Please. the US had the capacity to build an army of well over a million if need be. It did so during the ACW. If the US builds up first (As you suggested) then the US Army is obviously much larger than 98,000 men. If the British start the US can build an army faster than the British can ship it over with all its supplies and launch an attack. There were no Star Trek teleporters and the US wasn't Bolivia and a 1915 army burns a lot of ordinance. Long before GB can send and ship tens of thousands of men and supplies the US has raised and trained a larger army .
WW1 WI: Neutral Britain vs USA
- Thread starter LucaTheDevilCat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- war plan red ww1
Please. the US had the capacity to build an army of well over a million if need be. It did so during the ACW. If the US builds up first (As you suggested) then the US Army is obviously much larger than 98,000 men. If the British start the US can build an army faster than the British can ship it over with all its supplies and launch an attack. There were no Star Trek teleporters and the US wasn't Bolivia and a 1915 army burns a lot of ordinance. Long before GB can send and ship tens of thousands of men and supplies the US has raised and trained a larger army .
here's the problem dude with your million man army the United States and Britain somehow get dragged into a war with each other in 1914 there is no mention of build up until this so the numbers I gave you are pretty much what they have at the start of the war
now you only have so many people willing to volunteer the rest are going to be drafted and what are they fighting for exactly it's not a defensive War you're invading Canada which is going to be well defended you do need to train your soldiers this isn't the Soviet Union you can't throw American lives away an expect the American people to support it. the United States economy has gone to crap because of the war how are you paying these soldiers can you supply them? how would the United States respond to a naval Invasion on the west coast or south when most of their army is in the North how does the United States deal with major strikes in cities because there are going to be a lot of people unemployed because United States Navy cannot fight the British Navy in the open sea so they can't keep trade routes open with foreign Nations.
the British have a massive Empire and the Navy that can protect it and is able to maintain trade with other nations keeping its economy going. you almost get a half a million soldiers that joined the British in ww1 from Australia and New Zealand 1.3 million from India Britain was able to supply and maintain an army of over 5 million in World War 1 this is just from the British Isles there was over 600,000 Canadians that served in World War 1 your million man army is looking kind of small if the British take this as seriously as they did ww1 the fight between Columbia and Britannia is not going to be pretty and my money's on Britannia being able to force the United States to the negotiation table.
also Anglo-Japanese Alliance Japanese looking at the Philippines
Last edited:
The USN deployment under Adm. Rodman was regarded in 1917 by the RN as a danger unto themselves. The USN also totally lacked any light cruisers or even a design for same. The 4-piper destroyers prove utterly unseaworthy when they Muricaspammed them later in the war.
The RN would have its problems, but a catastrophically top-heavy fleet was not one of them. The RN has torpedo-equipped cruisers, ocean-going destroyers and a fleet of battlecruisers designed for smashing up the armoured cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts that the USN relied on so heavily as the secondary battle line.
There is the matter, also, of the substantial IJN fleet mustering two semi-dreadnoughts, two dreadnoughts, four heavy superdreadnoughts, four superdreadnought battlecruisers, plus armoured cruisers to which the USN has no answer.
The RN would have its problems, but a catastrophically top-heavy fleet was not one of them. The RN has torpedo-equipped cruisers, ocean-going destroyers and a fleet of battlecruisers designed for smashing up the armoured cruisers and pre-dreadnoughts that the USN relied on so heavily as the secondary battle line.
There is the matter, also, of the substantial IJN fleet mustering two semi-dreadnoughts, two dreadnoughts, four heavy superdreadnoughts, four superdreadnought battlecruisers, plus armoured cruisers to which the USN has no answer.
The problem is you said in the first one the US starts atacks, if that is the case it will build up. If GB attacks it is going to take MONTHS to ship men and supplies and to build up a logistical system capable of supplying tens of thousands of troops. Canada didn't have the rails, the warehouses, the trains, the horse etc. to supply of the needs of tens, not talking hundreds, of thousands of additional soldiers at moments notice.
The US WILL notice if the Brits build up and it will have a much larger army within months. The US DOES have the spare capacity to supply hundreds of thousands of troops quickly. It has a population ten times that of Canada, is a more industrialized country and the best rail net in the world. If they won't be the best trained troops in the world at the beginning there will be a lot of them. You can train a soldier to hold a position in about 6 weeks or so. With a few months it will have a big army. In WW1 the US trained 2,000,000 inside a year. That is only 3 years after this TL kicks off. Having hundreds of thousands if not a couple million inside a year is far from unreasonable. It is, in fact, damn conservative.
Also for this even to be a slight possibility for this to happen outside of an ASB scenario British-American relations would have had been deteriorating for months if not years. The US and UK were each others biggest trading partners and neither is the type of culture that throws away huge hunks of cash on a whim. The US is going to base its military on a possible British invasion if there is a realistic possibility for it.
Last edited:
tell me how is the United States making any money when its contact to the rest of the world has been cut how is the US government paying for this Army without any trade Revenue increasing the income tax which was just pushed through as a amendment to the Constitution a year ago all that would do is put more people in the unemployment line which is already rather large since the United States can't trade with other nations due to British and Japanese blockade
The US was and is a big, rich country that has made a habit of building large armies quickly if threatened. The people in the unemployment line have just been drafted into the army and put into factories to produce weapons and other war material. There is no evidence whatsoever that US citizens aren't willing to make sacrifices to protect their country including higher taxes.
Well, then I would be interested how you would led things unfold uto let the Great War happen without all the events you kindly listed up or similar which lead to Churchills decision to seize the turkish battleships.
In such a scenario according to your statement Churchill would to have to be convinced, that there isn't any danger of a german-britsh conflict.
And the majority of those soldiers will be sitting overseas in the UK or some other Dominion/colony which isn't Canada.
Why? There's nothing in most of Canada. Once you cut the Canadian Pacific Railroad then Canada is cut in two and the Prairies can be taken at will. There is no corresponding weak point in the US besides the entire Mississippi River in which case good luck. That means you have a front on the West Coast (Vancouver), the Prairies (Winnipeg), the Great Lakes (Ontario), and Northeast (Quebec/Maritimes) which isn't quite the biggest front in the world. And it really helps the US defense that there's lakes and rivers in the way (St. Lawrence River, St. John River, Rainy River, and Columbia River) the entire time except in the Prairies (the Missouri can easily be held though) where the Red River flows north and supports an attack against Winnipeg. The US rail network can support anything here far better than the Canadian one, and the CPR will be overwhelmed trying to settle troops between the east and west. I'd expect a huge buildup in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota to both take Winnipeg and for the more immediate concern keep the British away from the copper and iron mines in Minnesota/Wisconsin/Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Which I'd expect to go well since the US will have superiority on Lake Superior and the terrain is nothing but swamps, forests, and mountains.
Ontario is not too big of a challenge when the Great Lakes will be an American lake for the duration of the war. US shipbuilding in that area stomps Canadian shipbuilding and the US has more and bigger ships on the lakes to begin with. That simplifies logistics and opens up opportunities to outflank any defense of Ontario, although one that's likely to easily result in disaster if poorly planned. American ships will be able to bombard Canadian positions and cities at will.
Same goes with the St. Lawrence River or invading Quebec since the US will have superiority on that river as soon as possible. Lake Champlain is linked to New York City by canal so small warships and supplies can be moved by boat to the Canadian border. The reverse is not true because the US can blow the Champlain Canal to prevent the British from getting through to the Hudson River. To a mch lesser extent, the Columbia and Kootenay can support (not by much since ships had to be small thanks to the rapids in that section but anything helps) an American attack into British Columbia and deny yet more resources to the British isolated here, and once New Westminster falls, the Fraser River opens up the rest of BC.
You'd have plenty of people volunteer because the US has a huge population, including many people of Irish descent who would be very glad to stick it to Britain. What are they fighting for? Well, the British just invaded them. Obviously this would be a defensive war (or easily portrayed as a defensive war in the US) since the US isn't going to jump into a war against Britain without a huge buildup of troops, fortifications, and warships.
The US isn't taking an offensive stance against the British, the goal is to buy as much time as possible and keep the British fighting in the middle of nowhere in Upstate New York and the mountains and forests of northern New England to keep them away from anything useful. Any invasion on the coast will take months to prepare, which means a decent enough militia can be equipped and more coastal guns installed in addition to what's already there. That said, there's nowhere on the West Coast to attack except San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, because the majority of the coast is rocky with almost no transportation inland. The exception is the Columbia River (leading inland to Portland) which has a large sandbar outside of it that's well-known to wreck ships and the Puget Sound (leading to Seattle) which has plenty of islands and narrow passageways that would make torpedo boats rather useful.
If they take it seriously they go bankrupt because they do not have the capability to fund and equip such a large force without US finance and resources. They will lose Canada period, and the Caribbean won't last much longer after Canada falls and the US is on a war footing that makes 1941-1945 look like a joke. Because you can't invade the US and expect the US to not go on a huge war footing. A million men is just the first year, the US could and will easily have a good 5 - 6 million if needed.
Which has a significant defense force which has spent many years in combat pacifying rebels. Not an easy fight (but definitely a winnable one) and a great distraction. Same with Hawaii, it already has a garrison and it will take a while to prepare an invasion for, meanwhile, Hawaii can equip a sizable force since the British won't be able to lock down the entire Pacific due to lack of bases.
I highly doubt its possible to blockade the entirety of both coasts to any degree of success for more than the initial year or so. Once more American warships come online that will start coming apart and eventually start grinding down the Royal Navy and IJN. Much of the Caribbean, Central America, and of course Mexico will more or less remain open to US trade. Plus the US is a major financial center so the government shouldn't find it hard to borrow money to pay for all this.
let's agree to disagree
any nation that puts military ships in the Great Lakes is going to be very disappointed put some heavy artillery on the near the shoreline hell you can do enough damage with regular artillery just keep changing the position of the artillery after you fired it and you can hit them Rush–Bagot Treaty also keeps out Naval assets out of the Great Lakes you can have this be the flashpoint if you want United States trying to get Naval assets into the Great Lakes Canadian artillery Detachment is sent to prevent it Americans ignore it and get the ship blown up. it only takes about a 1 week maybe a little bit more for a ships to make it to the United States.
I feel sorry for the poor bastards that have to row a boat across to do a land invasion you need to form a beachhead before that and if the British were using machine gun you're looking at few hundred to a thousand dead before you hit the shoreline night attacks you don't think the British will occasionally be shooting up flares the uk doesn't need to invade the us proper to win this war just take over everything the US owns outside of it.
Whoopi you cut Canada in two British Navy is able to protect Supply shipments to the east and west coast.
do you realize that the British could crush any us involvement in the Caribbeans quite easily US Naval Assets in the South aren't capable of fighting the British Navy if the US pulls its forces out of Norfolk to go fight in the Caribbean they leave the capital open to Naval invasion all the British need to do is to have 4 large fleets patrolling key areas of trade and you crippled United States economy (which is easier because the British have the Japanese on their side most likely) because what other nation is going to send their ships to trade with the United States while they're pissing off the most powerful Nation on Earth no one Germany is most likely stuck in a war until 1916 Kaiser Wilhelm did not like the United States enough to backstab his cousin.
the first major battle won't even be in Canada it will be a British expedition to Panama to take the damn canal it literally is brand new once the British have this they cut the travel time for their Navy from the Pacific to the Atlantic in half. you realize how many soldiers will have to be placed on the coast to prevent British land invasion this is where the majority of your soldiers are going. and the first year the British will be able to hit a lot of cities and towns with Naval bombardment avoiding major US Naval defenses so you're having hundreds of thousands of people leaving the shoreline and heading inland US fishing industry is dead on the Eastern and West Coast there goes a major food source.
the war starts we really don't know who started it but it really doesn't matter it will take a full year for the United States to be ready to do a proper invasion of Canada and the British are not sitting idly by and twiddling their thumbs they are actively destroying America's Colonial Empire and raising their own Army as well as putting vice grips around the United States economy so 1915 most likely the spring or summer is when the war kicks off in earnest the British have been able to land maybe a few hundred thousand soldiers in Canada by this point the British are planning a invasion of the West Coast as well as several other Landings
probably in the south. most likely waiting for the us to start an offensive operation in the North there will be no British offensive in Canada outside of the calvary sneaking Behind Enemy Lines to disrupt Supply chains the British will be setting up defensive positions around cities and choke points machine guns mow down hundreds of thousands of Americans attempting to take fortified positions Royal Navy launches multiple Naval Landings US military is spread thin forcing under trained soldiers to engage the British because they are rushed to the front lines British most likely open up new Landings elsewhere
most likely on the West Coast considering it's relatively unpopulated compared to the East Coast by the time the winter of 1915 is over your looking at a America fighting on multiple fronts with the British looking around to see if they can get a knockout blow somewhere.
election is coming up for the United States Woodrow Wilson is most likely out as president Theodore Roosevelt is probably running for president trying to rally America but there is a lot of Americans sick of the war by this point so you probably see an anti-war candidate probably a socialist. large-scale unemployment due to British blockade as well as government raising taxes on people men are just joining the Army so they can be fed quality of soldiers will go down please tell me how this scenario is not realistic
don't say the United States will have Ontario and Quebec before 1914 is over your looking at a winter offensive there and that's not happening with any success you'll just be looking at a hundreds of thousands of young boys being thrown into the meat grinder and if you survive that your Frozen afterwards due to lack of winter gear being provided to such a large Force.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
They couldn't even make a decent Gallipoli out of Gallipoli, an area with poor logistical links back to the Ottomans.
That part of the US, with actual Endicot Forts defending thise areas with Railroad, road and river access?
Not even Churchill would come up with such a plan
marathag
Banned
Away from my books at the moment, but in 1929, when the US had far higher trade, Exports were around 5% of GNP, and imports 4%
Now with a War, US confiscates every British Patent, and every last Shilling invested in the USA.
Now that's a real 'ouch' ontop of saying goodby to all North American foodstuffs going to the UK
where are you going with this the British Empire can't feed itself you're just looking at higher food cost which can be offset by going to South America America can't trade with anyone and you can't compare 1929 America to 1914 because sorry the United States didn't get rich selling supplies to the allies and really doesn't have a major arms industry built up. any money the United States seizes from the British isn't going to help much.
income tax was just introduced The original income tax was 1% for the bottom bracket, which was comprised of income up to $20,000, and 7% for the top bracket which was comprised of income over $500,000.
I wonder how Americans are going to react when half of their paycheck disappears because war how many people will be able to feed their family food prices go down yes but you lose half your paycheck is it really helping??
how many people are unemployed because guess what the stuff we were making can't be shipped overseas because of the blockade. the British probably actively Naval bombarding any Harbor that isn't properly defended and some of the American defenses would work against any other Nation but the British but guess what the British have some ships that can outrange the American defenses for the most part there are several major port areas that the US could retaliate though so those places will be avoided having enough ships outside of the range of the American Guns waiting.
That's true, but don't forget Gallipoli is almost perfect defensive terrain, even without barbed wire, repeating rifles and maxim guns.
As to a war between Britain and the US in 1914 or there about. If it's a short war Britain wins. If it drags on and the US has time to build up US probably wins at the negotiating table a year or two after taking Canada.
Last edited:
Can you mention a single time the US balked at paying a lot of money if need be to defend itself? Even one example? The US raised 2 million men in year OTL only three years later and it would be even easier in this one.
Nobody is going to care about the treaty if war breaks out and the US can build small warships pretty quickly to put out on the Great Lakes. It is not like they have to be sea worthy. Worst comes to worst the US can use eminent domain to seize civilian vessels and arm and armor them. Not the best vessels in the world but a lot better than nothing and Canada would be at a standing start at well. Any artillery has to come 3000 miles away and then be freighted over by train. The US can stick them on railcars and deliver them very quickly. Nor can GB manufacture, transport and supply enough artillery to guard the entire Great Lakes unless they want to strip their army of artillery, certainly not overnight.
The US has machine guns as well and the boats have guns and the US can land where it chooses. GB/Canada don't have enough troops to guard the entire Great Lakes and yes GB has to invade the US proper to win. Otherwise the US will simply raise a large enough army to crush Canada.
You do realize if Canada is split in two the US can swing east and west from there outflanking Anglo/Canadian armies and losing the middle of the country is not going to do wonders for Canadian morale?
You do realize that the British Navy is needed to protect British Colonies and one reason for WW1 is that Germany wanted more colonies? If the Brits have all their ships in the US they very well might stab GB in the back to grab the colonies. That was the whole point of Weltpolitik. If Germany see an easy chance to grab colonies it likely will.
The Brits are using WW1 gunfire, not nukes. The Brits can't stay there forever and certainly can't bombard forever. Logistics is actually a thing, as are coastal guns.
The US colonial empire consists of the canal and a few islands. The canal will have some, but hardly devastating, impact. The loss of the islands will have negligible impact. The US is flipping huge , something you seem quite unaware of. The first year is going to be the British mostly building a logistical system as Canada's is far too small to support a huge army. Canada was sparsely settled with a rail system a fraction that of the US. It doesn't have the warehouse space, the rails, the railroad cars, railroad engines, horses or horse wagons to supply a huge army. It was built to supply the Canadian civilian population and a small army, not an army of hundreds of thousands. It simply does not have the spare capacity. All that has to be built up first and that takes time. Logistics is an actual thing, something you like ignoring. Great Britain did not own Star Trek teleporters, it takes time for everything to be shipped, it takes even more time to build up the logistical system. When the US landed in France the French had a much denser population and much more developed infrastructure. The French could do a lot of the logistical work, the Canadians not so much.
You do know the US would have an actual army built fairly quickly? That it can crank out large numbers of artillery? Last time I checked the US wasn't Bolivia. GB would have an impossible task in trying to fight a multi-front war separated by thousands of miles. Hell , the US would have a difficult time pulling that off today!
Because the US would not be sick of war, it would be pissed off. The US can more than feed itself. It is and was the world's biggest food exporter so how are people having a hard time getting fed? Also why is there large scale unemployment when international trade was such a small percentage of the US economy. The US is flipping huge. It can supply virtually any raw material from its home soil. Most likely the war plants are humming and the men are in the army, in the fields and in the factories. It would be scrambling for labor not having an unemployment problem. Most likely you have a lot of women in the munitions factories because there aren't enough men to man all the machinery.
Probably not, but mainly because the US isn't stupid enough to invade Canada in winter and time is on its side.
marathag
Banned
OTL, in 1914 the UK imported around 80% of its Wheat.
Without French and Russian crops, the UK started getting more Canadian and US Grains, and the US was the biggest exporter to the UK. From 1913 to 1915 US Wheat prices jumped from 90 cents a Bushel to $2.40 on that strong European demand.
Now without any foodstuff from North America, the UK won't be able to ignore rationing like they did OTL until 1916.
Yes, other countries grew grain.
But not as much
Found this period Document
Contrary to the general impression, our main exports to Europe have not been the weapons of war. It is not possible to find the exports of big guns; they are not listed in the government statistics. But our ordnance shipments have not been large. For the nine months from September 1, 1914, to May 31, 1915, we shipped $34,000,000 of munitions, compared with $6,000,000 in the same nine months of the previous year. In munitions are included: firearms, cartridges, gunpowder and other explosives except dynamite. The increase in munitions exports is seen to be only $28,000,000. To be sure, shrapnel is not included in the munitions list; it also cannot be found in the official export figures. Even if we could add the statistics for ordnance and shrapnel, the larger figure would not go far towards explaining the vast growth of our export balance since November, 1914.
The explanation for our great increase in exports is found rather in the group we call food, especially in breadstuffs. By breadstuff's are meant flour and grain, except oats, the latter cereal being more correctly classed as forage. Some of the reasons why the European demand for our food was especially heavy have already been noted. Excepting for North America, the grain crops of extra-European countries in 1914 were below normal. The closing of the Dardanelles and German control of the Baltic held the great Russian and Balkan supplies of grain away from belligerent Western Europe. Neutrals like Scandinavia, Holland, Italy and Greece, which had always bought largely from the Black Sea, now turned to America. The great rise in the exports and the price of breadstuffs, especially wheat and wheat flour, were reviewed in Chapter II. In the nine months ended with May we shipped $431,000,000 of breadstuffs, compared with $107,000,000 in the previous year. The growth of $324,000,000 showed that the disappearance of Germany as an export market for our wheat was far more than counterbalanced by the great demand of the rest of Europe. In this one item the growing balance of trade is chiefly explained.
In the case of meat products, a similar development occurred. For some time the communication of the Allies with the Argentine was unsafe, owing to German cruisers in the South Atlantic. Even when those seas were cleared, our shipments continued large, the vast supplies required to provision the armies of the Allies causing a recovery of our export meat trade, which for a decade had been on the decline. The demands for a fighting army are far above those for the same number of men in peaceful occupations.(26) The European population in the field has advanced to a scale of living which it never knew before. Further contributing causes to the large meat orders from this country included the German occupation of part of the producing area of France; and the large. purchases made by American relief bodies on behalf of the Belgians. We exported in the nine months $160,000,000 of meat products, $54,000,000 more than in the same months of the previous year. We sent $11,000,000 of dairy products, an increase of $9,000,000.
A similar advance was in our shipments of sugar. The stoppage of German exports to England resulted in keeping nearly half a million tons of German sugar at home, where it was made into cattle fodder. England therefore had to turn to us for her supply. To prevent a too great increase in price, she tried the experiment, which was not altogether happy, of a government monopoly of the purchase and distribution of sugar. Our sugar exports in the nine months to the end of May amounted to $21,000,000, which was $20,000,000 more than in the same months of the year before. Finally, there was a growth of $4,600,000 in our shipments of vegetables.
In forage there has been another remarkable increase. In the nine months' period we exported $71,000,000 of forage: oats, hay, cottonseed cake and meal. This was $60,000,000 more than in the same months of the year before. Five-sixths of the increase was in the item of oats alone. As will appear later, our exports of forage were paralleled by our shipments of horses and mules to eat the forage; that is, to eat it for the brief period during which an army horse or mule continues to enjoy the gustatory pleasures of this world.
Another great group of exports was hides, leather and, footwear, not including harness and saddlery, which belong better in the category of war supplies. The largest increase was in unworked leather and miscellaneous leather products, though there has been a notable movement of men's shoes and of hides. In the whole group we exported $68,000,000 or $48,000,000 more than in the same months a year ago.
Somewhat closer to the business of war were our exports of textile manufactures, mostly the result of great equipment orders from the Allies. Probably the largest single item was blankets, then woolen uniforms, then cotton knit goods. Of these items and of wool and woolen rags we sent abroad $35,000,000, which is $30,000,000 more than last year.
Nearer yet to the direct equipment of war we may make a group called war supplies. It includes horses, mules, harness and saddles, aeroplanes, commercial automobiles, automobile tires, wagons, gas oil and fuel oil, barbed wire, horseshoes and surgical appliances. The largest increase in this group was in the means of transport: horses, mules, commercial automobiles. In nine months ending May 31, 1915, we sent to the war 250,000 horses, compared with 18,000 in the same period of the year before. We sent 53,000 mules, compared with 4,000 in 1913-1914. We exported $30,000,000 of commercial automobiles, which is $29,000,000 more than in the previous year. In the whole group of war supplies we sent abroad $148,000,000, an increase of $119,000,000 over the year before.
Now yeah, the US isn't exporting that now, it's staying in the USA
But where is the UK getting that replaced?
Feel free to post how much grain South America exported at this time.
Note what I put in Bold.
during the Great War, the UK was able to placate Neutrals buy buy cargos going to Germany, and finding replacements from what Germany exported.
So not only does the UK have to feed itself, it must feed the Neutral Nations, since they won't allow neutrals in to the USA for Trade.
Good luck on that.
If they aren't fed, then those countries won't be Neutral for long
Also the food they buy abroad is going to be considerably more expensive. If the US wasn't the cheapest supplier of grain the British would have bought from elsewhere. With less food being exported by the US that food is going to be even higher as it will be a real seller's market without the US. If it was $2.40 a bushel OTL
expect it to be at least 3 in TTL.
you're willfully ignoring the fact that the United Kingdom is not at war with Russia or Germany and once the Germans know that the UK won't enter the war they're going to crush the French Fleet hell the British could probably get a deal with Germany to let them continue their trade with Russia in exchange they won't intervene. Russia still making money on trading with the UK Germany couldn't be too Splendid neutrality in action neither side wants to shoot at the British causing them to enter the war.
the war in Europe will be over by spring of 1915 once the UK and us war starts the Germans will turn there full attention to France Italy might join the War to on the German side. uk can sustain itself until 1915 without much change to food prices
look at my statistics about Britain ignore the ones about the United States and the fact the US was a export economy the United States was China in 1914 I'm referring to china in the 90s you're looking at a large number of people losing their jobs United States has never fought a war and had its economy completely closed off if you look at the South during the Civil War you get an idea of what will happen and I'm not trying to be rude here I'm just pointing out the UK has other options
Great Lakes theater
Naval mine British answer if they can't effectively move artillery into choke points. an Canada owns the opening to the Great Lakes 229.907 miles probably more of nothing but British controlled land on both sides
there is no point in building any ships in that area until they have captured Quebec City Cornwall and everything in between them.which the British have time to fortify to the point where it will be like the austrians trying to invade Serbia.
so now you're saying the US is not invaded Canada in 1914 the Canadians just sit there and fortify their positions and wait they're not launching offensive they're building up defensive positions and choke points or are you staying to us would invade through the center of Canada in 1914 (British mounted Cavalry units looking at Native American volunteers victims of the American Indian Wars and their policy of America reservations God there is an awesome movie there.) the Logistics nightmare attacking central Canada that has no real value except for some farmland yes you're cutting Canada into but you're not going to be able to supply your army that well and there's going to be a crap ton of skirmishes. British Columbia is protected by mountains unless you're invading from Washington even then it would be a pain in the ass because it's hilly and mountainous terrain there as well. Eastern Canada nice giant forest easier than mountains but is where most of the Canadian population lives and is where most of the British soldiers will be.
the British Navy has a free hand because Germany is currently occupied with beating up the Russians and French yes I mentioned above that I think the war in Europe will be over by 1915 but Germany will be rebuilding its Fleet after fighting the French Fleet and will be too preoccupied consolidating power in its new colonies.
The US is flipping huge yes yes it is and the British will use it to their advantage
yes you will be able to raise a large army but you're not going to build an army that can protect everywhere in the country by 1915 and can the us Railways transport armies I don't think there's enough train cars to actually transport enough Americans to individual front throughout the United States there going to need to reinforce their transportation grid which will take time and money and while they're doing this the British will be taking advantage of it
United States when it entered World War I had built up a large arms industry the United States does not have one at the moment yes there is individual companies making weapons for the US military but not in significant quantities to actually outfit a million man army which will take time and money
you seem to not understand fear tactics if the British Navy can roll up and bombard any City that isn't well-defended on the coast you better believe people will be terrified you don't need to cause significant damage just enough to scare people into moving psychological impact will also be key US government can't even protect us
The US in 1914 wasn't a backwater but the richest country on the planet with a population of around 100 million people and spread over an area of nearly 3,000,000 square miles entirely connected by railroads and somehow GB is going to easily win a war against it in less than a year? How ? Black magic? Again logistics is a real thing and you keep ignoring it. GB can't support a huge army in Canada, it just can't. It doesn't have the roads , the railroads, the warehouses , the depots, the manpower or anything else to support a huge, modern army in .
The size advantage can be used by the US against Canada and far more easily. The US train net was by far the largest in the world at the time. It can send entire armies by train where Canada can only go by horseback. Do you know what cavalry was good for in 1914? Raiding and scouting, that is it and that does not win wars on its own. In ww1 wars were won by large numbers of foot soldiers. Something that will be lacking in Canada and UK but will be coming out the ears in the US within a year.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
LOL!
The German and Russians are at War, why would they let Neutrals (inc UK here)trade with them, any more than than the UK would allow all Neutral trade to Germany-- they blocked that! You don't allow anyone to have trade!
And the Germans want US Foodstuffs, as well.
Why would they let Russian grain goto the UK, when the UK won't allow US Grain to Germany?