Help on a Central Powers United States

Hi there! So this is my first post, as well as my first timeline, so I'm hoping I put this in the right forum. I was thinking "what if America joined the Central Powers?" so I was thinking how this scenario could come to be.

Okay, so my POD would be a British intervention in the ACW where they help the Confederates or at least recognize them as a state, due to some bungled diplomacy on both part. The war ends with a US-UK status quo and Union victory. This pisses the U.S. off but they don't do anything til post reconstruction. When Alaska's being sold there's a bit more anger, maybe some border disputes with Canada.

Now, early 1880s, the Americans say to Britain and France that they shouldn't control lands in South America. Britain disagrees and they go to war, mostly a naval blockade that's broken by the Royal Navy. Very little deaths, maybe a ship in port sinking, but mostly just bloodying USA's nose. Leads to an armistice, but basically a surrender, and it mostly just pisses off the Americans. America, a bit self conscious, seeks new allies besides UK and France, and sees promise in the growing German Empire.

Couple decades later, boom, WWI, USA begin raising men just in case, they're not too eager but something could tip them off, like in OTL before WW1, they joins the Central Powers when a RN ship fires on an American civilian ship. Canadians assault the Michigan and Washington borders, heading for Detroit and Seattle in an attempt to win a quick victory by capturing major cities, but are repelled. The U.S. moves north, gaining some victories and capturing some border cities. Canada sues for a separate peace, they give up their ties to Britain and enter USA's sphere. Now, onto the Naval War. I think the combined forces of the USA and Germany's navies could heavily hinder the British thalassocracy, maybe no starving the Germans out. So, let's say RN can stop some of the American ships, but with support from Germany, American transport ships get through to France. Combined with the armies of America, the Central Powers have a vast numerical superiority, and I'd think this disparity would lead to the end of the war.

I was thinking of making this into a timeline going up into the 1950s and beyond, but I wanted to make sure I first make this stuff make sense. Now, this is my first AH, so be as blunt as possible to tell me what I did wrong.
 
Hi there! So this is my first post, as well as my first timeline, so I'm hoping I put this in the right forum. I was thinking "what if America joined the Central Powers?" so I was thinking how this scenario could come to be.

Okay, so my POD would be a British intervention in the ACW where they help the Confederates or at least recognize them as a state, due to some bungled diplomacy on both part. The war ends with a US-UK status quo and Union victory. This pisses the U.S. off but they don't do anything til post reconstruction. When Alaska's being sold there's a bit more anger, maybe some border disputes with Canada.

Now, early 1880s, the Americans say to Britain and France that they shouldn't control lands in South America. Britain disagrees and they go to war, mostly a naval blockade that's broken by the Royal Navy. Very little deaths, maybe a ship in port sinking, but mostly just bloodying USA's nose. Leads to an armistice, but basically a surrender, and it mostly just pisses off the Americans. America, a bit self conscious, seeks new allies besides UK and France, and sees promise in the growing German Empire.

Couple decades later, boom, WWI, USA begin raising men just in case, they're not too eager but something could tip them off, like in OTL before WW1, they joins the Central Powers when a RN ship fires on an American civilian ship. Canadians assault the Michigan and Washington borders, heading for Detroit and Seattle in an attempt to win a quick victory by capturing major cities, but are repelled. The U.S. moves north, gaining some victories and capturing some border cities. Canada sues for a separate peace, they give up their ties to Britain and enter USA's sphere. Now, onto the Naval War. I think the combined forces of the USA and Germany's navies could heavily hinder the British thalassocracy, maybe no starving the Germans out. So, let's say RN can stop some of the American ships, but with support from Germany, American transport ships get through to France. Combined with the armies of America, the Central Powers have a vast numerical superiority, and I'd think this disparity would lead to the end of the war.

I was thinking of making this into a timeline going up into the 1950s and beyond, but I wanted to make sure I first make this stuff make sense. Now, this is my first AH, so be as blunt as possible to tell me what I did wrong.

The first thing you did wrong was assume that with British interference in the U.S. civil war everything up to WW1 will be as otl.

Messing with the A.C.W changes A LOT.
 
The first thing you did wrong was assume that with British interference in the U.S. civil war everything up to WW1 will be as otl.

Messing with the A.C.W changes A LOT.

You`d need to set up quite a few butterfly nets sure, but I don`t think that a great war with a UK-France-Russia alliance fighting against Germany and Austria-Hungary is rendered impossible by this POD. This WWI would be a different war, true, but it`d be recogniseable.
 
You don't need that far back of a PoD. A William Randolph Hearst presidency (he doesn't lose his governor bid and Wilson never enters presidential politics) and no USW or Lusitania could make it happen.
 
I started, but never finished an America in the Central Powers TL centering around the POD that Lord Salisbury listened to Joseph Chamberlain who OTL favored a more belligerent stance in the Venezuelan border dispute which led to President Cleveland sending USS Texas to protect American interests in Venezuela. USS Texas and a British battleship shoot at one another survivors from the Texas claiming that the British shot first and the British claiming the Americans shot first. It's a brief affair that US is easily defeated on the seas and it's economic interests strangled. This destroys US UK relations and and earlier Anglo-Russian rapprochement ensures that the US and Germany become closer and closer.
 
This might work as a prelude:

-UK treats Confederacy as a neutral power with respect to trade, commerce, and diplomacy. They push harder on the RMS Trent affair, forcing not only a formal written apology but also that the Union deliver the diplomats as a redress for interference with their transit. Lincoln is understandably furious but bows quietly.

-Confederate attacks into the far north are thought to originate from Canada (and they do), creating animosity between Washington and London that lingers in years to come.

-Despite the surrender of the Confederacy in March 1866, tensions are slow to resolve, especially following Fenian raiding parties into newly-confederated Canada until 1871.

-Mistrust and misinformation, along with a few bellicose politicians in New England, lead many British citizens to believe the Fenian dynamite campaigns are supported if only passively by the United States.

-UK declares their candidate for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii the 'legitimate heir', David Kawananakoa (or David I, depending on who is writing the history and where they do so) becomes a thorn in US-UK relations prior to World War I as does his son David II after the former's death in 1908.

-Alaskan border claims raise tensions farther in 1898 after the discovery of gold in the Yukon, calls for '54' 40" or fight'!, are heard once again. Careful diplomacy and a great deal of patience resolve the conflict but only just.

-Germany and United States grow closer as the French and British grow closer following the Franco-Prussian War. Cartoons of, 'John Bull and his New Wife Lucretia' become a popular propaganda mechanism. Germany and the United States write out War Plan Emerald, calling for the Germans to annex the balance of Lorraine, Franche-Comte, and Morocco while the Americans to take the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, British Colombia, the Bahamas, and Bermuda with independence for Ireland, Quebec, and possibly Scotland. A rapid German movement into France is planned with the Americans doing the same into the Atlantic Provinces, taking Halifax before the Royal Navy can resupply and Paris before the French can organize. Its counterpart is 'Plan 23', calling for a rapid British advance into New England from Canada with eventual annexation of Hawaii, Maine, the States of Washington, Vermont, and New Hampshire along with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a line of territory from southernmost Vermont to Ontario. France is to lead a rapid advance into Germany itself with the Rhine as its new border and the cessation of South-West Africa and Kamerun to the French along with the Philippines, Guam, and a split of control of the Cuban and various Central American governments. Mexico is to be lured into the Allies with promise of Southern California (to latitude 34 degrees), Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma; California and Nevada are to be made into an independent Republic under British domination possibly including Oregon if the war goes decisively in favor of London and Paris.

-By 1914, two alliances dominate: Allies, of the UK, France, Italy, Russia, and Portugal; 'Newbs' (from a derogatory British assessment of the 'New and Bellicose Powers'): US, Germany, Austria, Ottomans, and Japan. Scandinavia, Belgium, and the Netherlands hope to stay out of the fighting, and individual members are more bellicose towards one another than the entire alliance is (US and Russia have no problem with each other though the US and UK hate each other's guts while Russia and Germany are equally friendly).
 
Last edited:
There will be a quiz...

Hi there! So this is my first post, as well as my first timeline, so I'm hoping I put this in the right forum. I was thinking "what if America joined the Central Powers?" so I was thinking how this scenario could come to be.

Okay, so my POD would be a British intervention in the ACW where they help the Confederates or at least recognize them as a state, due to some bungled diplomacy on both part. The war ends with a US-UK status quo and Union victory.

Sorry for the joke, its my nature to play with user names. Its meant to show that I care...:cool: You should have seen what I did to poor Mad Missouri. Ran through all fifty states plus every Canadian province and the territories.:eek: Now, back to being OP...

To REALLY throw the US/UK relationship into a death-spiral that fully thrusts the US into Germany's arms by the late 1800s you need a lot more than that. How about this:

a) A full blown US versus British Empire/CSA/French Empire War in which the USA loses badly, with its navy destroyed, and the South getting its full independence.

b) Following the war, the Confederacy reneges on its "promises" to the UK to abolish or at least ameliorate the worst aspects of Slavery. Instead, they double down, making any practical manumission illegal. The British People are pissed and the British government is embarrassed.

c) The USA is humiliated, and convinced that without European Intervention the Union would have emerged victorious. A deep sense of revanche now sits in the North.:mad:

d) With the passage of the Great Reform Act of 1867 and the founding of the Third Republic, suddenly the CSA's erstwhile "friends" are more than happy to drop any military ties with an odious Slave Power.

e) Emerging victorious from the US Civil War, the Confederacy is emboldened, threatening to push for claims on the Arizona Territory (New Mexico & Arizona), Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland :)eek:), and the restoration of West Virginia to Virginia. This, plus cross-border raids looking to kidnap Blacks living near the South's border only throw gasoline on the fires of Union sentiments for revenge.

f) Looking to salve some of their wounds, the North buys Alaska on schedule.:cool:

g) Sometime in the 1870s, under the presidency of the North's most successful general (insert your favorite general's name here, except Sherman, who'd never accept the job), the Second American Civil War (probably started due to a border incident/massacre), ends with total Union victory.

h) Leaving the North vindicated in their original belief that only the British and French were to blame for Confederate victory. Worse, that the war "would have been over in a year, otherwise".:rolleyes::mad:

i) For the South, the bitter knowledge that their brief time of independence was won not by their own strengths,:eek: but by the overwhelming firepower of this fully armed and operational:eek: battle st-well, you get the idea:p And that they themselves were let down by their so-called "allies" for Round 2.:(:mad: So no joy for the Anglo-French down South anymore either.

j) With victory down South, the North is fully able to begin the exploration and conquest of the Old West, if delayed by several years. But a much more state-of-the-art army, due to rearmament for ACW 2, means the Native Americans will have an even more brutal time of things ITTL.:(

k) American hostility for the Anglo-French, seen as responsible for supporting one side that eventually resulted in two wars and perhaps nearly one million American deaths, isn't going to cool no matter how many one-handed backflips the British Foreign Office manages to pull off.

l) The OTL US naval buildup (started in 1880 with the Chilean Crisis) starts post-US CW 2, and at a much heavier pace.

m) The Germans begin their own naval buildup.

n) As US-UK relations remain frosty, relations with Germany improve, since the US cheered on the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War. Relations however are also good with Russia, considering their support for the Union and the Alaskan sale.

o) Germany tries to improve relations with the USA even more so, sometimes somewhat clumsily, while British attempts are rebuffed.

p) Despite greatly improved trade ties between Great Britain and the now re-united USA, the business interests of America, even in the Gilded Age, can't get past the political reality that US-UK relations ITTL are, as an American domestic issue, the purest of poisons.:mad:

q) Despite the US naval build up, the Royal Navy still has complete naval supremacy by the end of the 19th century. With a Venezuelan Crisis that has a much more aggressive British admiral (read: A guy who still hasn't gotten over New Orleans:p:rolleyes:), a fight breaks out that leads to a severe USN drubbing, and Washington still helpless to do anything about it.

r) London apologizes and pays indemnities, but the officer goes unpunished (we'll say he's highly connected or something:rolleyes:). Too late, the damage is done.:(

s) NOW the US naval build up goes into overdrive, and there is no doubt against whom it is directed.:mad:

t) US-German ties get even closer, with preliminary talks about treaties of mutual defense.

u) The US attempts to mediate the end of the Ruso-Japanese War stumble, with both sides accusing the US of playing favorites. US-Russian relations sour.

v) The entangling alliances of OTL get progressively worse, extending far beyond the abilities of the feeble aristocracies of Europe to control.

w) A different spark lights off WWI, one that leaves the French holding the bag regarding culpability as the aggressor.

x) Britain's own guarantees to neutrals draw it in.

y) The US Navy has at last attained a qualitative and quantitative equality with the Royal Navy, though not with a combined Anglo-French fleet.

z) The German-American fleet, however, have an edge over the Anglo-French fleet, except that they are handicapped by not being able to combine forces across the Atlantic with the Anglo-French in the way.

aa) The stage is set...

Couple decades later, boom, WWI, USA begin raising men just in case, they're not too eager but something could tip them off, like in OTL before WW1, they joins the Central Powers when a RN ship fires on an American civilian ship. Canadians assault the Michigan and Washington borders, heading for Detroit and Seattle in an attempt to win a quick victory by capturing major cities, but are repelled. The U.S. moves north, gaining some victories and capturing some border cities. Canada sues for a separate peace, they give up their ties to Britain and enter USA's sphere.
Despite the patriotic chest thumping that you may see on this subject today, I promise you that Canada would simply declare its unilateral independence and stay out of any Anglo-American conflicts in the 20th century.

Simply because by the 1910s, if there's war between Britain and the USA, Canada goes. Like Pickett's Charge, its a simple mathematical equation by that point between the two countries. The Canadians could fight bravely, but that's all it would be, a fight. In a WWI situation with the USA as a fully armed and ready member of the Central Powers, I doubt that even the Maritime Provinces could be held forever.

Canada does have points along its border where it can make a stand against the US Army and Marines, but the whole of Canada east of Vancouver Island all the way to the start of Eastern Ontario would represent an open door for invasion and conquest. Leaving Canada halved and the eastern provinces open to being flanked from the West even if they DO hold on in the East.

Not unless Britain wants to risk letting the Germans escape to the high seas, thereby having what would be the ultimate nightmare for Britain ITTL: A USN-High Seas Fleet link up.

Now, onto the Naval War. I think the combined forces of the USA and Germany's navies could heavily hinder the British thalassocracy, maybe no starving the Germans out.
I highly doubt the British will lighten up their blockade of Germany one whit, as they would represent the "real enemy", figuring that they could neutralize the US once Germany is broken. OTOH, if they do, Anglo-French possessions in the New World beyond even that of Canada are going to be swarmed. Goodbye Jamaica and Martinique, frex.

So, let's say RN can stop some of the American ships, but with support from Germany, American transport ships get through to France. Combined with the armies of America, the Central Powers have a vast numerical superiority, and I'd think this disparity would lead to the end of the war.
Impossible. logistics-logistics-logistics Oh, and "interior lines", even if they are on the high seas. As I described above, the only way the Germans and Americans can link up is if the Royal Navy is crazy enough to remove a battle squadron or three from the Grand Fleet in the name of...saving Canada? Saving the Caribbean?? Blockading the USA???

I was thinking of making this into a timeline going up into the 1950s and beyond, but I wanted to make sure I first make this stuff make sense. Now, this is my first AH, so be as blunt as possible to tell me what I did wrong.
Well, I hope I have given you some ideas.:eek: No doubt I've made many mistakes too:eek::eek: on this post.

The first thing you did wrong was assume that with British interference in the U.S. civil war everything up to WW1 will be as otl.

Messing with the A.C.W changes A LOT.

Methinks he wanted to throw a butterfly net over events on the European Continent, thereby allowing a relatively recognizable WWI. Not totally crazy under the circumstances. I mean, relations between Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, frex, are unlikely to be effected. Sometimes a butterfly is just a butterfly.

This might work as a prelude:

-UK treats Confederacy as a neutral power with respect to trade, commerce, and diplomacy. They push harder on the RMS Trent affair, forcing not only a formal written apology but also that the Union deliver the diplomats as a redress for interference with their transit. Lincoln is understandably furious but bows quietly.

-Confederate attacks into the far north are thought to originate from Canada (and they do), creating animosity between Washington and London that lingers in years to come.

-Despite the surrender of the Confederacy in March 1866, tensions are slow to resolve, especially following Fenian raiding parties into newly-confederated Canada until 1871.

-Mistrust and misinformation, along with a few bellicose politicians in New England, lead many British citizens to believe the Fenian dynamite campaigns are supported if only passively by the United States.



That's all good, but hardly enough to send doughboys into the trenches, or Tommies to Canada.



-UK declares their candidate for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii the 'legitimate heir', David Kawananakoa (or David I, depending on who is writing the history and where they do so) becomes a thorn in US-UK relations prior to World War I as does his son David II after the former's death in 1908.
Not clear of what you mean...:confused: British recognition isn't going to affect American annexation short of war, and British interests in the Eastern Pacific were hardly for them worth it. Even the USSR didn't fish in EVERY last puddle of troubled waters.


Germany and United States grow closer as the French and British grow closer following the Franco-Prussian War. Cartoons of, 'John Bull and his New Wife Lucretia' become a popular propaganda mechanism. Germany and the United States write out War Plan Emerald (1)
1)
Was there really such a colored War Plan?:confused:;)

....calling for the Germans to annex the balance of Lorraine, Franche-Comte, and Morocco while the Americans to take the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, British Colombia, the Bahamas, and Bermuda with independence for Ireland, Quebec,
No love for Canada's central provinces?*munch-crunch-engulf-devour*:p

and possibly Scotland.
Lets not get silly!:rolleyes:

A rapid German movement into France is planned with the Americans doing the same into the Atlantic Provinces, taking Halifax before the Royal Navy can resupply
Doable under these circumstances.

and Paris before the French can organize.
That'll take more time.+


Its counterpart is 'Plan 23', calling for a rapid British advance into New England from Canada with eventual annexation of Hawaii, Maine, the States of Washington, Vermont, and New Hampshire along with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a line of territory from southernmost Vermont to Ontario.
Plan 23 goes out the window. Britain cannot afford to keep its eyes off the German ball. Besides, the second the British start sending troops and fleets to Canada, and the Canadian Army/Militia starts mobilizing, the US military goes to DEFCON 2, if indeed not DEFCON 1:eek: There are specific treaties keeping the US-Canadian border completely demilitarized and unfortified. Unless ACW Foreign Intervention destroys those treaties, meaning a permanent force between the two countries. No blitzkrieging the USA.

France is to lead a rapid advance into Germany itself with the Rhine as its new border and the cessation of South-West Africa and Kamerun to the French along with the Philippines, Guam, and a split of control of the Cuban and various Central American governments.
The primitive piss-poor doctrines of the French Army leaves this plan stillborn.

Mexico is to be lured into the Allies with promise of Southern California (to latitude 34 degrees), Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma; California and Nevada are to be made into an independent Republic under British domination possibly including Oregon if the war goes decisively in favor of London and Paris.
We all know how well the Zimmermann Telegram went. Plus, the Mexicans were a little busy at the time.


The Entente:

The UK, France, Italy, Russia, and Portugal

'Newbs' (from a derogatory British assessment of the 'New and Bellicose Powers'): US, Germany, Austria, Ottomans, and Japan. Scandinavia, Belgium, and the Netherlands hope to stay out of the fighting, and individual members are more bellicose towards one another than the entire alliance is (US and Russia have no problem with each other though the US and UK hate each other's guts while Russia and Germany are equally friendly).
How do you get Germany, Japan, and the USA on the same side? I had just assumed Japanese neutrality. Oh wait: Malaya, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indo-China, Burma, and points west.

Never mind :eek:, even the Imperial Japanese will understand that the USA has no interest in those regions, and the Imperial Japanese Navy can even use the Philippines as a base to operate from.:) I imagine though that the US will want the Japanese to keep their hands off the Lands Down Under.

EDIT: Sorry for the length, but AFAIK the charge of "wall-texting" only applies in straight posts, not long responses to multiple posts.:eek:
EDIT2: Something's wrong with the posting structure on this computer, I'll try to fix it later. Sorry again.
EDIT3: Fixed
EDIt4: Oops. Not fixed. Missed Russia being in the Entente. MAJOR Oops.
 
Last edited:
Much of my post was setting the stage with a gradual deterioration of UK-US relations over 50+ years. Supporting a Hawaiian claimant to the throne means the UK still wants the island. Pearl Harbor is a fantastic location for a naval base no matter who you are.

Yes, there was a real War Plan Emerald. It's focus was Ireland, anything else involving color-coded war plans and the British involved the color red, a variant shade of red, or a precious stone.

France had a contingency 'Plan 17' to invade the German frontier when World War I began. It did not work out well, just as the Schleiffen plan and Zimmerman telegram did not. A Steinbeck quote about scheming and rodents, etc

And I'd say that if you control Vancouver and if Quebec is independent, then the prairie provinces need not be ceded at the negotiating table, they would eventually suffer from economically strangulation with any sort of trade tax schema and likely apply to join the US. Churchill Manitoba is not yet its own port and even then it is only ice-free for so much of the year.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
I can see a POD, like the ones discussed here, where the US and UK are antagonistic and where, by 1914, the US decides that its interests are more with Germany than the UK. However, getting supplies to Germany is MUCH harder than getting supplies to the UK. Perhaps, in hubris or naivete, the US sends transports toward Germany and then declares war on the UK.

Assuming you get there though, the US is somewhat limited in what it can directly do to impact the war. What it CAN do is primarily:

- Attack Canada, at least keeping it so occupied that it can't help UK/France
- Do commerce raiding in the Pacific and South Atlantic
- Start building a sizeable Atlantic fleet. It would be years before it could ever threaten the UK, but it could deter attack and limit UK freedom of movement.
- Enhance the Pacific fleet to reduce UK freedom of action in the Pacific and causing Australia and NZ to send far fewer troops to Turkey and the Middle East.
- Perhaps some confrontations with Japanese fleets

So, I'm not at all sure the US could ever land any sizeable force in France, but could make a big difference. As it was, the war was a near run thing and simply the fact of the US NOT coming in to help French/UK morale and fighting might be enough to cause it to end in a negotiated stalemate.

Throw in some of the above and it would likely tip the balance. You'd have a longer war with eventual agreement to an even peace.

So, the status might be similar to before the war except:
- Russia has gone communist but likely no Western powers helping the White Russians
- The US is recognized as a major power sooner and, having more potential enemies, keeps its military in better shape after the war.
- Canada is weakened and its ties to the UK severely weakened
 
I can see a POD, like the ones discussed here, where the US and UK are antagonistic and where, by 1914, the US decides that its interests are more with Germany than the UK. However, getting supplies to Germany is MUCH harder than getting supplies to the UK. Perhaps, in hubris or naivete, the US sends transports toward Germany and then declares war on the UK.

Assuming you get there though, the US is somewhat limited in what it can directly do to impact the war. What it CAN do is primarily:

- Attack Canada, at least keeping it so occupied that it can't help UK/France
- Do commerce raiding in the Pacific and South Atlantic
- Start building a sizeable Atlantic fleet. It would be years before it could ever threaten the UK, but it could deter attack and limit UK freedom of movement.
- Enhance the Pacific fleet to reduce UK freedom of action in the Pacific and causing Australia and NZ to send far fewer troops to Turkey and the Middle East.
- Perhaps some confrontations with Japanese fleets

So, I'm not at all sure the US could ever land any sizeable force in France, but could make a big difference. As it was, the war was a near run thing and simply the fact of the US NOT coming in to help French/UK morale and fighting might be enough to cause it to end in a negotiated stalemate.

Throw in some of the above and it would likely tip the balance. You'd have a longer war with eventual agreement to an even peace.

So, the status might be similar to before the war except:
- Russia has gone communist but likely no Western powers helping the White Russians
- The US is recognized as a major power sooner and, having more potential enemies, keeps its military in better shape after the war.
- Canada is weakened and its ties to the UK severely weakened

You're forgetting the single most important thing that the US provided to the Entente during WW1:

Money, dear boy.

England and France were completely tapped out financially by the end, and with the US backing the Central Powers, it'll be even more true - England especially secured huge loans with their American investments as collateral. Even worse, with the Royal Navy now having to deal with a second-tier-but-growing naval threat, it becomes much harder to keep the Germans bottled up properly.

You'd probably see the Central Powers win a war of exhaustion slightly faster than they lost one, with the big losers being the Hapsburgs, the Russians, and the big winners being Germany (who win) and the Ottomans (troops that could attack the Middle East now have to garrison Canada, etc. so they aren't torn apart).
 
Can the UK even feed itself while at war with the US given that continental European and Canadian grain is also not available and the Atlantic is going to be a hotbed of commerce raiding?

- Start building a sizeable Atlantic fleet. It would be years before it could ever threaten the UK, but it could deter attack and limit UK freedom of movement.
The US already has a fleet large enough to give the UK problems given that they have to permanently keep a force large enough to deter the Germans on hand in the North Sea, also have commitments in the Mediterranean, and must now defend their holdings in the Pacific and Caribbean (and Canada). It's not like the Americans need to support an invasion of Europe, the economic consequences of their entry alone dooms the Entente. It will have a devastating impact on the UK and France's trade and finances. It'd change the entire diplomatic scene of the war as well, do the Japanese even consider jumping into the war if instead of an easy colony grab they are risking war with the US?
 
Last edited:
You`d need to set up quite a few butterfly nets sure, but I don`t think that a great war with a UK-France-Russia alliance fighting against Germany and Austria-Hungary is rendered impossible by this POD. This WWI would be a different war, true, but it`d be recogniseable.

No, it isn't impossible. However, with a British interfering in the American Civil War POD you're much more likely to see a UK-France-Austra/Hungary alliance against a Germany-Russia-U.S.A. alliance. And that is assuming the butterfly's don't destroy the Austrian-Hungarian Empire during one of the general european wars between the ACW and the Great War.

Basically, the more hostile you make the UK towards the US in the late 1800's the friendlier you make the US with Russia. And if you create this animosity early enough Germany will view Russia as a superior long term ally in comparison to Austria. Once again assuming that Austria retained its empire during the wars over Germany's soul.


So in all honesty if you were to put a point of departure that far back I would say that your timeline's WWI equivalent would most likely have a U.S.A.-German-Russian alliance against a UK-French-Ottoman-(potential)Austrian alliance.
 

jahenders

Banned
Good point on the food.

On the fleet, certainly the US can cause the UK problems with what they have. I was mainly making the point that the US fleet was nowhere near in a position to do some toe-to-toe action against the UK fleet as some earlier posts suggested.

Can the UK even feed itself while at war with the US given that continental European and Canadian grain is also not available and the Atlantic is going to be a hotbed of commerce raiding?

The US already has a fleet large enough to give the UK problems given that they have to permanently keep a force large enough to deter the Germans on hand in the North Sea, also have commitments in the Mediterranean, and must now defend their holdings in the Pacific and Caribbean (and Canada). It's not like the Americans need to support an invasion of Europe, the economic consequences of their entry alone dooms the Entente. It will have a devastating impact on the UK and France's trade and finances. It'd change the entire diplomatic scene of the war as well, do the Japanese even consider jumping into the war if instead of an easy colony grab they are risking war with the US?
 
Good point on the food.

On the fleet, certainly the US can cause the UK problems with what they have. I was mainly making the point that the US fleet was nowhere near in a position to do some toe-to-toe action against the UK fleet as some earlier posts suggested.

It's a matter of what you might call "mission creep" for the British.

Problem #1: Britain MUST maintain the blockade of Germany. Because if the High Seas Fleet ever breaks out of the North Sea, their circumstances will be nothing like that of previous enemies looking to merely practice guerre de course(1), or launching suicidal invasion attempts of Great Britain herself (2).

1) The Napoleonic Wars after Trafalgar and WWII, frex.

2) The Spanish Armada, the Franco-Spanish in the American Revolution, and of course the Unspeakable Seamammal:rolleyes:

ITTL, as I posted earlier, the Royal Navy simply MUST prevent a German-American naval linkup, or else the entire paradigm of the war at sea changes, with the initiative switching to the Central Powers.

Problem #2: The needs of Empire requiring the Royal Navy to see to its needs in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific. NOTE: If Japan ITTL honors the Anglo-Japanese Alliance (IF that forms ITTL), then their Pacific problems at least go away.

Problem #3: What if the USA chooses NOT to directly intervene in Europe from the start? Facing the combined Anglo-French fleet and the Germans trapped in their harbors? Its pretty much impossible, and the US can concentrate its attentions on North American (3) issues. The USN will not be needed for much against Canada, other than blocking Royal Navy intervention and supporting operations against the Maritime Provinces.:( Mostly, the US Army and Marines can do the job overland.

After all, we are talking the 1910s here, with a Mexico in the midst of revolution, and perhaps as much as 75% of the Canadian-US border indefensible from an attacker coming from the south (and the west coming from Minnesota).

For all the insistence that Canada can make a good fight of it, and I believe that they can, its only a delaying action to hold on for a Royal Navy relief expedition that will never come or else will be too little too late.:(

1914 =/= 1812 =/= 1775.:( Canada has grown in the interregnum, but the USA has grown a lot more.

3) Unless someone can correct me here, AFAIK the Royal Navy's presence in the Caribbean by the 1910s was mostly of a token level, perhaps a heavy cruiser squadron. (4) I could be wrong,:eek: and certainly ITTL they would be a lot stronger. But against the US Navy on its own East and Gulf Coasts, any such British naval forces would find themselves out on the end of a very high branch.

This is exactly where "mission creep" could ruin the British, if for political reasons they feel compelled to defend their interests in the Caribbean, or worse send relief to Canada.

In the Caribbean at least, 1910s technology allows a decent level of dispersion, so the British may have the chance of picking the fights that they want. OTOH, for Canada, Britain really has no choice but to come head on against the US Navy right in their own home waters, or as close to as makes no difference, with naval bases running from Maine all the way down to Brownsville Texas! (4)

The poor British, OTOH, have to cross 3000 miles of the North Atlantic with only the prospects of using Iceland (?) or Greenland (??), for basing. Anything closer is either too isolated and primitive (Newfoundland and Labrador), too small (Prince Edward Island), too threatened by direct overland attack (New Brunswick and Quebec), or are likely to be heavily contested by a concentrated US battle fleet operating within very short distance of their own home ports.

Not to mention that unlike every other part of the US military that got penny-pinched to death by Congress, the US Coastal Artillery Corps was regularly lavished every year with far more funding than the Army ever asked for, wanted, or even sometimes could use! So no real chances of Royal Navy light units launching strikes on American rear echelon areas, unless they are very minor targets.

4) In some ways, this is similar to the argued preferred differences of early WWII grand strategies against the Nazis. The British (Churchill) wanting to "...keep the Mediterranean ablaze!" (ITTL the Caribbean), with the Americans (Marshall) wanting a "drop everything and go for France NOW" (Save Canada ITTL) strategy.

I humbly await my imminent immolation...:eek:
 
Top