What if America fought on Germany's side during WWI?

[Deleted member 94680]

Germany’s colonies in Africa are safe, chances Britain’s are either lost entirely or the best bits carved off to bolster the German Empire. Does Berlin really need Asia if mitteleuropa becomes a reality? What chance Britain bails out early to preserve the Empire, trading its integrity for German designs on Eastern Europe?

Under Asquith, almost ASB I’d wager, but with Lloyd-George waiting in the wings...

 

[ferdi254]

Again it is fascinating how people who seemingly had a lack of factual knowledge about matters stay with their opinions even after they have been introduced to the facts. And how they know better than the GB government how long GB could fight on.. having the solution „somehow“.

 

[Riain]

In these scenarios, I think the weakness of the US Army and to a lesser extant the US Navy (not enough cruisers/destroyers) is similar to the Entente's weakness in sourcing critical material and finance from places outside the United States.

This is a good observation, the US has to play catch up while the British have to manage strangulation or suffocation as it were. This makes the outcome of battles crucial, a decisive battle can upset months of careful resource management.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

This is a good observation, the US has to play catch up while the British have to manage strangulation or suffocation as it were. This makes the outcome of battles crucial, a decisive battle can upset months of careful resource management.

I think the "two year" figure given is pretty much the time taken for the Americans to build the navy they need to accomplish the task. Once American industry gets onto a War footing, it's a matter of time until they are churning out cruisers and submarines to destroy trade traffic. What chance they simply build "German pattern" submarines to save time?

 

[ferdi254]

Two years with 80% less oil 30% less steel 50 minus on food .... as stated a couple of times the UK government at that time was sure to only have months without US supplies let alone with the US- actively fighting. All the questions on where to either get all those supplies or how to fight without them have been answered with somehow.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Two years with 80% less oil 30% less steel 50 minus on food .... as stated a couple of times the UK government at that time was sure to only have months without US supplies let alone with the US- actively fighting. All the questions on where to either get all those supplies or how to fight without them have been answered with somehow.

I like threads like this.

I have to say, the US fighting is not going to make a difference in the short term.

OTOH, the US being anti-Entente is going to make a huge difference. Not just in reducing the merchant tonnage hauling goods supporting their war efforts immediately, but also no more replacement merchant tonnage built in US shipyards, as well.

And as pointed out above and up thread, the materials are not going to be available, either.

Was there a consensus on which year this takes place?

 

[Riain]

I like threads like this.

I have to say, the US fighting is not going to make a difference in the short term.

OTOH, the US being anti-Entente is going to make a huge difference. Not just in reducing the merchant tonnage hauling goods supporting their war efforts immediately, but also no more replacement merchant tonnage built in US shipyards, as well.

And as pointed out above and up thread, the materials are not going to be available, either.

Was there a consensus on which year this takes place?

i'm interested in how this mismatch plays out in the first year of the war, because for all the talk about resources all the copper in the world isn't much use if it is thrown away by poor performance on the battlefield.

For example while the RN will be stretched thin to attempt to match the USN on the NAWA station the USN BBs are slower and historically far interior shots and with a mere 6 cruisers (3 of which can only do 22kts) will be inferior at scouting. I could imagine a smaller RN force using its superior speed, scouting and shooting to control an engagement and defeat (although not destroy) a USN battle fleet despite inferior numbers, this will make the US' job of catching up harder in practice than it appears on paper.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

i'm interested in how this mismatch plays out in the first year of the war, because for all the talk about resources all the copper in the world isn't much use if it is thrown away by poor performance on the battlefield.

I'll grant you that, but we would need to get more information on just when this alternate USA goes off the beaten track, as well as what their war aims are.

For instance, I would view 1914 as probably a bit too soon for this to happen, but then again, it's not likely to happen in the first place, so...

The US is never going to be as militarily weak as they are in 1914 at any later wartime/war entry date, while at the same time the war will look nothing like historically.

A 1915 POD seems a bit more doable, as the effects of the war on the US economy is starting to be felt, and there is time enough for a few things to lead to the divergence from OTL, and at least the 1914 parts of the war may be not too different from historically.

A 1916 POD seems more likely/less unlikely, as the matter is still in doubt, especially with Jutland and the Deutschland arriving in the USA taking place as OTL. Jutland tells us the Germans are still in it, and the Deutschland tells us that trade can be had with Germany, despite the blockade.

A 1917 POD seems a bit less likely, but still doable, as both sides have been at it for awhile, and are fully committed to the war effort, and the USA is just about as ready as she will ever be to jump in.

A 1918 POD seems too me to be a bit to late, but there is still some fight left in the Germans, so...

The other thing to work out is, just what is the USA doing in the Central Powers?!?! For me, the only (kinda/sorta) likely thing I can come up with is a disagreement about her rights to trade, but this has to go very wrong, to lead to the USA jumping in.

So, what are some folks thoughts about this?

 

[KingOnTheEdge]

Germany’s colonies in Africa are safe, chances Britain’s are either lost entirely or the best bits carved off to bolster the German Empire. Does Berlin really need Asia if mitteleuropa becomes a reality? What chance Britain bails out early to preserve the Empire, trading its integrity for German designs on Eastern Europe?

Under Asquith, almost ASB I’d wager, but with Lloyd-George waiting in the wings...

So... asia for america, Africa for Britain, and Europe for Germany? With France shit out of luck?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

So... asia for america, Africa for Britain, and Europe for Germany? With France shit out of luck?

Quite possibly. All depends on how ‘honourable’ Britain are and if they fight to the end with France...

 

[46566]

So... asia for america, Africa for Britain, and Europe for Germany? With France shit out of luck?

Why not just cut of British Columbia to connect Alaska and the rest of the US? Maybe Quebec gains more autonomy within Canada? British and French colonial positions in south America and the Caribbean are given to the US. Germany may take few African colonial positions. The biggest change would be ottoman control over Egypt.

 

[Jellico]

Germany’s colonies in Africa are safe, chances Britain’s are either lost entirely or the best bits carved off to bolster the German Empire. Does Berlin really need Asia if mitteleuropa becomes a reality? What chance Britain bails out early to preserve the Empire, trading its integrity for German designs on Eastern Europe?

Under Asquith, almost ASB I’d wager, but with Lloyd-George waiting in the wings...

I have to admit the post war interests me most. The British put a lot of coin and time into bringing the US onside before WWI. What about all the British investment in the US? Is that all nationalized? What about Canada? What is the US's payoff for joining this war? What is their Alsace Lorraine. While I can't see the US losing this I can see a lot of reputational damage. The United States, the untouchable, unreliable, Sword of Damocles ready to interfere in any war it sees fit to profit from.

 

[BooNZ]

I have to admit the post war interests me most. The British put a lot of coin and time into bringing the US onside before WWI. What about all the British investment in the US? Is that all nationalized?

Eh? Did Wilson have Hotels too?

What about Canada? What is the US's payoff for joining this war? What is their Alsace Lorraine. While I can't see the US losing this I can see a lot of reputational damage. The United States, the untouchable, unreliable, Sword of Damocles ready to interfere in any war it sees fit to profit from.

The British and thier illegal blockade are clearly the Barbary pirates of the 20th century and the US simply enters to defend the trade rights of neutral powers.

 

[Riain]

@Naval Aviation Fan the OP stipulated pre Luisitania, so nlt 7 May 1915. I would also suggest from a cold start, something akin to the Ottomans being burnt by British. I'm not even going to try to posit a scenario, I can't, so I focus on the correlation of forces.

 

[Jellico]

Eh? Did Wilson have Hotels too?

The Great Rapprochement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Royal Navy didn't spend 100 years enforcing the Monroe Doctrine for the fun of it


One could argue the British diplomatic response to war with the US from 1900 was simply "don't". There is a reason all of these US vs UK scenarios usually involve aggression from the US side.

 

[BooNZ]

The Great Rapprochement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Royal Navy didn't spend 100 years enforcing the Monroe Doctrine for the fun of it


One could argue the British diplomatic response to war with the US from 1900 was simply "don't". There is a reason all of these US vs UK scenarios usually involve aggression from the US side.

Venezuela 1903 comes to mind

 

[Riain]

I'm also a bit (not too much but certainly a bit) skeptical that if there was a bit of a run up to the US joining the CP the US would take decent steps to prepare for it.

In 1914-15 the US had the triple whammy of the Border War with Mexico, the invasion of Veracruz Mexico and the ferocious war raging in Europe. Yet apart of small, incremental changes such as NG units forming Battalions out of companies, regiments out of battalions etc and slowly increasing the numbers of modern equipment and some mobilisation practice for the RA in getting to the southern border men the years from 1913 to July 1916 were essentially wasted. Indeed when the National Guard was mobilised in July 1916 to support the Regular Army's punitive expedition into Mexico to hunt for Pancho Villa it did so using the division structure arranged by War Secretary Garrison in 1912, some 2 SecWars previously. Similarly there was no rush to balance the USN with more cruisers and destroyers until mid 1916, despite a number of naval interventions in the Caribbean in preevious years.

This isn't to say that the US was idle, indeed there was considerable political movement surrounding preparedness but the SecWar proposed conscription into a much enlarged RA and creation of an RA reserve able to be called out without the restrictions of the NG. This was politically unacceptable to Congress and the States so an alternative plan was developed by mid 1916 (almost 2 years into WW1, 5 years into the border war and a mere 8 months prior to the US DoW) to double the size of the RA and quadruple the NG over five years and increasing the Federalisation potential. It was this legislation that enabled the 1916 NG mobilisation/federalisation and the Punitive Expedition, it also created several new Regiments including the first 6" howitzer regiment for the RA, expending the RA artillery from 6 to 9 regiments.

I can't help but think that even if there was an inkling that the US might go to war with the British Empire such political resistance to military reform and expansion and its leisurely pace once authorised would be largely repeated.

 

[History Learner]

@Naval Aviation Fan the OP stipulated pre Luisitania, so nlt 7 May 1915. I would also suggest from a cold start, something akin to the Ottomans being burnt by British. I'm not even going to try to posit a scenario, I can't, so I focus on the correlation of forces.

I proposed a set of PoDs upthread:

Strange Times make for Strange Bedfellows - a Central Powers USA TL

For my own spin on it, I'd following everything in the above TL until 1914. Without McAdoo around due to no Wilson, the Anglo-French successfully pull out of the U.S. economy and collapse it in the Fall of 1914. This engenders significant Anti-British sentiment, fanned by Hearst, and results in the Ship Purchase Bill coming to be in early 1915. This, in turn, results in London refusing to stabilize the price of Cotton in response and thus moving the South into the Anti-Entente camp. Something similar to Section 806 of the 1916 Revenue Act is then enacted, and ultimately British transgressions on American shipping lead to the U.S. entering the war.

Basically, with minimal changes up to the start of World War I and thus very similar to our world. One important caveat that could be had here though is that, with a different Democrat in power, you're unlikely to have Secretary of War Garrison. More important, perhaps, is that President Joe Cannon-with his ties to Rep. James Hay from his former time in the House-is much more likely to include Congress in the creation of a defense act. As you outlined formerly:

Between 1911 and 1913 SecWar Henry Stimson reorganised the US Regular Army and National Guard as a mobiliseable force for the defence of CONUS; he created 4 'Departments' for the RA, each with a division, and perhaps most importantly organised that the NG would be formed into 12 divisions upon mobilisation. Congress was happy with this plan as it incorporated the State controlled NG into national defence plans as the reserve for the RA.

From 1913 SecWar Garrison, with the spectre of war in Europe and trouble in Mexico, pursued a plan to increase US preparedness via a doubling of the RA to 230,000, keeping the NG the same and creation of a Federal Reserve of some 500,000 men with basic training and a 3 year reserve commitment. GThis plan wasn't supported by Congress as it marginalised the state controlled NG and was further criticised by those who felt it didn't go far enough. The result was that during Garrisons tenure as SecWar til early 1916 the US Army only developed incrementally and marginally.

The alternative, which due to the support of Congress via Chairman of the House Committee on Military Affairs, Rep. James Hay (D-VA), eventually became law with the 1916 Defence Act, was for the NG to be the reserve for the RA. In June 1916 the RA was authorised to expand to 175,000 and the NG more than double to 440,000, and be the reserve for the RA upon mobilisation.

The upshot of all this is that 3 years were 'wasted' from the perspective of developing a large, powerful US Army, and in 1917 the Germans were't overly concerned about the US entering the war and began USW and the Spring Offensive before the US Army entered the field in large numbers.

So WI Garrison, or someone other than Garrison as SecWar, spent from early 1913 pursuing the concept of the NG as the Army's reserve? Would the RA and NG have expanded much sooner and become much larger and better by 1917? Would the Germans have been deterred from antagonising the US in 1917, and how would that impact on the war?

So you get the OTL Defense Act of 1916 in, say, 1913, and then when the U.S. enters the war in early 1915 they are more than prepared for ground operations at the least.

 

[Riain]

you get the OTL Defense Act of 1916 in, say, 1913, and then when the U.S. enters the war in early 1915 they are more than prepared for ground operations at the least.

I doubt you'd get OTL 1916 Defence Act without OTL series of events, in particular by 1916 it was obvious that drastic measures were needed for both Mexico and Europe. In particular Pancho Villa's raid on columbus New Mexico in March and Jutland in May ended debates about the Defense and Naval bills.

However if Garrison had chosen something like the 1916 DA then the path to expansion could occur from perhaps 1915.

 

[DragonsInAmerica]

How to get the US to join the war on the German side? It's possible that the US gets really, really frustrated when Britain keeps trying to enforce their naval blockades and preventing them from trading with the CP, but I don't know how likely this is. Another possibility is an "imperial" America that is more strongly aligned to war in general and to war with Britain in particular. Possibly wants to take control of some islands like the Falklands on the excuse that it's part of "the Americas."

Just throwing some ideas here.