spanish American war and WW1. The USN built some 40 modern ocean going destroyers in the decade or so before ww1. If RN practice is anything to go by a battle squadron is accompanied by a light cruiser squadron, so 3 St Louis can accompany 8 BBs and the 3 Chesters could each lead a destroyer flotilla of 10-12 ships, for 10 dreadnoughts available in 1914. How much strategic influence would such a battlefleet exert?

 

[FBKampfer]

Enormous strategic influence. They can basically sit off the English coast and do whatever the hell they want. Otherwise von Hipper goes hog wild if the UK spits its fleet.

The UK also now has to worry about battleships roaming around their shipping lanes.



And again, remember build disparity. In 2 years, the USA can match the Royal Navy from basically a dead start.

Assuming the USA wasn't sitting on its hands as their method of war preparation, they'll probably have a good deal more cruisers and destroyers already laid down and ready to come online in a year.


Even if the European War ends in a "win" for the Entente, they still have a pissed off United States to deal with. And the USA, economically, is more than a match for UK+France+Italy+Russia, and then Germany in on top of that. She's only beaten if she decides to quit for no particular reason.


Basically sudden entry entails a pissed off US populace, and thus little chance of a white peace. Canada is going bye bye in the long run.

Premeditated entry entails a prepared USA, which implies the Royal Navy is royaly boned. Canada might skate by with just being blockaded if she rolls a 6.


But asking for the Entente to beat Germany and the USA is tantamount to asking them to drop trouser and voluntarily bend over a table.


Is it possible? Sure, in the strictest definition of the word. But, and I think we all perfectly understand the interest of the OP to be directed at such, there is no realistic, rational, and practical way for the Entente to win. Even against the OTL CP, it was a damn close match.