America in a Central Powers Victorious World

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

They might not get South Africa or India, but they might demand, and get Malaysia (sp?) and Kenya

Hell no! East Africa was the only colonial front where Germany actually did good. How will they can convince Britain to surrender one of its own colonies? They can't invade Britain, they can't conquer any of those colonies, and if they continue the war after defeating France they risk revolution at home.

They'd get their African colonies back and maybe the Belgian Congo too. Kiaochow Bay and the Pacific colonies are lost, as Germany is in no position to force Japan, Australia and New Zealand to give them back.

 

[1940LaSalle]

the OP says that the US never actually got into the war, and limited itself to selling supplies to the Allies...

Thought the OP said that "shots were traded in the Atlantic", which I took to mean that the US had a naval component in the war--and wound up with a stalemate at best in that component which, in the US naval tradition, was tantamount to a loss, especially to a naval upstart like Germany.

 

[CDurham]

Hell no! East Africa was the only colonial front where Germany actually did good. How will they can convince Britain to surrender one of its own colonies? They can't invade Britain, they can't conquer any of those colonies, and if they continue the war after defeating France they risk revolution at home.

They'd get their African colonies back and maybe the Belgian Congo too. Kiaochow Bay and the Pacific colonies are lost, as Germany is in no position to force Japan, Australia and New Zealand to give them back.

How did the Entente get Germany to agree to Versaille? They practically stuck a gun to the head of the diplomats (hell, maybe literally) and told them to sign it or get a free brain-pan cleaning. Is it so far-fetched for a victorious Germany to do the same to the Entente?

They are Certaintly getting their colonies in the Pacific back. They FRIGGIN WON, so they are in EVERY POSISTION to demand, and get, them back. And if they demand a minor British colony or two (as Kenya or Nigeria would be compared to say, India) its doubtful the British would be willing to go to war with them to keep it.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Thought the OP said that "shots were traded in the Atlantic", which I took to mean that the US had a naval component in the war--and wound up with a stalemate at best in that component which, in the US naval tradition, was tantamount to a loss, especially to a naval upstart like Germany.

Not really. The implication was that while the US and German Navy (mainly submarines; there's no indication of a breakout) may have had a few minor skirmishes, they never directly met. No real battle, no major losses, nothing. There's also not much to indicate that the Germans did any better than OTL in the naval field; they may have won on the continent, but no body's hit Britain proper.

This would be a case of non-conflict rather than stalemate. Stalemate implies two forces of relatively equal strength so that neither side can triumph over the other. Here, the two sides never met. And since food and supplies still got to Europe, and Britian still got fed, that comes off as a strategic victory over Germany. Not bad for a young power, as much an upstart as Germany.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

How did the Entente get Germany to agree to Versaille? They practically stuck a gun to the head of the diplomats (hell, maybe literally) and told them to sign it or get a free brain-pan cleaning. Is it so far-fetched for a victorious Germany to do the same to the Entente?

See, this is what happens when you forget you're using metaphors.

They are Certaintly getting their colonies in the Pacific back. They FRIGGIN WON, so they are in EVERY POSISTION to demand, and get, them back.

And Japan, Australia and New Zealand will answer that demand with "Come and get 'em!" Which I'd like to see Germany try. They'd probably be opposed by the US and China as well, not that they're in any position to beat those initial 3.

And if they demand a minor British colony or two (as Kenya or Nigeria would be compared to say, India) its doubtful the British would be willing to go to war with them to keep it.

The British are already at war with them. And they're blockading Germany. The British are already making a concession by evacuating South-West Africa, Cameroon and Togoland. Asking them to give up one of their own colonies is too much. The German aren't gonna be dictating terms unless they have boots on the ground in Dover.

 

[Jared]

The British are already at war with them. And they're blockading Germany. The British are already making a concession by evacuating South-West Africa, Cameroon and Togoland. Asking them to give up one of their own colonies is too much. The German aren't gonna be dictating terms unless they have boots on the ground in Dover.

Hmm, ObChallenge: come up with a timeline where the Germans do manage to get boots on the ground in Dover!

They don't have to win such an invasion, but it has to be a serious attempt; landing a couple of men by submarine doesn't count.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Not really. The implication was that while the US and German Navy (mainly submarines; there's no indication of a breakout) may have had a few minor skirmishes, they never directly met. No real battle, no major losses, nothing. There's also not much to indicate that the Germans did any better than OTL in the naval field; they may have won on the continent, but no body's hit Britain proper.

This would be a case of non-conflict rather than stalemate. Stalemate implies two forces of relatively equal strength so that neither side can triumph over the other. Here, the two sides never met. And since food and supplies still got to Europe, and Britian still got fed, that comes off as a strategic victory over Germany. Not bad for a young power, as much an upstart as Germany.

OK; a matter of interpretation here. I wish that had been made explicit up front (in an engineering project, clarifications and assumptions are always made explicit when delineating the scope; so should it be here when delineating the scope of the POD).

 

[CDurham]

See, this is what happens when you forget you're using metaphors.

huh?

And Japan, Australia and New Zealand will answer that demand with "Come and get 'em!" Which I'd like to see Germany try. They'd probably be opposed by the US and China as well, not that they're in any position to beat those initial 3.

And haven't the first three surrendered already? (well, I could see Japan pulling a 'this war is over' and bow out without admitting victory or defeat, and Germany is liable to let them) I could see the US showing SOME opposistion, but even if China showed any (and um, why would they again?) I doubt Germany would give a flying rats patootie what China thinks (though the US could probably make them back down if pressure is applied). China couldn't launch an attack. Their military was outdated and anyway, how exactly are they going to do anything about it?

The British are already at war with them. And they're blockading Germany. The British are already making a concession by evacuating South-West Africa, Cameroon and Togoland. Asking them to give up one of their own colonies is too much. The German aren't gonna be dictating terms unless they have boots on the ground in Dover.

psst... Central Powers Victorious, that kinda implies that Great Britain surrendered (or sued for peace at any rate) also The Central Powers are dictating the terms here, not the British or any one else in the Entente.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

huh?

The part about sticking a gun to the diplomats' head.

And haven't the first three surrendered already?

Where the hell did you get that idea? If that's your definition of a CP victory then we should move this thread to ASBs.

(well, I could see Japan pulling a 'this war is over' and bow out without admitting victory or defeat, and Germany is liable to let them) I could see the US showing SOME opposistion, but even if China showed any (and um, why would they again?)

Kiaochow Bay.

I doubt Germany would give a flying rats patootie what China thinks (though the US could probably make them back down if pressure is applied). China couldn't launch an attack. Their military was outdated and anyway, how exactly are they going to do anything about it?

They don't have to do anything except oppose any German attempt to reacquire Kiaochow Bay. And I do mean German, none of the other CP are gonna want to get involved in this Syracuse Expedition.

psst... Central Powers Victorious, that kinda implies that Great Britain surrendered (or sued for peace at any rate) also The Central Powers are dictating the terms here, not the British or any one else in the Entente.

No, France surrendered, and that's who the CP can afford to dictate terms to. Britain didn't surrender unless Ivan (the guy who started this thread) specifically says so. Why? Because getting Britain to surrender is pretty goddamn difficult. And completely unnecessary. If Germany takes Paris the Brits will figure that the war isn't worth it anymore. At which point the Germans can ask for their African colonies back in exchange for peace, which Britain will accept. If they want for more they can ask for the Belgian Congo and some French colonies, which Belgium and France will accept because, unlike Great Britain, they've actually been rendered incapable of fighting.

If they ask Britain for more they put it in a position where they have to keep fighting. As in keep blockading Germany. That's a war that neither side can win, but Britain fights for a reason, Germany fights out of greed. And every day of fighting is a day when Germany isn't getting its original colonies back, when resources are diverted from occupation in Europe to a pointless war, when the country's under a blockade, when it can't rebuilt its fleet, when its population is unhappy with the kaiser because of the pointless war, when the military itself is unhappy with the kaiser for the same reason, when it's allies have abandoned it because they're not gonna waste their resources so another country will gain Kenya. And this is the war that was supposed to be over by Christmas; the masses expected it and the leadership itself hoped it.

So unless Germany threatens London itself, an extreme and unnecessary scenario which Ivan didn't specify, they can't dictate to it.

 

[Dave Howery]

Hmm, ObChallenge: come up with a timeline where the Germans do manage to get boots on the ground in Dover!

the mighty fleet of German zeppelins storms over Britain and drops millions upon millions of boots onto the ground.


what?

 

[marl_d]

well lets get back on topic here...

I don't see why the German's would be scared of the US, hell the US almost joined Germany due to it's LARGE immigrant base, which could/would sway any future President to get on friendly terms with the Germans, and why would the US want to make a "Fortress America" Germany was one of it's biggest trade partners before the war...it would make sense that they would get closer, but not allies...mostly due to it's selling of material too the Entente. US navy would still be strong, but our army would be similar to pre-WW1 levels.

 

[CDurham]

The part about sticking a gun to the diplomats' head.

Oh, ok. Yea, I got that phrase from my Western Civ professor

Where the hell did you get that idea? If that's your definition of a CP victory then we should move this thread to ASBs.

Um, Central Powers victorious kinda implies Entente Lost... the ENTIRE Entente, not just one part of it, the entire thing.

Kiaochow Bay.

Um, ok, I don't know what that is. Is it like Hong Kong?

They don't have to do anything except oppose any German attempt to reacquire Kiaochow Bay. And I do mean German, none of the other CP are gonna want to get involved in this Syracuse Expedition.

See above...

No, France surrendered, and that's who the CP can afford to dictate terms to. Britain didn't surrender unless Ivan (the guy who started this thread) specifically says so. Why? Because getting Britain to surrender is pretty goddamn difficult. And completely unnecessary. If Germany takes Paris the Brits will figure that the war isn't worth it anymore. At which point the Germans can ask for their African colonies back in exchange for peace, which Britain will accept. If they want for more they can ask for the Belgian Congo and some French colonies, which Belgium and France will accept because, unlike Great Britain, they've actually been rendered incapable of fighting.

If they ask Britain for more they put it in a position where they have to keep fighting. As in keep blockading Germany. That's a war that neither side can win, but Britain fights for a reason, Germany fights out of greed. And every day of fighting is a day when Germany isn't getting its original colonies back, when resources are diverted from occupation in Europe to a pointless war, when the country's under a blockade, when it can't rebuilt its fleet, when its population is unhappy with the kaiser because of the pointless war, when the military itself is unhappy with the kaiser for the same reason, when it's allies have abandoned it because they're not gonna waste their resources so another country will gain Kenya. And this is the war that was supposed to be over by Christmas; the masses expected it and the leadership itself hoped it.

So unless Germany threatens London itself, an extreme and unnecessary scenario which Ivan didn't specify, they can't dictate to it.

Um, we seem to have two different ideas of CP Victorious. Mine is that the ENTIRE ENTENTE has admitted defeat. Not just one part. Otherwise it would be France Surrenders to CP. Not CP victorious.

 

[nunya]

USA might look for a alliance or at least neutrality-really,the only reason the USA sided with the Entente near the end was it was convinced the Entente was about to win,and wanted to come out of Europe's war stronger.If Germany wins and the USA doesnt do much,the USA will go with a reapproachment towards the Central Powers.It will latch on to Germany if it thinks that will increase the USA's influence in the world.

 

[Timmy811]

America would be in a better position in this world then in OTL. A victorious Germany can't become as strong a rival as the Soviet Union did, and the Russians have bet set back considerably ITTL.

 

[Timmy811]

Because they had been at war for almost a year? And Germany had defeated America's closest trading partners? Not necessarily a Cold War, but hardly buddies, internationally speaking.

What? The Americans were never at war in this timeline.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Um, ok, I don't know what that is. Is it like Hong Kong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozhou_Bay

Um, we seem to have two different ideas of CP Victorious. Mine is that the ENTIRE ENTENTE has admitted defeat. Not just one part. Otherwise it would be France Surrenders to CP. Not CP victorious.

Does anyone else here subscribe to this absurd interpretation?

If France surrenders, the CP win. Russia's already getting its ass kicked, Britain doesn't have the army to defeat Germany, America's not supposed to be involved, Japan's can't do much and doesn't even want to. You don't have to defeat every one of your enemies individually to win a war. You don't have to obliterate an enemy to defeat it. Not unless the enemy leader is a fanatic.

 

[Grey Wolf]

the mighty fleet of German zeppelins storms over Britain and drops millions upon millions of boots onto the ground.


what?

That's rather funny actually ! You could come up with a whole set of headlines after that - Beneath The Jackboot, or suchlike, with a photograph of a boot and a British pavement...

Grey Wolf

 

[Grey Wolf]

We've got threads for the Ottomans and the Soviets, so why not one for the bestest nation on Earth?

Let's just assume the same basic scenario from the other two threads: The Germans win in 1918, and a settlement is quickly negotiated thereafter. However, while the Americans traded with the Entente powers during the war, and while shots were traded in the Atlantic, Washington never directly intervened on the continent.

So, what happens now? Would the Germans start poking their noses into Latin America, as they had been doing before the war? Would anyone in the world take America seriously as a great power, or just view them as a band of money-men who don't like getting their hands dirty? What would happen to domestic politics, with isolationism reigning unchallenged?

If we are looking at pre-DOW USA here, then it has a serious problem of all the Entente being massively indebted to it without much chance that they are going to be able to pay them back.

France, one assumes will be made to pay some sort of indemnity to the Germans - not reparations on the basis of WW1 against the Germans, but on the basis of prior wars where a nation tried to recoup the cost of going to war from its defeated enemy. Since Germany will occupy France at the stage that the French sign the peace, its more or less a given that German claims to French monies will be agreed and will take precedence over any other claims to French monies

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Berlin89]

If we are searching for a point of divergance, then lets try that the Germans never initiated an unrestricted Submarine campaign. This would probably lead to America becoming more pro-German, and then may lead to a breaking off diplomatic relations. Then, if Britain doesn't stop harrassing US shipping, then America could concievably become an associate power of the Central Powers. This might cause the Pressure for peace and cause France to surrender, as they have yet another enemy to deal with, causing more morale problems, and thus greater Mutanies among French troops.