Territorial acquisitions of a Central Power USA?

As was literally discussed, America has no army to speak in OTL 1914.

We need to see if America would enter the war in a similar way to OTL, and would it be accompanied by OTL's slow drift aswell. Therefore, would Canada have more men than the US? Highly likely if it was OTL 1914 etc.

And if America is close to the Central powers, how does Britain react.

Nothing happens in a vacuum, and I somehow doubt Britain would be as naive as the Kaiserreich with regards to diplomacy and wouldn't give the clear CB that Germany gave to the US many times over. Do American's join as much as OTL? The Anglo community is larger than the German community, do they actively sabotage Pro-CP policies? Do such companies support the Entente of their own volition.
 
The main American effort will fall on Canada first (well, once the US gets their ass in gear), and secondly on the Atlantic to prevent Britain from interdicting shipments to Germany and elsewhere in Europe. That means the US needs to occupy Canada and the British Caribbean. It also conveniently will bring in at least a few Latin American countries on the side of the US. How much will they take, though? Trinidad is great, since it's known to have oil (although large-scale exploitation wasn't until later) plus it gives a nice base right next to Venezuela (which did have large-scale oil exploitation). Acquiring Bermuda is good, since it weakens the Royal Navy and strengthens the American position in the Atlantic long-term. The Bahamas (throw in Turks and Caicos, part of Jamaica at the time) are also nice since they're perhaps a bit too close to comfort for the US to leave under European rule. Maybe Barbados too, given its strategic position and how it would hem in the rest of the Caribbean.

Annexing any more of the Caribbean is probably politically unfeasible, especially larger islands like Jamaica given the large amount of black people. However, it could make sense if the United States gets whipped up into an anti-European frenzy ("Americas for the Americans" or something), since removing all colonies of France and Britain in the Caribbean leaves only the Dutch islands as well as the Danish Virgin Islands in European hands, plus also the Falkland Islands. The United States can easily get Guatemala's entry into the war with a loan and the promise of Belize, and same goes with Venezuela and most of Guyana. The rest of the Guyanas is an issue--maybe Venezuela can be persuaded to take all of British Guyana and not just the part they have claims on, while Brazil can be brought into the war and given French Guiana? But a CP Brazil likely means an Allied Argentina, although I think Brazil will likely share in the global CP victory. The Falklands are a different matter--I suspect Argentina could probably convince Britain to sell it to them given Britain's war debts are going to be even more massive TTL. Oh, and Suriname, I have no idea, but once bauxite is discovered maybe the US can sell it to them to complete the goal of removing Europe from the Americas?

Of potential American territorial acquisitions, I can only see the Bahamas (with Turks and Caicos) becoming a state by the start of the 21st century given the fact it will likely be swamped with white people (of diverse political orientation like Florida) who will swell the population to far higher than the OTL islands in question and thus convincingly be able to argue for statehood. Maybe Bermuda too if the population gets sick of being a territory and demands to be annexed by a US state (maybe Virginia given the history) and whatever state they choose accepts them (they could also try arguing that their status as one of the British colonies akin to the Thirteen Colonies would make them eligible for statehood but I think the courts would shoot them down on that one). Anything else will either remain a territory or perhaps be given independence under a solution similar to the Pacific and the Compact of Free Association. Especially if they become governed under some alt-League of Nations Mandate system.
 

trajen777

Banned
I think the British would prioritise Canada over France. A Central Powers with the US included would more likely see France defeated, not Canada.


Not possible. Gb needs to keep fleet in place vs NSF. If they transport large forces to canada they would need a large fleet away from gb to do this. They can't. Without large gb forces in France in 15 16 France gets crushed
 
Would there even be fighting in canada?
could see the american amry just massing near the border while the canadian/british forces wait on the other side.

Depending on the circumstances of US entry on the CP side I don't think that is beyond the realms of possibility.

The NG might be wary of crossing the border and have to guard the Mexican border too. The Regular Army might lack the strength to take on the equivalent of 3 Canadian divisions on the defensive.

However, I think that even without the 1916 Defense Act the 1914 Regular Army could grow to war establishment and double in size. Mmm, it all depends on the circumstances.
 

longsword14

Banned
Without large gb forces in France in 15 16 France gets crushed
Not really. By late 17 a collapse would happen, but 16 is too early.
People going on about lack of a US military should explain just how could Canada be possibly better.
The fact that the US is not neutral means that the Germans win. It will be interesting to see developments in the North Sea in this TL.
 

longsword14

Banned
The Royal Navy.
No, trading after beating up the British. The post above mine implied that the US would not want an economic competitor, but the Americans were by far the largest anyway.
The Royal Navy has already lost that side of the Atlantic, and that is without the USN going for a massive buildup. Without OTL US production capacity, and US output being diverted to Germany victory is certain. Which raises questions abut WWI as it happened being repeated here.
If any hypothetical war with the German Empire has the US in it, then Entente willingness to go to war would just shrink to nothing.
 
No, trading after beating up the British. The post above mine implied that the US would not want an economic competitor, but the Americans were by far the largest anyway.
The Royal Navy has already lost that side of the Atlantic, and that is without the USN going for a massive buildup. Without OTL US production capacity, and US output being diverted to Germany victory is certain. Which raises questions abut WWI as it happened being repeated here.
If any hypothetical war with the German Empire has the US in it, then Entente willingness to go to war would just shrink to nothing.
Ahhh, I thought you meant stuffing as in filling them with goods. Anyways, if the Royal Navy is already completely gone (since it doesn't mean squat if the Americans half control of one side of the Atlantic if it is not the side where German ports are) then what motives would the Germans have to press the US into joining them?
 
People going on about lack of a US military should explain just how could Canada be possibly better.

That can't, not a hope in hell. The point is that prior to 1918 the US isn't in a position to steamroller Canada from the get go, Canada can put up a defense.

The US would have to make changes before its in a position to steamroll Canada: secure the Mexican border, free up the NG and go to the War Establishment at a minimum. Canada and Britain could react to such changes, and so on .......
 
The way I see it, best case scenario in Canada is occupation during the war and the establishment of a client state following the war.
 
That can't, not a hope in hell. The point is that prior to 1918 the US isn't in a position to steamroller Canada from the get go, Canada can put up a defense.

The US would have to make changes before its in a position to steamroll Canada: secure the Mexican border, free up the NG and go to the War Establishment at a minimum. Canada and Britain could react to such changes, and so on .......

Sorry, the only way Canada can even delay an American invasion is if Canada enters the war and the US follows suit years later. Unfortunately for the British Empire, the US doesn't even need to occupy Canada. Simply ending trade with Britain and fighting on the Oceans will bring Britain to its knees in a matter of months To change that outcome, it is Canada that must be able to invade and occupy large chunks of America- truly an insane scenario

The way I see it, best case scenario in Canada is occupation during the war and the establishment of a client state following the war.

Most likely. Canada declares independence and seeks an American alliance. Otherwise, Canada is joining the US
 
Actually annexing Canada seems unlikely. Not that the US could not do it, but rather I can't see why they would want to. Like all the North Atlantic GPs in the early 20thC, the US was rather more interested in power and prosperity than in uselessly oppressing fellow Europeans that could easily be made into a Finlandised state. The US may annex a few bits and pieces, some of the Maritimes and at a stretch BC, but otherwise all of its needs are met with defeating and disarming Canada and removing it from the British sphere.
 

longsword14

Banned
Ahhh, I thought you meant stuffing as in filling them with goods. Anyways, if the Royal Navy is already completely gone (since it doesn't mean squat if the Americans half control of one side of the Atlantic if it is not the side where German ports are) then what motives would the Germans have to press the US into joining them?
I meant that the USN control that side of the Atlantic in the beginning, things get worse as time passes on. The blockade will not hold for years on as is presumed by some. In OTL trade carried between neutral was a big pain, this time it would be far worse. The biggest trader with neutral countries is a belligerent this time.
 
Sorry, the only way Canada can even delay an American invasion is if Canada enters the war and the US follows suit years later.

I would say that the opposite is true, as the new formation CEF sucked up large numbers the prewar army and sent them to Europe. The remaining units became training centres for the steady steam of new recruits the CEF neeeded.

In contrast the prewar Canadian permanent and unpermanent militia were similar in numbers to the US regular army mobile field force.
 
I would say that the opposite is true, as the new formation CEF sucked up large numbers the prewar army and sent them to Europe. The remaining units became training centres for the steady steam of new recruits the CEF neeeded.

In contrast the prewar Canadian permanent and unpermanent militia were similar in numbers to the US regular army mobile field force.

Additionally the Canadian Militia that did exist was much better trained than the US militia
 
I would say that the opposite is true, as the new formation CEF sucked up large numbers the prewar army and sent them to Europe. The remaining units became training centres for the steady steam of new recruits the CEF neeeded.

In contrast the prewar Canadian permanent and unpermanent militia were similar in numbers to the US regular army mobile field force.
Additionally the Canadian Militia that did exist was much better trained than the US militia

It took the US less than a year to be sending 300,000 men pe month to Europe. GIven that the Anglo-French forces used more American weapons than America used European weapons, the Americans didn't need to travel to Europe and the Anglo-French forces are engaged in a life or death struggle against the Central Powers, this is ridiculous. Canada is not going to be a threat to America. America will win the war by interning British ships in American harbors, cutting off shipments to the Entente and keeping her supplies at home

Comparing the Canadian militia to the American regular army mobile field force is beyond ridiculous as it ignores the very formidable state militias (formidable by North American standards)
Canada is not going to win an arms race or a war with America and isn't going to try either
 
A USA that is allied with the CP in some formal treaty is unlikely to be as militarily unprepared in 1914 as OTL. However, assuming the US is in the war from the beginning, they can ramp up to huge numbers and lots of stuff in 18 months. Given the spaces involved, most of any US-Canada fight is not going to be trench warfare but a war of movement - certain areas will see the trenches but not most. The RN is big, they are number one, but the US and German fleets together make a real problem for the RN. Getting supplies from the western hemisphere (say food from Canada and Argentina for example) let alone other stuff will be difficult at best. Rapidly the Caribbean becomes an American lake, and Bermuda as well as the islands off the Florida coast are gone.

Leaving Canada aside (as per the OP):
1. Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica and some other islands fly the US flag. Maybe some remain nominally British but demilitarized, maybe US bases. (Denmark still sells the VI to the USA). Any French possessions in the Caribbean are demilitarized. Germany gets squat in the Caribbean - the US does not want any other big dogs in its backyard, and wants no threat to the Panama Canal.
2. In the Pacific the USA will take the part of Samoa it does not have, and most of the British (and French) islands will be split with Germany and/or demilitarized. Japan, who is allied with the UK will not be allowed to keep anything it grabbed early on including Tsingtao.

If the Uk sends the BEF or a large chunk of it, to Canada instead of France, and assuming they get there, Germany beats France and pretty soon the BEF is trapped and undersupplied in Canada. Sure they might make some advances in to US territory, but then welcome to the briar patch.
 
Given the devil is in the details, I will break this down if I may. all of this assumes Canadian force development IOTL until 1914 and US force development IOTL until April 1917; if the US does stuff that may be a greater threat to Canada, both she and Britain will do things in response, making the butterflies flap.

It took the US less than a year to be sending 300,000 men pe month to Europe.

I thought is was a touch over a year, 14 months, but I'm not going to quibble about that. What's important is that these 300,000 went directly to Australian-Canadian-British run training camps to undertake courses lasting at least 6 weeks.

After constant Army reform beginning in 1903, and going all the way to full NG mobilisation on the southern border in June 1916 and the declaration of war in April 1917, by the end of 1917 the US Army only had 4 divisions in France.
1st & 2nd Corps were stood up in January 1918, 3rd Corps in May 1918,........... 7th Corps in August 1918 and 8th & 9th Corps after the Armistice.
1st Army was stood up in June 1918, 2nd Army in September 1918 and 3rd Army after the Armistice.
While the Big Red One fired the first US Shell toward German lines in October 1917 only 4 divisions were battle-ready in Spring 1918.
The first Divisional battles were in May and June 1918 and the first Army level offensive was in September 1918.

So just like Secretary of War Stimson predicted in his June 1914 report, it would take the US more than a year to build an army capable of fighting a high intensity war.

GIven that the Anglo-French forces used more American weapons than America used European weapons

Only small arms. The US had its own range of field artillery leading up to WW1, yet when war came it decided to instead produce British and French designed guns en masse. However the AEF was wholly equipped with British and French guns and tanks built in British and French factories, no US-manufactured field piece was fired at CP forces in WW1.

Canada is not going to be a threat to America.

I certainly never implied that, my implication was that the correlation of forces in 1914 was such that the US couldn't steamroll Canada. America had 3 regular and 12 NG divisions which have to guard both northern and southern borders, intervene in Latin America about 4 or 5 times and invade Canada and defeat the equivalent of 3 Canadian divisions.

ignores the very formidable state militias (formidable by North American standards)

From what I understand the reason why the Preparedness Movement kept calling for a Federal reserve army was because the National Guard was so shit. IIUC in 1914 they only had to do a 5 day camp and some voluntary drilling and when mobilised in 1916 (after a couple of years of improvements, NY even formed a heavy artillery btn) they still had to send home quite a lot of amputees and chronically sick men. Also the states didn't build nice, balanced NG units, they tended to focus on the cheaper and more useful infantry and cavalry at the expense of expensive artillery, which isn't ideal in the lead up to WW1.

On top of that I believe there were considerable restrictions on the Federal use of the NG, I couldn't find a reference if asked, but I think that until the 1916 Defence Act it would have been illegal to send them over the border into neighbouring countries. That said, the 1916-17 Federalisation on the Mexican border was a godsend for the US, it shook out so many problems.

Comparing the Canadian militia to the American regular army mobile field force is beyond ridiculous

Why do you say that? Given the limitation of the NG on going onto the offensive, as well as the US' other commitments requiring NG units it will be the 3 US RA divisions going onto the offensive into Canada. These will be met by the 3 division equivalents of the Canadian Army, who will be fighting on the defensive in their homeland. Most likely the US RA will be better than the bulk of the Canadians, but with no massive superiority in numbers there will be no walkover and I'm sure the Canadians will organise an effective defence of their country that will make the US pay for their gains.

Canada is not going to win an arms race or a war with America and isn't going to try either

Of course not, but they're not going to lie down and accept an invasion either and it is ludicrous to think they will. IOTL Canada did have an Army with several dozen battalions, despite the US being benign and in world terms a military pygmy. These several dozen battalions will not march into captivity without firing a shot, they will do what they can to repel the invader, hoping that they win or more likely an ally will come to their aid directly or indirectly.
 
Britain cannot just point to some spreadsheet calculations showing that any effort to save Canada from US invasion is doomed in the long run and abondon them. The pride/honour/etc of the Empire would not allow it. They'll have to make every effort. Especially since it isn't just pride atually, but also the practical question of: If they abandon Canada without a fight, how will Australia and New Zealand react?
Fastest UDI in history followed by begging the U.S. to protect them against the mighty Japanese Empire that's waiting to invade and was only deterrred by the British Empire thus far - at least in the minds of the people in charge in that place and time - would be my guess.
 
One reason that a lot of heavier equipment (like artillery) was supplied to US forces in France by the UK and France was shipping. By not sending a lot of bulky "stuff" to France there was more room for troops. The British and the French were desperate for bodies - they could crank out guns, but no factory for literally millions of young healthy men which the Americans were shipping to Europe. Issues about shipping were quite contentious.

One issue here is when does the USA jump in. If the war has been going on since 1914 and the US jumps in in 1917, but with no more build up than OTL that is one thing. If the USA joins in 1914, then the US situation vis a vis Canada, and British land forces is actually pretty equal in the sense that all of them need to ramp up (Cnadaian expansion, Kitchener Army, US expansion etc).
 
Top