The United States Declares War on the Central Powers in 1915

NoMommsen

Donor
If the US declares war in 1915, I don't think Jutland (or a battle like it) ever occurs. By the end of 1915, the bulk of the US battle fleet is going to be in Great Britan. The odds were already stacked against the High Seas Fleet just going against the British. Add another 10 or so American battleships and the High Seas Fleet never leaves port.
This, I think is the "only" reasonably possible projetion of military power available with a US DoW in May/June 1915, as pointed out above. Even under favorable conditions there won't be considerable US land forces be available until late 1916/spring 1917.
And for the "piecemeal" approach suggested by @Riain in post #18 ... where ? And even in case the US would accept, that quickly sent, small units (then unavailable for training at home) would be used under british or french command, couls they make any difference ? ... Beside making war less popular at home with US boys killed in futile fights, essentially making : no difference for how many dead ?

However, with the "naval option" I can see any opposition in Germany against USW dwindling fast and being initiated in August/Septembre 1915 again. With whatever effects this might have on entente shipping.
Also : at that moment the USN has just 2 BBs armed with modern 14" guns (BB 34 New Yorck, BB 35 Texas). Everything else had only 12" guns ... and not the best available protection. ... esp. regarding torpedos ... (?)
And where were they in summer 1915 ? How long would it take to assemble a squadron of 8 - 12 battleships in engish harbours, not to talk about their integration into the british command structures and procedures ?
Though less probable I could imagine the germans, beside USW, might try to pull a stand against the RN before these additions arrive, another, better or more complete attempt, 2nd round Doggerbank still in summer 1915.
And if not that, the HSF not sent out into the northsea ... Operation Albion in 1915 ? or something similar in the East ?

However, Wilsons prospects of being reelected ... giving his main (winning ?) slogan he got in 1916 IOTL ("He kept us out of war") ... not very bright IMO. ... whoever would be his contestant.
ITTL the war would be a mayor campaign theme right from the beginning with casualty-lists (may it be army or navy or both) comming in right for the last month(s) of campaigning, Wilson immediatly being blamed for.
 
The big point Pershing made, and supported by Wilson, was that US forces would fight as a unit under US command, unlike the proposals of the British and French which went so far asto have US soldiers integrated in to British units or serving as larger units but under French command. In any case, the US is simply not going to send soldiers in to the front line until they are properly trained and equipped hence my time estimate.

There were 10 US companies with the 4th AIF division leading up to the battle of Le Hamel and Monash planned to use them in his attack. Pershing got wind of this and demanded that the US companies be withdrawn, 6 were and some disobeyed orders and stayed and 4 still remained with the division when the attack began. This was the first time Americans had ever been under foreign command.
 
The really big key is what is Bulgaria's reaction? In OTL, they join the war in October 1915 five months after the Lusitania If they stay out the impact is large enough; if they join the entente which is likely, then the Ottomans are doomed, Russia saved and the collapse of the Austro-Germans inevitable by the end of 1916 at the latest

America's direct impact would be to tighten the screws on German trade, destroyers for escorts and financial backing of the Entente. Field armies of all the powers are more limited by supplies than manpower and America would not be able to expand war production much faster than OTL

Politically- if America is enrages enough to join over the Lusitania, the anti-war forces ae weaker than OTL, the Republicans unlikely to nominate an anti-war candidate and Wilson probably safe
 

NoMommsen

Donor
The really big key is what is Bulgaria's reaction? In OTL, they join the war in October 1915 five months after the Lusitania If they stay out the impact is large enough; if they join the entente which is likely, then the Ottomans are doomed, Russia saved and the collapse of the Austro-Germans inevitable by the end of 1916 at the latest

America's direct impact would be to tighten the screws on German trade, destroyers for escorts and financial backing of the Entente. Field armies of all the powers are more limited by supplies than manpower and America would not be able to expand war production much faster than OTL

Politically- if America is enrages enough to join over the Lusitania, the anti-war forces ae weaker than OTL, the Republicans unlikely to nominate an anti-war candidate and Wilson probably safe
1. Bulgaria
Why should they join the Entente ?
They joined the CP after having seen the germans forcing the russians into the Great Withdrawel - big bonus for the CP. They have seen the combined forces of the Entente comming to ... nothing, neiter in the west nor on Gallipoli (in May 1915 in its 3rd month of futile attempts against the ottomans ... despite being cut off from german/austrian supplies).
OTOH the Entente (France) is just (summer 1915) trying to buy away all of the summer harvest to cause food shortage in their very own country. Not a very ... friendly measure. As "unfriendly" as the landing of Entente forces in Saloniki in october 1915.
And Italy joined in october as well, threatening bulgarian claims on Albania.

If the US entry has an effect on Bulgarias decision at all : they stay out further.
It's impact ? Serbias defeat will take longer or there will be a "proper" front developing, cutting Serbia in half and creating a "front" very similar to IOTL Macedonian front, only farther north, a stalemate as in the west, drawing even more forces of the western or italian front.
Overall -> no significant change at all.

2.
The convoy systems was at that time still opposed by the RN. Only in late 1916 they started revised their attitude. In March 1917 it was still opposed by the british war cabinet.
So you would need a destroyers escorting every single steamer. ... Even the USN hadn't enough for that.


If Lusitania wasn't enough IOTL to "move" the public majority to move the Wilson-goverment towards war ITTL it must be something different, a more "hidden" cause/PoD, lesser affecting the wider publicity wihtout affecting the anti-war forces.
About the US ... I have to admitt, that my knowledge of the US history is almost entirely wiki-based, so probably not too deep. So I have no idea, if there is somewhere another candidate or party around jumping on a anti-war ticket against Wilson.
 
1. Bulgaria
Why should they join the Entente ?

The convoy systems was at that time still opposed by the RN. Only in late 1916 they started revised their attitude. In March 1917 it was still opposed by the british war cabinet.
So you would need a destroyers escorting every single steamer. ... Even the USN hadn't enough for that.

Given that Bulgaria insisted on the end of USW during their negotiations over entrance into the war, I'd say they were mighty concerned about it An tAmerica that had already declared war would really alarm them. The Bulgarians will join only if they are convinced the Germans will win. America in the war is likely to convince them otherwise. That would mean they attack the Ottomans to regain what was lost in the Second Balkan War

Even a neutral Bulgaria is a great help to the Entente

As for convoys- the allies don't like them for several reasons. Eventually they come around to them. The same would happen if USW continued in 1915
 

CaliGuy

Banned
American troops will arrive just in time for the carnage at the Somme and Verdun. I'd bet that Wilson loses reelection.
Yes, because a lot of casualties resulted in FDR losing re-election in 1944 (sarcasm).

In 1915/16 the Germans were I think emotionally more prepared to consider the war lost (as opposed to 1917 when Romania was fallen and Russia clearly pushed back).

I agree that, without Romania's and especially Russia's impending collapse, Germany might have been more willing to make peace had the U.S. entered WWI in 1915.

I am not convinced it will work, but it might just trigger an early peace whereby Germany loses but only narrowly, and A-H/Russia spend the next decade or two figuring out if they will fall apart or not (probably not for Russia, unclear for A-H given they just lost).

Couldn't the victorious Entente still demand the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There was a massive difference in US military preparedness in April 1917 from May 1915, the big thing being the mobilisation of the entire National Guard on the Mexican border and the 1916 Defence Act. for example WW1 was an artillery war: 1913 Gen Wood reported the NG had 48 artillery batteries, by 1914 there were 54 with 10 Battalion HQs, on the even of Federalisation (Mid 1916) there were 6 regiments, 12 battalions and 17 batteries and on the eve of WW1 (April 1917) 6 regiments, 19 battalions and 79 batteries all of which had served on the Mexican border.

So OTL's WW1 build-up would not apply to a build-up from May 1915, the US would not be nearly as prepared and a build-up would take a lot longer; so instead of going into a major battle 15 months after a DoW it might be 2 years.

The big point Pershing made, and supported by Wilson, was that US forces would fight as a unit under US command, unlike the proposals of the British and French which went so far asto have US soldiers integrated in to British units or serving as larger units but under French command. In any case, the US is simply not going to send soldiers in to the front line until they are properly trained and equipped hence my time estimate.

Good points! However, what about the psychological impact of an early U.S. entry into WWI?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
How popular was WWI in America? compare that to WWII.
Well, there weren't any opinion polls back then; thus, we can't say for sure. However, I think that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress voted in favor of war in early 1917.
 
Well, there weren't any opinion polls back then; thus, we can't say for sure. However, I think that the overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress voted in favor of war in early 1917.

Yes and that was after Germany had restarted unrestricted submarine warfare and sank about five American ships in the Atlantic in March and at the same time they were attempting to instigate a US Mexican War. Even after that, there was a significant anti-war movement in the United States.

The OP said that America enters the war over the Lusitania which IOTL wasn't enough to convince a majority of Americans to support going into the war - Wilson ran under an anti-war platform in 1916 after all - I just don't see how that alone would be enough to convince Americans to be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in the trenches of Europe.
 
E
1. Bulgaria
Why should they join the Entente ?
They joined the CP after having seen the germans forcing the russians into the Great Withdrawel - big bonus for the CP. They have seen the combined forces of the Entente comming to ... nothing, neiter in the west nor on Gallipoli (in May 1915 in its 3rd month of futile attempts against the ottomans ... despite being cut off from german/austrian supplies).
OTOH the Entente (France) is just (summer 1915) trying to buy away all of the summer harvest to cause food shortage in their very own country. Not a very ... friendly measure. As "unfriendly" as the landing of Entente forces in Saloniki in october 1915.
And Italy joined in october as well, threatening bulgarian claims on Albania.

If the US entry has an effect on Bulgarias decision at all : they stay out further.
It's impact ? Serbias defeat will take longer or there will be a "proper" front developing, cutting Serbia in half and creating a "front" very similar to IOTL Macedonian front, only farther north, a stalemate as in the west, drawing even more forces of the western or italian front.
Overall -> no significant change at all.

2.
The convoy systems was at that time still opposed by the RN. Only in late 1916 they started revised their attitude. In March 1917 it was still opposed by the british war cabinet.
So you would need a destroyers escorting every single steamer. ... Even the USN hadn't enough for that.


If Lusitania wasn't enough IOTL to "move" the public majority to move the Wilson-goverment towards war ITTL it must be something different, a more "hidden" cause/PoD, lesser affecting the wider publicity wihtout affecting the anti-war forces.
About the US ... I have to admitt, that my knowledge of the US history is almost entirely wiki-based, so probably not too deep. So I have no idea, if there is somewhere another candidate or party around jumping on a anti-war ticket against Wilson.
Eugene V. Debs ran in every presidential election from 1900-1920 except for 1916 as a Socialist. He was an ardent opponent of the war and critical of Wilson, eventually being imprisoned for his speeches. Maybe he serves as a firebrand in 1915-16 to ruin Wilson's image.
 

SsgtC

Banned
It would be possible for the US to declare War in 1915 following the sinking of the Lusitania. But it requires an earlier POD to make it work. I think you need to get Teddy Roosevelt elected President in 1912 and have him solidly behind the Entente from 1914 on. All while he builds up support for the war at home.

Yes and that was after Germany had restarted unrestricted submarine warfare and sank about five American ships in the Atlantic in March and at the same time they were attempting to instigate a US Mexican War. Even after that, there was a significant anti-war movement in the United States.

The OP said that America enters the war over the Lusitania which IOTL wasn't enough to convince a majority of Americans to support going into the war - Wilson ran under an anti-war platform in 1916 after all - I just don't see how that alone would be enough to convince Americans to be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in the trenches of Europe.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes and that was after Germany had restarted unrestricted submarine warfare and sank about five American ships in the Atlantic in March and at the same time they were attempting to instigate a US Mexican War. Even after that, there was a significant anti-war movement in the United States.

The OP said that America enters the war over the Lusitania which IOTL wasn't enough to convince a majority of Americans to support going into the war - Wilson ran under an anti-war platform in 1916 after all - I just don't see how that alone would be enough to convince Americans to be willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in the trenches of Europe.
It is possible that Lusitania would have had more of an impact if Wilson would have used it for pro-war propaganda in 1915, though.
 
It is possible that Lusitania would have had more of an impact if Wilson would have used it for pro-war propaganda in 1915, though.

Of course. That's basically how the Spanish American War started.

I'm just saying that come 1916 the war fervor would fizzle out and the American electorate would be looking at the war as an attritional stalemate with millions of casualties and they are in it because some Americans on a luxury cruise liner died.
 
Top