Alternate Outcomes For World War 1 and 2?

Redbeard

Banned
Well I can tell you something about the Great War. If we (The United States of America) had entered the war on the side of the German Empire the Atlantic would just become a busier mess of ships, navies and sorties. American ships would engage the Royal Navy in the Atlantic and the Pacific, American infantry would invade Canada.

If the Royal Navy can be mopped out, or at least constricted to the British Isles then the US Navy can starve out the Islands. Once we (the USA) have done that we can prepare an invasion of France!

The White Army would win in Russia with German support (Monarchy over Bolshevism). Pretty much a more conservative world without Nazis, cupcakes all around!

By WWI the US Navy, in numbers and even more so in quality was far from being able to challenge the RN. And to unite with the German Navy, they will have to get past the RN first!

By early 20th century UK with a large margin had the largest and most efficient shipyard industry and still had both the will and funds to take up any challenge. I guess USA would need decades of intense naval race to be able to match. It will certainly leave UK drained for resources, but at least they would have spent their pennies on what they always were intended for - defending the Empire! It is much more difficult to find the necessary political reason for USA to seriously challenge a still vital British Empire.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Couple of Numbers - not sure of the provenance, but it's on the interweb so must be true....
From http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyUS.htm

USN 1914 - 1918 had 10 Dreadnought battleships, 23 Pre Dreadnoughts. 0 battlecruisers, but about 36 Protected and Armoured Cruisers (Think SMS Blucher...). Now, generally it's accepted that pre-dreads are obsolete (or at least, obsolescent) in the face of dreadnoughts, but they could count for a couple of guns at the longer range, so maybe it's worth keeping them in for a fleet action...

RN Grand Fleet at Jutland (Wiki, I'm afraid) 28 Dreadnought battleships, 9 Dreadnought battlecruisers (with incorrect doctrine), 8 Armoured Cruisers.

Now, combined with the KM, (16 dreadnought battleships, 6 Pre-dreadnought battleships, 5 dreadnought battlecruisers) the USN outnumbers the Grand Fleet. But they've got to make that juncture, and I'm pretty sure that, having got into a war because of the threat of the enlarged German Navy (in big handfulls), the British would look to enlarge to be absolutely sure of defeating their enemies. I'm pretty certain the rival navies would do little better than in OTL in restricting the trade of the UK - in fact, the loss of American markets would be much more significant than the USN.

As for the Whites - they had US, UK, French and Japanese (I think) support in the Civil War - would German support have proved more useful? The German army will still have lost significant numbers in victory as in defeat, and while it has easier access to the Russian combat zone, could they allow the Whites to prevail agaisnt the Trotsky "inspired" Reds?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
A major factor would be the relative ease with which they could supply the Whites with materiel. And with their control of Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltics, that means the Whites always have secure areas to organize in and fall back to.
 

Neroon

Banned
Point taken, Redbeard. How then does Germany win World War I without US intervention? And could Germany have not held its Spring Offensive gains had it not been for the US intervention?
By the U.S. actually staying neutral. Even before the U.S. officially joined it supplied lots or war material and resources on credit to the Entente. If the U.S. had sold them only what they can pay for in cash and not one bit more then Britian and France would have had their home front collapsing in 1917 at the latest.
 
A neutral United States would most likely lead to a darker victory for the British and the French. The war would last longer and bleed both nations much more thoroughly.
Lets ride this train of thought a little bit longer, what if it leads to a German victory? What are the terms of the Treaty of Paris, moderated by the United States of America?
Which is more likely gentlemen? Neutral US leading to longer war or Neutral US leading to German victory?

After you have answered that lets travel into the land of Alien Space Bats (just the border though) and say that the United States goes incredibly Pro-German.
A British Submarine sinks a American cruise liner, mistaking it for a German merchant marine vessel. The British apologize and the American government quietly accepts their apology, but the people are outraged. To then win American support the British fabricate a letter from Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff to the President of Mexico detailing an Invasion of Texas. This is the straw that breaks the camels back.
The United States throws its industrial weight into the war against Britain and France, bringing its navy to bear in the Atlantic while greasing up the cogs of war back home to make more. Meanwhile all trade to the Entente ceases while trade to Germany begins to pick up.

Now I ask of you. Is American domination of the Northern Atlantic possible? And if it is could Great Britain (or France) be invaded by American soldiers? Or would a European blockade commence to starve out the western members of the Entente?

Please answer all questions accordingly or you will be shot!

Have a nice day.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well I can tell you something about the Great War. If we (The United States of America) had entered the war on the side of the German Empire the Atlantic would just become a busier mess of ships, navies and sorties. American ships would engage the Royal Navy in the Atlantic and the Pacific, American infantry would invade Canada.

If the Royal Navy can be mopped out, or at least constricted to the British Isles then the US Navy can starve out the Islands. Once we (the USA) have done that we can prepare an invasion of France!

The White Army would win in Russia with German support (Monarchy over Bolshevism). Pretty much a more conservative world without Nazis, cupcakes all around!

You do realize that the USN was a horribly unbalanced fleet in the WW I era, right?

How about that the Germans CAUSED the Red Revolution as we know it IOTL? The Kaiser had his cousin's blood all over him to his dying day.

The U.S. has good, bordering on spectacular, battleships, arguably operating the best in the world with the New Mexico class in 1917 (the U.S. MK 6 14" gun had better range, armor penetration and rate of fire than the RN 15" MK I) but Congress had failed to allow for sufficient sufficient light forces to support the battle line. The USN had ZERO BC, while the British fielded 9, overall the RN out numbered the USN 2-1 in capital ships (with the difference in pre-dread being 3-1 in the RN's favor, while the UK had a 2-1 advantage in Armored Cruisers). The United States operated THREE light cruisers while the RN had roughly 45 and around 80 destroyers to the British 240+. This is a force insufficient to provide scouting and escort for the excellent U.S. Battle Squadron, something that would have allowed the RN to defeat the USN in detail. The USN also lacked coaling stations anywhere near the Continent.

As far as U.S. infantry invading Canada, I am compelled to ask: WHAT U.S. infantry? The American Army was virtually a non entity in 1914 while Canadian troops were the elite of the BEF, arguably THE elite force of the entire War, with the Best General officer the Entente produced in the entire War (Sir Arthur Currie). Eventually the U.S. would have prevailed in North America, but it would have taken YEARS to do so.

Where the U.S. WOULD have done enormous damage to the Entente would be in the material and economic arena. The U.S. produced over 1,000,000 Enfield "P" rifles for the UK, as well as huge amounts of other weapons, uniforms, munitions, food stuff and, most importantly, ready credit. In 1917 alone the U.S. trade to the Entente was 3.2 BILLION dollars, of that $2.7B was on credit.

The U.S. would not have had to defeat the Entente in the field (a good thing because it would have been a very tough row to hoe) if it had wanted to assist the Central powers. All it would have had to do was make everything cash and carry. The Entente lacked the cash and would not have been able to carry anything back without it.
 
Isn't it a bit unfair to compare the entire US navy to just the British Grand Fleet? If things did get nasty then they could always juggle things around and take ships from the Mediterranean, East Indies or Pacific, and there is also the North America station which had a significant number of cruisers and destroyers.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Isn't it a bit unfair to compare the entire US navy to just the British Grand Fleet? If things did get nasty then they could always juggle things around and take ships from the Mediterranean, East Indies or Pacific, and there is also the North America station which had a significant number of cruisers and destroyers.


The entire RN had 41 Capital ships not counting their pre-dreads.

The USN doesn't compare favorably to the Grand Fleet in capital ships, nobody did. The HSF didn't either. Combined the USN & HSF would have been barely a match (40 capital ships vs. the RN 41), and RN battleships were, in general, superior in quality to their HSF counterparts (battle cruisers were a VERY different matter) and RN crew training was generally better than either the HSF or USN. NOTE: all number are at end of WW I.
 
Isn't it a bit unfair to compare the entire US navy to just the British Grand Fleet? If things did get nasty then they could always juggle things around and take ships from the Mediterranean, East Indies or Pacific, and there is also the North America station which had a significant number of cruisers and destroyers.

Not just that. Everybody seems to assume the French sink their own ships or something like that.

Googling around they had 20+ battleships, of which only 6 were pre-dread in addition to a large amount of destroyers (40+) in the Med alone.
I could easily see the French making life very hard for any American possessions in the Far East, not to mention the Japanese, who wouldn't be twiddling their thumbs. (bye bye Philippines, Guam etc)

Campbell1004 said:
And if it is could Great Britain (or France) be invaded by American soldiers?
In the extreme unlikely case of the USA holding hands with Germany, it'll take years for any American soldiers to get to Europe which is the most important theatre. Maybe the Americans manage to land a few shore-parties for raiding purposes, but nothing larger then a few men.

Apart from having to neutralise Canada, the Americans would have to train and equip several 100 of 1000s of troops. IRL the American troops that did fight on the European continent were equipped mostly with French/British equipment, so that doens't bode well for any American army in this timeline.
 
I remember a theory that if the USA did not enter World War 1 on either side,indeed the war could last longer. Trench warware was so useless,that it was basically abandonded afterword and never done willingly again. The theory was this,the USA did come in rather late..Europe was already embroiled within the war. What happened when America did come,was a huge moral boost to the Allies. A new ally,another country standing against the Central Powers.

The American people were sharply against war,the USA was very isolated at the time. It was not the power it is today,its army size was no where near as big as Britain's. I think that a stalemate could have been done,war's going on..men are dead..people are angry at the government..there would be more than one revolution.

Did the Allies really beat Germany? Because if anyone reads history books about Germany at the start of the war,they were a well oiled machine..even perhaps of giving Britain a run for its money. Or did Germany lose because of bad mistakes made by the military?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
How about that the Germans CAUSED the Red Revolution as we know it IOTL? The Kaiser had his cousin's blood all over him to his dying day.

Yes, but they only did that to knock Russia out of the war. Once Russia's out of the way, the Germans would not have tolerated a communist, revolutionary, regicidal regime on the border of their sphere of influence. The Germans would have helped the Whites.
 
Isn't it a bit unfair to compare the entire US navy to just the British Grand Fleet? If things did get nasty then they could always juggle things around and take ships from the Mediterranean, East Indies or Pacific, and there is also the North America station which had a significant number of cruisers and destroyers.

Sorry, my intention was to show that the entire US Navy (33 battleships of all stripes) was only just bigger than the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet - and so trying to imply the significant power differential between the two Navies - let alone the additional power the French could bring to bear (IIRC, the French Navy had responsibility for Mediterranean defence in Etente power planning). It also ignores any need for the USN to deploy force in the Pacific.

Also, that's purely numerical. The Grand Fleet was all dreads - and so a stronger force than the USN with its ten dreadnoughts...
 
I remember a theory that if the USA did not enter World War 1 on either side,indeed the war could last longer. Trench warware was so useless,that it was basically abandonded afterword and never done willingly again. The theory was this,the USA did come in rather late..Europe was already embroiled within the war. What happened when America did come,was a huge moral boost to the Allies. A new ally,another country standing against the Central Powers.

The American people were sharply against war,the USA was very isolated at the time. It was not the power it is today,its army size was no where near as big as Britain's. I think that a stalemate could have been done,war's going on..men are dead..people are angry at the government..there would be more than one revolution.

Did the Allies really beat Germany? Because if anyone reads history books about Germany at the start of the war,they were a well oiled machine..even perhaps of giving Britain a run for its money. Or did Germany lose because of bad mistakes made by the military?

The Etente won (I've always been taught the Alliance in WW1 was the German/Austrian side) . The Germans were defeated on the battlefield in the Western Front, and their population starved by blockade. Without the Americans, same result, possibly in a similar timescale - I'm not up on the current thinking regarding their importance in the scale of the Etente attacks which ended the war, but my understanding is that the Commonwealth and French (including colonial) troops could have done it without the Americans - unlike WW2
 
Cease Fire

Here is something I would like someone to answer me,I'm not exactly sure on the details..but this is how it went.

Everything in World War 1 happened in our time line,but toward the end of the war..Germany knew it was going to lose. So it was actually working out details to force the war into a stalemate,so the German Empire could survive. It would either become a Constitutional Monarchy,much like Britain today. But a ally,or something prevented this plan from going through..and the German people did knot know of this..so naturally the empire was overthrown. Added to that,the allies needed to find some nation to pay for the war..and Germany was footed with the bill. That much I know,but what about the stalemate plan?
 
Well I can tell you something about the Great War. If we (The United States of America) had entered the war on the side of the German Empire the Atlantic would just become a busier mess of ships, navies and sorties. American ships would engage the Royal Navy in the Atlantic and the Pacific, American infantry would invade Canada.

If the Royal Navy can be mopped out, or at least constricted to the British Isles then the US Navy can starve out the Islands. Once we (the USA) have done that we can prepare an invasion of France!

The White Army would win in Russia with German support (Monarchy over Bolshevism). Pretty much a more conservative world without Nazis, cupcakes all around!


dear me, the bit about the USN matching the RN during WW1 left me raising an eyebrow one hell of a long way into my hairline... but an invasion of France by the US? and from which base, might I ask? dunno if this point has already been discussed (i'm yet to read the following posts), but you can't be seriously pondering the U.S. would be invading France with the nearest base being... New York? Boston?

They needed bases in England to be able to launch D-Day, what more would be the need for a close enough land base in this earlier era?
 
larpsidekick said:
The Etente won (I've always been taught the Alliance in WW1 was the German/Austrian side) . The Germans were defeated on the battlefield in the Western Front, and their population starved by blockade. Without the Americans, same result, possibly in a similar timescale - I'm not up on the current thinking regarding their importance in the scale of the Etente attacks which ended the war, but my understanding is that the Commonwealth and French (including colonial) troops could have done it without the Americans - unlike WW2

well, i'm not so sure about that, a number (if not a lot) of people here would probably disagree with you. The Americans did a lot to shift the balance of power to the Entente; just the fact that the Germans know they've got a couple of fresh, extra tens of thousands of men to deal would be a huge moral blow.

Plus their alternate-Spring Offensive could have proved successful. If not, then Germany could have just dug in again, and fought it out longer, maybe launch another Offensive; I dunno, didn't Germany surrender OTL precisely because they realized they had now a newer entry into their list of enemies? Point is, I think Germany would win this one, albeit the blockade.

Add to the fact the previously mentioned supplies on credit America provided -- well, given that they're neutral but pro-CP, whatever the reason may be.

Here is something I would like someone to answer me,I'm not exactly sure on the details..but this is how it went.

Everything in World War 1 happened in our time line,but toward the end of the war..Germany knew it was going to lose. So it was actually working out details to force the war into a stalemate,so the German Empire could survive. It would either become a Constitutional Monarchy,much like Britain today. But a ally,or something prevented this plan from going through..and the German people did knot know of this..so naturally the empire was overthrown. Added to that,the allies needed to find some nation to pay for the war..and Germany was footed with the bill. That much I know,but what about the stalemate plan?

sounds like conspiracy to me.
 
Top