AHC: Central Powers USA

[Arkenfolm]

Largely agree. With small US Army and Large Royal Navy, the Canadian lines might be kept open for a while. Depends on how the UK allocates resources.

The Royal Navy was large enough as it was. Against Germany and the US, how can they hope to keep the lines open to Canada? Not much will be able to get to and from Canada within weeks after the US declares war on the UK.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Largely agree. With small US Army and Large Royal Navy, the Canadian lines might be kept open for a while. Depends on how the UK allocates resources.

The sea routes are going to depend alot more on the size of the USN than army, and if we're assuming the British are also particpating in The Great War (as opposed to being in a 'parrallel war' to a Franco-Russia vs German conflict as I theorized) they need to keep so much of the Royal Navy back near the isles that, given the force multiplying power of operating within their home hemisphere (Supply access, proximity to areas of repair, the ability to deploy coastal/short range craft such as torpedo boats ect.) the RN won't be able to break through a blockade, especially if the only naval base capable of supporting large naval forces (Halifax) is captured/invested by the Americans. Its highly doubtful the British are going to dedicate the kind of forces need to "break in", since that would mean leaving the North Sea vulnerable.

The issue is that while a scenario of US being belingerant and threatening to Britain and France may not affect American military preparation and standing army since at that time there was no great support for large standing US army but it would of affected Canadian identity and politics.

IOTL Canadian military preparedness and size plus industrialization was only possible due to relative friendly relations between Canada/Britain and USA. If that was to change you can expect that all of that would of changed and that Canadians would of responded in an alarmed way to American aggression prior to war.

Perhaps, but Canada only has a certain amount of resources it can effectively tap for its own defense and Britain itself is going to have tough decisions to make if its asked to dedicate more resources to the Domain's defense. You'd certainly see a greater degree of co-ordination of Imperial war policy (Perhaps the idea of the Conservatives to sign onto a joint Imperial fleet?), but any large build-up of a proffesional Canadian force is, at the very least, going to result in the National Guard units in the north being put onto higher degrees of training/readiness. due to their states being under the guns.

 

[BlondieBC]

The Royal Navy was large enough as it was. Against Germany and the US, how can they hope to keep the lines open to Canada? Not much will be able to get to and from Canada within weeks after the US declares war on the UK.

Yes, but it is not their most likely scenario. Use about 1/3 of fleet to keep Germans away (55% risk fleet) with lots of short range ships defending island, use 2/3 to fight USA (longer range portions and newer). I think they have the weight to have a good chance to win.

 

[Lusitania]

The sea routes are going to depend alot more on the size of the USN than army, and if we're assuming the British are also particpating in The Great War (as opposed to being in a 'parrallel war' to a Franco-Russia vs German conflict as I theorized) they need to keep so much of the Royal Navy back near the isles that, given the force multiplying power of operating within their home hemisphere (Supply access, proximity to areas of repair, the ability to deploy coastal/short range craft such as torpedo boats ect.) the RN won't be able to break through a blockade, especially if the only naval base capable of supporting large naval forces (Halifax) is captured/invested by the Americans. Its highly doubtful the British are going to dedicate the kind of forces need to "break in", since that would mean leaving the North Sea vulnerable.



Perhaps, but Canada only has a certain amount of resources it can effectively tap for its own defense and Britain itself is going to have tough decisions to make if its asked to dedicate more resources to the Domain's defense. You'd certainly see a greater degree of co-ordination of Imperial war policy (Perhaps the idea of the Conservatives to sign onto a joint Imperial fleet?), but any large build-up of a proffesional Canadian force is, at the very least, going to result in the National Guard units in the north being put onto higher degrees of training/readiness. due to their states being under the guns.

Yes that is all accepted and I agree. The point I stated and was a bit annoyed with was that the US will be able to defeat the Canadian but it will take the us 6 month 1 year for the US to gear up at sand time Canada will too. it will take several months for American to defeat the Canadians. No cake walk and go on vacation as some have been indicating.

 

[Riain]

That depends on where those NPAM divisions are. While I fully agree the invasion is going to be slow going, the US has the advantage of the attack on a broad front in that they can concentrate to launch an offensive at a place and time of their choosing, while the Canadians while have to defuse their professional forces and supplies or risk leaving a point vulnerable to the establishing (local) American strategic supremacy. Due to rail limitations, we can safely discount the Pacific side of the Rockies for this, but everything east of Bismark is fair game.

Where are the Canadians going to put their divisions? The St.Lawrence valley is vital, so that's likely going to get the lions share, but what about New Brunswick to keep Halifax open to support a British releif force? What about the Western rails spurring out of Winnipeg and the shipping ports on Lake Superior that being in the grain and ore? The Ontario Penninsulia, vulnerable strategically as it is but containing the bulk of Canadian industry?

I think the US and Canada will likely put most of their forces in the same places because it will be obvious to both where the easiest and best places to concentrate and maneuvre and most worthwhile to capture. Given the US will only have about 10 division equivalents I doubt they'd spread themselves along the border, they fight their own version of the Schlieffen plan, perhaps plan to take a good chunk of everything between Detroit and Ottawa with the most meagre covering forces from the crappiest reserve units doing everything else.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Yes that is all accepted and I agree. The point I stated and was a bit annoyed with was that the US will be able to defeat the Canadian but it will take the us 6 month 1 year for the US to gear up at sand time Canada will too. it will take several months for American to defeat the Canadians. No cake walk and go on vacation as some have been indicating.

Oh, I fully agree. That's what I put up in my initial post on the concept. What I was countering was your statement that the sea lines are going to be open for awhile. On LAND that Canadians will be able to effectively resist the US (at least in the St. Lawrence Valley region: securing anything from Winnipeg West is likely a lost cause) if they concentrate forces rather than spread themselves thinnly across the whole border (likely). But given Halifax can be blockaded with ease by the USN which makes a potential British naval releif force a huge gamble. If they can't break through in the intial clash, than the RN is going to be regionally short on ammo, supplies, repair/maintenance facilities ect. and be vulnerable to being run down by the USN. They can't afford to run at the same speed as the Americans can if they want to have enough gas in the tank to get back to Britain without cannibalizing the smaller vessels to insure fuel for the bigger boats, and lack the facilities in the Western Hemisphere to shelter a large surviving force without scattering and getting picked off in detail. Because of this, the Entente forces in the America are likely going to have to make due with what they can produce domestically.

That means they're going to have to concentrate around the Northern Great Lakes coast and St. Lawrence, where they can lean on local industry in Ontario and shorten the front enough to exploit static defense advantage and limit the ability of the numerically-superior Americans to just outflank them. That puts them on an attirtional clock, however, and will leave the West open to the US sending in low-tier troops for simply occupation duty of strategic points. Given there's plenty of areas in the West that have 15% plus residents born in the US (likely collaberators), a weaker link to the Canadian Government and Britian in general, and would be dependent on the US to facilitate the re-introduction of manufactures and coal/heating, you're looking at something less like a Vietnam or Afghanistan and something more like the Indian Wars.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I think the US and Canada will likely put most of their forces in the same places because it will be obvious to both where the easiest and best places to concentrate and maneuvre and most worthwhile to capture. Given the US will only have about 10 division equivalents I doubt they'd spread themselves along the border, they fight their own version of the Schlieffen plan, perhaps plan to take a good chunk of everything between Detroit and Ottawa with the most meagre covering forces from the crappiest reserve units doing everything else.

That's not exactly a bad strategy, since it hits at the heart of the Canadian population and industrial potential, as well as the route for supplying and receiving supplies from the West and establishing total control of the Great Lakes for shipping. But I'm not sure that's a solid strategy for the Canadians to defend that area first, since it leaves them vulnerable to isolation if the US then sends forces north from Albany to seize control of the Montreal-Quebec City area and cut them off from potential British relief. Unlike the S.P in Europe, Canada can only retreat deeper into the sack rather than back away from it.

 

[Lusitania]

Oh, I fully agree. That's what I put up in my initial post on the concept. What I was countering was your statement that the sea lines are going to be open for awhile. On LAND that Canadians will be able to effectively resist the US (at least in the St. Lawrence Valley region: securing anything from Winnipeg West is likely a lost cause) if they concentrate forces rather than spread themselves thinnly across the whole border (likely). But given Halifax can be blockaded with ease by the USN which makes a potential British naval releif force a huge gamble. If they can't break through in the intial clash, than the RN is going to be regionally short on ammo, supplies, repair/maintenance facilities ect. and be vulnerable to being run down by the USN. They can't afford to run at the same speed as the Americans can if they want to have enough gas in the tank to get back to Britain without cannibalizing the smaller vessels to insure fuel for the bigger boats, and lack the facilities in the Western Hemisphere to shelter a large surviving force without scattering and getting picked off in detail. Because of this, the Entente forces in the America are likely going to have to make due with what they can produce domestically.

That means they're going to have to concentrate around the Northern Great Lakes coast and St. Lawrence, where they can lean on local industry in Ontario and shorten the front enough to exploit static defense advantage and limit the ability of the numerically-superior Americans to just outflank them. That puts them on an attirtional clock, however, and will leave the West open to the US sending in low-tier troops for simply occupation duty of strategic points. Given there's plenty of areas in the West that have 15% plus residents born in the US (likely collaberators), a weaker link to the Canadian Government and Britian in general, and would be dependent on the US to facilitate the re-introduction of manufactures and coal/heating, you're looking at something less like a Vietnam or Afghanistan and something more like the Indian Wars.

The only real US-Canadian war story I can reference (with some realism) is the turtledove books.

So for any real scenario that relations between US and rest of world changed at some point in past and US -Canada war a possibility there would of been a greater emphasis on war industry in Canada. Even the Churchill to Winnipeg rail line be built much sooner. For any Canadians / British would realize can’t rely on BRitish supplies.

As for the US to what level it arms and size of army the POD would need to be very severe for the US to give up its isolation stance and attitudes. Nothing happening in 1914 (unless Britain declares war on the US) will change US stance.

Therefore the older the break in relations and antagonist attitude the better prepared both countries will be.

 

[Shadow Master]

What if there were no slow, gradual worsening of relations, but rather a sudden, unforeseen and unexpected Casus Belli that pulls the USA into the war, and where neither the USA nor the Canadians/British have made anything other that OTL preparations?

I would expect that in the case of the above, using my POD, the first invasion in the north american theater would likely be a Canadian series of spoiling attacks to slow down the expected USA invasion, which would not come in force until at least the summer of 1915, if at all.

Depending on the particulars, the Pacific theater would need to be looked at. Does the German East Asia Squadron still need to head back to Germany if the USA is in the Central Powers? This alone can change the nature of the Pacific Theater from what we know into something that would likely be quite a bit different. What about Japan? What are they going to be doing with German raiders lurking about, and what about the USN?

With the huge shift in demographics that this thread calls for, what likely would be different about the African Theaters? Could the Entente go ahead as in OTL, or would this be seen as a waste of time in light of the fact that the US is capable of putting commerce raiders into the South Atlantic at any time, and thus elimination of German colonies wouldn't secure their merchant shipping?

The USA is not going to be doing any large scale ground combat fighting in Europe, as the ability to ship in such forces means the war is already won/lost, but what about the loss of freight carried by american hulls for the duration? This should be looked at closely I should think, as it isn't just a matter of material for the Entente war effort, but anything/everything historically carried by american merchantmen during the course of the war...

 

[Lusitania]

What if there were no slow, gradual worsening of relations, but rather a sudden, unforeseen and unexpected Casus Belli that pulls the USA into the war, and where neither the USA nor the Canadians/British have made anything other that OTL preparations?

I would expect that in the case of the above, using my POD, the first invasion in the north american theater would likely be a Canadian series of spoiling attacks to slow down the expected USA invasion, which would not come in force until at least the summer of 1915, if at all.

This has been something I been struggling with. For an isolationist country that the US was and the close relationship that existed between US and britian / France to suddenly change over night for war to be declared just does not seem possible.

That a different relationship was to exist yes absolutely. That would of meant that political alliances, forces both land and naval wouldbof been completely different. In those cases would WW1 readout as per iOTL I not sure.

I actually see a US that stays completely neutral not selling any product or material to either side. For any action against Canada and British empire puts Philippines, Hawai or Puerto Rico in jeapordy of falling to external forces.

A gradual build up of forces and worsening relations world wide would be a more realistic situation after a pod.

 

[Shadow Master]

This has been something I been struggling with. For an isolationist country that the US was and the close relationship that existed between US and britian / France to suddenly change over night for war to be declared just does not seem possible.

That a different relationship was to exist yes absolutely. That would of meant that political alliances, forces both land and naval wouldbof been completely different. In those cases would WW1 readout as per iOTL I not sure.

I actually see a US that stays completely neutral not selling any product or material to either side. For any action against Canada and British empire puts Philippines, Hawai or Puerto Rico in jeapordy of falling to external forces.

A gradual build up of forces and worsening relations world wide would be a more realistic situation after a pod.

I agree with most of this, but then again, I came up with a POD that does allow us to explore the posited ATL, where the USA is in it right from the start, and without any intention/plan/preparations being made, so we don't need to have years/decades of changes to take into account. And with my POD, there might not be any WWI at all, or at least it would be far and away different from OTL.

 

[Lusitania]

I agree with most of this, but then again, I came up with a POD that does allow us to explore the posited ATL, where the USA is in it right from the start, and without any intention/plan/preparations being made, so we don't need to have years/decades of changes to take into account. And with my POD, there might not be any WWI at all, or at least it would be far and away different from OTL.

Then the biggest factor would be the loss of Canadian forces in Europe and supplies while it builds up its own military resources. The allies also loose all material and financial support from US.

 

[VoidStalker]

So on the note of Canada I wanted to see what impact not having Canadian forces available for Europe would have. The 1st Canadian division was sent to UK October of 1914 and trained up until deployment to France in February of 1915. So any battle before then the Entente are not short on troops compared to OTL, assuming UK has not changed deployment priorities.


I will assume that fall of 1914 in the Americas will be more probes as neither side is ready for full out war, though the US might due to larger numbers be able to make some occupation gains in less defended or undefended areas that are not considered as vital. Or they may just stay on the defense and both sides just stare at each other as they build up.

USN from what I can find has 10 battleships in the fleet of various quality and would commission 7 more through 1917. Going to have to check the RN and HSF numbers but that is going to make for some hard decisions at the Admiralty. Not to mention allow German ships overseas a base to run to.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I agree with most of this, but then again, I came up with a POD that does allow us to explore the posited ATL, where the USA is in it right from the start, and without any intention/plan/preparations being made, so we don't need to have years/decades of changes to take into account. And with my POD, there might not be any WWI at all, or at least it would be far and away different from OTL.

This has been something I been struggling with. For an isolationist country that the US was and the close relationship that existed between US and britian / France to suddenly change over night for war to be declared just does not seem possible.

That a different relationship was to exist yes absolutely. That would of meant that political alliances, forces both land and naval wouldbof been completely different. In those cases would WW1 readout as per iOTL I not sure.

I actually see a US that stays completely neutral not selling any product or material to either side. For any action against Canada and British empire puts Philippines, Hawai or Puerto Rico in jeapordy of falling to external forces.

A gradual build up of forces and worsening relations world wide would be a more realistic situation after a pod.

Perhaps we need a seperate thread to discuss the actual campaign/WW I in such a sudden-outbreak scenario vs. the path required to get a realistic 1914 entry and all its prelimary effects?

 

[Shadow Master]

Perhaps we need a seperate thread to discuss the actual campaign/WW I in such a sudden-outbreak scenario vs. the path required to get a realistic 1914 entry and all its prelimary effects?

That is likely, and the reason that I haven't shared my POD except with the OP and two others via PM.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The only real US-Canadian war story I can reference (with some realism) is the turtledove books.

So for any real scenario that relations between US and rest of world changed at some point in past and US -Canada war a possibility there would of been a greater emphasis on war industry in Canada. Even the Churchill to Winnipeg rail line be built much sooner. For any Canadians / British would realize can’t rely on BRitish supplies.

As for the US to what level it arms and size of army the POD would need to be very severe for the US to give up its isolation stance and attitudes. Nothing happening in 1914 (unless Britain declares war on the US) will change US stance.

Therefore the older the break in relations and antagonist attitude the better prepared both countries will be.

You don't want riverine warfare and lacustrine warfare, since that's a field which the US has been prepared for since the ACW, and will have studied the mistakes they made on the Great Lakes in the War of 1812 to improve on them. If the treaties which demilitarise the Great Lakes are abrogated, the US will end up dominant (river monitors, lake warships, any other sort of craft meant for the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, or the St. Lawrence River). If Britain and Canada focuses on that field, it will be at the detriment in other areas, since the US can pull other funds (for other US Navy warships) to such a key field like that area.

This has been something I been struggling with. For an isolationist country that the US was and the close relationship that existed between US and britian / France to suddenly change over night for war to be declared just does not seem possible.

That a different relationship was to exist yes absolutely. That would of meant that political alliances, forces both land and naval wouldbof been completely different. In those cases would WW1 readout as per iOTL I not sure.

I actually see a US that stays completely neutral not selling any product or material to either side. For any action against Canada and British empire puts Philippines, Hawai or Puerto Rico in jeapordy of falling to external forces.

A gradual build up of forces and worsening relations world wide would be a more realistic situation after a pod.

Philippines, possibly (Japan will help), Hawaii, yeah right (distance, local garrison, Graf von Spee's fleet, and the US Navy's Pacific assets will make it impossible), Puerto Rico, doubtful. Puerto Rico will only fall if Britain makes a huge commitment to the Caribbean, perhaps to defend Trinidad and keep Venezuela neutral. Even then, it won't be easy, and sooner or later the tide will turn and Puerto Rico will be retaken by the US along with every single Anglo-French colony in the Caribbean thanks to an expanding US Navy and the force of the US Marines. That will also keep Caribbean soldiers away from Western Europe, who along with the Canadians and Newfoundlanders, will make a notable absence in the Western Front.

 

[Lusitania]

You don't want riverine warfare and lacustrine warfare, since that's a field which the US has been prepared for since the ACW, and will have studied the mistakes they made on the Great Lakes in the War of 1812 to improve on them. If the treaties which demilitarise the Great Lakes are abrogated, the US will end up dominant (river monitors, lake warships, any other sort of craft meant for the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, or the St. Lawrence River). If Britain and Canada focuses on that field, it will be at the detriment in other areas, since the US can pull other funds (for other US Navy warships) to such a key field like that area.



Philippines, possibly (Japan will help), Hawaii, yeah right (distance, local garrison, Graf von Spee's fleet, and the US Navy's Pacific assets will make it impossible), Puerto Rico, doubtful. Puerto Rico will only fall if Britain makes a huge commitment to the Caribbean, perhaps to defend Trinidad and keep Venezuela neutral. Even then, it won't be easy, and sooner or later the tide will turn and Puerto Rico will be retaken by the US along with every single Anglo-French colony in the Caribbean thanks to an expanding US Navy and the force of the US Marines. That will also keep Caribbean soldiers away from Western Europe, who along with the Canadians and Newfoundlanders, will make a notable absence in the Western Front.

Yes that all true. As I indicated before US will eventually overcome the Canadian forces but it will require a big commitment and resources. Plus like everything else it then puts their other posesiions in jeapordy.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Then the biggest factor would be the loss of Canadian forces in Europe and supplies while it builds up its own military resources. The allies also loose all material and financial support from US.

You can probably wave goodbye to imports from the Western Hemisphere for the most part, once the USN gets its fast ships in gear for commerce raiding and makes its intents known to Latin America. I suppose a great deal does depend on how far both sides are willing to go in terms of neutral rights to shipping/commerce though; now that both sides have a fighting chance on the sea and something to lose by opening the Pandora's box of dismissing the Hauge rules, we'd either end up seeing anything goes attitude on the part of the US is Britain still tried to "Rule the waves and waive the rules", or perhaps both sides being sensitive in order to keep some supplies flowing and persuade neutral nations closer to their cause. That later part alone would eliminate a great deal of suffering, though I personally don't think GB would go for it. The risk of exploitative transhipping/flipping imports by Italy and the Dutch would make the blockade too leaky to tolerate.

 

[History Learner]

I couldn't open those pages in the link, however from a bit of scraping around France was a net exporter of steel (to pick one thing) in 1913 and 1914 and got by on 2.1 million tonnes in 1915, 1 million of which was imported. I doubt cutting off the US' portion of that will force France to the negotiating table in 1915, it would take until 1916 or 17 for that to happen.

It's easy to understand why France was a net exporter in 1913, namely that she wasn't in a total war and then also didn't have vast areas of the country under German occupation; this changed rather decisively the following August.

 

[History Learner]

As for US-Canada, the OP specifically wanted a quick turnaround by the US as not to change everything with a totally different leadup. I can't think of a PoD for that, however if it is assumed that it is possible then looking at the 1914 correlation of forces is relevant.

Indeed, but my entire point is that if we're looking at a 1914 setup we shouldn't be bringing up pre-war changes the Entente could do to mitigate U.S. entry.

Yes the US has 47k regulars and 170k NG compared to the tiny PAM but reasonable NPAM. However, as I stated, the US can't leave its Mexican border unguarded due to the revolution there and hair-brained schemes such as Plan San Diego and the July 1914 seizure of Santa Cruz by the Marines and Army. It is likely that several US divisions will be tasked to guard the Mexican border, meaning they are unable to invade Canada. In 1914 the US was occupying Nicaragua, had recently occupied and IOTL would soon again occupy Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti and Honduras, all of which will require beefed up garrisons in the event of war, drawing troops from the immediate invasion of Canada. Then there are the British and French positions in and around the Carribean that the US will want to invade and occupy, a further drain on troops for the invasion of Canada.

The U.S. didn't preform most of those actions, including heavily garrisoning the Mexican border, until 1916. By that point, more than sufficient U.S. manpower will be able. I also see the matter of Entente Caribbean possessions as irrelevant; Washington isn't stupid enough to leave Canada unoccupied before going for, say, Jamaica. Canada can actually serve as a threat to the United States if the Anglo-French reinforce it, Jamaica isn't.

Further, you question the utility of the NPAM in offense and even defense, which in terms of offense is likely justified but less so with regards to Defence. However the same factors apply to the NG, likely useless on offense but useful on defence. So the invasion of Canada will have to be undertaken by whatever regular forces are left over after all of the other tasks are covered, maybe 2/3 of the regular Army, backed by 2/3 of the NG, maybe 150,000 against 76,000. Now undoubtedly the US RA is better trained than the QPAM, but not so much so that they can take on double their numbers on the defensive and prevail, let alone prevail in weeks over the longest distances in WW1. Instead the RA will have to work with the NG to bring superior numbers to bear against the Canadians, doable of course but certainly no 5 minute walk in the park.

I'm sure the state of the NG in 1914 was not that good but with the numbers involved it's kinda irrelevant. Say the Canadians place 20,000 to guard Ottawa, 20,000 for Quebec City and 20,000 for Montreal. They leaves just 18,000 to guard Halifax, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and other strategic locations. No matter how you slice it, the U.S. is going to rapidly overrun strategic areas of Canada in 1914. More than likely Ottawa realizes how pointless and futile it is to keep fighting and bows out after the opening months in order to avoid further destruction and death because it'll be clear where the fighting is going by then.