PC/WI: America joins the Central Powers in WW1

Just wondering if it was possible to get the US to enter WW1 on the side of the Central Powers, and if so how early could they enter. What would the impact of a CP allinged USA have on the outcome of the war? Furthermore, if the Russian Revolution goes as OTL, would the US have a more positive attitude towards it, given that it would take a major enemy combatant out of the war? Would the Entente still win the war, or would the US be able to shift the war in the CP's favour? If the CP still loses how would the US be treated by the victors (I'm assuming that it would be night impossible to inflict the same defeat on the US that the Entente was able to do to the rest of the CP, so I would imagine they would be better off)?
 
the entente would be dead in the water
the required lots of imports and most important of all a lot loans/credit from the us. with the us hostile (not even necessary joining as a combatant) they have many many problems. first unable to finance the war like they did otl, no supplies coming from the us. canada under siege or even invaded.
 
The american civil war was pretty much the last window of opportunity where the british empire could defeat america on its home soil. After that industry, money and population grew to a point where they had to appease us.

By world war one things have reached an impasse, the british could defeat the high seas fleet, or they could defeat the american fleet but they could not do both at once. This means that any war with america means the loss of canada. Either the Canadeans make a seperate peace or they get conqured.

With the food, money, canadian troops, and supplies gone the Entente slowly starve and are bleed white until they are defeated. As for how to have this happen? Either the british or the french need to screw up really bad.
 
US-UK relations were strong at this time, so any PoD to bring the US in on the CP side will either have to focus on driving a HUGE wedge between the US and UK (though this isn't impossible; a Venezuelan Crisis going hot and the US public seeing Britain as the reason could manage it) or prevent the UK from joining the Entente until after the US joins the Central Powers (which would require the UK to collectively lose their minds to join in, given that there is NO WAY they win that war).

Potentially you could realign the Central Powers with a PoD in the late 1800s; a UK/Germany/Italy vs. France/Austria/Russia would be challenging (mostly getting Austria and Russia on the same side, even with this being a clearly anti-German alliance) but viable. The US joining the Central Powers in this alignment wouldn't be too difficult, nor would the sides be so unbalanced that one alliance is trying desperately to avoid war.
 
I think in this case the war would primarily be a naval one wage by the United States. The US Navy builds up a fleet which can challenge the British one and help Germany overtake the Allied blockade over its country. Britain gives in due to starvation eventually and France is invaded.

Britain and France collapse into military dictatorships following the instability after the war.
 
It could lead to a Central Powers victory because Britain would have to concentrate on stopping the U.S. from using the Atlantic Ocean to send our troops and supplies to Europe which would drain the British and enough troops would get to the CP to help them win. Than what would have the 20th century been like for Europe after a Central Powers win?
 
Real problem is to give the US a plausible motive for doing this.

If they want to sock it to the Entente, they need only stop exports to it . That cripples it without America having to fire a shot.
 
To recycle an old post of mine:

***

In 1916, there was a serious crisis in US-British relations. The natural effect of the temporary removal of the danger of a US-German war (after the *Sussex* pledge) was to focus US attention on British violations of US neutral rights. And added to this was US resentment of the severity of British measures in crushing the rebellion in Ireland (even some Anglophiles protested). During this period, Wilson, in Arthur S. Link's words, "began to move in a really menacing way to defend alleged American neutral rights in the face of the new British maritime measures. No longer couched in friendly terms, the State Department's protests now accused the London government of 'lawless' conduct and warned that the United States would not tolerate the continuation of 'repeated violations of international law.' To give teeth to these warnings, Wilson obtained legislation from Congress in early September empowering him to deny clearance and port facilities to ships of any nation that discriminated against American commerce, and to use the armed forces to enforce the prohibition. In addition, he persuaded the Federal Reserve Board to warn American bankers to exercise caution in financing the war trade with the Allies. The consequences of this new sternness--a sharp increase in Anglo-American tension and vigorous protests from London--were also a calculated component of Wilson's plan. His grand objective was independent mediation, and such mediation would be possible only from a posture of severe neutrality. In other words, mediation could succeed only if the President convinced the British that he meant to use his powers of retaliation to force them to co-operate, and the Germans that he was determined to compel as much respect for American rights from their enemies as he had from them." https://archive.org/stream/recentame...08mbp_djvu.txt

Link also writes (in *Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era 1910-1917*, p. 253):

"It is no exaggeration to say that official Anglo-American relations reached the point of highest tension during the critical period from November, 1916, through the following January. This was true, not only because of the tightening of British economic controls, but also because of the refusal of the British to co-operate in the German and American peace drives. It is perhaps conjectural to say that the two countries were heading toward a break in relations, yet such a catastrophe was not impossible. On November 24, for example, Wilson asked Colonel House to tell Sir Edward Grey that Americans 'were growing more and more impatient with the intolerable conditions of neutrality, their feeling as hot against Great Britain as it was at first against Germany and likely to grow hotter still against an indefinite continuation of the war.'"

Link continues on pp. 256-7: "As soon as his re-election was beyond doubt, the President summoned House to Washington and on November 14 told him that, in order to avert the necessity of American intervention, he planned to demand that the war be ended. House protested that such a move would be highly prejudicial to the Allies. The following morning Wilson announced he had made up his mind to move for peace. But what if Germany agreed to a reasonable settlement and the Allies refused? House asked. In that case, would not the United States drift into a sympathetic alliance with Germany? Might not France and Britain declare war on the United States? If the Allies wanted war, Wilson replied, he would not shrink from it." [1] https://archive.org/stream/woodrowwi...65mbp_djvu.txt

Of course, all this was contingent on Germany agreeing to reasonable peace terms. This may seem ASB territory, but I have often wondered if Germany (besides refraining from unrestricted submarine warfare) could have agreed to reasonable *sounding* (at least to Wilson) peace proposals, which they would nevertheless know the Allies could not accept. (Yet the German government's room for maneuver here was limited: even pseudo-moderation on its part would outrage the more nationalist elements in Germany.) Even if this were possible, though, I doubt that it would lead to an outright war between the US and the Allies--more likely to a neutrality much more favorable to the Central Powers than had been the case previously--e.g., an arms embargo, a ban on loans to belligerents, etc. Of course, the Allies could theoretically reply to this by declaring war on the US but it's hard to see what, other than emotional venting, they would gain by doing so.

[1] "He [Wilson] thought they would not dare resort to this and if they did, they could do this country no serious hurt. I disagreed with him again. I thought Great Britain might conceivably destroy our fleet and land troops from Japan in sufficient numbers to hold certain parts of the United States. He replied they might get a good distance but would have to stop somewhere, to which I agreed." House Diary, November 15, 1916
 
You'd have to find a way to drive a wedge between the USA and the UK. It's not outside the realm of possibility depending on how US foreign policy plays out post-1865 in regards to other European powers. You can even start a little earlier for more fun like having the USA maintain active control of Liberia. Let's say the US takes a stronger interest in China and Africa than it did originally. There's all sorts of potential for conflicts there.

So let's have a little fun with this with a POD of the USA keeping control of Liberia. The CSA still loses the ACW and all that good stuff.

1) The USA participates in the scramble for Africa. This is seen as mostly a protective measure for its interests in Liberia. Let's say this ends with the USA being able to get control of Guinea and they get shafted at the Berlin Conference due to the actions of Britain and France wanting to protect their own interests (and the French protectorate over the Ivory Coast). So because of that, the USA isn't able to carve out a West African Empire. This isn't that big of a deal to the USA because they have a little more security around Liberia, which is what they wanted. But what it does is creates potential for more conflicts down the road.
2) The Spanish-American War goes off as it did IOTL and the USA is able to also press for Western Sahara in 1899, which it gets. They aren't able to get the Canary Islands, but it's still a sizable expansion bump for the USA with the acquisition of Western Sahara, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The USA also still takes control of Hawaii.
3) As a way of payback for the Berlin Conference, the USA does not pursue an Open Door Policy with China. Instead, they go after trade concessions in China. This puts them in conflict with Britain, France, and inevitably Russia. Japan won't be happy, but having the USA back Japan following the conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War will go a long way towards smoothing some of those relations over. Come up with any Chinese trade concessions you like for the USA. It's a minor thing.
4) Let's have a little fun and see war nearly break out between the US and the UK over the Samoa Crisis, but cooler heads prevail and the settlement occurs as it did IOTL because who wants to go to war over Samoa anyway? This could be used to create more cooperation between the US and Germany since the UK has been more antagonistic to US interests anyway.

With all these events, this is enough to trigger British alarm over the US beginning construction of the Panama Canal. Now by this point, the UK and the US have been butting heads anyway. Combine this with the growing rivalry between Germany and the UK and you put the British into a potentially messy situation. We could then possibly see the USA entering into a military alliance with Germany in the event that Germany enters into a war with Britain.

Now this is fairly huge in terms of how the international situation tips in favor of the Central Powers. This could potentially keep Italy from jumping sides and remaining neutral (good for the CP) or honoring its agreement and going to war with the Entente (better for the CP). Japan may jump on board with the Entente a lot earlier than it did because the British are going to need all the help they can get to keep the USA from threatening its interests in Southeast Asia. That's a better scenario for the Entente and Japan could easily be tempted with German and American territory in that region. The flip side is Japan pulls an Italy and turns on the Entente. Japan could just as easily be bribed with British, French, and Russian territory by the USA and Germany. If the CP can flip Italy and Japan in this scenario, the Entente is doomed a lot sooner.

Now this has all the workings of a proper timeline. :cool: Not a bad place to start.
 
Last edited:
US-UK relations were strong at this time, r.
hardly, the us increasingly got annoyed with the uk about the blockade and other things

just look at what David T wrote.

Real problem is to give the US a plausible motive for doing this.

If they want to sock it to the Entente, they need only stop exports to it . That cripples it without America having to fire a shot.
the US siding with the entente isn't that plausible, and needs an earlier pod, or greater stupidity of the entente.

what is a very real possibility though, is the US going full neutral after getting irritated with the entente. (otl wilson did suggest stopping loans, because the amount of collateral being used up increased, stopping the loans is very possible) .
so no more loans, not even on us collateral. but cash n carry, and insisting the entente ends the blockade to allow us trade with germany and netherlands.

no more loans would be enough to make the entente lose (this has been discussed over and over)
 
Last edited:
It could lead to a Central Powers victory because Britain would have to concentrate on stopping the U.S. from using the Atlantic Ocean to send our troops and supplies to Europe which would drain the British and enough troops would get to the CP to help them win. Than what would have the 20th century been like for Europe after a Central Powers win?

I'm not sure how feasible that scenarios is. As I understand it the main contribution of the US to the war effort wasn't military (the Italians had more troops), but economic. A CP aligned US would mean that the Entente wouldn't be able to benefit from American economic support, but at the same time I think it would be highly unlikely that the Central Powers would benefit that much either. The Entente has a geographical advantage over the Central Powers in terms of controlling the bottlenecks through which outside supplies could be sent, given that the British control Gibraltar and the Suez, whilst blockading Germany is simply a matter of patrolling the Baltic Sea and Belgian coast. Getting troops and supplies to their allies doesn't seem all that plausible, as they would have to directly ferry all of these across the Atlantic, through hostile waters, and without any friendly ports en route. As a result I can also see this hurting the US as this means a lot of their foreign trade is going to get cut off, either due to the blockade or being at war

In terms of American contribution, I think it's more likely that they would focus on fighting in an American theatre, invading Canada to the North, whilst using their fleet to harass and attack Entente interests in the Caribbean. I don't know how that would turn out in the long run, but I think it could go either way. Canada is a lost cause, but I can see the British reinforcing it to try and inflict heavy casualties on the Americans to encourage anti-war sentiment. If the British act swiftly they could also take the Panama Canal, which would separate the US Navy's Eastern and Western fleets. I also imagine that a few of the Latin American countries could be convinced to join the Entente war effort, although what effect that will have in the long run is anyone's guess. On the other hand the US is a massive economic powerhouse, which gives them an advantage in the long run in terms of building up a military.

I think that, as the war goes on, the US would probably attempt to sign a separate peace, either asking for status quo ante bellum or perhaps some territory in the Caribbean.
 
I'm not sure how feasible that scenarios is. As I understand it the main contribution of the US to the war effort wasn't military (the Italians had more troops), but economic. A CP aligned US would mean that the Entente wouldn't be able to benefit from American economic support, but at the same time I think it would be highly unlikely that the Central Powers would benefit that much either. The Entente has a geographical advantage over the Central Powers in terms of controlling the bottlenecks through which outside supplies could be sent, given that the British control Gibraltar and the Suez, whilst blockading Germany is simply a matter of patrolling the Baltic Sea and Belgian coast. Getting troops and supplies to their allies doesn't seem all that plausible, as they would have to directly ferry all of these across the Atlantic, through hostile waters, and without any friendly ports en route. As a result I can also see this hurting the US as this means a lot of their foreign trade is going to get cut off, either due to the blockade or being at war.

The US also controls the Panama Canal, which is a big deal in terms of being able to project naval power worldwide. The US Navy would make it difficult for the Entente to maintain a blockade against Germany, which negates the whole issue of being able to maintain trade.

In terms of American contribution, I think it's more likely that they would focus on fighting in an American theatre, invading Canada to the North, whilst using their fleet to harass and attack Entente interests in the Caribbean. I don't know how that would turn out in the long run, but I think it could go either way. Canada is a lost cause, but I can see the British reinforcing it to try and inflict heavy casualties on the Americans to encourage anti-war sentiment. If the British act swiftly they could also take the Panama Canal, which would separate the US Navy's Eastern and Western fleets. I also imagine that a few of the Latin American countries could be convinced to join the Entente war effort, although what effect that will have in the long run is anyone's guess. On the other hand the US is a massive economic powerhouse, which gives them an advantage in the long run in terms of building up a military.

I think it all depends here. American objectives would be to effectively make it difficult for the British to seize the Panama Canal. Canada is a primary objective of the US war effort. Other primary objectives would be to take Bermuda and Jamaica. Secondary objectives would be to mop up French and British possessions in the West Indies.

Britain would need to entice Colombia to go after Panama, which shouldn't be difficult in terms of being able to convince them. That doesn't mean the United States can't play the political game of its own by enticing neighboring nations to go to war with Colombia. Quite simply, the US Navy is going to make it very difficult for the Royal Navy to take the Panama Canal.
 
What sort of peace demands would the US make to the Entente if their end of the fighting goes their way? Barring a total crushing defeat for the Entente I don't see them asking for Canada (and even then maybe not).

Alternatively, what sort of concessions would the Entente try to force from the US if they were to win? I'm assuming that any victory against the US would probably not be a total one, if only due to the geographical impossibility of the Entente launching a full scale invasion of the US mainland. Does anyone know if the Guano Islands were still of significant economic value at this time? If so what would the likely long-term effects be on US agriculture if they lost them (I would imagine an increase in the cost of fertilisers, at least until synthetic fertiliser production picks up).
 
Last edited:
Top