You wouldn’t have allies, just benevolently neutral. If France transferred Caribbean islands to Germany as part of a peace deal then the US would simply take them. Geuropa wouldn’t be able to move back into the Caribbean until US Naval Power is decimated.
German Hegemony over Europe after World war 1, Can it build a navy to invade United States
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
If the British Empire collapses in a German total victory, the Germans still aren't getting a foothold in Latin America, because the US now will have a huge and politically powerful wing of politicians which will say "see, we warned you about the German Empire, we should've joined the war!" The US will now go into planning out a potential war where they're attacked by the Germans on one side and Japanese on the other, and I have a feeling the Navy will get quite a bit of budget. If tensions are ramping up, then that just means more ships laid down.
Another key factor in why this is impossible is that the US is so huge it will be impossible to shut down all the shipyards. Ruin the Atlantic ones with some insanely lucky raids, and you still have the Gulf and Pacific shipyards which will be churning out obscene numbers of warships. And aircraft too, to help nullify the U-boat threat. This will play havoc on German logistics for any invasion plan. And all the while, the US can assist allies (Caribbean+Central America+Canada will be guaranteed allied with the US, and the only options the rest of Latin America will be neutrality or on the US side) for with funding and training for their own forces to add a bit of extra support. As for war-winning options--nuclear weapons--I don't see Germany being able to build a big enough missile gap (as great of scientists and engineers they might have working on them) before the US can respond with their own nuclear arsenal in a way that makes MAD a thing. Pre-Atomic Age, the end result is the beachhead being thrown back into the sea within a few months and AT BEST some major German victories at sea before they're eventually pushed back to Europe (and losing a ton of shipping in the process).
Another key factor in why this is impossible is that the US is so huge it will be impossible to shut down all the shipyards. Ruin the Atlantic ones with some insanely lucky raids, and you still have the Gulf and Pacific shipyards which will be churning out obscene numbers of warships. And aircraft too, to help nullify the U-boat threat. This will play havoc on German logistics for any invasion plan. And all the while, the US can assist allies (Caribbean+Central America+Canada will be guaranteed allied with the US, and the only options the rest of Latin America will be neutrality or on the US side) for with funding and training for their own forces to add a bit of extra support. As for war-winning options--nuclear weapons--I don't see Germany being able to build a big enough missile gap (as great of scientists and engineers they might have working on them) before the US can respond with their own nuclear arsenal in a way that makes MAD a thing. Pre-Atomic Age, the end result is the beachhead being thrown back into the sea within a few months and AT BEST some major German victories at sea before they're eventually pushed back to Europe (and losing a ton of shipping in the process).
Freeport to Florida is about as far as South England to Normandy... but i can think of only a hand full of other places that are a worse places to invade than Florida. Man all those swamps would be eating tanks by the hundreds.
Please read this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/glossary-of-sealion-threads.180901/
and times everything by 10.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/glossary-of-sealion-threads.180901/
and times everything by 10.
Even worse, you're hundreds of miles from anywhere of strategic value and in a place where everyone has a gun, where every time you burn a town to root out resistance you recruit two towns worth of new guerillas and inspire two divisions worth of men to sign up to stop the Kraut menace.
Assuming they get to Freeport to begin with, since a collapsed British Empire would sell the place to the US (or just allow the US Marines to occupy it). Speaking of former British colonies, Bermuda is also likely to fall under US rule, but even if it doesn't, I could see the Germans trying to invade it to get a base a few thousand miles closer than what they have.
The US Nave Pre WW1 was the size it was because they didn’t need a bigger navy. Any navy traveling to the US was at such a disadvantage that the US Nave was going to be able to give it a run for its money. Only England had a chance and with the political and economic ties the was not going to happen so.
Keep in mind pre WW1 the entire German fleet couldn’t attack the US for two big reasons and a third technical reason.
The last reason was logistics. The German fleet was NOT designed to travel across the Atlantic and get into a pitched battle with basically an equivalent (or close to it) Navy. And the had no way of resupply. So any lose of ammo &Fuel used And and damage taken was NOT being replaced or repaired.
Plus if the heavy units wipe each other mostly out the US lite units are still within striking range of the invasion fleet the German lite units are mostly still at home due to range issues unless we supposed that Germany built the largest support fleet in history to that time.
So Germany has issues getting its whole have to the battle site.
The other two big reasons the whole German fleet is not going to attack the US is England and France. I can see France now, Sure Germany you just go ahead and take you entire Army and have over to attack the US don’t worry about us. Those troops we are gathering on your boarder are just there in case anyone attacks you. In fact in order to prevent that we will just put some troops into A-L to make sure no one tries to invade it.
So up to the point that Germany has taken all of Europe the US didn’t NEED the largest navy in the world. But look what the US was doing in WW2. They had a need and they out built every. By huge numbers. And if Germany takes over all of Europe the US will see the need.
And keep in mind Germany is still going to have to occupy all of Europe as the defeated counties are not going to just play dead.
As for using an island or Canada as a jumping off point that only happens if the US is the stupidest country on earth. As it is VERY obvious what is going on and the US if push comes to shove can easily take those areas a lot faster then Germany can.
And this still has the big question of why a Germany in complete control of Europe (a Europe that needs to be rebuilt after the war) even WANTS to attack the US.
Keep in mind pre WW1 the entire German fleet couldn’t attack the US for two big reasons and a third technical reason.
The last reason was logistics. The German fleet was NOT designed to travel across the Atlantic and get into a pitched battle with basically an equivalent (or close to it) Navy. And the had no way of resupply. So any lose of ammo &Fuel used And and damage taken was NOT being replaced or repaired.
Plus if the heavy units wipe each other mostly out the US lite units are still within striking range of the invasion fleet the German lite units are mostly still at home due to range issues unless we supposed that Germany built the largest support fleet in history to that time.
So Germany has issues getting its whole have to the battle site.
The other two big reasons the whole German fleet is not going to attack the US is England and France. I can see France now, Sure Germany you just go ahead and take you entire Army and have over to attack the US don’t worry about us. Those troops we are gathering on your boarder are just there in case anyone attacks you. In fact in order to prevent that we will just put some troops into A-L to make sure no one tries to invade it.
So up to the point that Germany has taken all of Europe the US didn’t NEED the largest navy in the world. But look what the US was doing in WW2. They had a need and they out built every. By huge numbers. And if Germany takes over all of Europe the US will see the need.
And keep in mind Germany is still going to have to occupy all of Europe as the defeated counties are not going to just play dead.
As for using an island or Canada as a jumping off point that only happens if the US is the stupidest country on earth. As it is VERY obvious what is going on and the US if push comes to shove can easily take those areas a lot faster then Germany can.
And this still has the big question of why a Germany in complete control of Europe (a Europe that needs to be rebuilt after the war) even WANTS to attack the US.
The 2 Ocean Navy Bill ie. the Navy that crushed Japan was prompted by the fall of France so the USN would be in a supreme position within 3 years of the Germans crushing European resistance.
The pre-WW1 long term trend for naval balance between the Naval powers was close to a 5:3:3:2:2:1.5:1.5:1 ratio (GB:US:Ger:Fra:Rus:Jap:Ita:A-H) not that pre-WW1 nations would bind themselves to ratios in a treaty sort of way. Germany and the US were at the same bracket. This typically meant 8 RN Battle-squadrons (of 8 Battleships each 64 ships) and 5 German Battle-squadrons (40 ships). The German navy also had 20 BC while US doctrine called for 4BB:1CC so a force of 12 CC could be expected. The USN has 8 more battleships but 8 less battlecruisers.
Prior to 1914, the US Navy General Board envisaged 6 Battle-squadrons (48 ships). However they were quietly talking about the need for '2nd to none' ie parity with the RN (64 ships 8 Squadrons) as the nightmare scenario would be Germany in coalition with Japan. The Japanese 8:8 program would translate to 24 capital ships (BB and BC). Parity with Germany in a pre-1914 situation is probably the best the USN can hope for.
The debates on the USN 1916 Program were against the background of the Battle of Jutland. The speakers praised the Royal Navy and acknowledged that it wasn't the main threat but the US needed to have a larger navy to defend it's rights and the 1916 Program 10 Battleships and 6 Battlecrusiers was approved by a wide margin. The money was later diverted to 300 destroyers. Once the German threat was removed, then the political support for a massive fleet evaporated.
The pre-WW1 long term trend for naval balance between the Naval powers was close to a 5:3:3:2:2:1.5:1.5:1 ratio (GB:US:Ger:Fra:Rus:Jap:Ita:A-H) not that pre-WW1 nations would bind themselves to ratios in a treaty sort of way. Germany and the US were at the same bracket. This typically meant 8 RN Battle-squadrons (of 8 Battleships each 64 ships) and 5 German Battle-squadrons (40 ships). The German navy also had 20 BC while US doctrine called for 4BB:1CC so a force of 12 CC could be expected. The USN has 8 more battleships but 8 less battlecruisers.
Prior to 1914, the US Navy General Board envisaged 6 Battle-squadrons (48 ships). However they were quietly talking about the need for '2nd to none' ie parity with the RN (64 ships 8 Squadrons) as the nightmare scenario would be Germany in coalition with Japan. The Japanese 8:8 program would translate to 24 capital ships (BB and BC). Parity with Germany in a pre-1914 situation is probably the best the USN can hope for.
The debates on the USN 1916 Program were against the background of the Battle of Jutland. The speakers praised the Royal Navy and acknowledged that it wasn't the main threat but the US needed to have a larger navy to defend it's rights and the 1916 Program 10 Battleships and 6 Battlecrusiers was approved by a wide margin. The money was later diverted to 300 destroyers. Once the German threat was removed, then the political support for a massive fleet evaporated.
Last edited:
What would be A-H's place in the post war world? Personally i don't see the special relationship with Germany going away any time soon and with the destruction of Italy, the Balkan states and Russia there just is no need for such a huge army as before. Any new threat would be coming from the seas.
Now one might just argue the usual 'ah will splinter' but this answers none of thräe questions, Austria and Bohemia would either be swallowed by Germany or become satellites and Greater Hungary would be a close ally, this removes on fact some of the internal political problem, the pieces of the AH empire individually may very well be worth more militarily than the unified empire was.
Now one might just argue the usual 'ah will splinter' but this answers none of thräe questions, Austria and Bohemia would either be swallowed by Germany or become satellites and Greater Hungary would be a close ally, this removes on fact some of the internal political problem, the pieces of the AH empire individually may very well be worth more militarily than the unified empire was.
If relations between the US and Britain had soured in the 1870s or 80s such that a British war was feared, you better believe the US would have had a stronger navy earlier. If Britain is defeated or worse, allied to the Germans, it's gonna be balls-to-the-wall shipbuilding for quite some time. This policy would be quite independent of whether the administration is isolationist or internationalist.
Probably as you stated - either remaining in a single entity, or being partially absorbed by Germany. If the former, AH will still have internal troubles that need to be resolved, as the Hungarians will still be combative and, while industrially and potentially strong, they continue to be held back by internals.
Also, I doubt that Russia and Italy would cease to be threats. They've been defeated and both sides drained by the war, but it doesn't render them not a threat - especially if AH takes something Italy (a return to Venezia?)
As for the incorporation into Germany, that does give another port (assuming Trieste goes with Austria) and a large ally with a large port (Hungary+Fiume) but does it increase shipbuilding capability much? The AH Navy was tailored to the calm waters of the Med, not for long range action against the US off of its shores.
-
But frankly we need to determine what Germany Hegemony is defined as to determine its capabilities. As we're pointedly going with German vs Central Power I would imagine it as such:
German annexation of Briey-Longwy, other small stretches of land west of Alsace, and Belgium up to Namur & Liege (As well as Luxembourg). Reorganization of the Austrian Empire leads to the annexation of Austria, Bohemia, Slovenia and the Littoral possessions of Austria.
Establishment of Rump Belgium, Lithuania, Poland, and the United Baltic Duchy (or something akin to such a thing) as protectorates directly tied to the crown. Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Hungary become allies but still play second fiddle in the Alliance. Hungary does annex the mountain passes from Romania, but little more happens. Romania does get all of Moldavia as recompense so they end up drifting into the German sphere. Serbia is marginalized, and surrounding states are strengthened.
Naval bases are established in Belgium and Dalmatia, and possibly the Ottomans (who are also tied to the Germans). To maximize the econonmic efficiency of Germany, I'd say for them to not recover their colonies - they are often major money sinks.
I'm very certain that Germany would, instead of reclaiming all its colonies for now, will leverage its sphere for bases. And that's where you get the Germans pressing the Netherlands for the use of its ports, which include the ABC islands and Suriname/Dutch Guyana...
-
That's what I'm working with. MittelEuropa united in a web of alliances and likely an economic bloc, but the surrounding states still exist and are not turned into German puppets. However, unquestionably, Germany is the hegemone. I feel this satisfies the OP's criteria.
As for the US, if we go off existing plans, in addition to the 10+6 mentioned, there were considerations for an additional twelve battleships to be added on (and that was in the relatively calm post-war waters). Construction would likely continue apace, especially once it becomes apparent that a victorious Germany will try to expand into America via its puppet's land.
And Germany's size constraints are worse than the US as well, considering the Kiel Canal.
On German colonies (and colonies in general): Decolonization is not predestined imo. There's large amounts of resources in those place and the people can be put to productive use, either for factories or as soldiers, both which ws barely starting by 1914. They're also useful as extra ports.
On A-H navy: The short-leggedness of the A-H navy was the result of the mission and the subsequent construction. A new mission and new plans for ships would result in a longer ranged navy as old ships are replaced by new ones. With the French/Italian defeat and arms limitations treaties and the Ottoman backwardness A-H would be the only one left in the Mediterranean. While A-H never really showed interest in colonies things like Malta or Greek islands are always a possibility as well as basing rights in Turkey and the newly "independent" North African states, plus there's German Suez. There's imo plenty incentive to go further out of the Adriatic, and after the war A-H would also be militarily more "reawakened" after spending the past 50 years treating the military as a dumpster for nobles.
On France: They're in a bad place... they'd almost certainly end up dependant on German (formerly French) iron and coal the same way Italy was depending on British coal before WW1, which will narrow down their foreign policy choices. There's also the possibility of a communist uprising, in which the French conservatives will have to rely on German support to crush it and keep it down to save their bacon.
On Russia: Just how much of a threat is Russia when the Eastern European and Kaukasian states have been ripped away from it? If there's a civil war things get even worse, Russia might be out of the picture till the 60s, until then all will be said and done anyway (nukes). And that's if it stays independent, i could imagine a German intervention in a civil war that ends with a German king on the Russian throne, and Russia only nominally independant.
As said, it depends on how big of a German hegemony we're talking about. For example can countries like Netherlands or Sweden afford to not be part of Mitteleuropa? If the proposal goes ahead they'd effectively end up shut out of the biggest trade area on the continent but when in they'd have to follow German foreign policy leadership. It's really a double edged sword.
Yet they also tend to be money sinks as well, granting the owner less than what was returned. They do have a use as ports, but only one of those (Togo) would be relatively closer to the Americas than any other base.
Any return on investment would be decades down the line, far past tthe point where an invasion attempt would be made.
Yes, arms limitations treaties, but those are not destined to hold on permanently. And you still have to be economical about these vessels - they're designed for 20-25 year cycles. Plus, why would AH want to expand out of its littoral region when it could become content reigning supreme on the Med? If AH can try and make parts of the rim its sphere, why would it need to go further afield, aside from perhaps a vanity colony?
Also, how do the Germans get Suez? That gets back to the age-old question of how the Germans are able to force the British to hand back over the colonies in WW1.
-
France & Russia are both in bad places. They both could go downhill into a death spiral, though that's leaning on the scale to assume they'll both fall just into place - Russia especially.
As for the scale of Mitteleuropa even at its largest and most favorable conditions, how do they manage to project power across the Atlantic, and more importantly, why? You'd have to completely rebuild the fleet to sortie across to North America, while the US would not be limited by such a problem (and after the Sodaks and Lex were done, the plan was to continue with more Sodak, likely with minor improvements).
So, by the mid 20s, you're likely facing a big gun fleet of 6 12" dreads (not counting the South Carolina class as they are too slow for fleet maneuvers), 9 14" Standards, 4 16" Standards, 6 Sodak 6 Lex along with those hundreds of destroyers and various older vessels. By the end of the 20s, you'd likely had ~12 Sodak to that number, with the older 12" ships going to the reserve. The US already had various carrier plans and would likely have a few in service by this time (and if the larger ones are chosen, they'd be more massive than Lexington was and would be purpose built, and better optimized). By the late 20s any old armored cruisers would also have been phased out, replaced by light cruisers unconstrained by the WNT.
You're limited by the Kiel Canal, which is far more restrictive than the Panama. Yes you could expand the Kiel, but on the other hand, there were plans to expand the Panama as well.
How do you invade past a fleet that when it started was only really inferior to yourself and the UK, and after many years of buildup is certainly a peer opponent, who is also thousands of miles away and fighting on their front door? The Germans would have had 21 (really 17, should I use the same rules as I did for South Carolina) ships before the L20, and 6 (assuming Jutland still occurs and they lose one ship during the war)remaining battlecruisers +7 of the Mackenson/Ersatz Yorck classes. Of those, only the Konig, Kaiser, & Mackenson could be called long range of the battlecruisers; the Ersatz Yorck would have reverted to the ~5500 nm range that was on the Derrflinger. I don't know what the range for L20 would be, so I can assume it'd be modified for 8k nm like the Mackenson, as the design was not finalized until 1918 unlike Ersatz Yorck. The four oldest battlecruisers have a range that is not suitable for use.
AH only had 4 dreadnoughts, which both were incredibly short-ranged and not comparable with newer super dreads. The Ersatz Monarch vessels would likely be redesigned as they were never laid down, and the original design would have effectively been equivalent to a short-ranged Nevada class.
The logistical advantages are very very very much in favor of the US.
Therefore the events leading up to it must have all (or most) of the other cards in Germany’s favor.
Eg. If we are imagining an actual conventional invasion (chemicals, biologicals or nuclear weapons beyond US expectations would be better), then the German carrier planes must shoot down the land based US planes easily. And so it continues.
So it has to be a very special set of circumstances to find the US at such a disadvantage.
I did a TL of this recently set in WW2 context, but it is the same issues (List Regiment at Havrincourt), and it took many tweaks to make it a sufficiently unfair fight.
All theoretically of course. Without a convenient, large island nearby transcontinental invasions don't really work, as mentionend no amount of aircraft carriers will let you overcome the local amount of aircraft, among other things. In the maximum Germani-wank Germany would be holding Suez, as said, what constitutes a German hegemony...
Directly post war i'd not expect many large ships to be laid down, there's debts to be paid off and the conservatives would be hell bent on reducing taxes again but it's definitely not ToV level of inactivity. A new, modern Germany (or Mitteleuropa) navy would be a thing for the early 30s.
Well, I have to admit I don't have much knowledge/source on the economical situation and statistics of the colonies and similar territories of the non-german powers at that time but for the german colonies I've looked up some source :
In 1913/1914 following colonies/"Schuttzgebiete" had a negative balance sheet for the empire
Most of these 'cost' for Berlin came from investment goods :
Namibia, German South-West
Kamerun
Tanzania, German East Africa
Kiautschou
New-Guinea, Kaiser-Wilhelm Land
Micronesia
Means : these received more money from Berlin, than Berlin received from them. though their absolute amount was esp. for the last two rather negligable.Kamerun
Tanzania, German East Africa
Kiautschou
New-Guinea, Kaiser-Wilhelm Land
Micronesia
Most of these 'cost' for Berlin came from investment goods :
railway equipment
minig equipment
communication equipment
and the costs for their installation
as there were mayor development operations going on esp. in Kiautschou (development of the naval base there), Kamerun and East Africa (mayor infrastructure development => railways).
Interestingly these mayor regions of ongoing development were the colonies with a negative trade-balance as well :minig equipment
communication equipment
and the costs for their installation
as there were mayor development operations going on esp. in Kiautschou (development of the naval base there), Kamerun and East Africa (mayor infrastructure development => railways).
Kiautschou, East Africa and Kamerun
while all other colonies had a positive trade balance after 2-3 decades of german administration. The trade 'neagtives' of the other colonies were also 'dwindling' over the last 5-10 years before the Great War and would most likely be even smaller if the 'public' investments of the state might be de-accounted for.So, alltogether ... the german colonies were well on their way to become a considerable plus in economics as well (and possibly even more important) a plus in global political weight
Source for 'short' :https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/kai...tische-angaben-zu-den-deutschen-kolonien.html
Somewhat more 'time-consuming :
https://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/toc/?PPN=PPN514401303
(the statistical alamnacs of the German Realm/ Deutschen Reiches)
And aside from the 'next to the USA' colony of Togo (how much are we still captives of the ooold Europe centered Mercator projections of world maps ;-D) there are other ways to the US aside the Atlantic
... ever thought of a at some point growing 'Pacific Squadron' possibly projecting itself from Samoa ... perhaps towards Hawai ... or other part of the all-american west-coast ... looking for possible 'friends' maybe in Peru. Chile, Mexico or some other south-american countries, who might look for an alternative to US-Fruits as their master.
Last edited:
Fair enough. I did remember them being better off, but I didn't remember them being that much better off. They'd be damaged after the war, regardless, as they were all completely conquered; it'd take some time to get back on their feet.
I did not say that it was next to the USA. I said that it was closer than other bases, but I was referring to the German colonies (specifically of Africa). It's certainly closer than Cameroon, Southwest Africa, and Tanganikya. As for the Pacific bases...
The Germans had already written off the Pacific colonies. Australia and New Zealand are not going to be returning them, and the Germans didn't expect to negotiate them back in victory (unlike the African colonies, which they did expect to be able to negotiate back). The Dominions had bled too much and there's no way the Germans at the time could project power that far away to demand it back.
Japan didn't have the ability to project naval power against the American western seaboard at the height of their power, as the logistics were beyond their ability. Peru and Chile were under the influence of United Fruit, either, by any account; United Fruit's main dominion was in the Caribbean rim, and the various banana republics were all Central American countries.
Though, sheltering foreign vessels raiding a nearby country's trade, which includes your own trade on similar routes, and is also ticking off the large neighbor with a penchant for invading your country.
-
Though, I'm curious what the casus belli is. Is Germany using a free Cut Down to Size casus belli they acquired from somewhere, or is there something in particular that is driving this aggression?
Even if an ASB provided the Kaiserreich with a massive teleport pad linked with a second pad somewhere on the US eastern seaboard... The US is big, too big for WWII standards, certainly for WWI ones. Like Russia in 1941, they can afford to just fall back behind the Mississippi, tear up the railroad tracks as they go, call a general mobilization and wait behind the river for the Germans to be stupid enough to cross. And all the while, even if by that time half of the country were already overrun by the Kaiser's shock troops, the other half would still be able to build more guns and train more troops than Germany even in the best of times... And eventually all those troops will be pushing back.
Actually the Kiel Canal is not the bottleneck (Locks are 1017ft long 147 ft wide 60 ft deep). Bismarck fits but she is too wide for the Panama Canal.
The limitation since before WW1 was the Locks at Wilhelmshaven.
The third lock was built during the war and opened in 1942 (1280ft long 187 ft wide 68 ft deep) but then clogged with scuttled uboats and filled in after the war.