WI: Entente CSA

It's 1914, and CSA is allied with it's old ally: Great Britain, along with Russia, France and Italy aganist Germany, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary. US has friendly relationship with Germany(but they are not military allies), and very bad relations with GB and CSA.
Would US stay neutral until the end of the conflict? ATL US has 73-75.000.000 population, 70-80% of GDP of OTL USA, and Army which consists of 350.000-450.000 military personnel. +/- Same Navy.
US president(Whatever, let's say TR or somebody else from GOP) has 2 options
1) Sit out the war. I.e, gains nothing but losing nothing
2) Make certain moves, although US possibly won't sustain 2-front war for a long.
 
The US eventually entered the war (OTL) due to German interference with shipping (unrestricted submarine warfare). If England got too obnoxious about enforcing its blockade of Germany, the North might go to war. In OTL, the US Naval Act of 1916 was intended to build a fleet so powerful that neither Germany OR Britain would dare mess with them.
 
If the war goes badly for the Entente, then the U.S. might jump in. I suspect that it will incrementally increasing its military during this time. What borders/states does the CSA have in this ATL?
 
Why the only moral course of action, naturally:

Teddy will enter the war in 1915, and smash to the feudal slavocrats and their running dog lackeys!
 
With a POD in the 1860's, the world would be unrecognizable, if there was a WW1, which isn't set in stone, it would be very different from OTL.
 
If the war goes badly for the Entente, then the U.S. might jump in. I suspect that it will incrementally increasing its military during this time. What borders/states does the CSA have in this ATL?
It has Kentucky and Oklahoma territory. Western Virginia still seceded and joined to Union.
 
If CSA manage to win war and remain unified and independent nation few decades world would be quiet different. There wouldn't be OTL WW1.
 
It's 1914, and CSA is allied with it's old ally: Great Britain, along with Russia, France and Italy aganist Germany, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary. US has friendly relationship with Germany(but they are not military allies), and very bad relations with GB and CSA.

What does the Confederacy stand to gain from this? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose (should the US jump in against them). They have every reason to believe the US might at any time commit to their hatred of them and the British and friendship with Germany to attack them. The CSA seems most realistically a pro-Entente neutral. The only reason they'd join is if they had some serious economic reasons to.

Would US stay neutral until the end of the conflict? ATL US has 73-75.000.000 population, 70-80% of GDP of OTL USA, and Army which consists of 350.000-450.000 military personnel. +/- Same Navy.

US Navy would not be the same, since with the army taking up more military spending they'd probably have more smaller ships (and a few less battleships). Actually even less battleships, since they'd know their inability to compete with the Royal Navy in all areas and would focus on Canada, which means a sizable Great Lakes fleet as well as fleets of river monitors (and other riverboats) on the Ohio and Mississippi intended to help support the invasion of the CSA. The US would almost certainly have superiority on the Lakes and rivers. Army seems reasonable, it would probably be intended to hold against both the CSA and Canadians at once.

2) Make certain moves, although US possibly won't sustain 2-front war for a long.

How can't the US sustain a two-front war at that point when they clearly have an army far more trained and skilled than 1914 that has been planning for that exact scenario? It isn't like the British are going to be very helpful since they now need to spread their navy even thinner AND have been cut off from a key source of oil and food (which Germany and friends just gained). CSA oil is on a limited lifespan since its target number one, assuming the US Navy and U-Boats don't do a number on it themselves (and the CS Navy is also on a limited lifespan). And Canada is a sideshow since if this isn't 1914, then tens of thousands of Canadians and their equipment are stuck on the other side of the Atlantic. Defending Canada spreads equipment, men, and supplies even thinner.

IMHO, US would stay neutral, especially with risking so much over conflict on other side of the globe.

What does the US risk other than the severe economic costs of the war and its aftermath? There's seemingly a lot to gain if the US wins after all.
 
With a POD in the 1860's, the world would be unrecognizable, if there was a WW1, which isn't set in stone, it would be very different from OTL.

Indeed, just having the anti slave Brits Allied with slave retaining Confederacy is a major PoD. Then there is the probable loss of investment in the US by the London banks. That is a huge game changer in the 19th Century. The butterflies are endless here.
 
Indeed, just having the anti slave Brits Allied with slave retaining Confederacy is a major PoD. Then there is the probable loss of investment in the US by the London banks. That is a huge game changer in the 19th Century. The butterflies are endless here.
Confederacy abolished slavery in 1881.
 

Philip

Donor
Confederacy abolished slavery in 1881.

Less than 20 years after the war? There is no way the CSA could amend their constitution that soon. Way too many veterans still around. Way too many people asking, 'What did my son/husband/father/brother die for?' Way too much capital tied up in slaves.
 
Less than 20 years after the war? There is no way the CSA could amend their constitution that soon. Way too many veterans still around. Way too many people asking, 'What did my son/husband/father/brother die for?' Way too much capital tied up in slaves.
TL-191?
 
It's 1914, and CSA is allied with it's old ally: Great Britain, along with Russia, France and Italy aganist Germany, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary. US has friendly relationship with Germany(but they are not military allies), and very bad relations with GB and CSA.
Would US stay neutral until the end of the conflict? ATL US has 73-75.000.000 population, 70-80% of GDP of OTL USA, and Army which consists of 350.000-450.000 military personnel. +/- Same Navy.
US president(Whatever, let's say TR or somebody else from GOP) has 2 options
1) Sit out the war. I.e, gains nothing but losing nothing
2) Make certain moves, although US possibly won't sustain 2-front war for a long.

The USA crushes the CSA like a bug?
 
My point was that Britain was never going to ally itself with a slave preserving Confederacy in the 1860s. That was a opium dream of Confederates who somehow managed to ignore the strong anti slavery faction in Britain and Parlement. A hope that their "English Bretheren" would ensure the Secession succeeded. Even with slavery ended a couple decades later - 1881 or whatever, Britains only deep tie to the southern states is cotton for the Manchester mills. Investment in Northern industry and raw materials extraction was vastly greater than the Cotton Trade by itself. During most of the `19th Century London was the #1 source of capitol for US industrial investment & the US was not far behind India as Britains most lucrative investment venue. That's a strong incentive against 'saving the Confederacy, and why several deep PoD are needed to tie Britains policies to the Confederacy, in 1881, 1861, or any other time.
 
Top