AHC: Central Powers USA

Do you think the Entente could still win the War ?

  • They could ! (For Historical Determinists)

    Votes: 19 7.2%
  • Maybe ? It would be hard by they still got a shot

    Votes: 71 27.0%
  • No, they were already almost collapsing irl before the USA joined and would stand no chance

    Votes: 173 65.8%

  • Total voters
    263
Although I cannot speak for the 1914 national guard, I can speak too what I personally saw in the 1980's Michigan army national guard, and then later in the US army Infantry.

In 1914, the USA does not have a large standing army, something like ~200,000 total troops, while in 1980 we had 2,000,000+. This is just to get a rough idea of the respective size of the US military from pre WWI to when I served. This is to be understood as pointing out that in the time I served, we had a much larger military, with more funding and infrastructure than the 1914 forces. The level of unpreparedness that I experienced first hand leads me to the conclusion that the 1980's national guard would have needed several months to train up to wartime standards, both because of individual needs/shortcomings as well as the much harder higher level shortcomings, and this is with 10 times as many folks in the service, and thus giving the capability to deploy some (totally unprepared troops), train some others up to speed, and recruit new folks to enlarge the forces. Getting a small group of men trained up in personal skills is the easy part, so say at the company level you have guys ready to rock within a week. Now try getting 5 such companies, that may never have worked with another company at all, to be competently working together, and then scale that up to divisional level...

In 1914, with fewer professional officers, and much more limited bases/infrastructure, I would not be optimistic about getting any force combat capable above battalion level for at least 1-3 months, and that is assuming that you can even get them mobilized and deployed in that time frame and do all the needed training, and remember, any commitment of forces to combat deployment, takes away from getting new folks trained. When your outnumbered as badly as the USA is going to be in mid/late 1914, the very first priority is going to be expansion of the armed forces as quickly as possible, and this doesn't leave room for deploying multiple NG divisions for service outside the US.

The most I could see the US doing with ground troop commitments right off the bat would be to use small forces, and take UK coaling stations/stockpiles in the caribbean islands, to forstal RN actions there and off the US coasts.

Thats where the 1916 NG mobilization in support of the Punitive Expedition was so valuable. 6-8 months of hard training all the way to division level, the first time this had occured since maybe the Spanish American war or even the ACW.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
So your entire argument now rests on 2018 propaganda wiping out Halifax,Nova Scotia?

I am just trying to understand how much of your argument is the hubris of ignorance.
EB-NISC3166-100-2.jpg


Play it.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The problem for Canada is that defending Winnipeg weakens the defenses in Southern Ontario, and since that's where most of the population and industry is, losing Southern Ontario removes Canada's warmaking ability. Assuming the United States joins the Central Powers more or less on day one, as the thread postulates, the Canadian forces will be outnumbered somewhere around 2:1 by American forces - not enough to force through strongly defended positions, but if those positions are left weakened by defenders being diverted to Winnipeg..?

There's also the issue that Winnipeg itself is secondary to the railroad. Destroying the tracks fifty miles east accomplishes the objective just as effectively, it's just easier to repair.

I feel like a broken record here. This is about US joining Germany in WWI.

But many people keep getting hung up on a America declaring war at same time as war breaks out in Europe. That is not possible. There has to be an incident to cause the Americans to give up their isolation and declare war based on iOTL politics and alliances.

So we need to choose either incident before WW1 and we have different things going including troop build up, economics and such.

Or a more realistic one is during 1914 after war declared something fucks up and US joins war. In this case we have British empire in full war mode and US playing catch-up.

I enjoy reading what-if in the post 1900 but do not like to read in ASB section but for some reason I keep seeing arguments that makes it seem towards ASB and not realistic.
 
I feel like a broken record here. This is about US joining Germany in WWI.
Well, does it really need that? I took the wording of the OP to be asking for the USA to be in the war by Aug, 1914, fighting alongside of the CP. Nowhere did I see that the USA must be allied with either Germany or AH.

But many people keep getting hung up on a America declaring war at same time as war breaks out in Europe. That is not possible. There has to be an incident to cause the Americans to give up their isolation and declare war based on iOTL politics and alliances.
Actually, the challenge is in providing the needed spark. Given the proper spark, it is indeed possible to have an otherwise isolationist USA, and a pro Entente one at that, suddenly entering the/(A) war, and end up fighting alongside their strange bedfellows, the CP.

So we need to choose either incident before WW1 and we have different things going including troop build up, economics and such. Or a more realistic one is during 1914 after war declared something fucks up and US joins war. In this case we have British empire in full war mode and US playing catch-up.
Depends on how far/long before the war begins. My POD starts with the change in one fellows plans, in late 1913, and then leads to the main event, that brings the USA into the war that, historically, grew into WWI.

I enjoy reading what-if in the post 1900 but do not like to read in ASB section but for some reason I keep seeing arguments that makes it seem towards ASB and not realistic.
I've been enjoying all the discussion in this thread, and have been very hesitant to post my POD here in thread, for fear of hijacking the thread, on what may not be something the OP was looking for. It's frustrating waiting for permission to post the only POD that meets the important aspects of the AHC, because the OP hasn't posted here since creating the thread three weeks ago.
 
I've been enjoying all the discussion in this thread, and have been very hesitant to post my POD here in thread, for fear of hijacking the thread, on what may not be something the OP was looking for. It's frustrating waiting for permission to post the only POD that meets the important aspects of the AHC, because the OP hasn't posted here since creating the thread three weeks ago.

Just do it.
 
Don't be frightened to throw Canadian conscription and the Mexican revolution into the 1914 mix.
Not sure about the first, but I could see the second spawning a whole family of ATL's, where my POD gets a surprised UK/US war by proxy going on concurrent with an ATL WWI/Mexican Revolution.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Well, does it really need that? I took the wording of the OP to be asking for the USA to be in the war by Aug, 1914, fighting alongside of the CP. Nowhere did I see that the USA must be allied with either Germany or AH.

Actually, the challenge is in providing the needed spark. Given the proper spark, it is indeed possible to have an otherwise isolationist USA, and a pro Entente one at that, suddenly entering the/(A) war, and end up fighting alongside their strange bedfellows, the CP.

Depends on how far/long before the war begins. My POD starts with the change in one fellows plans, in late 1913, and then leads to the main event, that brings the USA into the war that, historically, grew into WWI.

I've been enjoying all the discussion in this thread, and have been very hesitant to post my POD here in thread, for fear of hijacking the thread, on what may not be something the OP was looking for. It's frustrating waiting for permission to post the only POD that meets the important aspects of the AHC, because the OP hasn't posted here since creating the thread three weeks ago.
The issue is not the US enter war but that a needed spark is generated in a vacuum. By that I mean if a situation does arise say in 1913 that suddenly relationships do go from good to bad (enough to signify a anti British attitude in US) then there will be a worsening of relations before outbreak of war. There might even be a few border or high seas clashes. Both sides pull out investments, start mobilization of sort sort.

The whole point is that things will not be as they were in 1914 and then suddenly POF we have war which throws some of the military and logistics figures out door. Not that Britain have much time to arrange alternatives. But military on both sides be different, US might of imposed sanctions or higher duties on BRitish trade. We might of seen investment and trade between the two greatly affected. My whole point is in whatever the POD there will be changes in circumstances that both countries find themselves in 1914.

Heck be interesting to see a TL where the US was so upset about incident but cautious about declaring war alone against British empire now finds itself being pushed towards war by the warhawks to attack the British while they occupied with war in Europe and Middle East. Similar to circumstances that led to war with British in 1812.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Ok here is a bit of history on oil industry in Venezuela.


In 1908 General Juan Vicente Gomez took power to become the strongest dictator of the 20th century with 27 years in office. He opened the gate to foreign oil investors. In 1909 he granted to John Allen Tregelles, a British company representative, the rights to explore twelve of the twenty states of Venezuela. John Allen Tregelles founded a company called “The Venezuelan Oilfield Exploration Company” which had a lease of approximate of 27 million hectares. However, in 1911, Gomez revoked the concession because it was not giving him enough revenues and royalties.

Later Gomez gave almost the same concession to Rafael Valladares who formed the Caribbean Petroleum Company. This company made several million dollars exploring oil and asphalt on the Lake of Maracaibo. In 1913 the concession was transferred to a British-Dutch operator, the Royal Dutch-Shell Oil Company. This was the beginning of the modern economic history of Venezuela.
 
Not sure about the first, but I could see the second spawning a whole family of ATL's, where my POD gets a surprised UK/US war by proxy going on concurrent with an ATL WWI/Mexican Revolution.

In 1911 there was talk in Canada about introduction of conscription like the other 3 dominions. If such talk lead to a mid 1914 decision to introduce conscription it could be interpreted in the US as part of a concerted move against them when combined with other British activities.

https://www.army.gov.au/our-history...of-army-history-conference/2011-chief-of-army
 
I'm in the process of disclosing my POD in another thread, which can be found Here! I plan to write three thread-marked posts, with the second due this coming weekend, so stop by and let me know what you think. One positive note, the OP has responded in that thread....
 
Top