WWI: Make America a Central Power

As the title says, when would the PoD need to be in a TL in which the US of A joins WWI on Germany's side?
SO, I have 2 scenarios: One in which Germano-American relations improve (perhaps Germany puts more effort in diplomacy with the US), thus causing pro-German sentiment to prevail in WWI. Another in which British-American relations break down (perhaps a highly imperialistic USA that clashes with British ambitions), thus producing anti-British sentiment and an "enemy of my enemy" relation with Germany.
Thoughts anyone?
 
Have the British empire or france really screw up diplomatically, or have an incident. A lot of people really didn't like England messing with the trade of neutral countries that could have spiraled out of control.
 
Britain fucks up on a large scale, big enough Wilson can't just handwave it away, yet can't be backed down from in England.

Royal Navy thinks a US ship is supplying U-Boat, sinks her?
 
This animosity needs to be built up for decades. Have America fight a war with Britain over the Oregon territory or fight the Second French Empire over their intervention in Mexico. A really good POD is France or Britain intervening in the American Civil War. That will push the U.S towards the central powers like how they did it in Southern victory. In addition make Britain or France authoritarian assholes that need to be stopped like Germany or Austria-Hungary's behavior OTL. Have U.S have an intense imperialistic rivalry with Entente. Finally do a reverse Lusitania with a Royal navy ship firing on an American passenger ship.
 
You'll obviously need the United States to find itself in a hostile relationship with the Entente powers. It's certainly imaginable that it could have a bad relationship with France or Russia, but the British Empire strikes me as more likely to be an enemy of the US, given the length of their shared borders and the depth of their common history. A history of recurring Anglo-American conflicts should be enough to get the United States on the side of Germany.

(How you get these conflicts, seeing as how British statesmen seem to have generally tried to avoid making the US an enemy, is another question entirely.)
 
This animosity needs to be built up for decades. Have America fight a war with Britain over the Oregon territory or fight the Second French Empire over their intervention in Mexico. A really good POD is France or Britain intervening in the American Civil War. That will push the U.S towards the central powers like how they did it in Southern victory. In addition make Britain or France authoritarian assholes that need to be stopped like Germany or Austria-Hungary's behavior OTL. Have U.S have an intense imperialistic rivalry with Entente. Finally do a reverse Lusitania with a Royal navy ship firing on an American passenger ship.

A more aggressive, expansionist, and/or imperialist US would also help. It would be a lot easier for the US to enter the war if they are coveting Canada or the Entente possessions in the Carribean.
 
The bigger issue, IMO, is minimizing the bad PR coming out of Belgium as the Germans marched through. They were pretty brutal on the civilian population (kill all the men in a town if a sniper kills one soldier etc) and the English & French seized the opportunity to stoke anti-German sentiment.
 
Given the ties and common interests that developed between Britain and the US towards the turn of the century, you would need British diplomacy to be even more inept than that of Kaiser Wilhelm II's Germany for anything like this to develop. And it is ASB for almost anyone to be more stupid than the Kaiser was in this field.
 
I don't think it's possible with a WWI POD. There was considerable anti-British and pro-German sentiment in the US pre-WWI. Not enough to tip the scales or balance out the pro- and anti- feeling the other way but a good deal more than a century or so of cooperation since tend to allow popular history these days to remember. In principle, it's wouldn't be unreasonable to finesse the US into the Axis were it possible to find cause.

However, you'd need either a more desperate or a more complacent Entente, willing to risk US intervention for victory or survival. Given the extent of US supplies coming to them, that'd surely have to be desperation - so a solid German victory at Verdun or the Somme or elsewhere, leading to significant gains in the Western line, or perhaps knocking out Russia in the east in 1916 (had, say, Germany committed more major offensives there in 1915-6). But even with the risk of the war being lost entirely, what action could Britain or France take that would produce enough benefit to be worth the cost? The RN was already enforcing a blockade; battlefield atrocities might be committed, including more and earlier use of gas, but that would hardly bring the US in - on the contrary, it'd be another reason for them a country already happily isolationist to stay out; there was no strategically useful American land to be annexed for use against Germany; a harsh crackdown against domestic unrest in Ireland might prompt outrage in the Irish-American population but isn't a casus belli. I don't see how OTL America can be brought in.

On the other hand, if you start at a pre-WWI POD and have the US naturally more inclined to the Central Powers, then it becomes much more possible. Or, given that most states go to war out of perceived necessity, you have to create in the minds of Washington's politicians a potent British threat sufficiently large to justify such a move. Perhaps something like a much more aggressive British attitude over the Alaska-Canada boundary dispute, with that issue coming close to war in 1903, after the British government bent to Canadian pressure.
 
The bigger issue, IMO, is minimizing the bad PR coming out of Belgium as the Germans marched through. They were pretty brutal on the civilian population (kill all the men in a town if a sniper kills one soldier etc) and the English & French seized the opportunity to stoke anti-German sentiment.
Eh, that should be easy. Have Germany says that Belgians are Germans who were separated by Britain and France before Germany was a thing, and mistreating them is grounds for execution.
 
[...]if you start at a pre-WWI POD and have the US naturally more inclined to the Central Powers, then it becomes much more possible. Or, given that most states go to war out of perceived necessity, you have to create in the minds of Washington's politicians a potent British threat sufficiently large to justify such a move. Perhaps something like a much more aggressive British attitude over the Alaska-Canada boundary dispute, with that issue coming close to war in 1903, after the British government bent to Canadian pressure.
Yea, PoD would need to be prior to WWI. I believe if Germany exercises better diplomacy with Britain and the US, when WWI comes around, Germany could take a defensive stance against the Allies (most German commanders at the time believed a defensive strategy better for victory, with the exception of Moltke) and the aggressors would then become France and Russia. Germany could keep Britain away by claiming to preserve the status quo and tensions with the US could be curbed as well.
Thoughts?
 
I think you could do it with an 1890's POD

Have Senator Teller's party switch lead to enough animosity that the Republican leadership in the senate kills anything he introduces on principle. Combine that with somewhat better Spanish performance in the Spanish American war. The war drags out longer, and the US takes the Carolines and Marianas from Spain as well, and has bled enough over Cuba to keep it. The worse performance gets congress to cough up on military expansions. A greater US buildup and extra US territory near British Colonies makes them nervous, and Britain pushes more in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903. As a result the US does not agree to arbitration over the Alaska boundary dispute and relations get frosty

With a frostier relationship the US Navy builds up faster post Dreadnought, and builds at a rate comparable to the German Navy, making tensions rise faster. The US also refuses to back down on giving US ships a toll exemption in the Panama Canal, making relationships worse

When WWI starts the Secretary of the Treasury is not so quick to shut down Wall Street, and Entente liquidation of their assets causes a depression, blamed squarely on them by the media. In addition the Russian plan to attack Sweden goes through, dragging them and Norway into the CP, and making the Entente look bad

Come 1916 the Easter rising, covertly aided by the US, blows up worse and ends in a massacre that really gets the US angry, and the US military starts a buildup and deploying aggressively. Come late 1917 someone somewhere on one side or the other gets twitchy and the US joins the war
 
I think you could do it with an 1890's POD

Have Senator Teller's party switch lead to enough animosity that the Republican leadership in the senate kills anything he introduces on principle. Combine that with somewhat better Spanish performance in the Spanish American war. The war drags out longer, and the US takes the Carolines and Marianas from Spain as well, and has bled enough over Cuba to keep it. The worse performance gets congress to cough up on military expansions. A greater US buildup and extra US territory near British Colonies makes them nervous, and Britain pushes more in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903. As a result the US does not agree to arbitration over the Alaska boundary dispute and relations get frosty

With a frostier relationship the US Navy builds up faster post Dreadnought, and builds at a rate comparable to the German Navy, making tensions rise faster. The US also refuses to back down on giving US ships a toll exemption in the Panama Canal, making relationships worse

When WWI starts the Secretary of the Treasury is not so quick to shut down Wall Street, and Entente liquidation of their assets causes a depression, blamed squarely on them by the media. In addition the Russian plan to attack Sweden goes through, dragging them and Norway into the CP, and making the Entente look bad

Come 1916 the Easter rising, covertly aided by the US, blows up worse and ends in a massacre that really gets the US angry, and the US military starts a buildup and deploying aggressively. Come late 1917 someone somewhere on one side or the other gets twitchy and the US joins the war

I really like your ideas. I've always had a theory/possible TL I wanted to write, along similar lines.
The main idea being a successful second Mexican Empire, France and Britain will aid the CSA for a while. U.S allows the Irish to pass the border and invade Canada, this because of Anglo-U.S tensions due to U.K aid to CSA. They are defeated and Britain nearly goes to war, U.S is embarrassed and apologizes (creating resentment). Britain will support Chile in their various disputes with the USA. During the Spanish American war Britain supports Spain. Venezuala crisis nearly get's hot, the U.S is forced to back down and is embarrassed again. U.S Navy espeically Teddy Roosevelt oppose Britain, moreso than OTL. Once the Dreadnought arms race begins US Navy expands on the scale of Germany, Royal Navy is very worried. Roosevelt and the Progressives win in 1912, Britain out right rejects any limits on Naval armaments (because Germany backs it and the British get suspicious). Once the war starts, the U.S will stay neutral, Zimmerman telegram comes from Paris or London instead, U.S declares war on the Entente, starts war in E. of Mexico and Canada. USA is also weary of Japan much earlier, Japan might not even attack Germany due to fears of USA joining the war.
 
I really like your ideas. I've always had a theory/possible TL I wanted to write, along similar lines. The main idea being a successful second Mexican Empire, France and Britain will aid the CSA for a while. U.S allows the Irish to pass the border and invade Canada, they are defeated and Britain nearly goes to war, U.S is embarrassed and apologizes (creating resentment). Britain will support Chile in their various disputes with the USA. During the Spanish American war Britain supports Spain. Venezuala crisis nearly get's hot, U.S Navy espeically Teddy Roosevelt oppose Britain, moreso than OTL. Once the Dreadnought arms race begins US Navy expands on the scale of Germany, Royal Navy is very worried. Roosevelt and the Progressives win in 1912, Britain out right rejects any limits on Naval armaments (because Germany backs it and the British get suspicious). Once the war starts, the U.S will stay neutral, Zimmerman telegram comes from Paris or London, U.S declares war on the Entente, starts war in E. of Mexico and Canada.
Which Venezuela crisis? There were three, 1895, 1902-03, and 1908, you do have to specify. For your purposes 1895 is probably best, as you need the US to get serious early in order to beat Spain with a less than friendly UK, the UK provided a lot of unofficial help against Spain OTL, that goes the other way and the US could be in real trouble

Have to rename the telegram, it was named after the German Foreign minister. Would also have to come after the Entente has used up its lines of credit in 1917, otherwise they have too much to lose by the US declaring war on them
 
Which Venezuela crisis? There were three, 1895, 1902-03, and 1908, you do have to specify. For your purposes 1895 is probably best, as you need the US to get serious early in order to beat Spain with a less than friendly UK, the UK provided a lot of unofficial help against Spain OTL, that goes the other way and the US could be in real trouble

Have to rename the telegram, it was named after the German Foreign minister. Would also have to come after the Entente has used up its lines of credit in 1917, otherwise they have too much to lose by the US declaring war on them

The one in 1895, the dispute in Guiana. I imagine the US military would be better prepared ITTL which would mostly compensate for British aid to Spain. I don't know if British aid would be that much different than OTL TBH.

I know the Zimmmerman telegram would have to be renamed. I just can't remember the relevant Franco British foreign ministers/ambassadors. Perhaps the Clemancau telegram? If Churchill is still head of the Navy, then the Churchill telegram?

Also remember the 2nd Mexican Empire exists under Maximillian von Habsburg-Iturbide (or one of the Iturbide children by 1914) which has had British and French investment and aid, so a stronger military with better infrastructure and industry. So it is less of a long shot for Mexico to invade.
 
The one in 1895, the dispute in Guiana. I imagine the US military would be better prepared ITTL which would mostly compensate for British aid to Spain. I don't know if British aid would be that much different than OTL TBH.

I know the Zimmmerman telegram would have to be renamed. I just can't remember the relevant Franco British foreign ministers/ambassadors. Perhaps the Clemancau telegram? If Churchill is still head of the Navy, then the Churchill telegram?

Also remember the 2nd Mexican Empire exists under Maximillian von Habsburg-Iturbide (or one of the Iturbide children by 1914) which has had British and French investment and aid, so a stronger military with better infrastructure and industry. So it is less of a long shot for Mexico to invade.
OTL the UK sold the US coal, which let the US operate a lot farther from home in a lot greater strength than normal, and let the US use their comm network, which let them pull off feats maneuvers to catch the Spanish without warning. No coal and the US will take longer to send forces to the Philippines, and with the British lending the Spanish comms, they will get warnings and not get caught with their pants down

That changes a real lot to be honest, if the US has a strong and stable power south of the border, it will maintain a stronger military. This might also mean the US is worried enough to take Santo Domingo up on its offer to join the US, for an extra Caribbean base. Course that throws a lot of butterflies out there WWI may not happen on schedule

OTL it was Balfour 1916-1919 for UK, Briand, Ribot, Barthou and Pichon for France 1915-1920, would be one of them, likely Ribot or Barthou for France. Of course a guaranteed friendly neutral Mexico might be more useful for the Entente, Mexican oil essentially fueled the Royal Navy in WWI (well 75% of it, rest was Iran I think), they likely would not want to risk giving the US an excuse to cut off that oil
 
OTL the UK sold the US coal, which let the US operate a lot farther from home in a lot greater strength than normal, and let the US use their comm network, which let them pull off feats maneuvers to catch the Spanish without warning. No coal and the US will take longer to send forces to the Philippines, and with the British lending the Spanish comms, they will get warnings and not get caught with their pants down

That changes a real lot to be honest, if the US has a strong and stable power south of the border, it will maintain a stronger military. This might also mean the US is worried enough to take Santo Domingo up on its offer to join the US, for an extra Caribbean base. Course that throws a lot of butterflies out there WWI may not happen on schedule

OTL it was Balfour 1916-1919 for UK, Briand, Ribot, Barthou and Pichon for France 1915-1920, would be one of them, likely Ribot or Barthou for France. Of course a guaranteed friendly neutral Mexico might be more useful for the Entente, Mexican oil essentially fueled the Royal Navy in WWI (well 75% of it, rest was Iran I think), they likely would not want to risk giving the US an excuse to cut off that oil

Yeah, in this scenario assuming the U.K joins the Entente, I see war being caused over same thing it was caused by in the war of 1812. With an angry Teddy Roosevelt as president it wouldn't surprise me to see him jump on an oppurtunity for war, with both Canada and Mexico, likely in 1915 or 1916, assuming the time frame is the same.

Funny you mention Santo Domingo as that's where I am right now. But yes, maybe congress would approve, after all didn't Grant sign it but it ended up losing in the Senate or House anyways? This would significantly change the Spanish American war, but only in favor of the USA. Once the U.S wins, they'll annex Cuba, since they already have two other carribean islands (Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic).


EDIT: I have very specific notes, but I left them in the U.S at my house, I'm doing most of this by memory from those notes, so apologies for being so disorganized in presenting this.
 
You'd need a Major Incident that Wilson can't sweep under the Rug. Something like a British Captain sinking an American Ship.

Remember the US was selling to both sides early in the War. Perhaps an overzelous British Captain sinks an American Merchantman on suspicion of running ammo to the Germans or something.

Alternately, Britain or France starts mucking around in the Western hemisphere, trying to get allies in South America or something. It's not impossible that Brazil and Argentina could have chosen sides during the war, and it would be a blatant violation of the monroe doctrine. . .
 
Top