What if the United States joined Germany in WW1?

[General Omar Bradley]

It is the year 1914. World War 1 has begun after the Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. From 1914 - 1916 everything goes as normal as in our timeline. But when 1917 arrived, America started noticing that the British blockade was starving the German populace. Woodrow Wilson starts enforcing "Freedom of the Seas". This was ignored by the British.

Wilson authorizes USN ships to start escorting supply ships that has supplies for Germany. One of the US ships, USS Fanning (I think), is sunk while escorting ships. Anti British sentiments starts in America. With all this, and the memory of the Lusitania's meat shields, joins Germany in 1917.

 

[nbcman]

It is the year 1914. World War 1 has begun after the Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. From 1914 - 1916 everything goes as normal as in our timeline. But when 1917 arrived, America started noticing that the British blockade was starving the German populace. Woodrow Wilson starts enforcing "Freedom of the Seas". This was ignored by the British.

Wilson authorizes USN ships to start escorting supply ships that has supplies for Germany. One of the US ships, USS Fanning (I think), is sunk while escorting ships. Anti British sentiments starts in America. With all this, and the memory of the Lusitania's meat shields, joins Germany in 1917.

In what non-Entente port would the USN refuel their escorts in 1917? Spain who they humiliated in a war about 20 years before? Iceland? A pre-WW1 DD such as the Paulding-class had a range of 3000 nm while the distance from NYC to Hamburg is about 4200 nm in a direct path. It is not feasible for the USN to escort merchies past France and the UK so the proposed scenario isn’t feasible.

 

[ElMarquis]

USN comes out and gets thrashed due to being useless even by Beatty's standards (Rodman's division was judged as a danger unto the fleet and themselves upon putting into Scapa) and due to having 3 light cruisers to the RN's three figures of ocean-going fleet cruisers with torpedoes and far more artillery than any American light unit.

The USN did the shipbuilding equivalent of building an army with privates and generals and nothing inbetween. Spamming 4-pipers, then armoured cruisers and then battleships. Very little inbetween.

 

[Alanith]

USN comes out and gets thrashed due to being useless even by Beatty's standards (Rodman's division was judged as a danger unto the fleet and themselves upon putting into Scapa) and due to having 3 light cruisers to the RN's three figures of ocean-going fleet cruisers with torpedoes and far more artillery than any American light unit.

The USN did the shipbuilding equivalent of building an army with privates and generals and nothing inbetween. Spamming 4-pipers, then armoured cruisers and then battleships. Very little inbetween.

So what's the HSF doing while the Grand Fleet is off chasing the Americans? Because I very much doubt they'll just sit in port. It'd look incredibly poor for the RN if they end up chasing the USN, don't find them, and meanwhile the German Battlecruisers shell a dozen towns on the coast.

 

[ElMarquis]

So what's the HSF doing while the Grand Fleet is off chasing the Americans? Because I very much doubt they'll just sit in port. It'd look incredibly poor for the RN if they end up chasing the USN, don't find them, and meanwhile the German Battlecruisers shell a dozen towns on the coast.

Politically problematic yes. War changing - not really. Then there's the forewarning aspect of the week-long (15kn cruise, 3000 miles) crossing by the USN. Plenty of time to sling a sub/destroyer tripwire across the North Sea.

Now the USN has crossed the Atlantic, minus destroyers as they are combat ineffective, sunk or left behind due to unseaworthiness. How do they deal with the RN spamming torpedo-equipped cruisers and the USN's gigantic armoured cruisers meeting with RN battlecruisers with 15" artillery.

 

[Alanith]

Politically problematic yes. War changing - not really. Then there's the forewarning aspect of the week-long (15kn cruise, 3000 miles) crossing by the USN. Plenty of time to sling a sub/destroyer tripwire across the North Sea.

Now the USN has crossed the Atlantic, minus destroyers as they are combat ineffective, sunk or left behind due to unseaworthiness. How do they deal with the RN spamming torpedo-equipped cruisers and the USN's gigantic armoured cruisers meeting with RN battlecruisers with 15" artillery.

What's to say the US is crossing the Atlantic in the first place? Maybe they're just blockading Canada while the Army mops them up and a massive building program occurs. Now the RN has to split it's forces to bail out one of its allies while also leaving a big enough force to dissuade the HSF from trying anything, leaving them vulnerable to a defeat in detail.

 

[Byz]

Politically problematic yes. War changing - not really. Then there's the forewarning aspect of the week-long (15kn cruise, 3000 miles) crossing by the USN. Plenty of time to sling a sub/destroyer tripwire across the North Sea.

Now the USN has crossed the Atlantic, minus destroyers as they are combat ineffective, sunk or left behind due to unseaworthiness. How do they deal with the RN spamming torpedo-equipped cruisers and the USN's gigantic armoured cruisers meeting with RN battlecruisers with 15" artillery.

The War changing aspect is not the US winning at sea (you're right, they probably lose, even combined with the German fleet. But then the Americans are able to build another fleet, while the British...). No, the issue is the loss of American capital and resources on the part of the Allies, alongside general disruption of trade and resources from the colonies. Canada is completely lost to the British. They can access the rest of their empire, but it won't be a completely safe route like it more or less was IOTL. I don't think France will last into 1916, and Britain won't be much better off. Germany will at the very least not be any worse than IOTL and probably better off. The Entente is screwed.

Hell, even with the US not acting as a friendly neutral and providing generous loans and trading with the Entente exclusively the Entente is still probably screwed. This just makes the process even worse.

On the flip side there's no real reason for the US to join the Central Powers. Best case scenario for the Central Powers is that the US doesn't actively support the Entente as they did IOTL. They just don't have much to gain going after Britain and France, and a whole lot to lose. OP's scenario is also logistically impossible.

 

[McPherson]

Well; let's see what Skippy has to say?

And unlike WW II US Goat Island government made torpedoes, those are BLISS LEAVITT torpedoes of WW I. They work very well.

P.S. If one does not understand; Skippy is my alien space bat friend who comments on alien space bat matters in a kind, courteous and disinterested way. IOW... ASB all the way.

 

[JSchafer]

CP can offer territory to US but then again you need US that actually wants more territory. Which is ASB. The effects would be drastic however. Canada would fall. There is nothing Britain can do about it. RN will be stretched trying to contain two enemies of such magnitude. US trough pacific and Philippines has relative access to India and ability to raid shipping from there as well as Australia and NZ. Entente also depended a lot on US loans and materials which is now absent for its war effort. US gains Canada, European colonies in America’s get set up as independent countries, gains are made in the pacific.

 

[Alanith]

Japan's not going to be happy when it's forced to hand back any American territories taken in the war along with the German ones. The Alternative is basically "The Pacific War: Battleship Edition"

 

[Alex1guy]

Quite simply wouldn't happen, need an earlier POD than the war itself. US money was supporting the Entente, if things deteriorate quickly, then you are looking at financial severence at worst. This would be devastating, but unless the Entente are being retarded they'd make sure to not annoy the US that much. The British would need to shell New York to make the Americans jump ship to the Central Powers. You might see US entry butterflied in the scenario though.

 

[M79]

*USA subsidizing a lot of Allied war financing by 1916 and as source for much of the Allied material by 1917.

*Spain was very much committed to neutrality such that her pro-German army and mixed sympathy king still stayed out despite little immediately stopping them from joining the winning side at the very last minute (and taking something from one side or the other).

*If the fact that the Lusitania -was- carrying arms for the UK under a civilian flag despite official denial of such the impact on US-UK relations would be...vexing. It might not be enough to stop US trade with the Allies but will probably buy the CP time it can use in 1919 and tighten the noose around the Allies more. (https://www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/did-britain-doom-the-lusitania/)

*Allied morale in April 1917 was at a critical low, perhaps enough to permit wider French mutinies than OTL and perhaps cause the war to end with France talking about the 'stab in the back'

 

[sendô]

Hold on. "America started noticing that the British blockade was starving the German populace.". What is this, oh we've only just realised that enforcing a blockade that stops food imports leads to people having less food?

Anyway, the issue here is that this flies in the face of America's actions in the preceding years of the war, most notably loans. If the US joins Germany, it can wave goodbye to any thought of repayment from the British.

In any case, what benefit could the US get from a victorious German Empire dominant in Europe?

 

[InvaderX]

CP can offer territory to US but then again you need US that actually wants more territory. Which is ASB. The effects would be drastic however. Canada would fall. There is nothing Britain can do about it. RN will be stretched trying to contain two enemies of such magnitude. US trough pacific and Philippines has relative access to India and ability to raid shipping from there as well as Australia and NZ. Entente also depended a lot on US loans and materials which is now absent for its war effort. US gains Canada, European colonies in America’s get set up as independent countries, gains are made in the pacific.

How is an expansionist US ASB? The US has annexed additional territory many times in history by this point. Manifest Destiny was a thing.

 

[sts-200]

My take in response to the OP question is that the Allies still 'win' (if you can call it a victory), but probably in 1919, possibly without any late victories on the western front, and undoubtedly they are utterly exhausted once they do (i.e. Germany starves, it doesn't "lose", and Britain/France are crippled to post 2nd WW levels, not post-Great War).
That leaves the US in a very strong position, but probably hated by everyone in the world. Sounds like the recipe for another war 20 years later...

I can't see a mechanism for making it happen. No matter how strong the pro-German feeling, the US would have to accept that the first weeks of such a war would be very nasty for them. However limited, Canadian forces could play hell along the border, at least disrupting the industrial economies of Chicago, Detroit and Seattle.
That couldn't last long, and with appropriate propaganda might even harden American public sentiment, but if we're assuming the US is still a democratic country that isn't suddenly hellbent on total war, it's a lousy start to a conflict she could have avoided. Even with limited support from Canada, a "fifth column" of pro-British/French activity in the States could be quite effective - more effective than German sabotage efforts were in reality.

 

[sendô]

Those assuming that Canada "wouldn't stand a chance" - at the start of WW1 the US had no army to speak of - ~100,000 men IIRC. Yes, with time they can train more and invade, but the Canadians can of course do the same. Will the US have the will from their public to prosecute that sort of war against their neighbour that they've otherwise been friendly with for a long time, because some people in the war in Europe aren't having a great time of it?

 

[martymcfly]

Apart from being a totally unrealistic scenario, here are some points:

By this late stage in the war it is unlikely the US could win.

It wasn't prepared for war and had a small military, so it would take time before it could build up its strength to threaten the Allies. It might even suffer damaging defeats to the battle hardened Allies.

Its navy was no match for the RN so it would not be able to break the blockade of Germany or provide much material support, and would likely suffer a blockade of its own.

Its financial, economic and business interests were on the Allied side, so the US damages its own economy by going to war against the Allies.

Even if it somehow won WWI as a Central Power, it loses in the long term - it was in the US economic and geopolitical interests to support the Allies. This is why it supported the Allies in two World Wars and Western Europe in the Cold War. Like Britain's long standing foreign policy, a Europe united under Germany (or any one power) will shut the US out of its markets and become a rival superpower in itself. So the US doesn't rise to prominence in the 20th century as it does IOTL because it stupidly went to war contrary to its own interests.

 

[Scott Washburn]

The scenario is not totally off the wall. When the US passed the Naval Act of 1916 which called for the US to build a fleet 'second to none' it was a move that was aimed at the British every bit as much as it was the Germans. The US was getting annoyed at both sides over their maritime policies. If the British had done something really stupid it's not impossible the US might have gone to war with them. And with the US hostile, there's no way the French and British can win. Assuming Russia still folds in 1917 then the German 1918 offensive in the west is going to be almost impossible to stop without US troops there.

 

[McPherson]

Apart from being a totally unrealistic scenario, here are some points:

By this late stage in the war it is unlikely the US could win.

It wasn't prepared for war and had a small military, so it would take time before it could build up its strength to threaten the Allies. It might even suffer damaging defeats to the battle hardened Allies.

Its navy was no match for the RN so it would not be able to break the blockade of Germany or provide much material support, and would likely suffer a blockade of its own.

Its financial, economic and business interests were on the Allied side, so the US damages its own economy by going to war against the Allies.

Even if it somehow won WWI as a Central Power, it loses in the long term - it was in the US economic and geopolitical interests to support the Allies. This is why it supported the Allies in two World Wars and Western Europe in the Cold War. Like Britain's long standing foreign policy, a Europe united under Germany (or any one power) will shut the US out of its markets and become a rival superpower in itself. So the US doesn't rise to prominence in the 20th century as it does IOTL because it stupidly went to war contrary to its own interests.

Naval geography lesson.

O-class submarine

Displacement:-521 long tons (529 t) surfaced; 629 long tons (639 t) submerged
Length: 172 ft 3 in (52.5 m)
Beam: 18 ft 1 in (5.5 m)
Draft: 14 ft 5 in (4.4 m)
Installed power: 880 bhp (660 kW) (diesel); 740 hp (550 kW) (electric)

Propulsion: 2 × diesel engines. 2 × electric motors
Speed: 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph) surfaced, 10.5 knots (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph) submerged
Range: 5,500 nmi (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) at 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h; 13.2 mph) on the surface
Test depth: 200 feet (61.0 m)
Complement: 2 officers, 27 men
Armament:4 × 18 inch (450 mm) torpedo tubes
1 × 3"/50 caliber deck gun

She doesn't look like much, but she could refuel at sea, and she was underwater FAST.

What's worse is that while the O-1 took 16 months from keel to wet, this was a design that could be cranked out on assembly lines like 4 stackers in about 6 months.

The S-class were true Atlantic boats but you go with what you have in 1916.

Still saying this is strictly ASB for political and economic reasons, but militarily as a what-if, the Entente would be cutting their throats if they made an enemy of the 1914-1918 United States.

1. Wilson; a butter knife of a president, was not too stable emotionally.
2. Geography and fleet sortie radii favor the USN massively.
3. Standards are no joke. The RN has 8 BBs that can withstand them. America's weakness is cruisers and escorts.
4. The SLOCs which are difficult to impossible for Germany to attack are easy for the USN to shut down. There's not a thing the RN can do about it.
5. Britain's option is to use Japan as a distraction. But why should Tokyo not cut a deal over China? Alliance of convenience. Means trouble for the US later, but that's coming anyway.

Add this:
1. 1/4 of the Entente's finished ammunition, weaponry and supplies were US made.
2. The Entente was dependent on S. America for oil, beef and nitrates. The US allowed that trade. Yes, I wrote allowed.
3. The US will suffer default on European bank loans anyway (Part of the 1929 Crash) and Wilson is just the kind of maniac who would say "Fudge it, let's go to war." when the Entente threatens default.

About Canada...

It would be nasty. Canada could recall her soldiers serving in France. Assuming they aren't killed crossing the Atlantic, that means the Entente loses ~500,000 excellent troops. The Entente cannot afford that kind of hit. If those Canadians stay in France, then where is this "mythical force" going to appear that will give the US northern border so much trouble? Again it would be NASTY. Halifax becomes the principle American target with Winnipeg next. Grab the nose and stab the belly, the cow dies. Takes a year using WW I methods. Casualties enormous, at least a half million dead for both sides. Insane.

Result? Canada is gone.

How is that submarine campaign going? Depends. How soon will Britain be BANKRUPT? The US doesn't have that financial problem. She's a self contained economy.

These things (see map) were well known in London and Paris. Those guys were not insane (Well crazy for allowing this war and ruining Europe.) but at least they knew enough geography and had advisors who could show them what happens if they go completely bat-guano whacko.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Taking the above away, if the US doesn't support the Entente (much less actively oppose), and Germany defeats Russia as it does historically, does it then turn and win the war or force a settlement?
Looking at the above, we should remember, there was strong support for Germany until the Lusitania / Zimmerman note etc. There was a very large portion fo the US population that were 1st - 3rd gen German. Unlike Germany, the US had had two wars with the UK at that point and were international commerce rivals.