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

[Naval Aviation Fan]

How to get the US to join the war on the German side?

Good question!

Here is one idea:
Let's say the the USA is totally unwilling to have her trade impacted by yet another European war, and decided to impose a matching materials export and merchant ship inspections for ships trading with Europe, so all ships in North American waters are allowed to carry only things the UK will allow neutrals to carry to the CP/ non-combatant nations, until such time as these restriction are lifted?

Basically, the USA decides that what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander, and that for as long as the UK is violating neutral rights, they loose exactly the same rights to trade in north american waters, until such time as they cease and desist interfering with other nations trade.

Obviously, this is not something that the UK is going to want to have happen, and they surely will not like it, nor be willing to tolerate a reciprocal restriction on her own trade.

From the UK perspective, the US upstarts are just asking for a beat down, while from the US perspective, it is the overbearing UK that is being unreasonable, and they must accept the US counter restrictions, as they are only fair after all, and of course this will simply end with the restrictions on both side being quickly dispensed with, and business will return to normal once the UK is made to see reason.

Of course, the best laid plans...

How does this work for folks?

 

[sarahz]

OTL the US suggested everyone abide by the London Declaration 1909 - the Germans agreed, but the British told them to stick it. If the US chose to take a principled stand to support the rights of neutral powers, then the British 'blockade' is little more than organised piracy.

The US scarcely needs to lift a finger to sink the Entente war effort. Sourcing war materials from anywhere other than North America is going to be more expensive and require shipping the Entente does not have. Early in the war the Entente does not have alternative sources of supply for american machine tools and/or oil.

Hmm and yet the initial american Expeditionary Force in 1917 had to be largely equiped with French Equipment. Its not quite as easy as all that The USA could win a war, probably, but it would take time to get into the swing of things..... The UK could possibly get Japan to help out more too. However it is really hard to see why the USA would do this or how it could remain neutral once Germany went to unrestricted submarine warfare. Without that the Entente wins anyway, unless the UK and US really do fall out over the blockcade and frankly i just dont see how that happens.

 

[ferdi254]

Without USW and Zimmermann the Entente would be game over latest end of 1917 as they would lose 80% of the oil 50% of the copper... long list to follow.

 

[Chris Triangle]

No, the point I’m trying to make is the event was heavily one sided. The NYT published the manifest, no one cared. The outrage was for the dead Americans.



Again, the Germans fired the torpedo. The Americans only became human shields when the ship was attacked.



The Germans killed them by firing the torpedo. If the torpedo hadn’t been fired, they wouldn’t have died.



Yes, there were loans. But “the people” didn’t care about Wall Street’s profit margins. They cared about dead American civilians.



So, some kind of grand conspiracy to swing public opinion? The stevedores who loaded the ship are silenced, the advert the Germans published warning of submarine attacks is ignored and the British will meekly go along with the ruse? Sounds... convuluted.




And the point I’m trying to make is the anti-British sentiment required for all this didn’t exist. Germans had been sinking civilian vessels in the Atlantic for a while. The cargo manifest was published by a newspaper. No one really cared about it all apart from the deaths of Americans. What you’re suggesting is some conspiracy that requires years of anti-British sentiment to gain traction, that needs support at all levels of American society to be even half-believable and requires the British to be stupid. None of which are true or existed.

I agree, it would take a really long chain of events for this kind of thing to happen. I guess if Britain screwed with the Americans in the civil war like in Robert Conroy's book, bungled some disputes in the late 19th century, backed Spain in a Spanish American conflict, was involved in a political scandal of some kind and decided the US wasn't trustworthy enough to support the Monroe doctrine, then maybe... you could have enough years of anglophobia and newspapers exploiting it to get a possible fuse. There are various things that could go wrong between the countries but I'm not going to explore them all. Additionally, there could be disputes with France and Japan to add to the list. Then, Britain still has to pull some stunts. So we've got the following grievances as potential triggers:

The Blockade

Sailing warships under US flags and pulling a Baralong incident or two while doing so. Especially if they break the rules and fail to lower the flags before attacking a U boat or something.

Accidental attacks that kill American ship but looks suspicious anyway. Not sure exactly how that would happen.

Trying to stage a hoax to get the US into the war and getting caught. For example, sending something like the Zimmerman telegram, except it's fake.

Britain would have to really screw up to let things get bad enough for the US to actually join a war against it. In other words, as you said, stupid, and repeatedly so. And Germany has to be very well behaved throughout this AND somehow enjoy such a good reputation in the US that there is sympathy towards it. After all, iotl, Germany was actually fairly antagonistic towards he US before the war and was considered a potential future threat as early as the 1890s.

 

[BooNZ]

Hmm and yet the initial american Expeditionary Force in 1917 had to be largely equiped with French Equipment.

Built with American machine tools and incorporating American materials, imported with the assistance of American maritime assets.

Its not quite as easy as all that The USA could win a war, probably, but it would take time to get into the swing of things.....

The USA does not have to do anything for the CP powers to win the war, but distracting Canada would be well within its powers and a bonus.

The UK could possibly get Japan to help out more too.

To do what exactly?

However it is really hard to see why the USA would do this or how it could remain neutral once Germany went to unrestricted submarine warfare. Without that the Entente wins anyway, unless the UK and US really do fall out over the blockcade and frankly i just dont see how that happens.

Before USW and the US entered the war, the Entente were facing a catastrophic financial crisis, the British a projected a severe manpower shortage, naval fuel crisis, army fuel crisis, a shipping shortage and a tanker crisis - most of those crises had been building since 1914 and were not resolved until after the US entered the war with effectively unlimited assets.

 

[DragonsInAmerica]

This link has been rather helpful and it's a good thing I stumbled across it. It's about German-Americans in the US during WWI and also holds some other pieces of information. According to the article, anti-German sentiment had been brewing for some time (two decades), which means that if America was going to join on the CP side, we would need a PoD way before 1914 (probably before 1900).

How about a different president(s)? Would Italy joining on the side of the CP have affected American sentiment?

 

[Riain]

Would National prohibition have occured if the US fought on Germanys side? How good would American wine, whiskey and beer be now without the decade of prohibition?

 

[M79]

Would National prohibition have occured if the US fought on Germanys side? How good would American wine, whiskey and beer be now without the decade of prohibition?

Interesting thought especially as Canada was such a huge source of quality booze during Prohibition. If it is 'secured' and the US still undergoes its great experiment then there may be a lot less top-end/commercial booze to be had within the country.

 

[sarahz]

Built with American machine tools and incorporating American materials, imported with the assistance of American maritime assets.

The USA does not have to do anything for the CP powers to win the war, but distracting Canada would be well within its powers and a bonus.

To do what exactly?

Before USW and the US entered the war, the Entente were facing a catastrophic financial crisis, the British a projected a severe manpower shortage, naval fuel crisis, army fuel crisis, a shipping shortage and a tanker crisis - most of those crises had been building since 1914 and were not resolved until after the US entered the war with effectively unlimited assets.

The fact is that these factors are somewhat overstated, and in some cases were political decisions which got in the way of rational action, which might change if the situation warrented it. India could have provided significantly more troops. Heck if push came to shove the Chinese volunteer contingents could have been armed (btw the largest aerms manufactuer in WW1 remained France not the USA ) the shipping crisis was in part caused by German actions which also impacted heavily on the USA and secondly the defeat of the entente, or the far more likely scenario of mutual exhaustion, would have impacted negatively on the US economy to a great extent. More to the point there is no reason for the USA to take a hostile stance against the Entente.
As for your question about Japan take your choice, other than taking over a brewery and a few islands plus taking out a small squadron of cruisers the Japanese did not do that much, but could have done considerably more with the resources available if.the British had been fighting in Canada, or to reinforce the Entente if need be, certainly if thousands of chinese volunteers can be moved to the western front a couple of corps of Japanese troops can be and of course if the US is hostile or uninvolved well there is more that can be offered to them to make it worth their while and in the eventual peace Wilson wont treat them with the utter contempt he did OTL, because he wont be at Versailles..

 

[sarahz]

The fact is that these factors are somewhat overstated, and in some cases were political decisions which got in the way of rational action, which might change if the situation warrented it. India could have provided significantly more troops. Heck if push came to shove the Chinese volunteer contingents could have been armed (btw the largest arms manufactuer in WW1 remained France not the USA albeit the US did contribute to this in material etc) the shipping crisis was in part caused by German actions which also impacted heavily on the USA and secondly the defeat of the entente, or the far more likely scenario of mutual exhaustion, would have impacted negatively on the US economy to a great extent. More to the point there is no reason for the USA to take a hostile stance against the Entente.
Finally i think you underestimate how much a command economy can do in wartime despite financial pressure should it need to, and its not as if Germany's finances were stronger than the Ententes and as for Austria-Hungary.. So if the US had refused loans it would not necessarily have been the end for the Entente, but certainly the long term damage to the economy probably could be described as awful if not quite catastrop[hic. On the plus side the US would not have got the benefit economically from the war that it did either..
As for your question about Japan take your choice, other than taking over a brewery and a few islands plus taking out a small squadron of cruisers the Japanese did not do that much, but could have done considerably more with the resources available if.the British had been fighting in Canada, or to reinforce the Entente if need be, certainly if thousands of chinese volunteers can be moved to the western front a couple of corps of Japanese troops can be and of course if the US is hostile or uninvolved well there is more that can be offered to them to make it worth their while and in the eventual peace Wilson wont treat them with the utter contempt he did OTL, because he wont be at Versailles..
Finally if the USA does want to fight the British Empire it cant do so in 1914 without significant changes as the US army in 1914 was tiny, it would need to build up first. .

 

[Riain]

The fact is that these factors are somewhat overstated,

That's an understatement.

In 1914 the British had the worlds largest merchant marine, the largest foreign investment portfolio (double the size of France in 2nd place) and built a huge navy and empire spanning army from its own resources as a trading nation. To suggest that the if the 1914 US raises a disapproving eyebrow Britain will crumple is frankly ludicrous. That's not to say that Britain would win, but she would need to be beaten down hard like OTL German Army had to be beaten down hard.

 

[History Learner]

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.

Garrison was specifically looking at the brewing troubles in Mexico and the Balkan Wars as the basis for his reform plan, so the same tensions largely were already there.

 

[ferdi254]

Riain, in this thread you stated from the beginning that the UK could hold out much longer than history learner or me think. Also you stated that the RN was getting 80% of its oil from Mexico. Turned out you were wrong 75% of the oil did come from the USA. Did this "small" change from what you thought was true to reality in anyhow change your assessment of the ability of the UK to continue the war without US oil (let alone with oil needed to fight the USN or at least keep it at bay)? If yes, then how much and if not, will any other fact that is brought up here change your opinion?

How for example does the UK continue the war without the copper from the west coast of CAN and of course the US copper? How exactly does the conduct of the war change if 30% of the steel is no longer there? BTW artillery shells without copper in 1914?... How does the UK feed its population with only 50% of the food, how does that drill down in available soldiers, output/factoryworker... how do they do without the fertilizers from the west coast of South America... there is a whole lot of questions that need to be answered with hard facts before one can claim the UK would "somehow" continue the war as it did.

If you really think it is ludicrous to assume that the Uk would crumple than please tell us all why it is ludicrous to think that 75% of oil, 30% of steel and 50% of food less would not have the impact HL, me and the "ludicrous" UK government do/did think it would have.

As you wrote yourself, the UK was a trading empire. They needed trade to keep their economy running much more than any other country and without the USA a large part of that trade is gone.

 

[interpoltomo]

Britain starting in the 1890s treats the US like the OTL US since 1991 has treated russia/china/iran -- basically constant diplomatic pressure/harassment in order to preserve the image of the brits being on top of the world, even though the economic reality isn't there.

Come 1914...

 

[Riain]

Also you stated that the RN was getting 80% of its oil from Mexico. Turned out you were wrong 75% of the oil did come from the USA

Are the RN and Britain the same thing? Do a bit of reading around the Tampico oilfields and the Zimmerman telegram and what Germany's aims were in writing it then get back to me. It's very interesting, most people think that the Zimmerman telegram was rank stupidity when it was actually aimed at a British vulnerability.

 

[Riain]

Garrison was specifically looking at the brewing troubles in Mexico and the Balkan Wars as the basis for his reform plan, so the same tensions largely were already there.

True that was the spur to action but it wasn't so dangerous that Congress couldn't afford to gasbag about it for a year or more. When Columbus was raided they got their shit together in 3 months and approved a doubling of the Regular Army and quadrupling of the National Guard as well as some 16 capital ships and 10 cruisers. That said these were still 5 year programs.

 

[Riain]

How for example does the UK continue the war without the copper from the west coast of CAN and of course the US copper? How exactly does the conduct of the war change if 30% of the steel is no longer there? BTW artillery shells without copper in 1914?... How does the UK feed its population with only 50% of the food, how does that drill down in available soldiers, output/factoryworker... how do they do without the fertilizers from the west coast of South America... there is a whole lot of questions that need to be answered with hard facts before one can claim the UK would "somehow" continue the war as it did.

If you really think it is ludicrous to assume that the Uk would crumple than please tell us all why it is ludicrous to think that 75% of oil, 30% of steel and 50% of food less would not have the impact HL, me and the "ludicrous" UK government do/did think it would have.

As you wrote yourself, the UK was a trading empire. They needed trade to keep their economy running much more than any other country and without the USA a large part of that trade is gone.

The British and even French fought a rich mans war, they liquidated billions of foreign investments, borrowed billions and squandered huge amounts on sideshows and failures like Mesopotamia, Dardenelles, Salonika and East Africa. Thos is on top of a 60 division BEF and a Navy double the size of its opponent and wasteful mine barrages in the North sea.

If the US join the CP in 1914 the British will fight a poor mans war like OTL CP did, and likely would still ITTL since US resources aren't going to reach Germany in bulk for several years. The Entente will not do extravagant slideshows, using 50,000 to chase Lettow Vorbeck 3000 is a prime example of this. The British will be forced to economise, to use what they can get and do what they have to do and nothing more.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

The Entente will not do extravagant slideshows, using 50,000 to chase Lettow Vorbeck 3000 is a prime example of this. The British will be forced to economize, to use what they can get and do what they have to do and nothing more.

While I have to agree with this, as this, and all things like this, would be the case with a hostile USA in the war, it would be a shame to eliminate one of the best 'war stories' that came out of WWI.

 

[cjc]

The British and even French fought a rich mans war, they liquidated billions of foreign investments, borrowed billions and squandered huge amounts on sideshows and failures like Mesopotamia, Dardenelles, Salonika and East Africa. Thos is on top of a 60 division BEF and a Navy double the size of its opponent and wasteful mine barrages in the North sea.

If the US join the CP in 1914 the British will fight a poor mans war like OTL CP did, and likely would still ITTL since US resources aren't going to reach Germany in bulk for several years. The Entente will not do extravagant slideshows, using 50,000 to chase Lettow Vorbeck 3000 is a prime example of this. The British will be forced to economise, to use what they can get and do what they have to do and nothing more.

Problem being that I don't think Britain can do a poor mans war, its industry is gust not wired that way, it's far more interconnected to the uk's trade the Germany's is.

 

[Riain]

Problem being that I don't think Britain can do a poor mans war, its industry is gust not wired that way, it's far more interconnected to the uk's trade the Germany's is.

The British had 300 destroyers, over 100 cruisers, 39 pre dreads, and 29 dread BCs and BBs. Britain isn't going to surrender until most of these are sunk, especially since these ships are keeping supply lines open to everywhere except NW Europe and the US seaboards.

I've said over and over, the US in the CP will beat the Entente, my point is that the British will have to be beaten down which will take years not weeks or months.