America Joins the Great War in 1914

Ignoring the How and why for the moment, assume America joins the Entente in 1914 and goes to war with the Central Powers.

How's this affect the war's outcome?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
The war would end quicker due to the boost from American materiel and manpower. Of course, the USA would lose a lot more men than in OTL. Depending on how long the war lasts and how bad casualties and progress are, Wilson and the Democrats may be voted out of office by a populace angry over having gone to war in Europe over the death of a Habsburg prince.

In fact, you could see the Democrats lose to the Republicans in 1916 since the Democrats would probably campaign on a "Making the World Safe for Democracy" platform, whereas the Republicans would probably go for a "Peace with Honor" or "America First" thing advocate a gradual withdrawal from the War. I mean, Wilson only won by 23 electoral votes in 1916, and California was really close to going Republican. Again though, this is all assuming that the war goes badly and grows tiresome for the American public.
 
Last edited:
War shortened by 12-18 months. It will take a year before any US assets are in France (other than naval assets). OTL US was woefully unprepared even in 1917 and had to get combat a/c, artillery etc from Allies & even rifles early on. US industries had been scaling up since 1914 for things like ammo & support items. Put that all together and US troops landing in France in spring 1915 (other than token numbers) are mostly light infantry with limited numbers of machine guns and artillery etc.. Will be mid-1916 at least before US troops have full bag of equipment, mix of US & French/Brit stuff made in USA under license.

A big WI will be if the US will be able to resist French & Brit pressure to use US troops as plug-ins - Brits wanted them actually in Brit units individually as replacements (and enlsited not officers), French wanted US units at battalion level to plug in to larger French formations. Will Pershing (or whomever is in charge) be able to insist on a US Army? Also, will Villa still raid NM & if so since US has lots of troops in Europe in 1916, will there be an expedition to Mexico?

Have fun with this, Zimmerman telegram gets positive response from Mexicans - US occupied in Europe.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
1916 Campaign issues (if war going badly):
  • Entente using American troops to bolster their own forces
  • Army and Navy woefully underprepared for war and faring poorly
  • News from the trenches disheartening
  • American Southwest hotbed of Mexican bandit activity/terror
  • "Why are we fighting?" (could be used by either party effectively)
Again, I'm seeing a Wilson ouster if things start going sour. I don't know how the economy would be doing, but that's another big issue.

Then again, we could just see a Red Revolution like in Back in the USSA :p
 
On the German side, there will be no discussions about unrestricted submarine warfare, they will simply switch to it in 1915.
Also expect the Easterners to win over Falkenhayn, because now it's essential to push the Russians out of the war before the Americans arrive (hardly before 1916 in any substantial numbers).
Verdun will not happen. 1916 might see a first Alberich kind of retreat in the west, if Ludendorff is already at the helm.
 
With the US fleet working with the Grand Fleet, even if it's only an OTL sized division of a few battleships, the Royal Navy probably wont seize the Ottoman battleships. That, plus worry about the size of a US enriched entente, could butterfly away the Ottoman war entry and means a radically different post-war Middle East.

On a related note would a more powerful entente be enough to convince Italy to join earlier? Either way once Italy does enter the war would the greater Entente naval supremacy allow the release of enough warships to sink the A-H fleet and give naval supremacy in the Adriatic? Does Lloyd George's 'Eastern' strategy instead become his 'Italian' strategy, sending men and ships to the Italian front through the soft underbelly of the Central Powers?

It would be a hell of a timeline if anyone has the time.
 
No Russian Revolution (or, at least, no Bolshevik takeover). Consequences would be totally unpredictable.
 
A big WI will be if the US will be able to resist French & Brit pressure to use US troops as plug-ins - Brits wanted them actually in Brit units individually as replacements (and enlsited not officers), French wanted US units at battalion level to plug in to larger French formations. Will Pershing (or whomever is in charge) be able to insist on a US Army?

It seems unlikely that attitudes towards American reinforcements would have been the same in 1914 as 1917. By 1917, the British and French both have large experienced armies which are running short of men, while the Americans have a lot of manpower but no experience whatsoever- hence why it makes sense to have a policy of rotating American units through other allied ones as their strength builds up. Pershing doesn't go along with it for two main reasons, the first being nationalist pride and the second being that he doesn't believe that training troops for trench warfare is worthwhile.

In 1914, on the other hand, both armies have sufficient manpower and the British are busy creating a mass army of their own. For that reason, you'd have a separate American army on the Western Front- small to start off with, probably a few divisions jumbled up with the British in the course of the Race to the Sea, but later being split out into its own sector.
 
As others have said, the war would have been over a lot more quickly and the German High Seas fleet would have stayed in harbour. There would probably have been no Russian revolution as the war would probably be over before 1916. However the why's and wherefores make it unlikely. Why should America get involved without being provked by the U-boats?
 
Could the US take Papua and/or the Bismarck Archipelago from Germany?

The US, if interested/willing in acquiring territory in the war at all, would be more interested in gaining Palau, the Carolines, Marshalls, and Marianas. Essentially, all of German (formerly Spanish) Micronesia. Samoa would be nice, but it'd be more important to concede German Samoa to the British/Australians/New Zealand in return for their support of American annexation of Micronesia.

Why in the world would the US want Micronesia? War Plan Orange, the series of paper planned strategies for war with Japan. German acquisition of Micronesia posed a problem to American naval strategists, as in the event of war between the US and Japan, the Philippines and Guam would be isolated and subject to local Japanese military superiority. Bringing the full force of the US navy would be very difficult, not just because of the distance involved, but also because there would be no certain (or secure) fleet anchorages for coaling, repair and resupply.

IOTL, Japan's occupation of the Micronesian islands actually solved that problem by giving the USN an intermediate target. In the case of war, fleet anchorage could be gained by step-wise conquest and pacification leading toward the relief or liberation of the Philippines and Guam. The US of course had no opportunity to gain German territory IOTL given its late entry, and Wilsonian pledges of self-determination and non-annexation.

ITTL, Japan probably grabs German holdings in China, but is beaten to the punch in Micronesia and elsewhere. The strategic value of those Pacific island chains to the US (and Japan) strongly suggests that they'd be a major gain for one or the other, and in a case where the US has been shedding a great deal of blood in the trenches, the American President will need to have something to point to as a gain from the war, however trivial it may seem.
 
Australians and New Guinea

Ads an Aussie, I can tell you now, we would be quite "ticked off" to put it mildly, at the yanks having New Guinea an€d the Bismarck Archipelgoe. Also, given where we are, we can have troops/ships there well before the Americans - look at how quickly we got people there in 1914 .
Mind you, having the U.S. producing munitions early would be a big help!
 
How America gets into the war is not irrelevant. The only plausible scenarios involve with TR or Root being President in 1914 and the early entry of the US would be extremely controversial and polarizing with much of the Democratic Party and the Lafollette wing of the Republican Party in opposition. The relatively broad based consensus (and even then the Speaker remained antiwar) simply cannot be wandwaved into existence in 1914.

There could well be a Democrat and I don't mean Woodrow in the White House in 1917.
 
Top