USA joins the Central Powers.

[Grimbald]

Assumimg that the butterflies that cause this also cause troop build ups in both the US and Canada and a "second to none eventually" fleet build in the US...

Western Canada falls quickly with the east taking upwards of 18 months. The US does nothing in Europe but starts taking British possessions in the Western Atlantic and across the Pacific at will. With New Zealand and Australia worried about their homeland and Canada out of the war food shortages force the UK to the table in 1916.

Meanwhile Germany has crushed both Russia and France. A-L is German. Serbia ceases to exist.

Italy stays out of the war, as does Japan.

The US ends up with most UK island possessions, Canada and perhaps New Zealand.

Germany gets most of central Africa and perhaps Indochina.

Russia is downsized with the creation of German leaning new countries.

Britain loses about a third of her empire but keeps part of Africa and India. Australia is an open issue depending on how far the US jugernaut got before the whistle blew.

France is lucky to keep France.

Japan may jump in late and take a few western Pacific islands and some of Russia's east coast.

 

[MattII]

Okay, but what if it spends a bit building up then invades Canada, doesn't knock out Britain's biggest trade-link?

 

[BlondieBC]

When general war is declared that August, the US throws its lot in with Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Several PODs occur for this but essentially, the US isnt going to back down from forcing a Canadian surrender and terms that are highly favorable to its new allies.


Basically, it joins the Central Powers war effort. No cherry tapping in regards to American morale runs out after the first major battles. Its a cop out and a poor one.

The POD is important. Any increasing period of USA/UK tensions will cause military build ups. To get the USA to just join the CP without a long period of build up would require the Entente to attack the USA or declare war. Since Russia almost attacked a neutral fleet a decade or so before on mistaken identity and came reasonably close to attacking Sweden in WW1, it could happen, so I will run with Entente outrage of great stupidity brings in USA with no prep.

Now the USA had trouble fighting Mexico. We had an ok Navy that was rapidly expanding. We know from OTL that with 18 months, we could have a major army in Europe. Probably bit under 12 months to hit million plus men army in North America. But the USA has a problem, such a small starting military. I would not rule out some very, very embarrassing defeats in the first months of the war.

The UK had very little in the Pacific. This is why the asked to Japanese help. We can debate if Japan will enter the war. You can probably mark this as indecisive theater, but without Japanese help, Entente Merchant ships will have a very hard time in the Pacific. But this is not a huge deal.

The war in Europe in the first months should go much the same, unless the UK decides to send forces destined for France to Canada. I doubt they do this, since Germans in Calais will be seen as a threat to England's survival. Likely the Italian still join about on time, since it will look like they can make gains as A-H is about to collapse, at least in the Italian mind.

Attacking in Canada in winter is not a good campaign season. So we likely see offenses happen in Spring as the snow melts. By May or so, the USA should have new divisions showing up, so the losses should stop. We can debate the details, but most of Canada will fall. The Canadian divisions will never to to Europe. Lots of other need things like food and ammunition will also not be going to Europe. So the Entente attacks in France in 1915 are noticeably weaker, and the Germans make more gains in the East. Most of Canada will likely fall this year. The US should be felt interdicting food from South America and other supplies.

1916 will be decisive for CP. You can get a lot of butterflies, but I would vote this the most likely scenario.

 

[BlondieBC]

Britain had no problem actually using its navy. And the US has to use its navy if it wants to land anyone in Europe except diplomats.

USA much more likely to fight in Caribbean with UK. Either attacking or defending. But I do agree the UK will send be willing to use the Navy more than other powers. The question is more does the RN send over the newer ships or keep all the better ships in home waters to protect the homeland. There would be a big drop off in quality from the A team (13.5" dreads and better) and the C team (predreads, older cruisers, and the like).

Where in Europe would it make sense to land? Sailing around the British Isles to land in Germany to join up with existing front lines requires going around big parts of the RN, which sounds like a bad idea to me. Either the RN will need to be knocked out of contesting the issue, or they're going to have to land some where else.

If the idea is to put troops directly into France or the UK (a thrilling but very dubious prospect), you're going to need a base of operations to do it from, and I don't think the Azores are going to cut it.

No where. This goes back to the problem with Sea Lion. You never actually have to invade the UK to win. By the time you have mastery over the seas around the British home waters, you are already starving them. Unless you want unconditional surrender, you will not have to ever invade.

And the USA has excellent position for fighting the UK. Long before US dreadnoughts sail round the British Isle unchallenged, the USA has conquered Canada. Shut off merchant trade from Argentina. And shut down the traffic through the Med.

We even have a good idea of what the USA is likely to do from War Plan Red. We take Canada. We then try to take the Caribbean (much harder). After that we worry about the rest of the world.

 

[Elfwine]

USA much more likely to fight in Caribbean with UK. Either attacking or defending. But I do agree the UK will send be willing to use the Navy more than other powers. The question is more does the RN send over the newer ships or keep all the better ships in home waters to protect the homeland. There would be a big drop off in quality from the A team (13.5" dreads and better) and the C team (predreads, older cruisers, and the like).

I suspect it depends on the strength of the US navy vs. the German navy - OTL the German navy is a larger force and the closer force, but any timeline where the US is pro-German/anti-British might change the first.

Though why Britain doesn't try to fix matters diplomatically with one or the other (averting the scenario, sure, but . . .) is a mystery.

And the USA has excellent position for fighting the UK. Long before US dreadnoughts sail round the British Isle unchallenged, the USA has conquered Canada. Shut off merchant trade from Argentina. And shut down the traffic through the Med.

Conquering Canada is easier said than done, as multiple previous attempts show. And it's not as if the population ratio was particularly close a century ago.

And how is the US shutting off merchant trade from Argentina and shutting down the traffic through the Mediterranean? I mean, the US even cruising in the Med needs bases somewhere for that to be feasible.

 

[BlondieBC]

In that, does anybody have the oil numbers?


Or can anybody suggest how the war might end in mid 1916 in order for the Entente to save face?

Galacia 10%. Romania 10%. Baku 10%. 65% Western Hemisphere, but UK has some oil from Persia. USA will have hard time interdicting. Very, very hard time.

Why do you think the Entente would be allowed to save face? It will be based on the cease fire lines on whatever date that happens.

 

[BlondieBC]

However America does have to try to defend its coastline from attacks. Running away from the RN and leaving their naval bases, shipyards and important ports open to attack will not be a popular or sustainable strategy.

Yes, the RN can shell parts of the America cost if it wants, but it likely avoids the major bases in ports which will have defenses that increase as the war goes on. Look at where the fleet is at. It is at the grand review in Portsmouth. It likely spends 2-4 weeks sweeping the North Sea and setting up Scapa Flow. It is a couple more weeks to sail to USA at a economical fuel speed. And the trip risk the High Seas Fleet coming out and shelling the UK.

More likely you see the battlecruisers doing their designed job of hunting smaller USA warships. They USA probably concentrates its fleet at well defended harbor. We then end up with a merchant warfare of older USA cruisers, AMC, and submarines. Even if the USA could win a big battle early, we can't capitalize. Not enough army. So it does not make a lot of sense to seek a decisive battle for the USA.

And it does not for the UK either. It leaves the British Islands open. Doctrine ask for 2-1 edge, so you either come with fast ships or bulk of fleet. And even if you win, you risk dropping the level of newer battleships below the levels believed necessary to defend the UK. Does not make a lot of sense.

And since this thread does not have some long period of build up, both sides will be caught off guard. Royal Navy probably has a good first year, then will be faced with not enough ships to meet all needs. Many of the RN ships look good on paper, but would be death traps operating far from UK bases and near USA bases. Slow, under gunned, under armored. Too slow to win, too weak to get away from newer USA ships. And when faced with older USA ships, the USA hides in port.

 

[BlondieBC]

Indeed where are those double digit dreadnoughts going to come from if the eastern seaboard shipyards have been flattened by the RN and the US is having to engage with the expansionist Japs in the pacific??

First, the UK never bother to attack the German coast lines or ports. So unlikely here. Second, USA had port defenses and they will improve during the war. Third, we have some modern ships, and being close to our bases but far from UK bases is a force multiplier for USA. Fourth, lot of USA ports are not reachable with dreadnought guns. Even a few mines or older torpedo craft will prevent attack.

Now the USA can have issues with Japan. If they join. Since they waited IOTL, the probably wait just as long ITTL, if not longer.

 

[BlondieBC]

I suspect it depends on the strength of the US navy vs. the German navy - OTL the German navy is a larger force and the closer force, but any timeline where the US is pro-German/anti-British might change the first.

Though why Britain doesn't try to fix matters diplomatically with one or the other (averting the scenario, sure, but . . .) is a mystery.

Conquering Canada is easier said than done, as multiple previous attempts show. And it's not as if the population ratio was particularly close a century ago.

And how is the US shutting off merchant trade from Argentina and shutting down the traffic through the Mediterranean? I mean, the US even cruising in the Med needs bases somewhere for that to be feasible.

The USA can field an army at least 10 times the size of Canada's max effort. What happens is a foregone conclusion. Details can vary, but the weight of the USA will win. USA is in much better position than in 1812.

Now the reason I went with no warning war is that once we have a long period of buildup, the POD drives who has what size army. And it will also butterfly away WW1 as we know it. The UK building a much larger army to defend against hostile USA is enough alone to change world history.

You hunt the merchant shipping in the Atlantic. The USA could put hundreds of AMC's at sea. Or hundreds of submarines after a year or two of buildup. We will have a rapidly expanding navy. A lot of merchant ships are USA. Given time, the USA will be able to shut down the Atlantic. The British have an unwinnable choice. They can send Grand Fleet to hold Caribbean and let High Seas Fleet cause panic in British Isles. Or they can protect the British Isles and lose there trade routes.

I worked through the number for my TL. Did a lot of research. Hostile navies based between UK and its food (Argentina) just break the UK over time. The UK does not have near enough ships to convoy all over the world. Without Argentina and USA food, the UK is in a world of hurt. It just ends poorly for the UK. In a best case scenario for the UK, they will be living on UK domestic wartime production plus ANZAC food. Then we have to ask where France will get its food and steel from. There are a lot of butterflies that are going to make France very, very difficult for the Entente. The German Grand Offensive of 1916 will win the war, and due to weather patterns and Falkenhayn mindset, it will be Verdun unless Verdun has already fallen for whatever reason.

 

[Super_Cool]

In OTL, it was the USA that funded the war for Britain and France which allowed them to eventually win.

In this ATL, the USA will not be doing that. Thus, bankruptcy will be inevitable for both countries. All the CPs have to do is play the waiting game. It will be over for the Entente by 1917. Probably sooner, because now Britain will have even more expenses relating to the defense of Canada/Caribbean/Pacific.

Japan is in for a world of hurt also.
-no loans from the USA, which were essential in the Russo-Japanese War
-lack of power projection, because Germany, a US ally, owns Micronesia at the time
-lack of oil, due to not owning the Dutch East Indies

Japan loses its empire much earlier. I could also see China, under Sun Yat-Sen, joining the CPs if the USA is in to get revenge on Japan. He could also take back Hong Kong and renew Chinese pride. Sun was very pro-America.

 

[Strategos]

That's an operation far easier said than done, Not to mention not easy on morale or ships.

Britain can easily spare "6 dreadies and BC escorts and etc.". Also, BC escorts? Assuming BC stands for battlecruiser (and I'm at a loss for what else), what?

America doing this is going to burn huge amounts of coal (or oil) for nothing. This isn't even a coherent commerce raiding strategy, this is just steaming around looking and feeling stupid.

Huge amounts of oil. And the point is to interdict food from Argentina and supplies from Chile.

It the RN which has the issue of burning oil and coal for nearly no gain. Not to mention the extensive shore fortifications along many of the major ports. Fortifications which will only get stronger. Way stronger.


You have to remember, Britain had only to patrol the North Sea passage and Gibraltar. This is a pittance compared to just the Atlantic coastline, and there is another coastline that the British are incapable of touching, the Pacific. In fact, the Pacific Coastline is untouchable by Britain and especially by Japan. I dont even think Japan can reach out and touch Midway at this point. If so then only just.


The British Navy runs on oil. Oil that is supplied by North America. Oil that has to go to the RN and the Merchant Fleet. Although the Merchant Fleet can reasonably get by on coal, the Royal Navy cant make the same sacrifice in performance.


Please. I noted it in the OP for a reason. This whole "American Morale" meme is really stupid. And besides.... Vietnam lasted approximately five years, Iraq even longer and Afghanistan even longer. Korea was an armistice peace treaty. It was a clear stalemate and a pointless one to continue.


Which leaves the World Wars... So this whole little meme is...pointless to mention. Especially since in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, we had no intentions of annexation.


So if your going to "argue" that America barely last for even a year and then miraculously resumes trade with Entente, you need to think this through.


America fed the Entente engorgiously, loaned it massive sums of money and even sold it a hefty chunk of ammunition. The rest of imported Entente food came mostly from Midwestern Canada and Argentina, and its materials to make ammunition came from Chile. Canadian grain can be cut off by destroying the Canadian rail that transported it, which forces the Canadian forces out of the easily defended Eastern Areas, Argentinian trade can be effectively harrased and blockaded quite easily by the USN and Chilean supplies can also be interdicted.


Britain, unlike the USN does not have an(effectively) unlimited supply of oil, and is much further from South America and the Carribean.


So it isnt just running away, its raiding and interdicting South American trade in two different oceans.


Which is why I am asking: what peace terms, reasonable ones, would Britain and France be willing to agree to?


Because if this war goes on to 1917, then the US can raise an army which outnumber the entire Canadian population. And by then, Britain and France will be starving just as badly as Germany did in OTL.

Combined with unlimited uboat warfare for nearly the entire duration of the war. Do I need to spell out what that means when combined with the loss of American shipping and food and the inevitable loss of Canadian grain?

As far as POD, I am avoiding it because that would make it inevitable for the US to join the Naval arms race in 1912-1913, by which point of the war breaking out, the USN would already be on its way to a massive expansion.


ITT:I dont want to put America in a position to think it can just sail forth to victory. Because then Britwankers would be arguing for a flawless British Victory. Which would make the thread devolve into stupidity.


POD is the immediate months previous. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance gets brought up and it leads to a series of disagreements....

 

[Strategos]

Galacia 10%. Romania 10%. Baku 10%. 65% Western Hemisphere, but UK has some oil from Persia. USA will have hard time interdicting. Very, very hard time.

Why do you think the Entente would be allowed to save face? It will be based on the cease fire lines on whatever date that happens.

...Dude....

You just said it right there. 65% Western Hemisphere. Western Hemisphere is all it needs to interdict and deny to severely disrupt British operations.

 

[Elfwine]

The USA can field an army at least 10 times the size of Canada's max effort. What happens is a foregone conclusion. Details can vary, but the weight of the USA will win. USA is in much better position than in 1812.

The USA being able to field a larger army than Canada would mean more if Canada wasn't going to call for help - and Britain can certainly send that help.

The USA in 1914 is still having an underwhelming military.

You hunt the merchant shipping in the Atlantic. The USA could put hundreds of AMC's at sea. Or hundreds of submarines after a year or two of buildup. We will have a rapidly expanding navy. A lot of merchant ships are USA. Given time, the USA will be able to shut down the Atlantic. The British have an unwinnable choice. They can send Grand Fleet to hold Caribbean and let High Seas Fleet cause panic in British Isles. Or they can protect the British Isles and lose there trade routes.

Because the British having a larger navy than Germany+the USA put together doesn't matter?

Huge amounts of oil. And the point is to interdict food from Argentina and supplies from Chile.

It the RN which has the issue of burning oil and coal for nearly no gain. Not to mention the extensive shore fortifications along many of the major ports. Fortifications which will only get stronger. Way stronger.

Facing the American navy is not "nearly no gain".

You have to remember, Britain had only to patrol the North Sea passage and Gibraltar. This is a pittance compared to just the Atlantic coastline, and there is another coastline that the British are incapable of touching, the Pacific. In fact, the Pacific Coastline is untouchable by Britain and especially by Japan. I dont even think Japan can reach out and touch Midway at this point. If so then only just.

And the Royal Navy is large enough to do more than just the North Sea passage and Gibraltar. More than large enough. It's the largest and most powerful fleet in the world by a considerable margin.

The British Navy runs on oil. Oil that is supplied by North America. Oil that has to go to the RN and the Merchant Fleet. Although the Merchant Fleet can reasonably get by on coal, the Royal Navy cant make the same sacrifice in performance.

http://www.epmag.com/archives/digitalOilField/5911.htm Iran, not North America.

Please. I noted it in the OP for a reason. This whole "American Morale" meme is really stupid. And besides.... Vietnam lasted approximately five years, Iraq even longer and Afghanistan even longer. Korea was an armistice peace treaty. It was a clear stalemate and a pointless one to continue.

It's not a matter of American morale, it's a matter of "WTF are we doing?"

The USA has no interest in fighting Britain without a POD establishing there as being a rivalry.

So if your going to "argue" that America barely last for even a year and then miraculously resumes trade with Entente, you need to think this through.

The USA has much more interest in trade and peace with the Entente powers than with the CP, especially as trading with the CP will be handily intercepted by the Royal Navy you so cavalierly dismiss.

ITT:I dont want to put America in a position to think it can just sail forth to victory. Because then Britwankers would be arguing for a flawless British Victory. Which would make the thread devolve into stupidity.

Instead you have yourself arguing for a flawless American victory as if the US navy can steam all over the Seven Seas without a problem but the poor Royal Navy can barely handle its OTL tasks.

Britain, unlike the USN does not have an(effectively) unlimited supply of oil, and is much further from South America and the Carribean.

Given that you don't even know where the Royal Navy went to secure supplies from, I'm dubious on any calculations of yours based on fuel supply

 

[PariahNihil]

Assumimg that the butterflies that cause this also cause troop build ups in both the US and Canada and a "second to none eventually" fleet build in the US...

Western Canada falls quickly with the east taking upwards of 18 months. The US does nothing in Europe but starts taking British possessions in the Western Atlantic and across the Pacific at will. With New Zealand and Australia worried about their homeland and Canada out of the war food shortages force the UK to the table in 1916.

Meanwhile Germany has crushed both Russia and France. A-L is German. Serbia ceases to exist.

Italy stays out of the war, as does Japan.

The US ends up with most UK island possessions, Canada and perhaps New Zealand.

Germany gets most of central Africa and perhaps Indochina.

Russia is downsized with the creation of German leaning new countries.

Britain loses about a third of her empire but keeps part of Africa and India. Australia is an open issue depending on how far the US jugernaut got before the whistle blew.

France is lucky to keep France.

Japan may jump in late and take a few western Pacific islands and some of Russia's east coast.

The Americans won't take ove New Zealand. Sacrificing a dominion is highly unlikely. As for Canada, they wouldn't be able to annex the entire thing, probably just occupy certain major cities and areas for a decade or so, but really the amazing trade relationship with Canada would suddenly be gone since they'd be pissed so... you lose more than you gain from invading Canada.

 

[Strategos]

The Americans won't take ove New Zealand. Sacrificing a dominion is highly unlikely. As for Canada, they wouldn't be able to annex the entire thing, probably just occupy certain major cities and areas for a decade or so, but really the amazing trade relationship with Canada would suddenly be gone since they'd be pissed so... you lose more than you gain from invading Canada.

Canada and Britain is completely unable to oppose American Annexation of everything west of the Great Lakes. As in, incapable of sending a force to contest it. The Yukon, Manitoba, British Columbia etc, gone if this war last even a year because if it does, all chances of a White Peace are out the window.

Oh and 95% of American GDP was internal activity....so yeah...

And you. Up there. You said yourself that 65% was North American Activity. And Persia isnt even as developed as it was in the 1920s, much less at this point.


And since when was Baku available to Britain during the war? And wasnt Galacia and Romania also unavailable for the war?


As for the rest, Elfwine, really? Its like you dont realize that the American coastline is orders of magnitude furher away and generally larger.


The rest of your post is essentially calling the OP unrealistic. Atleast try to to discuss the topic, would you?

 

[Elfwine]

Canada and Britain is completely unable to oppose American Annexation of everything west of the Great Lakes. As in, incapable of sending a force to contest it. The Yukon, Manitoba, British Columbia etc, gone if this war last even a year because if it does, all chances of a White Peace are out the window.

Oh and 95% of American GDP was internal activity....so yeah...

92% in 1913, although Britain - with trade links all over - is 74%.

 

[Elfwine]

As for the rest, Elfwine, really? Its like you dont realize that the American coastline is orders of magnitude furher away and generally larger.


The rest of your post is essentially calling the OP unrealistic. Atleast try to to discuss the topic, would you?

It's like you don't realize that the Royal Navy is capable of facing the US navy, which is more important than blockading the coast of a largely self-sufficient country if it comes down to that.

And I have tried to discuss the topic, and that includes the "for no apparent reason, the US joins the Central Powers." issue.

The American people not caring for such a war is a rather important element, and your tossed in POD doesn't really change that.

 

[PariahNihil]

Canada and Britain is completely unable to oppose American Annexation of everything west of the Great Lakes. As in, incapable of sending a force to contest it. The Yukon, Manitoba, British Columbia etc, gone if this war last even a year because if it does, all chances of a White Peace are out the window.

Oh and 95% of American GDP was internal activity....so yeah...

And you. Up there. You said yourself that 65% was North American Activity. And Persia isnt even as developed as it was in the 1920s, much less at this point.


And since when was Baku available to Britain during the war? And wasnt Galacia and Romania also unavailable for the war?


As for the rest, Elfwine, really? Its like you dont realize that the American coastline is orders of magnitude furher away and generally larger.


The rest of your post is essentially calling the OP unrealistic. Atleast try to to discuss the topic, would you?

Why would America want to annex so much territory inhabited by people that would now hate Americans? Aside from resources, which at the time weren't easy to dig out of the ground (lumber is different), annexing half of the second largest territorial unit on the planet wouldn't be worth the hassle. Just because the Entente can't defend it doesn't mean the Americans are automatically going to annex it.

British Columbia and Maine's full claims, at most.

 

[Georgepatton]

Why would America want to annex so much territory inhabited by people that would now hate Americans? Aside from resources, which at the time weren't easy to dig out of the ground (lumber is different), annexing half of the second largest territorial unit on the planet wouldn't be worth the hassle. Just because the Entente can't defend it doesn't mean the Americans are automatically going to annex it.

British Columbia and Maine's full claims, at most.

As an argument, if there's ever a chance that there could be a second round of this war, giving the Entente back a huge land border with the US might not be anyone's version of a good idea.

Turning all of Canada over to a friendly, non-Dominion government is not, however, out of the question.

 

[PariahNihil]

As an argument, if there's ever a chance that there could be a second round of this war, giving the Entente back a huge land border with the US might not be anyone's version of a good idea.

Turning all of Canada over to a friendly, non-Dominion government is not, however, out of the question.

That would make the most sense, but realistically it would have to be a total, crushing defeat for Canada and any British forces sent to save it. Otherwise, due to its long history with the British, I couldn't imagine it not being tied to them somehow.

Maybe a Dominon government more heavily influenced by the Americans, with the post-war Canadian government trying to appease the United States despite the unpopularity it would cause with the Canadian people.