AHC: Central Powers USA

[Lusitania]

It's over 4200 km from Ottowa to Vancouver. That's more then 5 times the distance from Brussels to Geneva, with no strategic depth. How do you man that trench?

You do not have trench war fare everywhere but Winnipeg and Ontario be two large areas.

The issue is that in the end Canada will loose but the Americans will need a proper army and have to fight hard to defeat them.

Any American can also be subject to Canadian attacks by partisans.

So the problem Canadians have is the idea that Canadians will not fight for their country or the British empire. That US with their little army (1914) will just walk in and all Canadian will welcome them or run away.

Yes the US has enourmous potential and will defeat Canada but that will not be easy. It will take a year or more. I challenge the Americans to look at the number of soldiers that fought in the WW1.

 

[Legofan4]

You do not have trench war fare everywhere but Winnipeg and Ontario be two large areas.

The issue is that in the end Canada will loose but the Americans will need a proper army and have to fight hard to defeat them.

Any American can also be subject to Canadian attacks by partisans.

So the problem Canadians have is the idea that Canadians will not fight for their country or the British empire. That US with their little army (1914) will just walk in and all Canadian will welcome them or run away.

Yes the US has enourmous potential and will defeat Canada but that will not be easy. It will take a year or more. I challenge the Americans to look at the number of soldiers that fought in the WW1.

That's not what they are saying. It doesn't matter if they defend Winnipeg because they don't have enough troops to prevent the soldiers holding the city from being surrounded and cut off. The rail line from Winnipeg to the eastern parts of Canada can be cut and then anything west of that cut will be without supplies from the eastern industrialized parts which will be producing the ammo and shells needed to continue defending. The eastern parts will be cut off from the food that is produced in the prairie provinces and shipped east to feed the industrial cities without which will make resisting very difficult to do when your soldiers are starving. They will resist but the Canadian government is not stupid without reinforcements from the rest of the empire they can't hold the Americans off forever and they know it.

Also for those who say the British fleet will base in Halifax where does the coal and oil to fuel the ships come from. Are there mines on Nova Scotia? Can't the Americans just cut the rail lines that run through the US or very close to the border?

 

[DougM]

At the start of WW1 the US had a population of about 100 to 103 million depending on the source. Canada had under 8 million. And some of those (caugh, Quebec, cough) are probably not that interested in defending Canada. But let’s go with 100 vs 8 that is a population difference of 12.5 to one.
In 1913 Canada spend about 11 Million on its Army the US spent about 900 million between its Army and its Navy (mostly Navy but still).
No matter what numbers you look up the US has a better then 10 to 1 advantage. And this doesn’t even consider how much of Canada is directly linked to the US. Today about 90% of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the US. And thier is a good reason for this. A huge percentage of Canada’s industries were linked to the US. Using or providing parts to and from the US. It was just an easy and efficient way of doing things. For decades the boarder Between Detroit/Michigan And Canada was the most import (economically) in the world because of the way the industry’s of the two countries were linked. Even in 1914 almost all Canadians live basically on the boarder. So you don’t have to go very far into Canada to basically capture 50% of the population and industry.

Canada is going to survive for about the time it takes to recruit and train the first round of troops and then they are going to get ran over. You can’t fight against that kind of odds.
Is the US ready for way in 1914. Not realy. Is the US going to make blunders and screw up equipping and training it’s army? Sure. But Canada is not exactly the world leader in military experience and training in 1914 either. And with a 12 to 1 advantage the US can absolutely SUCK and still win that be pure accident.

Which brings me to my point, I know that Canada is a dominion of England and as such goes to war when England says it does. But exactly why would Canada go to war with the US in 1914? The leaders of Canada’s are not stupid and I don’t think they are sucking lead lollipops so they will have to know that going to war against the US with both countries starting offcon equally bad foooting is sure doom for Canada. And while the US Navy may not be able to take England one on one with the commitments England has and with the High Seas Fleet ready to pounce they are not going to be able to do much if anything, And the commitment to the war in Europe means that England can’t aford to send help from elsewhere. They needed everything including Canada to resist Germany and Germany is not going to be weaker.
Heck the Second battle of Ypres is going to go a lot different without those 30,000 or so Canadians.
And the leaders of Canada know that they will be on their own against the US. And that when (not if) they lose that Canada is done for.
The US WILL take the west coast at least and probably a good bit along the boarder remember most Canadians and most industries were within 100 miles of the US so it doesn’t take a large land grab to remove over half of Canada’s population and industries). Add in the very likely chance that Quebec will try to break away and it is pretty obvious that WHEN the US wins against Canada that it will be the END of Canada.
So why would they fight? To keep England happy?
Either way Canada is out of the war. And without US material and lones England and France are going under and probably within Two years.
Maybe faster if various countries that joined France and England stay out of the war which may happen.

Still I can’t figure out a good reason for the US to go CP on day one, maybe down the road f England resists US trade and the US insists on its right to trade as a neutral country but not Day one.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

You do not have trench war fare everywhere but Winnipeg and Ontario be two large areas.

The issue is that in the end Canada will loose but the Americans will need a proper army and have to fight hard to defeat them.

Any American can also be subject to Canadian attacks by partisans.

So the problem Canadians have is the idea that Canadians will not fight for their country or the British empire. That US with their little army (1914) will just walk in and all Canadian will welcome them or run away.

Yes the US has enourmous potential and will defeat Canada but that will not be easy. It will take a year or more. I challenge the Americans to look at the number of soldiers that fought in the WW1.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the arguement of just how many Canadians will be conducting partisan activity and how effective that would be. I, for one,think the average citizen is going to be accepting if not exactly happy with a light handed occupation; indeed, in this area the fact the US isent a professional force with a miticuliously constructed and ever hungry military machine is an advantage here. You won't be dealing with troops hyped up for a generation on "This is the enemy and he's coming to get you!" propaganda or drilled into heartlessness by Manditory conscription/training. Rather, the fellow coming into your town is a mostly innocent and pleasent fellow who speaks your language with only a mildly odd accent and largely leaves your daughters and dinner alone. It's a difference in the military cultures of the US in 1914 and the Continental Europeans.

 

[Lusitania]

It is interesting thT Americans can be patriots but the rest would not be wise to stand before American night.

Let’s just agree that Canada in 1914 was very much BRitish and part of British empire. You also quote great odds in the American vs Canada matchup and we do not deny them. I think that Québécois would still defend their country. What they did not care about was fighting in Europe. Btw so did 1/2 of the US population. Not give a f.... about Europe.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

It is interesting thT Americans can be patriots but the rest would not be wise to stand before American night.

Let’s just agree that Canada in 1914 was very much BRitish and part of British empire. You also quote great odds in the American vs Canada matchup and we do not deny them. I think that Québécois would still defebdctheir country. What they did not care about was fighting in Europe. Btw so did 1/2 of the US population. Not give a f.... about Europe.

I can agree with that statement. But there is a difference between identifying with the UK and being willing to give up the good deal for your friends, neighbors, and family of a light and short occupation (if that) and likely minimal terms post war (Since we are going with a sudden outbreak scenario, there's no longer term animosity having been developed on either side) by starting a hopeless partisan campaign. There is also the factor of the Prarie Provinces having a substantial population of American expats, who are going to be willing to collaborate, who combined with complient,inactive Canadains are going to produce a relatively calm environment so long as the Americans don't go authoritarian and brutal. Like I suggested earlier, any campaign of resistance is going to be looking more Crazy Horse than Ho Chi Minn given the conditions.

 

[Riain]

Why would Canada be the only country in the world to "see sense" and give up before it was totally unable to continue any sort of fighting?

 

[Riain]

No matter what numbers you look up the US has a better then 10 to 1 advantage.

Except of course the numbers of troops available for active service in North America in 1914, the troops that will both fight the initial battles and be the cadres to build the expanded army on. Then its about 2:1 in the US favor, but of course the US has a revolution in Mexico to worry about.

Canada is going to survive for about the time it takes to recruit and train the first round of troops and then they are going to get ran over. You can’t fight against that kind of odds.

According to the US SECWAR in 1914 the US had small arms etc for 500,000 men but not enough artillery or artillery ammo. He also said that these things take a lot of time to build. IOTL the 19 months the US was at war for wasn't enough time for them to get US built artillery pieces into action in France, not even 1, so SecWar wasn't exaggerating.

 

[Lusitania]

Why would Canada be the only country in the world to "see sense" and give up before it was totally unable to continue any sort of fighting?

Yes by those standards everyone in Axis during WW2 should of given up right after US declared war. Afghanistan should of been a cake walk and Iraq a vacaction.

 

[Riain]

Yes by those standards everyone in Axis during WW2 should of given up right after US declared war. Afghanistan should of been a cake walk and Iraq a vacaction.

Apparently no food is grown, processed or stored east of Winnipeg, rationing doesn't exist and every piece of ground north of Winnipeg is impassable to horses and trucks carrying essentials or men marching on foot.

 

[Riain]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the arguement of just how many Canadians will be conducting partisan activity and how effective that would be. I, for one,think the average citizen is going to be accepting if not exactly happy with a light handed occupation; indeed, in this area the fact the US isent a professional force with a miticuliously constructed and ever hungry military machine is an advantage here. You won't be dealing with troops hyped up for a generation on "This is the enemy and he's coming to get you!" propaganda or drilled into heartlessness by Manditory conscription/training. Rather, the fellow coming into your town is a mostly innocent and pleasent fellow who speaks your language with only a mildly odd accent and largely leaves your daughters and dinner alone. It's a difference in the military cultures of the US in 1914 and the Continental Europeans.

Really? Is that what happened in the Civil War or the Mexican War? Maybe the very short and successful Spanish war. ITTL ~10 US divisions are going to be fighting 6 Canadian divisions who are defending their homeland and it will quickly become apparent that fighting without extreme violence is a recipe for defeat. Such fighting on Canadian soil won't endear the US soldiers to the population.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Why would Canada be the only country in the world to "see sense" and give up before it was totally unable to continue any sort of fighting?

Because Canada isent making the decision to go to war, which by it's nature implies a supportive political establishment. They're being pulled into the war via a declaration from Westminster, which means Canada's domestic position hasn't nessicerily been considered. The entire front in this scenario (sudden outbreak in August 1914) is one in which there's no real tension or animosity built up on either side, with the two conflicting by circumstances relating to GB.

Really? Is that what happened in the Civil War or the Mexican War? Maybe the very short and successful Spanish war. ITTL ~10 US divisions are going to be fighting 6 Canadian divisions who are defending their homeland and it will quickly become apparent that fighting without extreme violence is a recipe for defeat. Such fighting on Canadian soil won't endear the US soldiers to the population.

The front lines are a small portion of the total front of Canada. We're talking about the huge swaths of territory behind the lines where it was suggested partisan activity would be taking place, not the siege lines around Windsor, Winnepeg, and the St. Lawrence. As for your examples, civilian resistance in the Mexican American War was indeed rather minimal (or at least not materially troublesome) and in the Civil War we're talking about much more evenly matched sides fueled by ideological tensions and identies that had been festering for over half a century and an intention of Unconditional Surrender. There's no reason to believe in this scenario the US is nessicerily going to be demanding the annexation of Canada,unless they've already gone about fully subduing it in a wartime campaign they were obliged to conduct when Ottawa insisted they would fight to the last.

Now, if they do try that route they can drag the war out an wrack up US casulties. I'm just asking if that's REALLY the choice they'd make, given the inevitable consequence.

 

[Riain]

Because Canada isent making the decision to go to war, which by it's nature implies a supportive political establishment. They're being pulled into the war via a declaration from Westminster, which means Canada's domestic position hasn't nessicerily been considered. The entire front in this scenario (sudden outbreak in August 1914) is one in which there's no real tension or animosity built up on either side, with the two conflicting by circumstances relating to GB.

With the US declaring war the 'optional' part for Canada will vanish overnight, US mobilisation will see to that. In any case Canada didn't keep a Militia 1/2 the size of the US RA and NG for shits and giggles, they would have been aware of a latent threat, and some 31,000 Canadians volunteered for the CEF in the first wave of recruiting in 1914 so public support for the optional war was pretty high.

The front lines are a small portion of the total front of Canada. We're talking about the huge swaths of territory behind the lines where it was suggested partisan activity would be taking place, not the siege lines around Windsor, Winnepeg, and the St. Lawrence. As for your examples, civilian resistance in the Mexican American War was indeed rather minimal (or at least not materially troublesome) and in the Civil War we're talking about much more evenly matched sides fueled by ideological tensions and identies that had been festering for over half a century and an intention of Unconditional Surrender. There's no reason to believe in this scenario the US is nessicerily going to be demanding the annexation of Canada,unless they've already gone about fully subduing it in a wartime campaign they were obliged to conduct when Ottawa insisted they would fight to the last.

Now, if they do try that route they can drag the war out an wrack up US casulties. I'm just asking if that's REALLY the choice they'd make, given the inevitable consequence.

Last first; nobody gave 2 shits about casualties in WW1 until it became difficult to find men who could be converted to casualties, so Canada is hardly going to be concerned about inflicting casualties on invading US troops for ephemeral political reasons.

The US won't have enough men to conquer huge swathes of territory, these areas will be covered by local militias and irregular but officially sanctioned cavalry troops and the like. The US and Canada will be like every other army in the world; they'll concentrate at the decisive point for the decisive battle(s), and by the time Canada loses this battle by way of having 6 divisions to the US' 10 or so General Winter will arrive to give Canada a breather and raise hopes that events elsewhere will save her. Its only during or after the 1915 campaigning season, when Canada have revived little to no replacement artillery or other heavy gear while the US is slowly but obviously building up and getting victories on the battlefield and destroying Canada's army that she will sue for peace. The stakes are too high for Canada not to try to fight with everything she has under invasion from the US, hoping to avoid an indemnity like that paid by France to Prussia after 1871 as well as territorial losses.

 

[Lusitania]

Because Canada isent making the decision to go to war, which by it's nature implies a supportive political establishment. They're being pulled into the war via a declaration from Westminster, which means Canada's domestic position hasn't nessicerily been considered. The entire front in this scenario (sudden outbreak in August 1914) is one in which there's no real tension or animosity built up on either side, with the two conflicting by circumstances relating to GB.



The front lines are a small portion of the total front of Canada. We're talking about the huge swaths of territory behind the lines where it was suggested partisan activity would be taking place, not the siege lines around Windsor, Winnepeg, and the St. Lawrence. As for your examples, civilian resistance in the Mexican American War was indeed rather minimal (or at least not materially troublesome) and in the Civil War we're talking about much more evenly matched sides fueled by ideological tensions and identies that had been festering for over half a century and an intention of Unconditional Surrender. There's no reason to believe in this scenario the US is nessicerily going to be demanding the annexation of Canada,unless they've already gone about fully subduing it in a wartime campaign they were obliged to conduct when Ottawa insisted they would fight to the last.

Now, if they do try that route they can drag the war out an wrack up US casulties. I'm just asking if that's REALLY the choice they'd make, given the inevitable consequence.

It seems that you have a very low opinion of Canadians and our ability of better yet our willingness to defend our country. Why is that? What about Canadians gives you the right to question our patriotism? If Canadians volunteered in greater numbers that the US (as % of population) during the war to fight in Europe why would you think we would not volunteer in 2 or 3 those numbers to stop a bellingerant country from invading.

So get off your high horse and accept the fact that just like in war of 1812 when US had such great and devastating numerical superiority we volunteered and fought the American invasion. It too was a war that had absolutely nothing to do with us but still the mighty US chose to attack Canada because it was easier to attack Canada than to attack the true culprit of US anger.

So stop all statical arguments and other bullshit and accept that hundreds of thousands of men and women will volunteer to defend our country. We may loose but we are not cowards and we will fighting for our freedom and liberty from tyranny and belingerant invader.

 

[Riain]

It seems that you have a very low opinion of Canadians and our ability of better yet our willingness to defend our country. Why is that? What about Canadians gives you the right to question our patriotism? If Canadians volunteered in greater numbers that the US (as % of population) during the war to fight in Europe why would you think we would not volunteer in 2 or 3 those numbers to stop a bellingerant country from invading.

So get off your high horse and accept the fact that just like in war of 1812 when US had such great and devastating numerical superiority we volunteered and fought the American invasion. It too was a war that had absolutely nothing to do with us but still the mighty US chose to attack Canada because it was easier to attack Canada than to attack the true culprit of US anger.

So stop all statical arguments and other bullshit and accept that hundreds of thousands of men and women will volunteer to defend our country. We may loose but we are not cowards and we will fighting for our freedom and liberty from tyranny and belingerant invader.

I don't think people are questioning Canadian patriotism, rather struggle to believe that the odds are so close in this 'cold start' scenario and how long it would take the US develop the sort of overwhelming force that people take for granted these days. I must admit I was surprised to learn Canada had 76,000 men in the Militia and that Australia had 49,000, as much as I was surprised back when I learned that the US army was so tiny.

Another factor is the modern sensitivity to casualties being projected back onto people that were not sensitive to casualties nearly as much.

 

[Lusitania]

I don't think people are questioning Canadian patriotism, rather struggle to believe that the odds are so close in this 'cold start' scenario and how long it would take the US develop the sort of overwhelming force that people take for granted these days. I must admit I was surprised to learn Canada had 76,000 men in the Militia and that Australia had 49,000, as much as I was surprised back when I learned that the US army was so tiny.

Another factor is the modern sensitivity to casualties being projected back onto people that were not sensitive to casualties nearly as much.

Canadians fought WW1 for the full 4 years not just 1 year like the US. The Canadians provided more soldiers as percentage of population and had higher casualties than the US. So the issue is not that Canada has a small army/ militia but that it can field tens of thousands of troop (more than iOTL) to defend itself.

Unfortunately that may not be enough as numbers and economic ability will be America’s favor. The Canadians will loose but any war will be bloody and in many places be trench war fare.

My comments were made to those who argued that Canada owed no favor to Britain and should of “thrown the shakels of British imperialism off”. They failed to understand how BRitish Canada was and how majority of people believe theybpart of British empire. Also any invading US would be seen as invader and not treated as liberator.

Some on this thread even suggested Canadians should surrender for it would be futile to fight the power of the US. But not being part of the uS was what made us Canadians. There are those who felt the US would win in a few months by end of 1914.

So a lot of uninformed comments been made about Canadian resolve and ability.

Proud Canuck

 

[yourworstnightmare]

For the US to actually be a Central Power you probably need an early PoD that makes British- American relations colder and much less trade between them. In the US there were two opinions about the war: Join the Entente or Stay Neutral. You really need to go further back for the Join the Central Powers to even be a thing.

 

[History Learner]

I think it needs to be stated this is a thread for historical discussion on the relative merits of American entry into World War I on the side of the Central Powers; we're basing our opinions on facts and speculation that can be based on facts. To misconstrue this as an attack on one's person or their nation is, to be honest, bizarre.

 

[Shadow Master]

Can we get a list of potential pod? The discussion really needs a focal point, and we need to know exactly how an Isolationist USA finds itself in the Central Powers. I have a POD that can give us that, but it is only one among many possibilities. We need @Antonio the Komnenoi weigh in on what POD(s) he/she wants to consider. If he/she would like, I could make a seperate thread for folks to make their suggestions, and then the OP can pick from a list of the ones offered up. If my POD were (one of) the POD's selected, then I would post it here. My POD gets the USA in the war, right off the bat, and without there being any need for wheeling and dealing to take place years or decades ahead of time, but it gets us to an alternate WWI, with OTL forces and relations intact, which may or may not fit in with what the OP wants here in this thread.

So, @Antonio the Komnenoi what say you?

 

[Lusitania]

I had stated before that a isolationist US would not out of the blue in 1914 without any other pod join the war. It would be isolationist. But it seemed people just ignored that and started talking about an iOTL US invading Canada.

If the OOD is before then forces on both sides not be iOTL.