US entry into WWI

[leo]

The US entry into WWI has been characterized as anything from totally decisive to the straw which broke the camels back. I believe a good test of this entry would be what if the US had come into the war on the side of ther Central Powers? A little far fetched, perhaps, but a distinct possibility given Britains interference with our shipping during the war. Certainly, as possible as our staying out of the war all together.

I think that a US -Central Powers alignment would have won the war. What do you guys think?

leo

This is an interesting question Leo. Considering that it seems to have taken at least a full year for the effect of US entry to have a significant effect, the Germans would have had to endure the same waiting period the Brits and French did.

Shortages of German manpowerand resources would have been overcome in such a scenario for sure, but America was not yet the military giant it would become in later years. Obviously American entry into the war on the other side would have changed things significantly. Whether or not it would have altered the final outcome, I don't know. I wonder if the US-Canadian border would have been the location of a third front if such a scenario had played out. Is it possible that Bishop and Luke might have dueled over Detroit rather than Douai ?

Didnt Churchill suggest that US entry interfered with a likely settlement in 1917?

[Craig]

I thought Churchill was pretty anxious to get the US into the war - and may have, as Lord of the Admiralty, tried to force their hand. Winnie was, after all, a bit of an SOB - witness turn-of-the-century strike supression, Gallipoli, Dresden, etc.

Also, US intervention would on the German side would have been largely neutralized by His Majesty's Navy. But then Britain wouldn't have benefitted from US trade, which bolstered her war effort from day one.

so saith Suzie Derkins of Calvin and Hobbes.

I dunno, I figured the reason America was neutral was because Europe was so far away, they could profit from selling to both parties, weren't ready for it, and as of yet did not have a compelling reason to take up arms... of course if they suffer collateral damage and all they can stoke up the righteous indignation and go to war. As soon as the Germans popped the all out U-boat offensive it was simply a matter of time... in spite of what I believe were prelinary on warnings on behalf of the Germans to the US government. (did they really think that would make any difference!? "okay Dad, don't walk across the street because Hobbes and I are creating an orgy of death and destruction this afternoon while we wage war on Suzie Derkins, you got that?") and no, I don't think the US would have been able to help Germany win because that British navy would have made it nearly impossible.... and with that naval consideration, in mind, the Brits would probably just send every other US transport full of troops and supplies to the bottom of the Atlantic and then the US would mostly be at war with Britain before it could even reach the continent in serious numbers, and that would be a complete pain in the ... for everybody, huh? No, I don't think America would have helped Germany even if the British had started attacking US vessels... because sanctions and embargos against selling Britain any goods probably would have been pretty rough. now that we're speculating if American hadn't agreed to try and supply both sides, does anybody think the war would have ended sooner? obviously with money at stake, and us being the great oppurtunists and/or capitalists that everybody knows and loves I don't think we'd pass up a chance to play both sides of the field. I'm inclined to think that it 'might' have ended sooner. rather than getting all hopped up and indignant (which was their right to do) what if America just said, 'well, I guess we don't have to sell anything to any of you monkeys until you can settle your differences peacably.' boy, talk about wishful thinking! sometimes I look around at the people that are leading our respective countries, or fighting for such positions, and I think maybe voting for a 6 year old wouldn't be all that much different!

About the only way to get enough troops ashore would be a landing in Spain, even then the transports would have taken such a hammering that the landing force would be tiny and easily wiped out. Mind you if a second front against France could have been opened up then a German offensive may have broken through.

Just out of interest what planes would the USAF have been flying?

Mark

While the U.S. was not, as yet a world powder, it would be interesting to see how Britian would have reacted to a "two (ocean) front" naval war. Would the German High Sea fleet have taken on new life, or become more agressive. Could the Royal Navy maintain the blockade of Germany? Would the Irish rebellion, assisted by the U.S. have occurred earlier? The major material assistance given by the U.S. to Britian and France and withheld from Germany in 1914-17 would never have happened in Leo's suggestioned alternitive history. Possibly British "unrestricted" naval actions against U.S. shipping going to Germany would be the reason for intervention. More importantly....just what type planes and what insignia would the Jasta von Steuban have flown Mark Nichipor

Okay - try this scenario:

1. U.S. enters the war on the side of the Central Powers.

2. Having no real interest in the European War, the U.S. then invades and annexes Canada, whose army is somewhere else (i.e. France).

3. Encouraged by this easy success, the U.S. invades Mexico (itself still racked by civil war) and completes what had been commenced in 1847-48.

4. "Manifest Destiny" having triumphed - but uneasy at the prospect of long-term guerilla war in Mexico, the United States elects, as President, General Pershing (famed for the seige of Medicine Hat and untainted despite the massacres in Mexico City), who subsequently and successfully launches a constitutional amendment converting the United States to a military dictatorship.

This strikes me as at least as reasonable a projection as other "alternate histories".

Considering that the US Air Service flew either British or French aircraft in WWI, it is interesting to wonder what they might have flown.

Curtiss flying boats were in active service with the Navy, but that's about it.

I doubt you would have seen an indigenous air arm such as the US had as historically until about 1920 or so.

Interesting scenario. The historical situation that most closly fits is the War of 1812. Britain, at war with thr French Empire, reluctantly stumbled into a war with the USA, caused by an inevitable collision between British Naval strategy and American trade. The USA did not allie herself with the French Empire. The British were able to muster overwhelming numbers against the small, but excellent, U.S. Navy, which gave a good accounting of itself. America could not sustain an invasion of Canada, but repulsed two invasions from Canada. The British raided Washington, but were insufficient in numbers, so they evacuated after burning the city. A British raid on Baltimore was repulsed. British efforts to take the mouth of the Mississippi were blodily repulsed.
In April 1917, there are several differences:

1. The American Navy had 14 dreadnaughts in commission, whereas the Germans had 19. The presence of a large hostile fleet to the west would certainlY change British strategy. (Historically, the Yanks sent about 1/2 of them to Scotland to help bootle up the High Seas Fleet). The American Scouting units were inferior in numbers and quality to the Brits, but the destroyers were first rate and plentiful. American subs were about as good as British ones and some did operate against the Jerries historically.

2. America's population is much larger than Canada's.

3. Both the USA and Canada have expanded their areas to encompass much more territory.

4. The USA has millions of Irish Catholics living within her borders.

American troops would attack Canada, and maybe Ireland. Britain would, at the very least, have to divert troops from the secondary fronts in Salonika, Italy and the Middle East to face the Yanks. It would have made things rough for my family, my paternal grandparents were British subjects living in Philadelphia at the time. My maternal grandfather was an American sailor.

Key question for forumites: How would the Albatross D-III perform with a Liberty engine?

[leo]

I believe the combined force of the US Navy and the Kriegsmarines of Germany and Austria would have been a match for the British, French, Russian and Italian navies. The british navy was large, but the US Fleet was growing by leaps and bounds from 1914 on. It was growing faster than was the British navy.

I hadn't thought about Canada and Mexico. There probably would have been those who would have advocated an invasion of those two countries.

With a Liberty 12, I don't think any German fighter would have performed very well. They might have done well in the Gothas and Zeppelin- Staaken bombers.