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)
    8.0%
  2. Maybe ? It would be hard by they still got a shot

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

    128 vote(s)
    68.1%
  1. DougM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    So let’s see if I get the various points some folks are insisting on.

    1). Without US material and Financial and eventually Military Support The Entaunt is somehow going to win a way that they just Barely won with this support
    2) in fact not having the US support will HELP them and they will do butter
    3) not have the crutch of US support will cause thier Generals to realize the stupidity of thier ways and to invent better more practical tactics.
    4) With the US starting off as a CO from day one not a SIngle country will even consider staying neutral. Because OBVIOUSLY Russia, France and England against Germany, AH, and the US is any easy fight. So country’s will be lining up to join the obvious victors.
    5). Japan a country that had reasonable relations with the US at the time and that joined the war to basically grab some colonies from a distract Germany and otherwise did basically nothing in the real timeline is going to jump in with both feet against the US because... reasons.
    6) in fact Hapan is not only going to jump in but is going to Kick the US’s but.
    7)Canada, a country with EXTRODINARY ties economically to the US is going to not hesitate to declare war on the US. Because “God bless the KING!”
    8) Canada has never had anyone ever suggest that maybe they should be independent. Unlike, Ireland, Scotland, India and pretty much every single English possession in history presumably because “God safe the King”
    9). Quebec in 1914 was fiercely loyal to Canada and England and would NEVER have any subgroup try to take advantage of the war to gain independence from England/Canada. Apparently that independent streak only existed in the 1800s and then was reborn after WW2. So WW1 was a magical time when all folks in Quebec and the rest of Canada were fiercely loyal.
    10). Canada is going to be able to easily resist the US. Because historically countries outnumbered over 12 to 1 in people, the size of its military, military spending, navel power, industries and finance have ALWAS been able to one the day because thier hearts are pure.
    11). England is going to divert all its colonies military to support Canada (not that Canada needs it, see point 10)
    12) Diverting said troops will not hurt England’s war against Germany, because... reasons.
    13) in fact England will send its BEF to the US instead of Germany (this one I actually think may happen)
    14). Sending the BEF to Canada will somehow not lose France the way. Just because Germany came close to winning against France AND England in the first offense and then again in the march to the sea. But apparently without England’s help France will do just fine.
    15). England can easily get its troops to Canada because the US Navy is a joke. And can do nothing to stop this.
    16). In fact if the US Navy tries to stop it England will just brush it aside with practically no lose.
    17). England can use its entire navy against the US (not that it needs it) because Germany and it’s Navy won’t try anything... because reasons
    18). England had so much extra shipping that it can easily still ship everything it did in WW1 and still have ships to send the BEF to Canada and support it.
    19). Not that Canada needs this support because it can take the US all by itself. (I need to make that perfectly clear so I am repeating it so our Canadian members don’t get offended)
    20). Apparently the US and it’s military, material and financial support were of no perticular use to anyone and in fact France and England would have been better off without them...
    I could go on but I think you get my point by now.

    So in short Canada outnumbered by over 12 to 1 will win the War against the US because they eat more maple syrup then the US does. And as a result of this thier will be no one in all of Canada that things going to war with the US is a bad idea.

    Now once the ASB go home the reality is that England has alwas worried about England and damn the colonies, So odds are England will send 0 support to Canada as England is worried about Germany and it dominating Europe, This is why England entered the war and didn’t stay neutral. It is not like England has a long time love of France,
    This means that Canada is on its own against a country it CAN NOT BEAT. It is outnumbered and out produced and out financed by way way to much. It has no natural defenses and 90% of everything but land is within 100 miles of the US. And much of that is all but on the boarder as the two countries are very close economical to each other.
    Not everyone in Canada in 1914 was a diehard defender of the Empire. And some sections of Canada did not even want to be Canadians much less English.
    Only a fool would not expect that after the US wins against Canada the will all but End Canada. The will (odds on) take the western section in part to Connect Alaska, in part for its national resources. It will probably take everything touching the Great Lakes and it will “rationalize” the boarder here and there. It will probably also devide up the remains to give anyone interested thier own country. So anyone can see that Canada wins or it goes away (for all practical purposes). And the odds against Canada winning are so long as to be ASB level.
    So it is Logical for Canada to look at this and say “No thanks”. We are staying out, And I have to think that most Canadians are more loyal to Canada then to England/the Empire. The question is are Canadians smart enough back then to realize that the Empire is only loyal to England and England is NOT loyal to anyone but England ? Buy this I mean that England will defend and or help anyone in the Empire right up to the point of it being in England’s better interest to do something else, the Empire has alwas been England first.
    Of course this raises the possibility that England may give Canada its independence just to avoid a war in America at the same time it is fighting Germany,
     
    trajen777 and History Learner like this.
  2. Alternator Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Location:
    New England
    The Royal Navy has, roughly, the following priorities:

    1) Keep Great Britain safe from the High Seas Fleet. This means that the Grand Fleet absolutely cannot be left too badly weakened.
    2) Keep the English Channel open for British and French shipping, and safe from any opportunistic German raiders. Again, this means a strong Grand Fleet.
    3) Keep the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean as-safe-as-possible for British and French shipping, to allow both nations to call upon their empire. This involves keeping ships tasked with hunting u-boats and commerce raiders.
    4) Keep Canadian waters safe.

    The Allies can manage the first two comfortably, and can mostly manage the third, but at the cost of abandoning the fourth. Contesting the USN off American waters means that either the HSF gets its golden opportunity to engage the Grand Fleet at parity, or the commerce raiders/u-boats are free to run wild.
     
    HunterX likes this.
  3. History Learner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Relying on Battlecruisers to face down dreadnoughts is a recipe for disaster as Jutland showed. Regardless of that, that only means a net advantage of four ships for the Entente, still not enough to give them the edge in three sectors. 28 RN BBs and BCs split in half is 14 for NA and 14 for the North Sea, which means they have strength in North America but the Germans have 19 ships to the 14 in the North Sea leaving the British isles exposed. The French could transfer their four BBs to the North Sea, but that still leaves the Germans with a net advantage in the North Sea and thus leaves the Med to the 3 BBs of the Austro-Hungarians. I suppose you could talk the Japanese into sending their 2 BBs to the Med, but that again leaves the Austro-Hungarians with a net advantage of one ship and thus abandons any threat to the Pacific and thus allowing the USN to focus fully on the RN forces in the Americas.

    The Entente can be strong in two places, but they cannot be strong in all.
     
    trajen777 likes this.
  4. Lusitania Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Two things; the Canadians would of concentrated on coastal batteries and artillery which would of kept american ships neutralized plus in winter few shells hitting ice would of made it unstable and unusable to snerican forces crossing it.

    The Americans would of lost their supply route of iron ore from Minnesota to the steel mills along the Great Lakes. ThAt is till they be able to ship it by rail.
     
  5. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Ah...very well Mr. Angery and Patriotic Canuk. Now we're talking about my home turf, so I hope you'll extend a similar curtisy that I gave you when it comes to the actions on the part of the people of the region and it's situation. The Ore ships don't operate in mid winter anyways, at least out of Duluth. Rather, it's late Feb. to mid March before you get the icebreakers out to clear the port. So the US industry is used to that schedule of access. If they do need to increase routing, they can easily expand the rail head in Brainerd down towards Minneapolis, where they can hook the booming Mesabi operatiobs into the substantial network already going east to carry the massive bulk product of the wheat mills. 1914 Minnesota has no trouble consolidating bulk goods.

    Yours,

    A Viking of the Inland Sea.

    Also, side note, focus on artillery and shells noted. That's great in and of itself, but it's going to chew up alot of industry and chemicals, so remember you can't prioritize other kinds of war production at the same time.
     
    trajen777 likes this.
  6. Lusitania Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    Wow so now i am an angry Canuck interesting what does that make you?

    Yes I know the iron ore ships do not operate in winter. I live here so yes it does freeze. The issue I wonder about icebreakers is whAt is the level of ice breaker technology in 1914. So would the shipping season be shorter than today? I think yes. Secondly Canadian will have to determine what they will concentrate on is it to build ships or is it to build artillery, coastal batteries or ships. That will need to be determined. What they decide is not something I know. Neither is the fact that US will concentrate on building ships neither is that US invades Canada.

    The premise of fact that a neutral and isolationist country till 1914 becomes a war agressor has still not been defined by the thread creator or anyone. What caused them to declare war on British and British empire. Maybe Canada stopped shipping maple syrup? Or could it of been the great Canadian army invaded the US trying to capture Florida?
     
  7. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    @Lusitania

    That was a reference back to your earlier post as a kind of omage to the signing off format you used to directly call yourself an "Angery Canuk". Post #132. Text does apoor job conveying tone, and I intended to come across as joviel rather than rude.

    You yourself also seemed to assert Canada "would of concentrated on coastal batteries and artillery" in the post I quoted in my response. So I'm a little confused since the last post seems to have moved to you not taking a certain stance.
     
  8. Shadow Master Alternate Technologies Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Hey guys, can we please not go there? I love the spirited discussion going back and forth, but please, don't go there? :cool:
     
    BarbaraChandler likes this.
  9. Lusitania Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    The response to the advantage of US building more ships is that Canadian will not concentrate on offensive weapons but on defensive since expect they not the agressor.

    The point was that the Canada be stupid to try match US in production but concentrate on things they good at and can produce.
     
  10. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    The thing is artillery emplaced to cover against the most obvious land invasion routes into Canada also incidentally covers many choke points in the St Lawrence river so the simple act of emplacement of said serves both defence against land attack and the offensive purpose of interdicting riverine traffic. Railway transport would as you note require a diversion of investment and would cost more on a per ton mile basis anyway.

    Also and I note you are still dodging this question why would American join an alliance with its main export rival and further a rival who had frequently made official and unofficial (Bismarck himself when interviewed after being Chancellor) and semi-official (off the cuff remarks by you guessed Kaiser Bill) decrying the Monroe Doctrine? Not merely that but a power who kept on trying to poke their oar into South American and Mexican affairs?
     
  11. Lusitania Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    This is what is so frustrating about the discussion because neither the creator of thread or any users can provide the POD. As I suggested it would of needed to be prior to 1900 that would of turned US anti Britain and anti French. That would of had huge repercussions for American development and Canadian plus level of defenses and armed forces.

    The only realistic TL is turtledove one, I hesitate to mention it due to many of its problems but it seemed more realistic to war outcome and how war be fought.
     
  12. Shadow Master Alternate Technologies Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    I have the POD that can do this, but as of yet the OP has not responded, and so not going to post here until I get the OK. My POD is my own warped little brainchild, but curious about this turtledove one, can anyone enlighten me?
     
  13. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    It is his Timeline 191, the US do not intercept Lees lost order and thus lose the Battle of Antietam leading to a successful War of Secession for the South who then (plot holes and handwaves) become British and French allies and win a second North American War against the Union (How Few Remain being the novel detailing this) and later the US joins the Triple Alliance and goes on to win World War 1 and World War 2.
     
    Shadow Master likes this.
  14. Shadow Master Alternate Technologies Fan

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Ah! If that is the best POD that folks are seeing for this rather unlikely ATL, mine beats that hands down. No different forces/deployments/diplomacy until mid 1914, so no need to re-invent the wheel as it were. Thanks for the information!
     
  15. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    The RN will temporarily move over to the defensive in the North Sea and not aim to take on and totally destroy the HSF in battle but rather to mark it so it cannot undertake close bombardment of Britain, stage and sustain a landing in Britain or break out into the Atlantic unchallenged. Bear in mind that IOTL the Channel Fleet had 10 of the most modern pre-dreads and these got sent to the Dardanelles by early 1915, ITTL this would not happen and these ships would be used to bolster the defence of Britain as an adjunct to the remaining half of the GF.

    As for BC, in 1914 they are part of a balanced battlefleet and the 1914 USN is decidedly unbalanced. If the GF rotated half of its strength to and through Canada that would include about 4 BCs as the core of the scouting fores for the 11 or so BBs, and these alongside armoured and light cruisers would vastly overmatch the 3 St Louis and 3 Chester class cruiser the USN had in commission in 1914 so the RN would easily win the scouting fight and therefore likely take the initiative in the BB battle to follow. The 4 BCs would not slug it out with the 10 USN BBs, that would be the task of the 11 or so BBs, with the BCs darting in and out of range at high speed to render assistance to the BBs from long range.
     
    Goldkingy likes this.
  16. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    @DougM I don't think people are saying much of that at all. I think the thrust of the argument myself and others are making isn't that Canada and the Entente will win, rather illustrating that the US and CP road to victory will be tough and likely take over a year in North America, and this is a prerequisite to shorten the war in Europe. This is based on good history; a factual counting of troops available to the US and Canada in 1914 and similar with naval forces and a knowledge of how long IOTL it took to build up armies and navies for WW1 and how they behaved in action.

    Of course it all assumes a political/diplomatic PoD that gets the US from Entente-friendly neutral to fully-fighting member of the CP within weeks in mid 1914, nobody seems to be able to jump that hurdle; but I don't need to in order to count troops and ships.
     
    RodentRevolution likes this.
  17. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    On 20 August 1914 the Channel Fleet's 8th BS of old pre-dreads was broken up and these ships sent out to stengthen overseas cruiser stations, by November 1914 this was the strength in the Atlantic.

    NAWI
    1 battleship
    5 cruisers
    1 AMC
    West Africa
    2 cruisers
    South-East America
    1 battleship
    7 cruisers
    5 AMC's
    Cape
    1 battleship
    2 cruisers
    2 AMC's

    In addition the following cruiser forces operated in the Western Atlantic.

    Cruiser Force B - 10CS [Northern Patrol]
    Cruiser Force C - 7 CS [North Sea]
    Cruiser Force D - 5 CS [Atlantic]
    Cruiser Force E - 11 CS [Irish Sea]
    Cruiser Force F - 2, ex-7CS
    Cruiser Force G - 12 CS [Western Channel]
    Cruiser Force H - ? [Atlantic]
    Cruiser Force I - 9 CS [Gibraltar]

    If the US entered the war its likely the deployment of these ships would be altered in light of the different requirements.
     
  18. Lusitania Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Location:
    Winnipeg / Lusitania
    The issue was that till 1914 Britain and US were close friends and a large percentage of those in government and population believed in isolation and wanted nothing to do with European wars.

    IOTL it took years of atrocities in Europe and sinking of few passenger ships with thousands American lives lost to change the US opinion. But still a percentage of American public wanted nothing to do with war.
     
    Shadow Master likes this.
  19. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    Which breaks up the ice and makes the work of icebreakers easier. I'd expect a sort of combat icebreaker to be a common ship type built. However, the war on the Great Lakes probably won't last long enough to build many icebreakers or get much use out of them, which means they could see use in other theaters like the North Atlantic (maybe to do something about Newfoundland, or to help escort convoys to Germany in the winter).

    Not just the St. Lawrence, but the Niagara, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers too, plus Lake St. Clair, plus Lakes Erie, Huron, and Ontario, and to a lesser extent Lake Superior since the Thunder Bay area and Sault Ste. Marie are strategic as well. That's a lot of lake/riverfront to cover with batteries, and there's a lot of good places to attack behind the front, although obviously not too deep. Too many men manning the lakeshore batteries (how many even existed on the Lakes/rivers in 1914?) and too many shells spent on them would be costly elsewhere.
     
  20. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Straya
    Just to clarify, I don't think the RN would split the GF until the situation in Europe had stabilised, so early 1915 rather than upon mobilisation in August 1914. Incidently this was when the Channel Fleet 5th BS was stripped of its pre-dreads that deployed to the Dardanelles. I imagine that if half the GF was rotated to and through Canada the 5th BS would be moved from the Channel to the North Sea to compensate, and the Dardanelles campaign would be dropped. This frees up the ANZACs to 'replace' OTLs Canadians on the western front in 1915.
     
    Shadow Master likes this.