The concept of America joining the Central Powers and fighting against the Entente is an often discussed topic on this board, though also one that is often (perhaps rightfully) met with a fair share of skepticism regarding its plausibility. As others have often stated, the US simply had a far greater connection to the Entente (specifically the UK), both culturally and economically, making the prospect of them fighting the Entente rather dubious. But, unlikely as it may be, is there any plausible scenario you can think of in which the US sides with the Central Powers? Would it require significant changes possibly decades prior to the war, or would say, Britain committing a series of diplomatic blunders during the US's period of neutrality be enough to draw them in?
Plausibility check: is there actually any scenario in which the US would fight alongside the Central Powers?
- Thread starter NAF
- Start date
With a POD after 1900, I think it is incredibly unlikely that the kind of decisions it would take for that to happen would be made - it would take a dramatic change of British and/or French policy that doesn't make sense for them to engage in, but I don't think it would take actual extraterrestrial bats as much as radically different priorities and concerns than their OTL ones.
None of it remotely worth the likely costs, and decision-makers in all three capitals knew it.
The cost of taking those would be significantly smaller for the US, if done while Britain is also fighting the CP in Europe at the same time than in an Anglo-American War.
It would take The Central Powers doing significantly better than they did OTL.
And looking like the overwhelmingly clear, writing-on-the-wall, winning horse to back.
That is it would take.
Plausible with a post 1900 POD.
And looking like the overwhelmingly clear, writing-on-the-wall, winning horse to back.
That is it would take.
Plausible with a post 1900 POD.
Last edited:
Theres nothing in the Carribean the US would want and Canada would mean suddenly having to deal with a massive insurgency by a population of millions who hate you.
IMO America remaining neutral is a far more likely scenario. Absent unrestricted submarine warfare, German espionage,and the Zimmerman telegram, there is not much incentive for America to be anything other than the arsenal of destruction.
Nothing the US hadn't dealt with before.
Also there is, like, the whole British Empire outside the Americas (or whichever bits of it the US desires) to gain.
As I say above it would take clear writing on the wall Central Powers are The Winning Team events for this to happen. Like the fall of Paris in the first few months of the war.
Last edited:
I consider it very unlikely, but not out of the question. Stupid things happen that escalate. (Southern senators wanted to send "ironclads" to insure that American products get where they are going. that could escalate.)
In the event of a war, I'd expect that there would be a good chance of a fairly short war with a separate peace, not a war where the United States joins the Central Powers.
VERY unlikely, though
In the event of a war, I'd expect that there would be a good chance of a fairly short war with a separate peace, not a war where the United States joins the Central Powers.
VERY unlikely, though
Fall of Paris in 1914 would likely mean the UK starts looking for an out as well, and start floating ideas for a SQAB peace in the west with perhaps a few minor concessions. If Germany agreed to withdraw from Belgium, enthusiasm for continuing a war solely for the benefit of Russia and Serbia wouldn't exactly be stellar. I doubt if the US would have any reason (or really any time) to enter the fray...
Alaska Border Dispute seems like a good place to start. As well as war with Mexico over the Tampico Affair and their intervention in the Mexico Revolution. dont know exactly HOW it might happen, but something COULD happen there.
Without a pre-1900 POD there is no chance the USA would 'join' the Central Powers. There is a very miniscule borderline chance that the USA could become a co-belligerent against the UK only if the UK goes bat-shit stupid and attacks American shipping as part of blockade enforcement and is condescendingly insulting in response to American complaints.
The US absolutely had not dealt with anything like occupying a country the size of Canada directly on the US border with an active (and presumably well armed) insurgency. These aren’t Moros with machetes and muskets that can be isolated by the US Navy.
Reciprocity passes in 1911. When Canada threatens to overturn the treaty with the next election, Western Canada secedes; their agricultural sales threatened by the return of tariffs and their ire stirred by yellow journalism against the despotism of Toronto. Quebec, seeing the beginning of Canadian dissolution, debates independence as well. Central and Eastern Canada moves to crush this rebellion drawing the ire of the US. The UK threatens the US to stay out of Canadian affairs. Best I got.
actually, that would be impossible. US Speaker of the house made a speech basically talking about how it would be a step closer to Annexing Canada, and this stirred up Canadian nationalism and Anti-Americanism. He said, and I quote- "I look forward to the time when the American flag will fly over every square foot of British North America up to the North Pole. The people of Canada are of our blood and language." Clark then goes on to suggest in his speech that reciprocity agreement was the first step towards the end of Canada, a speech that was supposedly greeted with a "prolonged applause"
The US had little enough to fight over with Imperial Germany. Aside from my Great Grandfather being a Swabian draft dodger from the Franco Prussian War. It was rather inept German diplomacy and British skill that brought the US in. Really the default scenario is US neutrality. To gert the US in as a Central Powers ally, its necessary to reverse the diplomatic situation. The Brits and French blundering at every step & the Kaisers Foreign Office blandishing with skill & finesse.