Sweden and Italy on CPs side

Oddball

Monthly Donor
The question how do it benefit the allies to have Norway join them, mostly it would just one more front, in a difficult terrain and while the Norvegian army may have been quite good at the time, Norway is still poorer than Sweden with half its population, and the war would have little support in population. UK gain rather little by having Norway join, beside the fact that Sweden will be fully blocaded.

This is true.

Personal I see Norway stay out of the war for the same reason Denmark did, it benefit no one that it joins.

Not so sure. If Sweden joins, I think Norway enters in one way or the other :(

My point is merely that if GB presses the matter enough, Norway will budge. This will also be fully understood in Stockholm and Berlin also. Thus I see some kind of ultimatum from the CP to forestall GB if she does not act first. Anyhow Norway is screwed :(
 

Valdemar II

Banned
This is true.



Not so sure. If Sweden joins, I think Norway enters in one way or the other :(

My point is merely that if GB presses the matter enough, Norway will budge. This will also be fully understood in Stockholm and Berlin also. Thus I see some kind of ultimatum from the CP to forestall GB if she does not act first. Anyhow Norway is screwed :(

But every day Norway stay out of the war benefits Sweden (they can keep importing through Norvegian harbours and avoid a second front), beside as long as people believe it will be a short war, no one will really want to alienate a friendly country, so I think a ultimatum is unlikely, at least the first year.
 
I still have strong doubts that Norway would want to join the war. It would stand to lose far more than it could ever gain. Norway does not have an infrastructure that would allow a large British force to operate in the country. In addition a British landing is most certain to result in the High Seas Fleet clashing with the Grand Fleet as well as German U-Boats having a strong chance to sink British transports.

Sweden and German could probably hold the Brits in check almost indefinitely.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
I still have strong doubts that Norway would want to join the war. It would stand to lose far more than it could ever gain. Norway does not have an infrastructure that would allow a large British force to operate in the country.

Sure, nobody said Norway would want to join. Ofcourse not :)
My point is that she would be left with no choice! :(

Ofcource this is all my opinion. That is why we call it alternativ history, eh? :cool::)

In addition a British landing is most certain to result in the High Seas Fleet clashing with the Grand Fleet as well as German U-Boats having a strong chance to sink British transports. Sweden and German could probably hold the Brits in check almost indefinitely.

Just like the rest of the western front. But who tought that in the summer of 1914? Home before the leaves fall. And then there is even something called Gallipoli. :)

Hindsight is a bad thing in AH ;):)
 
Actually I doubt if there would be any support in Norway to go to war. After all this was not Norway's struggle and why should Norwegians die for Great Britain. There would be a nasty backlash that could not only effect relations with Norway but also the US. I would expect that there would be a lot more anti-British reaction from the Swedish American and other ethnic groups. It might even mean that the US might become hostile to the allies.
 

Oddball

Monthly Donor
After all this was not Norway's struggle and why should Norwegians die for Great Britain.

Just for the record: WW1 actualy was Norway's struggle also. We lost half our merchant marine and almost 2000 sailors died, mostly from German torpedoes. This was almost exclusivly a result from GB bullying Norway to serve GB needs for shipping.

So even OTL Norwegians died for GB during WW1 :(

OTOH I think we should end our discussion here. You think no and I think yes, and I suspect that aint going to change no matter what. :)
IMO that is quite ok :cool:
 
Just for the record: WW1 actualy was Norway's struggle also. We lost half our merchant marine and almost 2000 sailors died, mostly from German torpedoes. This was almost exclusivly a result from GB bullying Norway to serve GB needs for shipping.
Hm, I wonder what differences there could be for Norway if that was averted...
 

Eurofed

Banned
I would expect that there would be a lot more anti-British reaction from the Swedish American and other ethnic groups. It might even mean that the US might become hostile to the allies.

Given the amount of Entente aggressive moves in Scandinavia ITTL and the fact that Swedish-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans are all lobbying for the CPs, at least American true neutrality is all but assured. It is a bit less likely but surely by no means impossible that the US may be a CP-friendly neutral or even join the CPs.

After all, ITTL the CPs have little motive to use unrestricted submarine warfare, so the main issue for America to get annoyed with warring European powers shall be British blockade. The US have already fought a war with Britain a century before about their heavy-handed wartime blockade of US merchant shipping. If American public opinion swings towards sympathy for the CPs and some naval incidents happen with losses of American ships and lives esclating the anti-Entente antagonism, and nationalist US newspapers start reminding the public that a huge country to the north still needs to be brought under the star-spangled banner, we could see a US-UK clash. With the British and Canadian Army overstretched overseas in France, Africa, the Middle East, and possibly Norway, it is a perfect chance for the US to backstab the British Empire and conquer Canada with relatively little effort.
 
With what army? The US Army barely had any equipment heavier than a rifle and you think that they could not only take on the arguably most elite force of the whole British Empire but also defeat them "with relatively little effort" and annex the whole of Canada?

Yes, that sure sounds plausible :rolleyes:

Well, the US had a greater population and a huge economy, so they could defeat Canada. In theory. But only after a long, bloody and drawn-out battle. And even then I don't think that outright annexation was in the cards.
 

Eurofed

Banned
With what army?

The one they mobilize around the skeleton frame of their professional officer corps, obviouslky, the way America has fought (and won) all its previous wars. Are you really going to argue that for the horribly overstretched British Empire transferring part of her army from Europe and Middle East to US-Canadian border is going to be quicker and easier than for the US Army to mobilize and invade Canada ? If so, I have a bridge to sell...:rolleyes::eek:

The US Army barely had any equipment heavier than a rifle and you think that they could not only take on the arguably most elite force of the whole British Empire

Which "elite force" ? Surely the WWI Canadian Army was not superior in effectiveness to the Yankee one, it could tap an enormously inferior manpower/industrial pool, and it was already widely dispersed over European and Middle Eastern battlefield to start, like the rest of British forces, when the USA declare war. I smell rather bad Britishwank, here.

but also defeat them "with relatively little effort" and annex the whole of Canada?

Once the Yankee occupy southern Ontario and southern Quebec, it's pretty much the endgame for British North America.

Yes, that sure sounds plausible :rolleyes:

Surely much more plausible than the Triple Entente with Japan holding its own for long against Germany, A-H, Italy, America, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Ottomans, and quite possibly Romania. American entry for the CPs would make the Britain and the Entente horribly overstretched, either they withdraw so many forces from the European theater that they leave France and Russia hopelessly overwhelmed, or they leave Canada to be badly undermanned and quickly overrun by US mobilized froces, or most likely they try to spread their forces very badly to try and cover both theaters and as a result they are overwhelmed in both places within the year. Neither the British Empire nor the Triple Entente simply have the manpower and industrial resources to fight both the Triple Alliance and America at the same time in the medium term.

Well, the US had a greater population and a huge economy, so they could defeat Canada. In theory. But only after a long, bloody and drawn-out battle. And even then I don't think that outright annexation was in the cards.

WWI always favored the defender, sure, but they were hard limits to how much an hopelessly outclassed defender could stand for long. At the very most your "long and drawn out" battle could last a season or two in these conditions, and only if Britain and Canada are very quick and smart in acknowledging the danger of a coming war with America and are very efficient in redeploying their forces from Europe to Canada. And even so, they can buy some months at the very best.

It's not just the huge manpower and industrial gap, it's that the moment the USA join the CsP, the Entente shall be forced to concede the Mediterranean utterly and the RN shall be stretched thinly between blocking the HSF and patrolling the Atlantic, which gives the HSF excellent chances to break out of the blockade and if the RN has to fight both the HSF and the USN in the open sea, it is up for a world of hurt.

And even then I don't think that outright annexation was in the cards.

Annexation of Canada has been a long-sought expansionist aspiration of the USA for a century and half, and spoken of as recently as the last war scare with Britain happened, in the mid 1890s, a decade ago.
 
Last edited:
The one they mobilize around the skeleton frame of their professional officer corps, obviouslky, the way America has fought (and won) all its previous wars.


They fought wars against the American natives, against Spain, against themselves and against Mexico on their home-turf which they won. The war of 1812 was a draw and if such a war would have occurred without Britain being busy with Napoleon America would have lost.


Are you really going to argue that for the horribly overstretched British Empire transferring part of her army from Europe and Middle East to US-Canadian border is going to be quicker and easier than for the US Army to mobilize and invade Canada ? If so, I have a bridge to sell...
A horribly overstretched British Empire? Even in OTL Britain had enough troops for the Gallipoli Campaign. Now since Italy is in the CP camp such a campaign is not going to happen, obviously. So you’ve got a whole lot of trained, regular, well-equipped ANZAC troops ready and willing to fight in North America.
Furthermore would Canada not stay totally undefended. Even if, and that’s a big if, the US would be able to actually mobilize an invasion force in record time it’s still the Canadians who have the machine guns and the artillery.
What’s the US going to do? Sending in wave after wave of soldiers until their opponents run out of ammo?


Which "elite force" ? Surely the WWI Canadian Army was not superior in effectiveness to the Yankee one, it could tap an enormously inferior manpower/industrial pool […]
Of course they were. The Canadians had superior equipment and training. They’d stay on the defense in this conflict, which is basically another huge advantage, and Canada has a tactical depth that’s not unlike Russia’s.


[…], and it was already widely dispersed over European and Middle Eastern battlefield to start, like the rest of British forces, when the USA declare war.
The Canadians mostly fought on the Western Front. So they weren’t widely dispersed over European and Middle Eastern battlefields. Of course they would be missed on the Western Front, but they were hardly irreplaceable.

I smell rather bad Britishwank, here.
Really? To me it smells more like an Ameriwank. But both smell kinda alike, though.

Once the Yankee occupy southern Ontario and southern Quebec, it's pretty much the endgame for British North America.
Why?


Surely much more plausible than the Triple Entente holding its own for long against Germany, A-H, Italy, Sweden, Bulgaria, the Ottomans, and quite possibly Romania. American entry for the CPs would make the Britain and the Entente horribly overstretched, either they withdraw so many forces from the European theater that they leave France and Russia hopelessly overwhelmed, or they leave Canada to be undermanned and quickley overrun by US mobilized froces, or most likely they try to spread their forces very badly to try and cover both theater and as a result they are overwhelmed in both places within six months. Neither the British Empire nor the Triple Entente simply have the manpower and industrial resources to fight both the Triple Alliance and America at the same time in the medium term.
Oh, I’m not saying that the Entente would actually win in the end. I’m merely saying that you are hyping the military of the US way beyond their actual capabilities.


WWI always favored the defender, sure, but they were hard limits to how much an hopelessly outclassed defender could stand out for long. At the very most your "long and drawn out" battle could last a season or two in these conditions, and only if Britain and Canada are very quick and smart in acknowledging the danger of a war with America and are very efficient in redeploying theri forces from Europe to Canada. And even so, they can buy some months at the very best.
I’d wager it’d take longer than a “few months” to for the US to mobilize, equip and train an invasion force that not only beats the British Empire on the battlefield but also manages to occupy a nation as big as Canada and is then able to suppress all the partisans/guerillas, if they were to annex Canada.



It's not just the huge manpower and industrial gap, it's that the moment the USA join the CP, the Entente shall be forced to concede the Mediterranean utterly and the RN shall be stretched thinly between blocking the HSF abnd patrolling the Atlantic, which gives the HSF excellent chances to brek down the blockade and if the RN has to fight both the HSF and the USN in the open sea, it is up for a world of hurt.
Because the Med was basically an American lake, right? The RN was actually a little bit bigger than merely Grand Fleet, you know? On top of that neither the US nor the HSF had many coaling stations in the North Atlantic.


Annexation of Canada has been a long-sought expansionist aspiration of the USA for a century and half, and spoken of as recently as the last war scare with Britain happened, in the mid 1890s, a decade ago.
Aspiring to something and actually being able to do something can be two very different things.
 

Eurofed

Banned
A horribly overstretched British Empire? Even in OTL Britain had enough troops for the Gallipoli Campaign. Now since Italy is in the CP camp such a campaign is not going to happen, obviously. So you’ve got a whole lot of trained, regular, well-equipped ANZAC troops ready and willing to fight in North America.

First, if you care to read the OP, you may notice that the assumed (and most likely) PoD for CP Italy makes them enter the war in May 1915, so sorry, Gallipoli was already underway and Anzac manpower is going to be wasted there just the same, on top of the massive new committment for the Anglo-French that the Alpine and Egyptian fronts shall be. This does not even take into account the possibility discussed previously, of the Entente opening a Norwegian front in late 1914. Anyway, even if ANZAC troops get somehow spared from Gallipoli (something that IMO is only going to happen if we use the "Germany goes East" PoD, which makes CP Italy in 1914 much more likely), those troops are still going to be slaughtered in the Southern Italian equivalent of Gallipoli, or be necessary to shore up the new fronts opened up by Italian belligerance, or be bogged down in Norway, or a mix of the above.

Furthermore would Canada not stay totally undefended. Even if, and that’s a big if, the US would be able to actually mobilize an invasion force in record time it’s still the Canadians who have the machine guns and the artillery.

What they have, they have stranded in Europe and need to ship it back to Canada, and I am rather skeptic that the few Canadian forces left in the mainland have a substantial machine gun and artillery advantage on the Americans. And in the medium term (say within a year), the USA shall simply and substantially outproduce Britain and Canada at everything.

Of course they were. The Canadians had superior equipment and training. They’d stay on the defense in this conflict, which is basically another huge advantage,

Not when you substantially outclassed in manpower and resources. Canada was, and most British resources are tied down in a losing fight with the Triple Alliance.

and Canada has a tactical depth that’s not unlike Russia’s.

Sorry, this is but a geographical illusion. The overwhelming majority of Canadian manpower and economic resources are concentrated in a relatively narrow 300-Km strip close to the border. Once the US overrun that, any surviving Canadian and British forces that retreat north are basically refugees with guns, stranded in frozen nowhere and utterly dependent on British manpower for reinforcements and British shipping for supplies. With most of UK resources tied down in Europe and the USN/HSF teamup roaming the Atlantic, the perspectives of those forces do look even worse, if anything, than the ones of a Russian army pushed to the Urals.

The Canadians mostly fought on the Western Front. So they weren’t widely dispersed over European and Middle Eastern battlefields. Of course they would be missed on the Western Front, but they were hardly irreplaceable.

Too bad that ITTL the Western Front is 40% longer. :p


See point above. Once the areas where the vast majority of Canadian population and economic resources are occupied, Canada is effectively vanquished.

Oh, I’m not saying that the Entente would actually win in the end. I’m merely saying that you are hyping the military of the US way beyond their actual capabilities.

Of course, I acknowledge that a quick occupation of Canada by the US (say within three months) may still be prevented by any amounts of military butterflies, and by the British Empire efficiently juggling their oserstretched resources between Canada and France (a failing tactic once the US and the Triple Alliance start to coordinate their offensives), but in this war, Canada is utterly hopeless once the USA kickstart their manpower and industrial mobilization. ASBs would be overtaxed to make them last a whole year, and most likely they are overrun in six months or less.

I’d wager it’d take longer than a “few months” to for the US to mobilize, equip and train an invasion force that not only beats the British Empire on the battlefield

Which is desperately trying to shore up the overstretched French at the same time. IOTL the US mobilized one million men, with a war on their own home turf and the old irredentist-expansionist aim of North American unity within close reach, they can easily do more, like they did in the ACW.

but also manages to occupy a nation as big as Canada

Not so difficult, with "useful Canada" basically being a strip of a few hundred kilometers along the old border.

and is then able to suppress all the partisans/guerillas, if they were to annex Canada.

In all evidence, this is not going to be any more difficult or taxing than occupation of the South during the Reconstruction, which the Union managed fine. 1916 USA is much stronger than 1865 Union. And with the exception of Quebec (which, I concede, might spiral towards an Ulster situation), in all likelihood the resistance of Anglo Canada to Yankee assimilation is not going to be any worse or longer than the one of the South after Appomattox.

Because the Med was basically an American lake, right?

No, because ITTL the RN shall be already reamarkably taxed helping the MN to contest the Mediterranean to the combined Italian-Austrian-Ottoman fleets AND keeping the blockade on the HSF. Once the US joins the war, they shall necessarily give up the Med in order to free resources to face the USN as well.

The RN was actually a little bit bigger than merely Grand Fleet, you know?

Not so big that fighting the USN, the HSF, the Regia Marina, and the Austrian Fleet at once does not look like an horrible headache, even with French help. The Russians are so disfavored by geography that the Swedish and the Ottomans with some CP help suffice to keep them bottled up.

Aspiring to something and actually being able to do something can be two very different things.

True, but a CP USA (especially with a CP Italy too as ITTL) looks like the first golden opportunity that America has got to fulfill that aspiration in a century. If the American people can but find themselves in the proper political circumstances to exploit it, this is a fight that the British Empire and the Entente simply cannot win, in the medium-long term.
 
Last edited:
Another factor to consider Northern Norway has a considerable ethnic Finnish population , which might be appealed to by the Germans and the Swedes.

Regarding the US entering the war on the CP side, remember that it was the US that supplied the munitions that kept the allied powers going during WWI. If we are on the other side then the British and the French might suffer a massive munitions shortage early in the war. The US could also smubble in massive amounts of weapons into Ireland thus making a war there far harder for the British to put down.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Regarding the US entering the war on the CP side, remember that it was the US that supplied the munitions that kept the allied powers going during WWI. If we are on the other side then the British and the French might suffer a massive munitions shortage early in the war. The US could also smubble in massive amounts of weapons into Ireland thus making a war there far harder for the British to put down.

These are all very good points, even if I do not expect the USA to join the CPs, if ever, that much early in the course of WWI. Rather I think it would a gradual build-up of antagonism, much like OTL, only towards the opposite side.

Something much like this:

Because of Entente attack on Sweden, which balances the CP attack on Belgium, the US initially maintains true neutrality between warring alliances, and tries its best to trade with both sides. Possibly also because of the Entente dragging Norway in the conflict, and surely because after a while Italy joins the CPs, American public opinion grows more sympathetic to the CPs.

Because the Entente blockade interferes with American trade with the CPs (whose block is including a bigger and bigger slice of European trade as time goes on), while the CPs are not interfering nearly as much with American merchant shipping ITTL (they have better perspective of victory, so they don't use unrestricted submarine warfare), American public opinion and large sectors of American economic interests become definitely hostile to the Entente and theri naval blockade. Nationalistic newspapers linked to US economic interests that foresee and auspicate the downfall of the Entente (so that the USA can rise in the place of the British Empire) start fueling these anti-Entente feelings by highlighting the parallels with the War of 1812 and fanning the embers of American expansionistic-irredentist aspirations for the annexation of Canada.

Some sectors of British and French ruling elites see the danger of a coming clash with the USA, and try pushing for distensive modifications to the blockade, but such measures come out as too late, too little, since after a while the opposite pressure prevails from political and military sectors of Entente ruling circles that believe a strict, harshly enforced blockade is the decisive way to win a war that appears more and more compromised by the day. They (wrongly) gamble that an airtight blockade may bring the CPs to their knees before an irate America can do anything worthwhile. The renewed harsh blockade soon brings a chain of nasty incidents with American merchant ships, with repeated sinkage or severe damage of American ships and deaths of US sailors.

An anti-Entente war fever soon builds up in the American public, nationalist circles and newspapers increasingly agitate for breaking the "pirate" Entente blockade by force and uprooting Entente strategic threat on the American continent by "liberating" Canada, and after one naval incident too many, the Congress declares war to Britain and France.
 
Well I don't think that the US would be declaring war on Canada short of Unrestricted Sub Warfare on the Entente's part...
 

Eurofed

Banned
Well I don't think that the US would be declaring war on Canada short of Unrestricted Sub Warfare on the Entente's part...

Unrestricted Entente Blockade. Standard British procedure and America already went to war because of it in 1812.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eh, Britain's not going to be siezing US ships and conscripting their crews in 1916... :rolleyes:

A couple of naval incidents when British/French ships sink US vessels or kill US sailors works even better to inflame the American public vs. the Entente. :cool:
 
A couple of naval incidents when British/French ships sink US vessels or kill US sailors works even better to inflame the American public vs. the Entente. :cool:

If Britain and France were dumb enough to sink a couple US ships, they'd be falling over themselves to apologize to avoid antagonizing the US.
 

Eurofed

Banned
If Britain and France were dumb enough to sink a couple US ships, they'd be falling over themselves to apologize to avoid antagonizing the US.

Yes. On the other hand, apology may or may not work if US public opinion is already moving against the Entente because of trade-stifling effects of the blockade. And if it happens a second time, the apology shall be much less effective. Even OTL Germany suspended USW for a while to avoid antagonizing US further, then succumbed to the temptation to restart it later. I expect the same mechanism could easily happen here with heavy-handed Entente blockade.
 
Top