So in this timeline America, for one reason or another, pursued stronger relations with Germany rather than Britain, and by the time WW1 happens, they had a similar standing with Germany as America did with Britain in otl. America doesn't join at first, instead doing for Germany what they did for Britain in otl, but eventually they do join, likely for similar reasons as the real world. What is the most likely outcome of this?
America joins WW1 as German Allie.
- Thread starter Ben Fallstead
- Start date
I think it’s unrealistic that America would join CP with any post-1900 POD, but hand waving that, let’s get to it.
Overwhelming German victory. Germany was close enough to winning the war iotl, America joining the war would probably have led to victory without a single ground unit being dispatched by the US.
The combined navies of America and Germany could beat the British and end the blockade. This would allow the Germans to fight for a lot longer than IOTL and probably would curtail many mutineers.
You also have the morale component. France was in a precarious situation in 1917 with mutiny about and the threat of collapse imminent. They were already sore over American troops not getting there fast enough, if the idea that American troops could be getting to Germany was in their heads, it was probably all over.
I won’t even delve into the financial impact a CP US would have on the ally war effort, since bankrolling the war pre-US loans basically bankrupted the British.
Overwhelming German victory. Germany was close enough to winning the war iotl, America joining the war would probably have led to victory without a single ground unit being dispatched by the US.
The combined navies of America and Germany could beat the British and end the blockade. This would allow the Germans to fight for a lot longer than IOTL and probably would curtail many mutineers.
You also have the morale component. France was in a precarious situation in 1917 with mutiny about and the threat of collapse imminent. They were already sore over American troops not getting there fast enough, if the idea that American troops could be getting to Germany was in their heads, it was probably all over.
I won’t even delve into the financial impact a CP US would have on the ally war effort, since bankrolling the war pre-US loans basically bankrupted the British.
Garrison
Donor
Sorry but this is I think the 2nd thread this month with the same premise and it would be nice if someone could provide a better explanation for the USA siding with the Germans than, 'one reason or another'. In anything resembling OTL this is impossible. The USA might decide to more strictly neutral, but even that's a stretch in the face of USW and German 'beastliness' in Belgium.
Sorry but this is probably the 10th time someone has gotten mad at me for one if my questions, so I'm not to inclined atm to mind that you saw someone else ask a similar question. Seriously, I almost always give a premise for how it happens and ask then if what kind of ramifications that would have, and then people seem to mostly complain how impossible it is, even when in ASB, and someone told me that I needed to either just talk about how it happens or what happens, not both, like I normally do, so I was trying that. Also I didn't know someone else had recently asked this. And it's not all that unlikely. A lot of America was very German until WW1, with many places having news and other things in German right next to English. There are lots of reasons for why it may have happened this way, I need look up again for specifics, but for this particular post, I was hoping for more specifically how it would go, other than just "Germany and America will wins".
Last edited:
On the subject of how the US gets dragged into the war on the German side the only way I really see it would be early in the war where the USA attempts to challenge the British blockade of Germany leading to a military incident that spirals into war. That being said when they join the war there is only so much the USA can do to assist Germany. Its army is small and will most likely be tied down in Canada and while its navy will force the UK to split its dreadnoughts battlefleet, the USA fleet can't attack the UK to assist Germany without leaving its coast open to attack. In addition the internal pressure to seek a separate status quo restoring peace with the UK would be quite strong.
As others have said, it would need a longer lead time to be realistic. That said, if we handwave the situation to be OTL like in 1914 with the start of the war, or even the murder of Franz Ferdinand. Then we could make some observations:
- The Entente would have to massively overhaul their industry to face the new situation, as in OTL the relied on the USA for massive amounts of raw resources and semi finished products. So that will have a massive influence right from the start.
- Next is the whole monetary and supplier situation that chages. Without the USA as a willing trader who is able to supply the Entente and what is the difference in effort to get the amounts to Europe.
- Another point is that this USA probably would be very unwilling to defere to the Entente in questions of blockading policy. So a distant blockade would be more dicy and the whole slew of questionable Entente choices, ie freezing neutral trade and checks in Entente ports, will further worsen the ATL situation.
- Further you have a different balance of neutral oppinion to work with. So if the USA is more CP leaning how is Canada reacting. Or Italy if they "know" the USA is different.
After 1914, I think the first mayor point that could change is Italy. Maybe they enter as OTL or maybe not. Depends on the situation domestic and diplomatic. But my feel is they will enter as in OTL. Maybe more promises by the Entente will be needed but I think the USA is far enough away to not matter yet.
That lets us determine that 1915 probably still largely follows the curse of OTL but there will be some differences. The Entente will have to economize much more from the start. At the same time the CP may be able to spend a little more in supplies. And that probably will show in a better casualty rate for the CP vs. the Entente.
The point were it opens up for me is then 1916. Here the pressure on the Entente supply because of longer distance LoC and U-Boot threat should impact the war noticably. And I think the CP will know that they have the upper hand. They are probably doing as good in Russia as in OTL and "better" in the West, less losses and better supplies will see a better situation for them. At the same time I could see the clock ticking for the Entente as they have to juggle more mayor balls then OTL.
In the end here, I think if the USA then enters or not is a matter of flavor for a TL. Because Imo without the USA supplieing the Entente with money and materials as well as opening the trade to Europe above the levels of OTL the CP is in a position to win even without the USA in the war.
This would have a massive impact on the Geo-political situation 'before' any such conflict (possibly going back decades) that it would have a impact on the way in which the European nations did things.
Particularly the UK - who are both reliant on world trade and effectively run it and global finances as well as monopolising coal production etc.
That would obviously work both ways and such a change would be detrimental to both the UK and USA (as they both found out the hard way during the war of 1812)
Basically I think that without a large number of major PODs going back decades it is unlikely that the USA / UK relation 'swing-ometer' would go so far the other way.
If Britain sided with the Confederacy could that create enough distrust and anger that a majority of the US decide this time it's Britain that gets the stab in the back.
Now this is more probable.
With a POD dating back to the American Civil War wear the Royal Navy sends ships to support the Confederacy, another treacherous attempt by Britain would see the U.S. side with its enemy,
I do not know how far the USA has to swing on the "swing-ometer" as @Cryhavoc101 put it. But as the USA does not have to enter right away we have some leeway Imo. As a more "neutral" USA that is pushing for the rights of the European neutrals and does not accept the blockade practices of the Entente that were mayorly different then custom could Imo over time push the USA away from the Entente.
Add maybe, for story / TL purpose, that the USA got burned on an bond issue in another war and as such does not allow foraign bonds and restricts trade for the reasons mentioned above and we could get an USA that is inching away from the Entente.
But as the author asked us not to speculate about this, if there is interest maybe open a threat on this.
Add maybe, for story / TL purpose, that the USA got burned on an bond issue in another war and as such does not allow foraign bonds and restricts trade for the reasons mentioned above and we could get an USA that is inching away from the Entente.
But as the author asked us not to speculate about this, if there is interest maybe open a threat on this.
So in order for that to come about requires the UK having a self damaging foreign policy regarding the USA for decades
One thing you can almost guarantee with the UK and the USA with regards to foreign policy towards each other during that time - "follow the money!"
During the ACW there was far far more money to be made with continued trade with the USA while trade with the Confederacy fell by 90% and the UK never officially recognised their government.
So apart from the Trent affair and a pair of ships made for the CSS in British Shipyards as well as a relative handful of private blockade runners trading cotton for stuff the South could not get themselves British policy was, while officially neutral, in practice overwhelmingly pro-USA.
1 POD could be there being no world wide glut in cotton - in 1860 20% of British people were somehow involved in the cotton trade - therefore the blockade of the south by the USN did not negatively impact stocks of Cotton in the UK only because of the glut and the emerging sources of supply in India and Egypt.
Have no such glut and the blockade has a negative impact on British industry - this could have changed things - but its a tall If tree to swing it over to the USA being so pro CP in such a way by 1914
And of course the same is true of France!
IMO such a change would make the international political situation unrecognisable compared to OTL
Aye, to make it work you can't basically go "What if Germany and the USA were allies in WW1 because." Its because that 'because' would be HUGE, and you'd need to have so many things leading up to it to make it happen, from a surviving CSA that's UK allied and more. The world of OTL WW1 would have to be utterly different, so 'because' just does not cut it.
TheSwedishHistorian
Banned
if the US joins the war in any faction and is not funding the entente that probably means a central powers victory as the central powers already won the eastern front in our timeline and were only 48km away from conquering Paris. I would also say this also means Italy doesn't join the entente as they did OTL on May 23, 1915, as the decision to join the fray on the side of the Allies was based largely on the assurances Italy received in the Treaty of London, signed in April 1915, which means Austria-Hungary does a lot better in the war. and probably means Romania either goes neutral or joins the Central powers.
The US would probably insist on the independence of new countries and perhaps try to push for decolonization British and French imperial land. Perhaps a ton of new countries in eastern Europe similar to the Brest-Litovsk treaty.
The US would probably insist on the independence of new countries and perhaps try to push for decolonization British and French imperial land. Perhaps a ton of new countries in eastern Europe similar to the Brest-Litovsk treaty.
Last edited:
How? The US have if I'm counting correctly ten dreadnoughts in 1914. They have no base on the European side of the Atlantic unless they make it past the blockade into Wilhelmshaven. Their chances of achieving that, with no destroyers capable of making the crossing and barely any light cruisers for scouting, without being intercepted and mauled by the Grand Fleet are surely pretty low. Or are they going to successfully coordinate a rendezvous at sea with the HSF - without scouts - and then have the Grand Fleet conveniently come out & fight, without one or the other being caught and defeated in detail en route to the rendezvous?
Sure they might do enough damage to the Grand Fleet to make round two against the HSF + US survivors a foregone conclusion, but I wouldn't see that as a certainty.
I suspect if there was any danger of the US ever supporting Germany Britain would not have gone to war and quite possibly France and Russia might not either. If a weird internal political convulsion brings an anti Entente president to power I think the US would rather block loans and sales to Britain, France and Russia until they can force everybody to some sort treaty conference. They don't need to fight Britain to impose their will!
This. Just deny England and France and Russia loans and supplies and protest the blockade at length, making constant attempts to penetrate it. If the British drop it as a result, resume full scale trade with Germany. The US doesn’t even need to declare war to support its ally.
and honestly, the BIG thing that America could do that would likely effect the War would be Trade with Germany. Get that economy running and the Germany Empire is suddenly not in such a bad place food and materials wise.
Garrison
Donor
Again this has been discussed many time and the consensus is its all but impossible. Also without a scenario for how they end up as allies its hard to draw any reasonable conclusions about what would happen. For example as others have pointed out this would probably need significant changes pre-1900, which would so radically change things you wouldn't have a recognizable WWI anyway.
I could see the Philippines become a battlefront of this alt WWI. British forces may invade Mindanao and Palawan from Borneo.
The specific scenario mentions the US not joining until the later war, so I’m not basing this on 1914 numbers. By 1917 there would be 14 dreadnoughts. They also would have destroyers handy at this time.
that’s not including the idea that they are preparing for war against Britain through the preceding years and would factor her navies into production quotas.