AHC: Central Powers USA

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Antonio the Komnenoi, Nov 26, 2018.

?

Do you think the Entente could still win the War ?

  1. They could ! (For Historical Determinists)

    15 vote(s)
    7.5%
  2. Maybe ? It would be hard by they still got a shot

    48 vote(s)
    23.9%
  3. No, they were already almost collapsing irl before the USA joined and would stand no chance

    138 vote(s)
    68.7%
  1. Antonio the Komnenoi A devout Monarchist

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Make the United States (With a Post-1900 PoD) join the Central Powers in August 1914. There needs to be a great swift in alignment of American politics for that to happen for sure, but how ? Maybe USA and Britain enter in a Crisis during/after the Hispano-American War ? More German Immigrants to America ? A different President ?

    And what terms would the USA demand if they won ? Canada ? And what if they Lost ?
     
  2. Ostdeutscher 8i

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2018
    Rape of Belgium shoud not happen so that the US doesnt hate the Germans.
     
  3. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    In 1914, if no significant changes occur due to the PoD, the US is a military pygmy with significant trouble on the southern border. Hard choices would have to be made regarding the deployment of the 3 division Army and the 12 division NG which was in worse condition than the British territorial force.

    The real game changer would be the USN which would dominate the western Atlantic and totally nullify the RNs superiority in conjunction with the HSF.
     
  4. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    Probably not all of Canada, but Canada will be an independent republic afterwards. Border disputes like in Alaska will be resolved in American favor. Maybe grab most of Yukon and BC for a land link to Alaska.

    The Caribbean is where the Entente stands to lose big time. Most islands will be up for grabs and taking Trinidad for the oil would make sense. The Bahamas helps secure Florida while Bermuda is a great Atlantic base. In any case most of the region could be conquered by the Marines and USN by the end of the war, but probably just occupied until France and Britain pay reparations (outside of maybe Trinidad, Bahamas, etc.)

    Only land the US could feasibly lose is some remote Pacific islands like maybe Samoa or the Marianas. Liberia will probably be occupied but it would get restored in the peace.
     
  5. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    If the U.S. joins the Central Powers in August of 1914, the war is over by Christmas, no question. If the U.S. joins at any time in the war period, the war is over within months if not instantly, again no question.
     
  6. Philip One L only

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    Behind you
    US capital will be an issue here. In this scenario, are US bank prevented from making loans to the Entente? Do they make loans to other CP counties?
     
    FickleCrossroad and trajen777 like this.
  7. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    There is a huge, huge, gap between not hating the Germans and wanting to join them in the war--especially in August 1914!

    The very same isolationism and opposition to "entangling alliances" that made the US reluctant to fight Germany until 1917--and even then there was a lot of opposition--would make it even more reluctant to fight the UK and France.

    I once suggested that the Ship Purchase Bill could have led to an eventual US conflict with the Entente https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...oins-the-central-powers.449046/#post-17403959 but even that is unlikely. And for the US to join the War in the beginning would mean a world and US situation so different from that of OTL that I can't see the War as we know it starting at the time it did and in the way it dd.
     
  8. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    I question all of those assumptions. The war was ultimately won on the battlefield and the US would take at least a year to have a significant impact on the battlefield. The US Secretary of War report of 1914 says exactly that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
    BootOnFace, nbcman, ert44444 and 6 others like this.
  9. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    There being a "parallel" war between the US and UK is POSSIBLE (Though, there's a catch 22 here: If the UK is on the verge of violent conflict with the US, than there's a very solid chance they aren't going to take a hard line against Germany and vice versa. And if the UK isen't at war with both, than the US don't declare war on the Entente as there's no real alliance between the UK and France-Russia) if the smoldering crisis over Mexico draws the UK in deeply for some reason. Porferio granted British companies their concessions over Mexican oil, after all, so if London placed top priority on maintaining that supply (Say, as the result of a more Autarkic policy on strategic resources and not getting concessions in the OE and Persia... perhaps as the result of stronger OE being pulled into the Russo-French orbit in a kind of protectorate-compromise that agrees to extend basing/passage rights to the Russian Black Seas fleet and commerce, increased French influence, ect. in exchange for renegotiation of loans terms to make the debt more easily servicable and a gurantee of territorial integrity?) that results in Britain feeling alienated from Russia as well (Baku) and that it NEEDS to secure resources elsewhere than you might see them starting to play loose with the Monroe Doctrine. This could lead to diplomatic crisis between the US and UK as the US tries to undermine the increasingly less-favored regeime and the UK tries to prop them up, and if that agitates other disagreements it could possibly turn into war over some particular flashpoint or another (Say, the US tries to impose a quartine on Veracruz and the UK refuses to comply, resulting in British ships carrying arms getting fired on or boarded illegally)
     
    Genrexx, Leede, BootOnFace and 2 others like this.
  10. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    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.
     
  11. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    You stated that the US entering the war in August 1914 would end the war by Christmas and at any other time instantly or almost instantly. Short term victory is won by emplaced and equipped armies, not by steel ingots and wheat, those win victory in years to come. Bear in mind that no US built artillery piece was used in France in WW1.
     
    Leede, BootOnFace, ert44444 and 6 others like this.
  12. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    And armies run on continued flows of munitions, food, and oil. IOTL 1914, the Anglo-French damn near collapsed Wall Street because they were attempting to pull everything out in order finance the war and the development of war economies; a hostile U.S. wouldn't just stop that as it did IOTL, but outright seize such assets. By Christmas, the Anglo-French will be in a state of economic collapse. At that point, the Anglo-French would also be able to realize the combination of American and German industrial bases into one united front is an obstacle they can never overcome. Seeking peace on light terms is thus their best bet.

    I'm well aware of that, but I'm also aware that in 1918 France was importing thirty times the steel it was in 1913 from the United States.
     
    Genrexx, DukeofSwabia, Leede and 9 others like this.
  13. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Except the Americans and Germans won't be in any position to co-ordinate strategy; the British control the Trans-Atlantic cables, and will insure the lines of communication are cut (including through neutral diplomatic cables, like Sweden). Further, if the US is in such a pre-war state of cold relations as to allow for such a war to break out than the British and French warplans will naturally be built without expectations of American capital in mind, meaning they're likely to be in a better position to economize/have alternative sources of supply lined up/adopt some of the measures Germany did IOTL earlier on and more vigeriously in order to turn their economy for war. This will, of course, come at the cost of civilian quality of life, but we shoulden't assume the population won't be willing to accept the sacrifices any less than those of other nations did in our timeline.
     
  14. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    The Germans and Americans do not need to coordinate strategy to do what I said, which was unilateral American actions. Despite that, however, they actually can coordinate because radios are in existence by this time.

    Which is not possible. This would require them to liquidate their investments prior to the war, which their publics will not accept and the U.S. will not allow anyway; they stopped such efforts while at peace in 1914 as already stated. Outside of that, for one example, 67% of Global Oil production is in the U.S. as of 1917/1918. Much of the rest is in Mexico and is in the form of American concessions, which IOTL the Mexicans did not move against (With American acceptance) in the 1930s; the Mexicans refused the Germans due to fear of the Americans IOTL and I expect the same to hold for the British. There is also no one else who can supply the French with the steel imports they needed to keep going IOTL. There's multiple other examples that can be cited, but I think the point is clear.
     
  15. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Oh, they'll still lose and run out of steam economically, I'll more than concede to that. But given the US declaring war in August of 1914 isent possibly going to be happening in a vacuum it's not fair to the Entente to assume preparations wouldent be made to at least prepare for a hostile US if it was clear they'd either be backing Germany/A-H for some reason, or there were some other bubbling crisis that would result in the US being hostile to Russia and France at the same period. One has to consider the pre-war knock on effects. I'd say France and Russia would be able to make it through at least a year of conflict?

    Now, as I stated in my first post, I think the required conditions would result in a parallel Anglo-American and Second Franco-Prussian (German) war with Britain not intervening on the Continent if they were expecting a showdown with the US (and that France nor Russia have any reasonable grounds on which to enter a conflict with America). There'd need to be a diplomatic revolution of such magnitude as a result of the US formally entering the alliance system of European powers or a member of the Entente so fundimentally changing their forgein policy that it's hard to say WWI would break out the same as IOTL
     
  16. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    If we're radically changing the Pre-War environment, depending on the PoD I can concede that simply because the world has been so changed as to make it unrecognizable and thus make speculation impossible without a more clear outline of what the situation is.

    The only PoD I've seen to keep the world somewhat like IOTL and to achieve a U.S. alignment with the Central Powers in war was this timeline by @Onkel Willie
     
  17. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    Last first. Yes, France imported a lot of steel from Germany in 1913, the war was a massive disruption of trade flows, Italy really copped it.

    There's a big difference between financial and economic collapse. A big part of the whole short war belief was that a long war couldn't be financed, but the war quickly shook out such hidebound thinking and the belligerents did what they had to do to find the money. Without the US as nuetral, and assets in the US frozen, the Entente would have to make adjustments to how it financed the war and ultimately how it was supplied and fought. They may print more money and extract more ruthlessly from colonies or whatever, but they are not going to sit on their hands just because the US is a belligerent.
     
    Julio92 and BlondieBC like this.
  18. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    I read that a while back. Its actually pretty good, and does a good job at representing the akward stumbling required to get to that point without overly altering the personalities/national priorities of those involved. But even that took the US basically two years to enter the conflict and for reasons entirely of its own making. That overcame by biggest hang-up on the issue: namely, that US-UK tensions are the only reasonable crack through which the US could squeeze into belligerency, but the UK was only tangentially attached to the Franco-Russian alliance prior to the actual start of the war and that if their immediate interests are threatened by the prospect of imminent war with the US there're very unlikely to jump into a massive conflict in Continental Europe. Radically changing the pre-war environment, weather I want to or not, is basically required in order to get a scenario where the US is willing to jump in right at war's start.
     
  19. jony663 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Looking at the vote I thought I would be seeing more well thought out strategies on how the US would get involved.

    Well I do not see it happening, and here is why.

    All the US can do is take a few islands that Britain will take back latter.

    The US Army is in no position to invade Canada, if so if could look like Napoleon in Russia.

    How is America to project power to be involved in Europe, are they invading France.

    Lastly finance, if the DOW is post 1914, any American loans will be defaulted on, that will effect markets.

    Ok one more, Japan takes Guam, Midway and pressures Hawaii.

    Not good
     
    martymcfly likes this.
  20. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    That's actually the hardest part, since the Royal Navy will be there in force to prevent attacks on those islands. They'll fall eventually, but for the first year or two (assuming some random early 1910s POD) the US will be on the defensive (on land) and at most will be clearing the way to conquer Canada and the Caribbean (in the Atlantic) at sea by attacking Franco-British commerce and ships.

    In 1914/15, no, but once the US gears up for war and applies the lessons of the initial fighting, Canada is thoroughly doomed. Canada is not Russia. Montreal is about 55 km from the US border. Toronto is about 50 km if you cross the lake (lake/river warfare, yay), and maybe 130 km by land. Ottowa is 75 km. There are rivers, lakes, and canals available for logistics. Those cities are at the center of the majority of Canadian population and industry in the 1910s. The Maritimes would be secondary since Halifax is very strategic and the terrain is much worse and distances further (although Saint John and Fredericton are each about 90 km from the US border). Western Canada isn't nearly as valuable, but Vancouver and Winnipeg aren't too far from the border.

    Nothing comparable to Russia in the slightest. Eastern Europe is far more spread out than the key cities in Canada.

    One, the Royal Navy will be tied down all over the Atlantic. The US could probably use the GIUK gap for shipping, but it's definitely a challenge. I'd expect a lot of naval warfare in the North Sea. I'm not sure there would be a large commitment of American forces in Europe, but on the other hand, the absence of American imports to the Entente will be crippling and probably worth as much as the entire OTL AEF.

    Definitely a problem, yes, but I'm not too familiar on how bad the effects would be.

    Well, for one, Graf Spee's fleet survives, since they can use the American Pacific bases and harass Japan and Britain from there. For two, the US will probably accelerate naval construction by the time the worst of the British threat is over (late 1915). The US won't be able to churn out such a massive fleet like in WWII (this whole war will be a lot harder on the US than WWII, since it will have a lot of fighting on US soil), but I think there will be a realisation that the US's main role in this conflict is naval (to keep the trade to Germany alive, continue to protect American interests globally, and retaking islands lost to Japan). The Pacific is a secondary theater, and I wouldn't be surprised if one or two major victories over Japan would get them to quit the war on favourable terms (for Japan, and for the US too, really). Japan has no need to go down with the sinking Anglo-French ship. Once the Entente is gone from the Caribbean, then a lot of Marines and warships will be available elsewhere, and a lot of them will be going to the Pacific.