AHC: Have the United States be on the losing side of WW1

I wonder how that would effect American-German relations after the war...

That depends alot on the degree/nature of indemnities imposed on the defeated Entente nations (France and Italy, Britain probably gets off relatively light), since the US is going to be the one left "Holding the Bag" if France defaults on its loans; Britain was also partially depending on payments for loans they'd given the French to cover their own loans from the Americans. Given that the US would have really put no skin in the game yet (View if any veteran fighters having returned with a real sense of fighting "over there", society having been less mobalized towards the war effort, seeing little of their allies other than them folding like a house of cards, ect.), and if the economy takes a dip due to the liquidity/credit issues created by Franco-British non-payment you're likely to see a greater level of reproachment with the Germans due to shifting trade patterns and a feeling of being played false by the Entente (Especially since, post-war, the German domestic position is going to have to moderate as veterans return and demand franchise reform... hard to deny when you've been trumpetting them as heros of the Fatherland for years and they're... well, making up the tool you would have used to crack down on such demands in the past). If on the other hand the French and British behave more responsably, they probably play up German attrocities in the East (and the South, depending on if Austria can keep itself from imploding long enough to regain internal stability and economic solvency to the point that they have enough control over the nation to impose law and potentially impliment reforms) and maybe the effects of Zimmerman and German weapons/advisors in Mexico (Dealing with the Mexican Expedition becomes more salient in American eyes as its not overshadowed by the War) to create warriness towards the Kaiser's ambitions.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Good Thoughts FofD.

I can see the US "deciding" they were fighting a two front war -- Europe and Mexico, and trouncing Mexico then declaring victory. The US takes some, if not all, of sparsely populated northern Mexico (again) as its winnings.

As for the war debt: the UK has (perhaps unknowingly) mortgaged its American possessions. I can see a settlement of ceding Bermuda, Bahamas and the BVI. Not sure France has anything worth taking.
 
A tangent question, but: what kind of alliances in Europe (with an obviously much earlier POD to create them) would be required for the United States to enter the war reasonably early AND still be part of the losing side?

League of Three Emperors war? Britain/France/Italy/United States vs. Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary is even enough for neither side to immediately back down, with a wild card in the Ottomans available for both sides to woo. Britain and the United States claim German colonies, France and Italy are punched in the face, and the Entente ends up with an unfavorable peace treaty as a whole.
 

Bomster

Banned
A tangent question, but: what kind of alliances in Europe (with an obviously much earlier POD to create them) would be required for the United States to enter the war reasonably early AND still be part of the losing side?

League of Three Emperors war? Britain/France/Italy/United States vs. Germany/Russia/Austria-Hungary is even enough for neither side to immediately back down, with a wild card in the Ottomans available for both sides to woo. Britain and the United States claim German colonies, France and Italy are punched in the face, and the Entente ends up with an unfavorable peace treaty as a whole.
What would it take for Russia and Germany, two nations that were suspicious of one another, to ally together in a world war? It obviously couldn’t be with the Assassination of the Archduke. Maybe a colonial dispute? Alternate alliances?

I can see the Ottomans being wooed into the Entente, opening up a front with Russia in the Caucasuses. How this would go I’m not sure but it’s likely that eventually the Ottomans would collapse.
 
What would it take for Russia and Germany, two nations that were suspicious of one another, to ally together in a world war? It obviously couldn’t be with the Assassination of the Archduke. Maybe a colonial dispute? Alternate alliances?

I can see the Ottomans being wooed into the Entente, opening up a front with Russia in the Caucasuses. How this would go I’m not sure but it’s likely that eventually the Ottomans would collapse.

In general? Go back a few decades and continue the Reinsurance Treaties, which the Kaiser allowed to expire, or else have Germany choose Russia over Austria-Hungary (which might well require a different Kaiser). For the specific Three Emperor's Alliance I suggested, go back slightly further and find a way to placate both the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians; the Alliance ended due to disputes over Balkans influence. Buying Russia off is tricky, but plausible if the three nations feel like they have an immediate common enemy.

Fun idea: a revived Franco-Ottoman alliance, leading to an Ottoman revival. Britain-France-Italy-Ottomans-United States vs. Germany - Russia - Austria-Hungary is a fair fight, if we allow for the Germans to have a very real interest in helping the Russians modernize faster. Austria-Hungary and Russia manage to play nice because liberating the Balkans no longer seems a given, and both are willing to deal with the spoils later.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Germany I think in the grand scheme of things would let the US off the hook in a peace agreement. After all, they wanted to trade, and the Mexico stuff probably was never all that serious. I think Germany probably demands control over some contested Pacific Islands and maybe some kind of Panama Canal access or share of control.

The US probably becomes more isolationist and Anglophobic after WW1 than in OTL.

But how to bring this about? Well, you have to have France collapse in the 1918 offensive.
And how exactly are they going to impose anything on the USA?
 
Good Thoughts FofD.

I can see the US "deciding" they were fighting a two front war -- Europe and Mexico, and trouncing Mexico then declaring victory. The US takes some, if not all, of sparsely populated northern Mexico (again) as its winnings.

As for the war debt: the UK has (perhaps unknowingly) mortgaged its American possessions. I can see a settlement of ceding Bermuda, Bahamas and the BVI. Not sure France has anything worth taking.

Well, on the Mexican front I believe a lot depends on just how much of a fuss Caranza makes over the Villa Expedition. Remember, IOTL the Mexican government (such as it was) may have threatened war on several occasions but never actually had the main army follow through. You'd need an actual war to trigger any annexations; though even without it I could see the US demanding "economic concessions" that basically amount to a de-facto extraterritorial protectorate of the region by US corporations.

Yah... Britain defaulting would certainly trigger an international incident, considering that basically all it's securable assets in the Western Hemisphere have been put up as collateral. If US creditors try to collect you'll certainly see Westminster make a stink about it, which of course would lead to the bankers and industrialists appealing to Washington to enforce their claims. The Germans, of course, would sound out its support for adherence to the terms (Ironically having been saved from this problem by its wartime economic isolation), though I wonder just how hard the US is going to push a strict repayment schedule.
 
Well, on the Mexican front I believe a lot depends on just how much of a fuss Caranza makes over the Villa Expedition. Remember, IOTL the Mexican government (such as it was) may have threatened war on several occasions but never actually had the main army follow through.
Mexico was just a bit more concerned with the ongoing civil war to go to war with the United States.
 
Mexico was just a bit more concerned with the ongoing civil war to go to war with the United States.

Exactly; though there were points where points where Huerta and Caranza both utilized Anti-American sentiment in efforts to rally support for their own causes which COULD end up spiraling out of control, so it's possible for a war to ultimately break out. A slim chance, yes, but not ASB.

Concession of Hong Kong could be put on the table, sign that 99 year lease over

And America would want this... why? Even then, most of these debts are to banks and firms, not direct loans from the Treasury. Unless the US government is taking on those debts and the obligations to pay them in exchange for these concessions, territory is not a valid method of payment.
 
And how Germany cede anything what it hasn't anymore? Hardly UK/NZ just give GS to USA voluntarely. And not sure if USA even cares about the islands.

Only way with any 1900 POD is that USA arrive to Europe too late. Probably peace terms would are very simple:
1. USA leaves Europe to Germany.
2. Germany stops all attacks against US ships.
3. Germany recognize Western Hemisphere being under influence of USA.
I wonder if this would lead to an American-German Cold War after a few decades.
 
Last edited:
If the French collapse/lose will to fight further as a result of the Michael Offensive, that is the game. I would expect if things are going sideways for France, they may attempt to simply throw American units at the German advance in desperation which results in significant US casualties if it is allowed, or some serious hate between Pershing and the French if he does not allow under trained and under equipped US troops to be used as cannon fodder. Unless the Germans go Bushido level insane during the peace talks, there is really no fight with the USA. The USA would draw the line at any German involvement in the western hemisphere such as taking over French colonies or military bases in nominally French colonies, and however many US POWs are in German hands (probably not a huge number) are returned promptly. Frankly the USA could care less who owns what colony in Africa, and OTL was OK with the transfer of German possessions in the Pacific and China to Japan - which would probably more or less happen here as Germany really has no way to force the issue.

Here the USA did not "lose", they were not really in the fight when the French threw in the sponge - that will be the official line and is pretty close to the "objective truth". If the French acted as above with regard to US troops I could see more anger directed at the French than the Germans long term. The USA and Germany were serious trading partners, and as they say "money talks, bullshit walks" and trade with Germany will be sought making up for the loans that the French and British are never going to pay back. I expect there may be intense competition with regard to trade and influence in South America, which may lead to friction, but as long as it is about trade only this is limited in the trouble it will stir up.

If Germany takes/militarizes French Caribbean or South American possessions, or gets in to Mexico in a big way, then things go sideways. Germany will have much more on its plate at home establish its dominance in Central/Eastern Europe and the new lands it now owns or puppetizes. It also has two allies (A-H and Ottomans) who, victory or not are in a bad way and Germany has to manage this situation. Fooling around in the US back yard only pokes the bear in a situation where Germany really can't win.
 
Top