WW1 WI: Neutral Britain vs USA

[Arkenfolm]

No Other Nation is coming to help the United States the United States is fighting alone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

These were vassal nations to the United States and in particular American corporations. Their leadership would support the US because they were American puppets. And Guatemala in the 20th century had nationalistic leadership who at several points considered their own version of the Falklands War against Belize which they never launched for various diplomatic reasons. If the US and United Fruit is on their side and promises them Belize, they're going to invade Belize, such was the nature of the Guatemalan elite.

the war will not last longer than two to three years 1916 presidential election. you have ignored everything I have brought up because you don't like the fact that America will lose. we can keep going around and around me pointing out the fact that the United States is going through Hills and Forest to invade Eastern Canada to strategically taking Portland which is a critical rail network Junction cutting off supplies to your army and threatening to move further Inland is actually forcing the United States to pull back you don't need to actually pull off an encirclement the threat of it works

so let's agree to disagree y'all have a good day

And you've completely ignored everything I've written in response to you. Especially when I said no one is invading Quebec through Maine. And if the US invades the Maritimes, it's implied the threat of coastal invasion is relegated to the "ridiculous" level like the British ideas of invading Wilhelmshaven or other parts of Germany during either world war. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence simplifies logistics in invading Eastern Canada. And good luck moving inland from Portland. It's nothing but forests. Portland and nearby Portsmouth had some nice coastal fortifications (the guns made nearby in New York) and the Merrimack River still further protects New England.

Please tell me why America will lose (since at minimum the result is a draw), since neither an offensive or especially defensive war presents this scenario since all your reasons why have been refuted.

I don’t really think that would be the invasion point because it isn’t a good position to be attacking in winter, which is inevitable as the war would drag on for some time. I would assume the US military would mass in the Midwest, which is a heavily populated area. New England would be a good defensive position. The East including the Maritimes aren’t that crucial in such a conflict. If anything the US pacific northwest will be another forward pivot as the West of Canada was not hugely populated, including Natives and Non Natives.

Anyway, if the US actually takes any land it’d be in the West and wouldn’t have a huge impact on the British Empire. It would change the character of Canada and perhaps increase tensions till the present day, but Canada would still exist much as it did.

I’m actually more interested in how countries like France would respond tbh.

I disagree the Maritimes aren't important, since Halifax is a major base and taking Quebec finishes the isolation of Canada. Maintaining a defense in New England is only as long as the US can't make an offensive. But yeah, the Midwest is key to the war.

At minimum (outside of status quo ante bellum), I'd expect the US to get the Queen Charlotte Islands (maybe even Vancouver Island) in the west and probably a better sea border near Alaska. But the US would ideally want most of BC for a land connection.

That doesn't make annexation impossible, but it might well make it less appealing. Splitting Canada and encouraging the severing of ties with the UK might be more desirable than grabbing land, although the US government would probably need to push to take something so they could justify the war's enormous cost in blood and treasure, and you're right that claiming the Pacific coast is probably going to have the greatest combination of appeal and practical value. Of course, keeping any of Canada does hinge on America not losing the war at sea badly enough to be forced into a status quo situation.

Definitely, and a few colonies in the Caribbean plus bits of British Columbia would be enough to justify things.

 

[Johnrankins]

the Dominion of Canada is part of the British Empire dude Canada's economy will recover and building supply Depots is not that hard dude

I never said it wouldn't recover, merely that it would take time and if every railcar is full of soldiers and supplies and the cities starve because the food from the countryside can't come in you will have riots at the very least. Although building supply depots is not difficult building hundreds, if not thousands of them, will take time. Upgrading the rails to the new depots will also take time. Life isn't a video game. Transporting an army thousands of miles away and building supply lines takes time, particularly before WW2.

an army of 300,000 attacking in 1915 or 1914? and where is it attacking are you changing your initial post where you were going for central Canada and moving it to Eastern Canada these are important questions you need to put down

That is at a minimum and it will be attacked wherever the US Army judges best. Now it might get it somewhat wrong but they are professionals so there will be some military logic behind it.

going with 1915 scenario because you agreed with me and said it'd be stupid to do a 1914 invasion
by the time the United States raises that Army the British will have at least a over hundred thousand men in Eastern Canada supplemented by whatever soldiers have volunteered in Canada

Main reason is that it is idiotic for anyone to invade Canada in winter. If they have 300,000 at the get go the US probably invades in April 1914 if it can. The latest the invasion would begin is July or August so that the winter snow is some time off.

I've already discussed how I don't agree with a central Canadian invasion

Eastern Canadian invasion

United States probably takes everything south of the St. Lawrence Seaway Montreal and Quebec will be a pain in their ass though the British will not allow the US to take the city without a fight Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also fall during this time in total I say 3 to 4 months campaign I don't put it past the British doing a fighting retreat dragging out the American advance with Montreal and Quebec City still being contested areas US advance you're not attacking with 300 thousand soldiers though the United States will have to make sure it protects its coastline don't want the British dropping into Portland and trying to do an encirclement

Agreed, the US wouldn't send its whole army.

Sault Ste. Marie Sarnia Detroit and Niagara Falls these will actually be the first areas the British secure in Canada nice choke points no one is moving around in the Great Lakes freely as long as the British control this area you said you have an army of 300,000 how many fronts do you want to open up are you going to change it to a million man army that will be under equipped because the United States is not geared for a war economy and probably will not be until the end of 1915 yes you have the National Guard but the majority of them are defending the coastline they're going to have equipment shortages this isn't the United States after the Civil War it's going to take time since the Great Lakes are no longer accessible troop movements will take a lot more time transporting them their equipment and supplies will be in pain

It depends on how long the US has been preparing for this invasion. The problem is that the US isn't going to just decide one day to invade it would take months, or more likely, years of deteriorating diplomatic standing to get that far. Of course , GB would respond to that as well but the US is 3,000 miles closer, has a larger population than GB and Canada combined and a larger economy than the British Empire in 1914 and very few colonies to guard. My guess is that both sides would have forts along the borders. Remember the US raised an army of 2 million just 3 years later. So yes, it could have a million or more ready if need be. If the relations are that fraught the US probably has a larger navy as well and will certainly have more coastal guns.

Railway network will be congested probably forcing the US invasion of Eastern Canada into the beginning of Summer giving the British more time to prepare and Dig In but once they start their offensive

Perhaps, but the US rail-net was huge. A country with ten times the population of another one will have at least ten times the spare capacity and probably more due to economy of scale.

the UK launches multiple Landings in the South and West Coast there's a good possibility that the British capture San Francisco considering it has just recovered from the 1906 earthquake and since they have a port that can bring in supplies I don't put it past the Japanese Maybe sending a division or two as a show of good faith considering the Japanese probably control most of the Philippines and Guam now.British push to Sacramento 87 miles away I don't see it being too hard to be honest the west coast is really undefended compared to the East Coast in Naval defenses

If a war with GB is seriously considered expect the defenses to be upgraded. It is the logical thing to do and Americans aren't idiots.

Port Arthur, Texas would also be a good Target considering its port was recently built by the Army Corps of Engineers and is close to Houston Texas the city of around 80,000 people at the time with its own Naval port I could keep looking into this and find cities that would be easy targets to take

Assuming coastal guns aren't em-placed which is a hell of an assumption in war time against a power with the wealth of the US.

as I've mentioned before the British will also randomly bombarding undefended port cities along the US coastline to cause chaos and probing for weaknesses it's also forces the United States to spend resources building up Naval defenses the only problem is there is a lot of Coastline to protect where do you choose to build these things my money's on them focusing on the East Coast.

How many undefended port cities do you think there would be? 1914 US is very rich and entirely connected by rail. It can and would build coastal guns fairly quickly. They wouldn't necessarily be the best at first but they would be a threat, particularly since the US would be producing tons of torpedo boats at the same time. About the only cities GB could possibly bombard are relatively unimportant ones which will piss the US more than make it submit.

 

[marathag]

Remember the US raised an army of 2 million just 3 years later.

Of the 2M, 80,000 were from the National Guard and 300k Volunteers, the rest added ontop of the Regular Army were the draftees
24M registered for that.

 

[writofcertiorari]

Why does it matter if they were draftees? Morale was high and training was sufficient. Some of the best armies in at the time were largely drafted.

https://www.bl.uk/world-war-one/articles/recruitment-conscripts-and-volunteers

“The First World War was fought predominantly by conscript armies fielding millions of ‘citizen-soldiers’. The origins of this type of military lay in the levée en masse (mass mobilisation) organised by the French revolutionary regime at the end of the 18th century, the first modern force built on the idea that all male citizens had a duty to bear arms in defence of their nation. However, it was France’s rival Prussia which improved and systemised the military model, developing a new form of universal short-service peacetime conscription. After spectacular victories over Austria and France in 1866 and 1871, this provided the organisational template for other continental European armies. Austria-Hungary imitated it in 1868, France in 1872 and Russia in 1874. Britain and the United States, which relied primarily on their navies for security, were alone among the major powers in remaining with small professional armies. ”


Now the Vietnam draftees... oof. Obviously it varies based on the war.

 

[marathag]

Now the Vietnam draftees... oof. Obviously it varies based on the war.

The main problem was that they were in country for 12-13 months, they cycled back to CONUS
So just about time when they no longer were the FNG and started being skilled: but at that point, they became 'Short' the end of tour was in sight, self preservation would ramp up, and would be very careful to to be WIA/KIA for month or two.
Then poof, a C-141 ride out of country, and another FNG was dropped in his old unit to replace him

So you got a guy who was combat effective for a couple months,at best. If not wounded, killed or drug addicted before that.

No way to fight a War, but McNamera thought it was the best way for soon to be reservists to get their combat ticket punched.

 

[thekingsguard]

In any post-ACW Anglo-American war, it seems that the folks here always ignore one critical detail:

America can throw everything it has at Britain.

Britain can either do the same, or hold on to the greater Empire... it cannot do both. There is a reason why the empire was in such desperate straights by 1917.

Oh, and again, given the USA has more factories/production ability than all of Europe combined, and even in OTL is on the verge of surpassing the Royal Navy at sea, the USA won't need long to lace the gloves up.

USA mauls the Brits on land, the Brits get some licks in at sea, but I think the two just make peace before things get too heated... Canada likely loses a healty chunk of the country west of Ontario in the peace treaty.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

This - ofc - provokes the question, why these "hundreds of thousands of troops" were'nt sent IOTL to i.e. the western front ?

They were IOTL. Over 5 million men served in the British Army on the Western Front.

However this was over a 4+ year period, with a continental ally to support rear areas and transport, and it is very different transporting men & supplies from Southampton to Le Havre or Dover to Boulogne.

Depending upon timing, if this situation were to occur in 1914 then IMHO the naval war would go well for the RN in the short-term, but in the long-term US shipbuilding would eventually outmatch the British, especially if the US battleline avoids a big smash in the early years.

On land - sorry but the vital areas of Canada would be overrun. The US can build a larger army in the time it takes for Canada to do the same and for the British to transport their regulars across the Atlantic and raise & train the volunteers as a second / third / fourth wave. Opposed amphibious operations would be as disasterous as Gallipoli especially with an efficient rail network allowing the US to reinforce faster than the Brits.

There is a very good reason that Britain decided the one country on Earth we wouldn't fight with was the USA.

 

[Johnrankins]

Oh, and again, given the USA has more factories/production ability than all of Europe combined, and even in OTL is on the verge of surpassing the Royal Navy at sea, the USA won't need long to lace the gloves up.

USA mauls the Brits on land, the Brits get some licks in at sea, but I think the two just make peace before things get too heated... Canada likely loses a healty chunk of the country west of Ontario in the peace treaty.

Thus the Washington Naval Treaty. The Brits agreed to allow the US to have a navy equal in size to itself , in part, because it figured if it didn't the US would simply out-build them. The treaty limited the US to only their own size.

 

[xsampa]

What happens to the British Empire afterwards? I expected the Dominions to distance themselves from Britain and India to be less loyal in the face of a visible British defeat.

 

[Johnrankins]

What happens to the British Empire afterwards? I expected the Dominions to distance themselves from Britain and India to be less loyal in the face of a visible British defeat.

The war could trigger the beginning of the end of the empire about 3 or 4 decades early, I imagine.