WI: Britain stays out in 14 but the US Joins in?

[Vylon Disigma]

I think we have seen discussion of both; Britain stays out, and the US declares war in 14, but I don't think I've seen them occur simultaneously.

I'm not sure how the mechanics of this happening work out, though it's not very difficult to engineer either of the 2 aspects of this scenario.

My first thoughts are that; Britain has a non-0 chance of staying out even without a significant POD and that if you were to just run history.exe again from the 1st of August(1914) start date it's not too tough to imagine Britain staying out.
UK would likely be a very pro-Entente neutral and if so there will be no shortage English language literature demonising Germany for American consumption.
Furthermore France is no pushover and it is totally possible for France to hold out long enough for an excuse to be found good enough to bring the Americans in, so long as the administration in D.C. has a disposition suited for the intervention.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Put simply the US in 1914 is unable to fight Germany. It has no army to speak of and the US Navy is no match for the High Seas Fleet. The US has the potential to be a great power but is at that time only a regional power able to defend American shores and bully Latin America but not project power into the wider world.

 

[GTStinger]

Probably pre 1900 POD.
Have to get US involved in African or Pacific colonies that border German ones.

Or get Mexico to join the Central Powers in 1914.....

 

[Dave Shoup]

I think we have seen discussion of both; Britain stays out, and the US declares war in 14, but I don't think I've seen them occur simultaneously. I'm not sure how the mechanics of this happening work out, though it's not very difficult to engineer either of the 2 aspects of this scenario. My first thoughts are that; Britain has a non-0 chance of staying out even without a significant POD and that if you were to just run history.exe again from the 1st of August(1914) start date it's not too tough to imagine Britain staying out. UK would likely be a very pro-Entente neutral and if so there will be no shortage English language literature demonising Germany for American consumption. Furthermore France is no pushover and it is totally possible for France to hold out long enough for an excuse to be found good enough to bring the Americans in, so long as the administration in D.C. has a disposition suited for the intervention.

The UK entering (or not) entering the war is one thing; for the US to enter the conflict in 1914 requires a massive point of departure. The US was not interested in European power politics, for obvious reasons.

 

[FBKampfer]

CP victory, unless Germany gets its hands superglued to the idiot ball.

Sans the BEF, Paris likely falls, Belgium is completely gone, and Italy may vary well join in even if France doesn't immediately throw in the towel.


Without the UK's blockade, the German economy has no problem going, which even if France somehow stays in the fight, means Germany won't have nearly the same problems as OTL.

Possibly butterflies away the tank's introduction in the war.

 

[BigBlueBox]

This scenario is pretty much impossible without a PoD before 1900. The entire reason why USA joined because Germany was disrupting trade between the UK and USA. Without that, there is no reason for USA to join.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I think you'd need a POD of at least 1898 with German intervention (and eventual victory) in the Spanish-American War. And in order to keep Britain neutral you probably need to avoid the invasion of Belgium.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Hmm.. so is it generally the the opinion that a Theodore Roosevelt presidency in 1912 is either virtually impossible (Taft car accident?), or unlikely to significantly increase the the likelihood of a US entry I to the war (at least if Britain is neutral)? It my understanding that TR had was extremely pro entente and criticised Wilson harshly for his policy of neutrality. It seems to me that he would seek out opportunities to join the war and that if an incident such as the German sinking of American ships in the process of transporting aid to France he would leap into the war. A WW1 equivalent of the Paynay incident does not seem utterly impossible, especially given that the Germans are likely not very worried by the prospect of the US joining the war, the republic having an ocean and a High Seas Fleet between itself and it's ally. It does not seem impossible that war could be caused by incidents, relating to US navy ships assisting in the flagrant ignoring of a German blockade by vessels delivering military aid to France. This could all occur within 1914 or a few months of its ending. I believe public support for the war could likely be induced.

 

[TheMathGuy]

No Britain in WW1 means no USA in WW1 without a POD in the 19th century.

Using the "no other POD other than Britain deciding not to join the Entente", then no BEF means there is almost no chance for Entente victory at Marne. At this point, Italy probably decides to honor the Triple Alliance rather than join the Entente. Central Powers/Tripple Alliance victory before Christmas 1914, and the peace treaty with France likely includes some reparations for Germany and Nice for Italy.

No British blockade starving Germany for resources means Germany doesn't engage in USW, and thus no incidents along the lines of the Lusitania. No desperation in Germany also means no Zimmerman telegraph. The rapid victory of the Central Powers over France also means there is neither enough time for an incident to occur nor for the US to intervene prior to the capitulation of France. OTL, Congress declared war on 6 April 1917, but US troops didn't start arriving in France in large quantities until 1918, and that was after the US had already spent 2-3 years preparing for war. There is simply no way the AEF could arrive prior to the fall of France, even in the incredibly unlikely event that it enters on the side of France in late July 1914. With France out of the war, the US would never attempt to intervene on behalf of the Tsar.

 

[The Gunslinger]

No Britain in WW1 means no USA in WW1 without a POD in the 19th century.

Using the "no other POD other than Britain deciding not to join the Entente", then no BEF means there is almost no chance for Entente victory at Marne. At this point, Italy probably decides to honor the Triple Alliance rather than join the Entente. Central Powers/Tripple Alliance victory before Christmas 1914, and the peace treaty with France likely includes some reparations for Germany and Nice for Italy.

No British blockade starving Germany for resources means Germany doesn't engage in USW, and thus no incidents along the lines of the Lusitania. No desperation in Germany also means no Zimmerman telegraph. The rapid victory of the Central Powers over France also means there is neither enough time for an incident to occur nor for the US to intervene prior to the capitulation of France. OTL, Congress declared war on 6 April 1917, but US troops didn't start arriving in France in large quantities until 1918, and that was after the US had already spent 2-3 years preparing for war. There is simply no way the AEF could arrive prior to the fall of France, even in the incredibly unlikely event that it enters on the side of France in late July 1914. With France out of the war, the US would never attempt to intervene on behalf of the Tsar.

The only way Britain stays out is if Belgium isn't invaded, which means that France doesn't likely fall before the AEF arrives. While arming an army was difficult, it requires an earlier POD and America would probably be about as ready as Britain with a decade or more to prepare.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The only way Britain stays out is if Belgium isn't invaded, which means that France doesn't likely fall before the AEF arrives.

After nearly three year to build up the US entered the war in April 1917. It still took until September 1918 for the US Army to be able to launch more than local offensive operations on the Western Front, weeks after the British broke the back of the German Army at Amiens. The tiny US Army of 1914 can do nothing for France.

 

[The Gunslinger]

After nearly three year to build up the US entered the war in April 1917. It still took until September 1918 for the US Army to be able to launch more than local offensive operations on the Western Front, weeks after the British broke the back of the German Army at Amiens. The tiny US Army of 1914 can do nothing for France.

You're viewing it without a prior POD that would have engineered a series of events that would have gotten America into the war.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Short of Germany intervening in the Spanish American war in support of Spain (and why would they) I can't think of anything that could shake the US out of its isolationist viewpoint causing them to build up their military enough to be able to fight Germany in 1914.

 

[Historian299]

Why would the US join the Franco-Prussian War?
Why would the US join the Crimean War?
Why would the US join the Russo-Japanese War?

Joining World War I in 1914 would have been equal to joining the wars mentioned above. The average American would scrath his head and wonder why

 

[marathag]

After nearly three year to build up the US entered the war in April 1917.

But the USA really wasn't trying that hard to build up the US Army during those years. If they had, US Artillery wouldn't have been duplicates of what was being built for the British and French armies, no 105mm, no 155mm, no 4.5"

As it was, field artillery had been only a separate branch from the Coast Artillery since 1907, and almost no money was spent until 1916 to get modern guns.
The most common gun before then was the 3" M1902, an improved version of the 3.2" gun, with 663 example made over a few years, and it wasn't as good as the French 75mm M1897, with a 15 pound shell@1700fps, from a smaller fixed 76.2x273R cartridge.

The 3.2" dated back to the 1880s, and originally wasn't a QF design, and used BP, not smokeless powder Around 272 of the slightly improved 1890s guns that saw some service in Cuba and PI and Boxer Rebellion. It really was what European had been doing in the 1870s, no recoil system, with bagged charges, with the M1897 modified to use smokeless powder.

For Medium there were around 60 of the 4.7" M1906 guns, with a 60 pound shell at 1700fps
Heavy, there were 42 6" M1908, with a 120 pound shell@900fps

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

All of which proves the US entering the war in 1914 would have had no effect on the fight in France. They could not have been ready to fight until at least 18 months after France lost the fight for Paris and probably the war.

 

[Dave Shoup]

All of which proves the US entering the war in 1914 would have had no effect on the fight in France. They could not have been ready to fight until at least 18 months after France lost the fight for Paris and probably the war.

The US historically did not enter the war in 1914 for the obvious reasons there was no causus belli with Germany, no alliance with France, and very little perception of Germany as a threat in the Western Hemisphere. Having said that, the US Army and US Navy of 1914, however, would have been more than adequate to defeat any conceivable German expeditionary force capable of being sent to the Western Hemisphere in the strategic situation the world was in at that point - as it was, frankly, to defeat the German expeditionary forces sent to the United States in 1941-42 ... all 10 of them (individuals, that is...)

If there was a German threat to the western hemisphere in 1914, and a Franco-American alliance that came about any earlier than the day the war broke out, the US forces would have included plans for an expeditionary force, as the US forces did in 1941-42.

The point being, statecraft and military planning and procurement don't happen in a vacuum, and something much more than a handwave that "nothing else changes" is necessary, otherwise the originator is taking real world (i.e., historical) readiness levels, created and sustained because of a realistic (historical) threat (perceived or otherwise), and wrenching them into a vastly different strategic environment for S&G. That is about as "alternative" as one can get, but it is hardly "historical."

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The point being, statecraft and military planning and procurement don't happen in a vacuum, and something much more than a handwave that "nothing else changes" is necessary, otherwise the originator is taking real world (i.e., historical) readiness levels, created and sustained because of a realistic (historical) threat (perceived or otherwise), and wrenching them into a vastly different strategic environment for S&G. That is about as "alternative" as one can get, but it is hardly "historical."

I suppose one way to get the US to declare war on Germany in 1914 without massively changing history before hand would be for Von Spey to go insane and assume that any merchant ship he encounters is either British or French no matter what flag they are flying and sink them on sight. Almost ASB I know but not completely impossible. Slightly more plausible would be him misidentifying a US warship at night and opening fire on it. What's one more cock up in the whole series of cock ups that led to the disaster of the Great War? Almost no one wanted the war (and none what it became) but no one had the guts to just walk away.

 

[Dave Shoup]

I suppose one way to get the US to declare war on Germany in 1914 without massively changing history before hand would be for Von Spey to go insane and assume that any merchant ship he encounters is either British or French no matter what flag they are flying and sink them on sight. Almost ASB I know but not completely impossible. Slightly more plausible would be him misidentifying a US warship at night and opening fire on it.

I'd expect his chief of staff and flag captain would confine him to quarters and invite von Muller or whoever the senior captain was to take command of the squadron.

Having said that, Von Spee was on Diederichs' staff in 1898-99, and so presumably was well aware of the strength of the USN - which was, after all, the third most powerful in the world in 1914, and quite capable of defeating any German force that could be deployed in any sea area of interest to the United States.

In many ways, a US that enters the Great War in 1914 is going to be in a similar strategic situation as Japan; responsible for destroying the enemy in a given theater (or theaters, in the case of the US), and once that was accomplished, begin planning for and then executing a deployment into the European theater, naval, military, or both, in 1915. That deployment would probably initially resemble what occurred in 1917, with divisional and then corps-sized contingents deploying under British or French army-level commands, initially, and then building up to a field army, An obvious example is the 27th Division, which - historically - was mobilized in July, 1917, and began landing in France in May, 1918, roughly 10 months after mobilization. Leading elements of the 27th were in action in late July, and the division as a whole was fighting on the St. Quentin Canal by September, all of 15 months after mobilization ... and its is worth noting, alongside the 30th Division (federalized in October, 1917, so almost exactly 12 months after mobilization), and under the US II Corps headquarters, organized as such in February, 1918, and under the leadership of MG George W. Read, who was awarded a CB for it.

The US 1st Division was organized from existing units in June, 1917, left for Europe in July, was reorganized under the 27,000-strong "square" organization and was training as such as a division in France in August, and was in action in October, 1917. The US I Corps headquarters was organized in January, 1918, under Hunter Liggett, began offensive operations in July; by September, the US 1st Army, under John J. Pershing (and such minor figures as Fox Conner and George C. Marshall on the staff), with three corps headquarters and 14 US divisions, was fighting the St. Mihiel offensive, all of 17 months after the declaration of war at trans-Atlantic ranges. That's well within historical standards.

 

[TheMathGuy]

The only way Britain stays out is if Belgium isn't invaded

I was merely responding to the OP's assertion regarding Britain, which was:

Britain has a non-0 chance of staying out even without a significant POD and that if you were to just run history.exe again from the 1st of August(1914) start date it's not too tough to imagine Britain staying out.

No significant POD means assume everything else happens, but the Liberal Party/British public simply doesn't panic over the violation of Belgian neutrality. While I'm accepting that as the assumption for all further discussion, I do not believe it is a correct assumption. That is to say that without at least one significant POD, I'd view the likelihood of the UK entering the war in 1914 as effectively 100%.

That said, getting the US to join in 1914 while Britain is neutral would certainly require a major POD somewhere in the 19th century. It is difficult to work through what the US capabilities would be without establishing that POD (which would properly fall into the scope of Before 1900), and also what ramifications that would have for CP strategy. A POD that changes the American strategic doctrine so significantly also has a strong possibility of butterflying the war, and that's all the more likely if the US has an army the more deployment ready than OTL.