Make the US a Central Power in WW1

Remus Augustus

Anglo-American Relations haven't been as amicable as we've been led to believe. If we look to the actual history of this relationship, there are at least 3 or 4 events that could have sparked war between the US and GB post Treaty of Gent. The Maine and Yukon Territorial dispute, the Trent Affair in which the British sent 80,000 soldiers to the US-Canada border who were an order away from entering the US Civil War and the false German letter to Mexico that British intelligence fabricated to get the US into WW1 against Germany are a few examples of events in which another Anglo-American war could have been sparked.

My question is how bad would US-British relations have to have been in order to push the US toward the Prussian/ Imperial German sphere and to join the Great War as their ally?
 

Karmirdgul

More German immigration to the US in the 19th century, so that by 1914 Germans compose somewhere between 70% to 80% of the population of the US.
Or we could push the POD backwards; have more German immigration to the US in the 18th century so that German-speakers form a definite majority by 1750 at the latest; Jurgen Waschenburg declares the Vereinigten Staaten Kolombias in 1783 and the English language and identity fade away as a perceived symbol of British colonialism.
 

Hugh Third of Five

The 1895 Venezuela crisis becomes Anglo-Venezuelan War. The backlash in the American public makes the USA more assertive in terms of the Monroe Doctrine. Germany's antics during the Spanish-American War don't lead to the partition of the Marianas (though they still create some friction). The Irish revolution breaks out earlier so the Black and Tans are rampaging during World War I. The USA is outraged by British atrocities in Ireland. The British blockade of Germany is modest at first, limited to weapons and ammunitions but it soon expands to cover civilian goods (including food) that might be useful to the German military and it expands to cover neutral ports. William Randolph Hearst (who hated the British empire) spreads exaggerated stories about Dutch and Danish children starving the death under the British blockade. The president and Congress assert that preventing American merchant vessels from trading with the Netherlands and Denmark violates American, Dutch, and Danish rights as neutral nations. The US military begins fortifying the Canadian border. The Canadians, fearing an invasion, begin setting up fortifications of their own, but this just feeds into American paranoia about British expansionism in the Americas. Washington sends London an ultimatum demanding Irish independence, the lifting of the blockade of Dutch and Danish ports, and the deconstruction of the Canadian fortifications. This is refused, and Congress declares war on the British Empire.
 

Pauh the federalist

The have the United States insist on trading with whoever it wants as a neutral power selling supplies to both sides as a neutral power and have the british pull a repeat of what they did in the napolionic war to maintain the blockade on Germany ("Under the authority of the Orders in Council, the British seized some 400 American merchant ships and their cargoes between 1807 and 1812. Press gangs, though ostensibly targeting British subjects for naval service, also swept up 6,000 to 9,000 Americans into the crews of British ships between 1803 and 1812") https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/m... authority of the,ships between 1803 and 1812.
Prehapse even have a intentional or accidental alt british lusitania event with miscomunication leading to the sinking of amarican ships.
 

Hugh Third of Five

Pauh the federalist said:
The have the United States insist on trading with whoever it wants as a neutral power selling supplies to both sides as a neutral power and have the british pull a repeat of what they did in the napolionic war to maintain the blockade on Germany ("Under the authority of the Orders in Council, the British seized some 400 American merchant ships and their cargoes between 1807 and 1812. Press gangs, though ostensibly targeting British subjects for naval service, also swept up 6,000 to 9,000 Americans into the crews of British ships between 1803 and 1812") https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/war-of-1812-overview/#:~:text=Under the authority of the,ships between 1803 and 1812.
Prehapse even have a intentional or accidental alt british lusitania event with miscomunication leading to the sinking of amarican ships.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Royal Navy would be stupid enough to kidnap American sailors during World War I, but if American attitudes towards Britain were more hostile, the USA could get a lot angrier about the British blockade.
 

1962strat

What could realistically the US do as a Central Power, assuming the war goes roughly as OTL? Getting troops to Europe would be almost impossible unless they have naval superiority.
 

Hugh Third of Five

1962strat said:
What could realistically the US do as a Central Power, assuming the war goes roughly as OTL? Getting troops to Europe would be almost impossible unless they have naval superiority.
Click to expand...
Launch an invasion of Canada for starters. For all intents and purposes Canada would be knocked out of the war in Europe because they'd be fighting against the American invaders. The USA was the British empires biggest foreign supplier of food, and Canada was the biggest food supplier within the empire. If the US military could get the isthmus of Nova Scotia they could block most Canadian supplies from reaching Britain. Note the combined naval forces of the Central Powers would still not be able to sweep the Royal Navy from the seas but the US Navy and the High Seas Fleet were not pushovers. The Royal Navy would have to prioritize. Depending on what they choose to focus on, that might result in the USA making a bid for Entente colonies in the Caribbean, but even if they don't the invasion of Canada would be enough to defeat the Entente.
 

Janrey

Canada would seek to appease the United States at all costs if it sees any risk of invasion of its territory, even at the cost of its relations with Great Britain.
 

Dorknought

Would it still be called the 'Central Powers' if the US fully signed up to the Alliance (note that they never even joined the Entente, meerly being an 'associated party')? Surely the central Europeans are the junior party in this arrangement.

Lange_diercke_sachsen_deutschtum_erde.jpg
 

Aphrodite

Banned
1962strat said:
What could realistically the US do as a Central Power, assuming the war goes roughly as OTL? Getting troops to Europe would be almost impossible unless they have naval superiority.
Click to expand...
Stop selling arms to the Entente for starters.

Confiscate Entente assets in the US

Commerce raiding would be impossible for the British to stop. Just seize all the British ships in American ports, army them and laugh at any British attempt at blockade.

But that's what makes the POD almost impossible. America can break the British Empire with simple threats. Britain will back down to almost anything
 

Alternator

Post-1900, getting the United States into the Central Powers - be it as an actual member or a co-belligerent - requires British stupidity. By the time the First World War broke out, it had been British policy for more than half a century to prioritize good relations with the Americans; were a captain on the blockade to mistake an American merchant vessel for a German one and open fire, that captain would be thrown under the bus.
 

Pimli

Banned
Maybe let the UK get involved in the American Civil War on the side of the CSA and help them win, and join some American territories to Canada in this process? The US will gasp for vengeance on the British as France did after the war with Prussia.
 

Erzherzog_Karl

Remus Augustus said:
My question is how bad would US-British relations have to have been in order to push the US toward the Prussian/ Imperial German sphere and to join the Great War as their ally?
Click to expand...
It is a double-edged thing. You need also better relations between Germany and the US. Members of the Senate like Lodge or Presidents like Roosevelt were more than willing to play up the dangers of the German Empire to get their imperialist dreams fulfilled. And have a powerful navy.

Germany would need a better ambassador in the US. The one they had, did not involve himself in the social life, gave no interviews and was just not active enough. Not involve itself in the Spanish-American War, meaning not send such a force to the Philippines as to seemingly threaten the US Squadron. Take Tsingtao in another manner and not the fait accompli. Openly accept the Monroe-Doctrin. Have McKinley survive and not Roosevelt take power. Not only one tour from a German member of the Hohenzollern family, but have multiple German monarchs travel to the US. Organize yearly events and improve the relations between the two sides.
Creation of a German Lobby, similar to the Irish one, and have them work in concert to worsen the relationship with the British.

Escalation of some of the diplomatic incidents between GB and the US. Essentially, the Great Rapprochement does not happen in any kind of manner.

And even then it is not assured that the US would not stay neutral. Therefore, you would need some incidents from the Entente side. France was more heavy-handed regarding the blockade than GB, so they provide a first incident. Then you need another added.
 
wcv215

wcv215

Karmirdgul said:
More German immigration to the US in the 19th century, so that by 1914 Germans compose somewhere between 70% to 80% of the population of the US.
Click to expand...
Such a number of Germans is flat-out impossible. OTL the population of the United States in 1914 was 100 million, of which 8 million were German-Americans. To turn that into a 75% majority would require an additional 270 MILLION Germans in the United States. This is more than twice the ENTIRE population of the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire combined. Such a scenario prevents the First World War because there will be no Germans living in Europe for the Allies to fight, because they’re all in America for some reason.


Karmirdgul said:
Or we could push the POD backwards; have more German immigration to the US in the 18th century so that German-speakers form a definite majority by 1750 at the latest; Jurgen Waschenburg declares the Vereinigten Staaten Kolombias in 1783 and the English language and identity fade away as a perceived symbol of British colonialism.
Click to expand...
Such a scenario would never be allowed by Britain in colonial times, and would prevent WWI in any case.


Pauh the federalist said:
The have the United States insist on trading with whoever it wants as a neutral power selling supplies to both sides as a neutral power and have the british pull a repeat of what they did in the napolionic war to maintain the blockade on Germany
Click to expand...
The thing is that there’s a massive difference between making ships go to Allied ports and USW, and even the latter was not enough to get America into the war. And that was with every other boneheadedly stupid thing the Germans had done.
 
Last edited:

Simreeve

Remus Augustus said:
Anglo-American Relations haven't been as amicable as we've been led to believe. If we look to the actual history of this relationship, there are at least 3 or 4 events that could have sparked war between the US and GB post Treaty of Gent. The Maine and Yukon Territorial dispute, the Trent Affair in which the British sent 80,000 soldiers to the US-Canada border who were an order away from entering the US Civil War and the false German letter to Mexico that British intelligence fabricated to get the US into WW1 against Germany are a few examples of events in which another Anglo-American war could have been sparked.

My question is how bad would US-British relations have to have been in order to push the US toward the Prussian/ Imperial German sphere and to join the Great War as their ally?
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Fenian raids into Canada from bases in the USA...
 

Simreeve

Pauh the federalist said:
The have the United States insist on trading with whoever it wants as a neutral power selling supplies to both sides as a neutral power and have the british pull a repeat of what they did in the napolionic war to maintain the blockade on Germany ("Under the authority of the Orders in Council, the British seized some 400 American merchant ships and their cargoes between 1807 and 1812. Press gangs, though ostensibly targeting British subjects for naval service, also swept up 6,000 to 9,000 Americans into the crews of British ships between 1803 and 1812") https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/major-events/war-of-1812-overview/#:~:text=Under the authority of the,ships between 1803 and 1812.
Prehapse even have a intentional or accidental alt british lusitania event with miscomunication leading to the sinking of amarican ships.
Click to expand...
Quite a few of those "American" sailors were actually British ones using fraudulently-obtained American papers, or even papers knowingly supplied by certain American consuls in European ports whose prejudices led them to try making things harder for the British government... and some of those who actually held American citizenship were immigrants into the USA after the Treaty of Paris, whose change of nationality was against international law as not only Britain but the rest of [non-Revolutionary] Europe as well recognised it in those days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top