American Central Power, Dutch Ally Power; effects?

Remember that the Americans maintained a relevantly small army in 1917, and while their army increased from 100 000 regulars in 1914 to 2.3 million in 1917, their forces in canada would consist of mostly militia forces, saving regulars troops for the Pacific and European theatres. While the US Militia is also estimated to consist of 2 million, many of these had never even held a rifle before. Compare this to the Canadians, who had only 620 000 regulars and just as many militia*. Hell, The Germans went so far as to call them ''Storm Troopers'' for their great combat efficiency.

Through out Canadian history, Canada has been known to have a small but mighty military. To the people saying that Canada would be taken over extremely easily, I point out the war of 1812, in which the Canadian army stood at only 62 000 [including British soldiers, Provincial regulars and militia] against the combined army and militia of America which at the time was well over half a million.

While the Canadians are not going to win this war, the idea of them being annexed by America is laughable at best.

* The Article is strangely worded here, stating the Canadian military at 620 000 but saying the militia was a separate division. The link to that division states its size as 620 000 as well.

The immediate question is when America enters the war, because if it happens after the bulk of the regular Canadian army is committed to the Western Front, then that will be a problem. And even if it's before, that still gives the Germans an easier time in France.
 
True, but what about the American arguments against annexing Canada? Does the President and Congress really want to just suddenly annex Canada and spend the time incorporating it into the US (adding the Canadian states to Congress would change up American politics certainly), or would they rather have a Canadian Republic as an ally?
They did add both Hawaii and Alaska as states in 1959 Despite opposition to the former due to a large Asian population and process of adding Canadian states is not going to be all at once but spread out over years. They also annexed the Philippines , Puerto Rico and Guam over the Opposition by both anti-imperialists and people worried about adding a large non-white population.
 
The immediate question is when America enters the war, because if it happens after the bulk of the regular Canadian army is committed to the Western Front, then that will be a problem. And even if it's before, that still gives the Germans an easier time in France.

Yes, This would absolutely still be a central victory, but I am just doubtful of the Canadian annexation
 
But what does France have in the Caribbean to oppose the United States, and how much will France protect Martinique, Guadeloupe, etc.? We can assume the Dutch will protect their colonies, especially in the case of the Dutch East Indies, although they don't have much to spare. France of course has Indochina (with rubber production) as a colony to protect and base fleets in. The Pacific is definitely where the main threat to the United States is.
It's not what France has in the Caribbean, but what France can pull out of the Med if Italy is Entente that is the problem. The MN is strong enough that the USN would need to keep a large portion of its strength in the Atlantic to counter it, leaving that strength unable to fight Japan in the Pacific. If the USN is OTL sized than the MN would be large enough for the USN to need almost everything in the Atlantic, and the RN might be able to cut enough loose to give the Entente superiority

The East Coast is a lot more valuable to the US than the West Coast (lot more people and industry), and rather more vulnerable, as distance prevents more than pinprick raids, the Atlantic Coast is 2000 miles closer to an Entente home country than the Pacific ones (excluding Alaska and much of the lightly inhabited Russian Far East). Guam and the Philippines are certainly vulnerable, Hawaii is far enough away and Oahu's geography defensible enough taking it would be really hard, but they pale in comparison to what damage could be done to US warmaking potential if some of the coastal cities of the east coast are hit.
 

trajen777

Banned
Here is the way i think it would go
1. 1914 German Sheif offensive takes out Netherlands with barely a gasp, they might do better or worse. The attack expanded to Netherlands allows more roads west, they might have some more delays in the attack. I think it might be about the same.
2. Same situation in Russia
3. British fleet needs to be closer to home and the Caribbean is lost the USA. USA starts massive fleet build up. Japan declares war on USA. Stalemate in Pacific, Japan might go after Phil
4. 1915 USA army trains up to large force. Small invasions for Canada, Vancouver and perhaps Toronto taken or forces are moved forward.
5. 1915 / 1916 same in Europe, Russia driven back and hammered. France and GB in stalemate on western front
6. 1916 USA conquers Canada. USA fleet has driven GB fleet and trade out of western Atlantic. Large USA raids on GB shipping cause havoc for Allies.
7. 1916 GB and French running out of Money, their imports that they relied on in the real world don't exist from USA. USA invades and takes Australia, and funds, supports, lands troops in India for popular rebellion. (might be 1917)
8. 1917 Russia collapses, Germany transfers forces west. USA fleet either defends or retakes Phil islands. USA might invade or support revolution in South Africa
9. 1917 USA defeats Japanese fleet, German offensive in the west hits Allies with no money, no reserves, and no hope of additional bodies to defend (as the USA forces gave hope and massive influx of resources to the Allies). here the position is reversed. The USA fleet is now very large, Allies in bankruptcy, and the Germany offensive take Amie's, GB withdraws from Europe, France collapses, Peace.


Treaty
1. BL in the east (Germany by 1917 drives hard bargain)
2. France looses the coal and iron ore areas in the north east
3. Belgium and Netherlands would be part of the New Middle Europa including Poland, Baltic states (part of theses are part of Germany if not all of them), Ukraine, Gerogia, AH (or Austria, Hungary, Check state, Serbia , Romania, .
4. Germany takes the Middle Europa and forms NATO like org (the eastern states to stay whole need to be protected vs a reviving Russia)
5. GB looses anything in Western Hemp -- or fights on and looses everything, They lose South Africa and other colonies (become like Phil or PR to the USA)
6. Japanese empire looses pretty much everything
7. Canada becomes states 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 ---
8. Australia ???? States number 55 56 57 58 or independence
 
Let's assume that the United States joins the Central powers, while the Netherlands joins the Allies. My guess is that this would result in an Central Power victory, but I am actually curious about what territorial changes should I expect. Many threads talk about what the various central powers would take if they won. What I wonder is what should I expect the Netherlands to lose, and what would the Americans take?

For the sake of imagining any of this it is good to hear you have a TL going that can explain the reversal of the US position! By default the US coming in on the CP side is very unlikely, but if you can engineer hostility between the US and UK overwhelming the more natural ties toward alliance, fine.

What is much harder for me to imagine is the Netherlands daring to go against Germany. To be cool to hostile neutrals, perhaps...I can't see them being prepared to take on Germany in a knock-down fight. To be sure the Lowlands have defensive advantages, and with a reasonable generic war plan devised just in case (because this is what competent military general staffs do, not because anyone hoped for war with Germany) competently executed in a contingency where it is the Germans who go nuts and attack the Netherlands first, I might believe the Dutch planned defenses can check a German invasion (with lots of Entente help!) and retain control of much Dutch territory, and then usefully from the alliance point of view bog down crucial numbers of German troops not available for service elsewhere. However if the Germans are willing to see their advances in the east slowed down, they might be able to divert enough Eastern Front forces to hold the Dutch front, while maintaining OTL forces in France and Belgium. They cannot afford to relax or fall back on the Western front and we still have to offer a plausible reason for the Germans to attack the Netherlands.

To summarize, a neutral Netherlands was a valuable asset for the Second Reich, being an intermediary; remaining at peace with the Dutch got them access to Dutch colonial goods (insofar as British arm twisting permitted anyway), a quiet front, and the services of Anthony Fokker's aviation company which as famously known provided the German air forces with most of their best planes. A mad high command might believe they could seize the Fokker works intact (very dubious, I believe these were based in the western bastion part of the country) but they'd lost every other benefit for sure. Where is the gain for Germany?

And while conceivably the Dutch are quite angry at the invasion of Belgium (but patriotically, why should they be?)--but they've got that huge vulnerable border with Germany. It might be possible to save part of the Netherlands from Belgium's fate, but the outcome would be nasty for the Dutch. As neutrals, the Netherlands could profit from selling to both sides, as Fokker's career demonstrates. So where is the gain for the Netherlands? Even if they could annex all of German colonial territory in the Pacific (but no, Japan would preempt them, or at least demand a split) what would that be worth to them?

I don't see the point of throwing the Netherlands in to the fray, except perhaps to give the Americans pretexts to plunder Dutch Caribbean and South American possessions. Again though, if the USN must fight its way through British elements in the Caribbean and Atlantic, not to mention being largely preoccupied with attempting to conquer Canada, if Americans can win that fight surely they have much richer prizes to take first--Jamaica, the whole sweep of both British and French Caribbean holdings, the islands of the Atlantic--is it really necessary to round them out with Dutch holdings when, assuming the USN can prevail, the whole of the Caribbean becomes an American lake anyway? We didn't need oil, we had domestic sources aplenty, and postwar might be in a position to extort the Dutch to sell. Or, with the Entente powers crushed, unilaterally invade at leisure.

The USA as it was OTL in 1914 of course had zero inclination to fight the Entente, and zero need to. And zero, essentially, except for having a pretty good navy, preparation to be able to either. Throwing the USN as it was OTL in 1914 against the RN one on one would be a hard fight for both sides--if the German HSF is also thrown in I give the CP/US alliance pretty good odds to prevail against the combined British and French forces. But it will be no cakewalk.

The variable here is that given deteriorating US/UK relations going back to the previous century, presumably the USA would build up forces much greater; this would come at a high cost to civil society and requires a hell of a motive to sustain. There is some question whether the USA would develop its OTL tremendous potential if leaders "cash in" on a big military, and to what degree society would be so different we can't extrapolate what Americans would actually do in a given situation. OTL, American military before WWII tended not to perform nearly as well as one would guess just by counting soldiers and adding up their guns. Gradually, as Americans were engaged, they would shake down to first rate quality and then their advantages in numbers and logistics would kick in full force; the longer the war goes on, the more unstoppable they become. But in an ATL where we arm to the hilt and go looking for a fight it might be quite different; we might start out near a lower peak and not push past that, deteriorating instead of hardening with time--a lot depends on morale, "what the hell are we fighting for?" A more authoritarian society might much reduce that variable, at the cost of losing an edge of commitment to win in a fight where the soldiers become persuaded of their own free will that they should and will win.

So the USA might enter the decade of the 1910s much better prepared--which is also to say that top of the line kit circa 1908 is dated in 1914, and it might be harder to transition over to the better stuff as fast.

Meanwhile--the British are going to know all this arming is aimed at them. They will evaluate their situation, take steps to make Canada and the waters around the USA more formidably defended. Indeed if they become persuaded the USA rather than Germany is the chief threat they face they might be more conciliatory to the Reich and come to agreements with the Germans that defuse the whole continental situation; the Germans are still going to worry about what happens when as feared, Russian quality of arms multiplies quantity well enough to pose a serious threat, but if they know the Franco-Russian alliance will not include Britain, they might have less of a fatalistic fear that war is inevitable and they must win it before the balance of power becomes unfavorable--therefore the Great War might be postponed, perhaps forever.

Here the assumption seems to be that Britain fears both Germany and the USA. Their most rational and simple recourse is to end the quarrel with America, and so I don't think a single diplomat being "indisposed" would change the course of their diplomacy much; they'd have to have a run of doggedly incompetent ministers to sustain the beef with the Yankees. Americans may be the uncontrollable variable, refusing to make peace--but if so, I think a separate war will break out earlier. Obviously the smartest thing for Americans to do is to sit it out and wait for the Empire to become entangled in some big mess, and then swoop in, but seeing the Americans lurking on the sidelines the British will trim their sails so as to minimize risk--unless they calculate that striking sooner rather than later is best for them. Even with all the admiralty and army brass in perfect agreement that war before it is too late is their best option, can British society be so persuaded? Presumably aggressive Americans are creating incidents that could precipitate a plausible war all the time.

Now say a tense situation exists, the Austrian archduke is killed, etc, and the Russians mobilize, then the French while Austria and Germany also mobilize. Given that Britain is distracted by the American threat, perhaps instead of having an alliance against Germany with France, Britain has stayed more neutral, eyes shifting back and forth across the Atlantic. Mightn't it then be more worthwhile for the Germans to attack the French frontier directly, instead of trying to cut through Belgium? OTL Parliament was on the fence until Belgian neutrality was violated; if that never happens, will Britain go to war at all? Can the Germans persuade the Americans to start their war and fight it alone, one on one with Britain? In that case the USA is only a "Central Power" in a very loose sense!

So this is definitely a low probability scenario. We need to know a lot more about how it got this way and what level of threat the USA represents.
 
What is much harder for me to imagine is the Netherlands daring to go against Germany. To be cool to hostile neutrals, perhaps...I can't see them being prepared to take on Germany in a knock-down fight. To be sure the Lowlands have defensive advantages, and with a reasonable generic war plan devised just in case (because this is what competent military general staffs do, not because anyone hoped for war with Germany) competently executed in a contingency where it is the Germans who go nuts and attack the Netherlands first, I might believe the Dutch planned defenses can check a German invasion (with lots of Entente help!) and retain control of much Dutch territory, and then usefully from the alliance point of view bog down crucial numbers of German troops not available for service elsewhere. However if the Germans are willing to see their advances in the east slowed down, they might be able to divert enough Eastern Front forces to hold the Dutch front, while maintaining OTL forces in France and Belgium. They cannot afford to relax or fall back on the Western front and we still have to offer a plausible reason for the Germans to attack the Netherlands.

To summarize, a neutral Netherlands was a valuable asset for the Second Reich, being an intermediary; remaining at peace with the Dutch got them access to Dutch colonial goods (insofar as British arm twisting permitted anyway), a quiet front, and the services of Anthony Fokker's aviation company which as famously known provided the German air forces with most of their best planes. A mad high command might believe they could seize the Fokker works intact (very dubious, I believe these were based in the western bastion part of the country) but they'd lost every other benefit for sure. Where is the gain for Germany?
Well the original Schlieffen Plan required Germany to attack the Netherlands, in order to be able to have routes to get five field armies into the battle in Northern France. That is your plausible reason and if the war had broken out sufficiently early, what would have happened

However that plan required 300,000 men to keep the Dutch military bottled up, men the German Army did not have and did not want to have (wanted to limit the number of officer slots so only the right people could get them). So instead Von Moltke rewrote the plan with some fancy staff work to allow two armies to pass en echelon where the original plan allowed only one to go through. Presumably the gain is that their supply lines are a bit less congested and they go through Belgium somewhat faster

If the German Army decides that it wants to expand the Army by that much (the money was there apparently) no need to rewrite the plan and the Netherlands are invaded
 
Canada had its own distinct identity at that point and it would be easier to make Canada into a puppet state than a territory/state. Were there that many calls to annex Canada in the US in the 1910s?

Newfoundland's a different question, however--I could see the US making Newfoundland a territory given its strategic importance and for control of the Grand Banks. They'd attach St. Pierre et Miquelon to the island as well.

They were certainly starting to, but not insurmountably so. Ontario and the Maritimes would be a problem, but the further out West you get not only do you have a weaker identification of the locals as Canadian (especially to the exclusion/separateness of being American; someone from Manitoba was at least as close to somebody from Minnesota as New Brunswick), the fewer Canadians you have doing the identifying, and the greater percentage of the population is either American-born or the children of American-born, who are unlikely to be that resistant to being integrated into the US. As for the calls, it wasen't as though it was an active concern, but the idea of the Frontier/continental expansion in general was still pretty salient in American society, and due to being geographically connected, filled with fairly similar populations (Territories which in the past have been shown to become states) and sparcely so, I can't see why there would be resistance to the idea. Indeed, excluding Canada into a seperate Republic seems more likely to come across as 'weird' and 'unnatural' when it would just appear they were set to follow the historical population-territory-states trend. Especially British Colombia; the Rockies mean they naturally hug the Pacific Coast far better than the rest of Canada, and the US has some big strategic reasons for wanting to take it over.

Personally, I see the U.S taking over B.C at minimum, with a 80%+ chance of Saskatchewan and everything west of it. The best case scenario for a surviving "Canadian Republic" would likely come as the result of a province-by-province referendum after a brief period of occupation/"De-Imperialization"/getting the region in order, with options to either join the U.S as a territory (Possibly with a quick jump to Statehood; likely for the Prairie Provinces), establish themselves as separate Republics in Free Association with the US (Currency/Customs Union, Alliance, ect. Quebec's likely choice), or to remain part of a Canada also in Free Association. It'd certainly be less controversial than taking on a proper "Colonial" Empire of Caribbean islands who are full of Black People and unlikely to become be ever fully integrated into the Union proper.

If the USA enters the war, they'e going to build up their force and know who is the biggest threat. They'l be ready for Japan.

On the other hand, if they'e forced in before they'e ready, itll.be some time before gains are made and Japan may come out stronger and make gains against the US

The question is just how much force projection Japan can manage to pull off into the vast distance of the Pacific. I can't imagine the Pacific Front is going to be much more than dogs on chains snapping at a distance, but too far away from one another to really get into a proper fight. While the Phillipenes and scattered islands will probably fall, the question comes if Japan can keep them at the peace table in the event of a wider Entente defeat by the US. I highly doubt the rest of the alliance is going to appreciate seeing their whole New World Empire's getting sold down the river from Japanese intransigence, especially since the actual Japanese loses/ratio of fighting to gains would be so disproportionate
 
What is much harder for me to imagine is the Netherlands daring to go against Germany. To be cool to hostile neutrals, perhaps...I can't see them being prepared to take on Germany in a knock-down fight. To be sure the Lowlands have defensive advantages, and with a reasonable generic war plan devised just in case (because this is what competent military general staffs do, not because anyone hoped for war with Germany) competently executed in a contingency where it is the Germans who go nuts and attack the Netherlands first, I might believe the Dutch planned defenses can check a German invasion (with lots of Entente help!) and retain control of much Dutch territory, and then usefully from the alliance point of view bog down crucial numbers of German troops not available for service elsewhere. However if the Germans are willing to see their advances in the east slowed down, they might be able to divert enough Eastern Front forces to hold the Dutch front, while maintaining OTL forces in France and Belgium. They cannot afford to relax or fall back on the Western front and we still have to offer a plausible reason for the Germans to attack the Netherlands.
Quite, the Netherlands going to war against the German Empire is by itself very unlikely. To illustrate that, near the end of the war there was almost a constitutional crisis when the Queen refused to discharge general C.J. Snijders for defeatism. Snijders had become deeply convinced that the Netherlands couldn't possibly stand up to a German invasion, was afraid that the Netherlands had to pick a side at some point, and advocated joining the Central powers since that would be the option that didn't entail certain defeat. It was that bad.

The Dutch had a policy of neutrality at all costs, almost literally; continuously bowing to pressure from both sides while was seen as the only way to survive. Add to that the fact that the public opinion in the Netherlands favoured Germany over Afrikaner-fighting Britain and old enemy France in the years leading up to the war, a very divergent chain of events is needed to get the Dutch to abandon neutrality and join the Entente. And if it does, it's really unlikely to accomplish much except getting invaded completely, sooner or later. I suppose the army could hang on a bit in Fortress Holland, but that's putting a lot of stock in very dated defences.
 
Treaty
1. BL in the east (Germany by 1917 drives hard bargain)
2. France looses the coal and iron ore areas in the north east
3. Belgium and Netherlands would be part of the New Middle Europa including Poland, Baltic states (part of theses are part of Germany if not all of them), Ukraine, Gerogia, AH (or Austria, Hungary, Check state, Serbia , Romania, .
4. Germany takes the Middle Europa and forms NATO like org (the eastern states to stay whole need to be protected vs a reviving Russia)
5. GB looses anything in Western Hemp -- or fights on and looses everything, They lose South Africa and other colonies (become like Phil or PR to the USA)
6. Japanese empire looses pretty much everything
7. Canada becomes states 49 - 50 - 51 - 52 - 53 - 54 ---
8. Australia ???? States number 55 56 57 58 or independence


1. BL can't be enforced without Lenin's idiotic period of "No War, No Peace", complete dissolution of the Russian military, and unopposed victory parade of the German army across the landscape. A severe treaty, sure, probably including Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia at minimum (The other specifics are hard to nail down), and minor border changes in the Caucauses, but not the absolute capitulation we saw IRL.

5. Nobody has the force projection to rip South Africa from G.B. The U.S can't really challenge the U.K outside of the Western Hemisphere, and even if South Africa left the Empire for some reason why would they be under any kind of American influence? Barring major butterflies with the Ottoman offensives/local Jihadi clients or the collapse of the domestic situation in France, Britain, or Italy to the point they can't keep the Empire under control, the best case scenario for the CP in Africa is likely to be a status-quo, with the possible caviat of recognizing the Dervish States, Senussi, and other CP allies. As for the Western Hemisphere... yah, they're likely to lose alot of it, if on American principal than nothing more. Maybe they keep British Guyana and the Falklands, assuming Argentina and Venezuela don't jump onto the bandwagon to seize their pet claims

6. ... Why? I doubt Germany or America are going to go out of their way for the freedom of Formosa or Korea.

8. Or they stay with the Empire and say "Who's going to stop us?" Again, are Germany or America going to be willing to put in the resource to drag the largely loyal region (at this point) away kicking and screaming from halfway across the world?
 

trajen777

Banned
1. BL can't be enforced without Lenin's idiotic period of "No War, No Peace", complete dissolution of the Russian military, and unopposed victory parade of the German army across the landscape. A severe treaty, sure, probably including Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia at minimum (The other specifics are hard to nail down), and minor border changes in the Caucauses, but not the absolute capitulation we saw IRL.

5. Nobody has the force projection to rip South Africa from G.B. The U.S can't really challenge the U.K outside of the Western Hemisphere, and even if South Africa left the Empire for some reason why would they be under any kind of American influence? Barring major butterflies with the Ottoman offensives/local Jihadi clients or the collapse of the domestic situation in France, Britain, or Italy to the point they can't keep the Empire under control, the best case scenario for the CP in Africa is likely to be a status-quo, with the possible caviat of recognizing the Dervish States, Senussi, and other CP allies. As for the Western Hemisphere... yah, they're likely to lose alot of it, if on American principal than nothing more. Maybe they keep British Guyana and the Falklands, assuming Argentina and Venezuela don't jump onto the bandwagon to seize their pet claims

6. ... Why? I doubt Germany or America are going to go out of their way for the freedom of Formosa or Korea.

8. Or they stay with the Empire and say "Who's going to stop us?" Again, are Germany or America going to be willing to put in the resource to drag the largely loyal region (at this point) away kicking and screaming from halfway across the world?


In answer
5 . By 1917 gb and France are bankrupt. Only the usa funding kept them in the war. In my scenario. Above France collapses in 1917 /18 w no France or Russia in the war and the combined usa and germany fleets exceeding gb they are in very bad shape. Gb needs to keep most of their fleet pinned the gb to watch germany. South Africa had fought a brutal war with gb in 1900. Usa transfer
Of funds, weapons etc would have made rebellion probable.

6. Japan was an ally of gb. If japan went to war they would strike at Philippines. Usa would either defend Phil or reconquor. So you have a massive usa army which after conquering canada would have used their force to attack and take over a lowly populated Australia. After overwhelming japan they would want to pull the plug on their only pacific rival.

8. Gb is bankrupt. Fleet overwhelmed at some point . With all trade cut off. And germany across the channel
 
In answer
5 . By 1917 gb and France are bankrupt. Only the usa funding kept them in the war. In my scenario. Above France collapses in 1917 /18 w no France or Russia in the war and the combined usa and germany fleets exceeding gb they are in very bad shape. Gb needs to keep most of their fleet pinned the gb to watch germany. South Africa had fought a brutal war with gb in 1900. Usa transfer
Of funds, weapons etc would have made rebellion probable.

6. Japan was an ally of gb. If japan went to war they would strike at Philippines. Usa would either defend Phil or reconquor. So you have a massive usa army which after conquering canada would have used their force to attack and take over a lowly populated Australia. After overwhelming japan they would want to pull the plug on their only pacific rival.

8. Gb is bankrupt. Fleet overwhelmed at some point . With all trade cut off. And germany across the channel

There's almost 5 million Australians in 1914, and more importantly, they're on the other side of the world on an island with very rough terrain where the cities are far apart. If the US and Germany really hated the British Empire that much, might as well just use that mostly unopposed force to do World War I Sealion instead. Either way, it's still much too expensive for little gain at that point.

You also have to balance the Pacific with Russia, since if Japan is somehow evicted from there, Russia (here Japan's ally) will move in. It has the same issues as the above (Taiwan and Korea have very rough terrain and Japan has a much better logistics situation), and the Japanese government will easily offer favourable terms if they're threatened that badly.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
There is a TL in the well-known What If? anthology about this where Salisbury is indisposed
I just read through one TL about this. But, given the well-known fact that Salisbury commanded the majority of the Tories, frankly the Liberal Unionist minority is extremely unlikely topple them.

IOTL, Joe was a fringe in the Unionists for most of his career.
 
In answer
5 . By 1917 gb and France are bankrupt. Only the usa funding kept them in the war. In my scenario. Above France collapses in 1917 /18 w no France or Russia in the war and the combined usa and germany fleets exceeding gb they are in very bad shape. Gb needs to keep most of their fleet pinned the gb to watch germany. South Africa had fought a brutal war with gb in 1900. Usa transfer
Of funds, weapons etc would have made rebellion probable.

6. Japan was an ally of gb. If japan went to war they would strike at Philippines. Usa would either defend Phil or reconquor. So you have a massive usa army which after conquering canada would have used their force to attack and take over a lowly populated Australia. After overwhelming japan they would want to pull the plug on their only pacific rival.

8. Gb is bankrupt. Fleet overwhelmed at some point . With all trade cut off. And germany across the channel

5. Then prior to 1917 GB and France will have come to the table for terms. You can't just assume identical action on both their parts, especially since such actions would be suicidal, given the butterflies of no American credit/raw material access. And if you're going to referance the 1st Boer War, look at the more recent conflict/rebellion that took place DURING WW 1; the 2nd Boer War. The weakening of the opposition, increased Anglo presence/power, and the placation Dominion status provided to the biggest of the local complaints means the situation is very different than IOTL.

6. The US dosen't have the power projection capabilities to defend the Phil, and re-conquering from that far away would be a herculian effort with huge casulities and costs vs what's gained. Far more efficent to just pick it back up at the negotiating table and re-build your position and authority during peacetime. Same thing with Australia: namely, the fact Logistics exist and need to be taken into account, as well as distance, defensive advantages, local knowledge/prepared tactics, ect.

8. Peace also comes at some point, and the U.S and Germany aren't going to be bothered to spend the time and resources to enforce strict terms on Austaralia. It's not worth the effort, particularly if GB is knocked down as many pegs as you suggest. In that case, let the Aussie's stay friends: its not like the British are any more of a threat with them on their side than outside it, and you earn some positive street cred to boot.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Given the excellent Entente propaganda machine, a Netherland offensive would have cemented Germany's reputation as a thug and a warmonger, especially from the view of the Americans. And if the Dutch successfully withdraw behind their waterline, things would go very nasty.

This combined with the fact that Salisbury would not allow the Venezualan crisis to broke out into a war.
 
We can assume the Dutch will protect their colonies, especially in the case of the Dutch East Indies, although they don't have much to spare. France of course has Indochina (with rubber production) as a colony to protect and base fleets in. The Pacific is definitely where the main threat to the United States is.

The Dutch had around 60,000 men within its colonies, with the large majority of them being in the East Indies. The army in the East Indies consisted of 30,000 regular troops as well as 25,000 native troops, these men had access to around 400 artillery pieces, with only 60 of them being rapid fire. The number of men under arms could be raised to ~130,000 with all arms but ammunition would become a problem within about three weeks. but A large portion of their navy was stationed here as well, numbering six submarines, 6 coastal defense ships, 8 light destroyers, 14 torpedo boats and 26 smaller craft. The British had 2 battleships, three battle cruisers, eleven light cruisers, ten destroyers and a dozen sloops in the Pacific as well. The French have six light destroyers, four subs, 31 torpedo boats, ten coastal defense ships and around a dozen smaller craft in their Asiatic possessions.
 
tytmw.png


2zrkltl.png


Not too hard to see that the US has a huge apple to bite. She has to join the First Battle of the Atlantic and starve Britain of oil. (Embargo and then Venezuela and MEXICO post 1916)

The refusal to supply arms to Britain and France will K.O any Western Front from September 1917 on. The Western Allies will either stalemate or collapse depending on the French. it will be in the Americans interest to force stalemate there.

The situation in Canada is such that one huge army (1,000,000 men) will be required to overrun the Ontario triangle and march up the St Lawrence River valley. Smaller armies can advance on Winnipeg and Vancouver, but those will not be cakewalks, either. Logistics, communications and terrain favor the defenders. Those other fronts are secondary. The main objective is the Saint Lawrence River valley. That gone and Britain is finished in North America. Jamaica and Bermuda are booby prizes.

Mexico is huge arid unimproved and a topological nightmare to fight in. Take Veracruz and be happy. Venezuela is practically an American puppet state. The snapups of European Caribbean islands is just added insurance.

===========================================

The Pacific is the actual stuff of nightmares. Assuming (a huge if) the Japanese don't snap up the German Marianas, Marshalls and Gilberts. the US should garrison them for Germany (HA!) and plan for a campaign through Indonesia out of the Bismarks. This is the Bywater Plan for doing in Japan. Get to Formosa and apply the screws via distant blockade. The USN is just strong enough to do it in 1917, but the logistics are horrible. Japan could easily win a defensive war under these conditions.
 
Last edited:
Well, the outcome of the war much depend on the pre-war situation and how/when the Netherlands and the USA will enter the war; if we assume that things go downhill immediately with Netherlands with the Germans invade them and Belgium (IRC the original Plan), Germany in this scenario lose a mean to trade with the rest of the world (food shipment coming through Holland were very important) and use troops and resources to deal with the Dutch Army (even if not modern trained and equipped, will occupy forces OTL used in other places, making thing more difficult in Belgium and North France).

The US navy at the moment need a lot of training (the British evaluation during the initial joint exercise was very harsh) and in case of fight i point all my money in the RN, IJN and MN
 
Well, the outcome of the war much depend on the pre-war situation and how/when the Netherlands and the USA will enter the war; if we assume that things go downhill immediately with Netherlands with the Germans invade them and Belgium (IRC the original Plan), Germany in this scenario lose a mean to trade with the rest of the world (food shipment coming through Holland were very important) and use troops and resources to deal with the Dutch Army (even if not modern trained and equipped, will occupy forces OTL used in other places, making thing more difficult in Belgium and North France).

The US navy at the moment need a lot of training (the British evaluation during the initial joint exercise was very harsh) and in case of fight i point all my money in the RN, IJN and MN

The Dutch Army of 1914 was on par with other amies at the time. The big question is how much time the Dutch have to prepare the Waterlinie.
 
Top