What if america joined the central powers

[stevep]

@stevep, oddly enough, the atrocities that Germany committed were exaggerated for propaganda purposes. There is a very good reason that -during WW2- the Allies didn't believe the Germans were doing the Holocaust until they found the first extermination camp.

Yes some were exaggerated but most still occurred. Plus the fact there were some exaggeration didn't matter to the diplomacy until is realised that that was the case. As such that makes no difference to the actual German actions in the period and their perception.

Your suggestion in a later post that Britain fabricated the Zimmerman telegram. Apart from the evidence that its valid there is the small factor that when he was asked about it Zimmerman admitted to the entire thing.

Steve

 

[absenceofmalice]

Such Russia would get its own Hitler

Russia had its own hitler you know that

 

[Airedale260]

I was responding, erroneously, to "what if USA joined the CP in 1914".
A scenario in which no such dependency and thus need for Dollars would had ever formed.

Now, as to finding replacements for those imports in 1916/17 once the USA joins the CP in 1916 - oil can be sourced from ME and NOI. It wasn't as USA is nearer. Same goes for grain.
However, probably there would be no replacement for those aero engines in the short term, unless Japan can ramp up production quickly. So the Entente loses 3/10ths of aero engine supply, which it will have to repalce by mix of more domestic production, fewer airplanes and/or more Japanese imports.

Another thing - as we are dealing with an AU - would USA jump in the CP camp out of the blue, or would it be more fence sitting than in OTL, with a more "arms' length" relationship with the Entente, thus a lesser than OTL Entente dependency on the Dollar trade forming in the 1914-16 period?

First off, extraction in the Middle East didn’t start until the late 1930s. Second, those areas were ruled by the Ottomans, another Central Power. So, no, that’s not happening.

Grain? The only sources of exporting it are the U.S., Canada (which is problematic because the U.S. is right there, and Argentina and Australia which are at the long end of a massive logistical pipeline that’s perfect for the Americans or the Germans to fuck with once they get close to Britain.

This is 1916, not 2016. There are very few places sufficiently developed to export the kinds of goods that the Entente needs.

Now, if the U.S. suddenly does a massive personality shift out of the blue, it’s going to screw the U.S. pretty badly since massive loans had already been made to the Entente by 1916 and that money won’t get paid back. The end result is a situation where Europe is a stalemate, there’s an economic crash and Wilson winds up as this timeline’s Herbert Hoover, and not much else changes besides resentment at how the war went among the various publics.

If, however, there is a POD of 1914 that results in this (because even by 1915 we were already heavily favoring the Entente), that changes things significantly. Can we get an OP clarification on this?

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Another thing I will mention about Canada is that both of it's trans-continental railways run through Winnipeg the U.S. siezes that and it's over, the majority of Canadian forces are already in Europe a unexpected war would spell disaster.

Ultimately though the question boils down to if Germany can pull through with the U.S. on it's side. The U.S. could win uncountable victories in America but will only win minor concessions if the Entente wins in Europe ultimately.

 

[Buba]

Another thing I will mention about Canada is that both of it's trans-continental railways run through Winnipeg

There is nothing important west of Winnipeg ...
Bubba runs to hide from enraged praire dwellers and Colombians

Ultimately though the question boils down to if Germany can pull through with the U.S. on it's side. The U.S. could win uncountable victories in America but will only win minor concessions if the Entente wins in Europe ultimately.

True. Canada is not so relevant for the big picture.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

There is nothing important west of Winnipeg ...
Bubba runs to hide from enraged praire dwellers and Colombians

LOL! Their are small population centers to draw troops from, to say nothing of it's resources and farmland being cut off from the eastern provinces.

True. Canada is not so relevant for the big picture.

It does add to the bigger picture though, the Canadian troops in Europe are going to be devastated moral wise especially knowing that their country is being invaded and they are meanwhile still in Europe fighting a war for Britain, they will be desperate to go fight for home, not France.

It's all relative to each other, the only question is if it's relevant enough to tip the scales?

 

[stevep]

First off, extraction in the Middle East didn’t start until the late 1930s. Second, those areas were ruled by the Ottomans, another Central Power. So, no, that’s not happening.

Grain? The only sources of exporting it are the U.S., Canada (which is problematic because the U.S. is right there, and Argentina and Australia which are at the long end of a massive logistical pipeline that’s perfect for the Americans or the Germans to fuck with once they get close to Britain.

This is 1916, not 2016. There are very few places sufficiently developed to export the kinds of goods that the Entente needs.

Now, if the U.S. suddenly does a massive personality shift out of the blue, it’s going to screw the U.S. pretty badly since massive loans had already been made to the Entente by 1916 and that money won’t get paid back. The end result is a situation where Europe is a stalemate, there’s an economic crash and Wilson winds up as this timeline’s Herbert Hoover, and not much else changes besides resentment at how the war went among the various publics.

If, however, there is a POD of 1914 that results in this (because even by 1915 we were already heavily favoring the Entente), that changes things significantly. Can we get an OP clarification on this?

a) Wrong. The British had already taken a controlling share in the Persian oilfields to ensure supplies for the RN. Not sure how early production was started in Burma, Trinidad or the DEI, although the 1st two of those were fairly small sources and Trinidad, like Mexico which also had production capacity at the time were vulnerable to the US attacking - plus Mexico was involved in its own civil war.

b) Grain you had a much stronger point. N America is the primary source with Russia cut off from world markets by the Ottomans. That is the big threat to the allies being able to continue the war against Germany.

Other than those items the western allies can by 1916 produce pretty much all of what they want although total production will be somewhat less. Its not like 1914 when Britain was lacking a lot of capacity and France had seen much of its industrial core lost. As it was the allies supplied a lot of equipment to the AEF that the US weren't up to supplying themselves, especially in terms of a/c and tanks.

 

[stevep]

Another thing I will mention about Canada is that both of it's trans-continental railways run through Winnipeg the U.S. siezes that and it's over, the majority of Canadian forces are already in Europe a unexpected war would spell disaster.

Ultimately though the question boils down to if Germany can pull through with the U.S. on it's side. The U.S. could win uncountable victories in America but will only win minor concessions if the Entente wins in Europe ultimately.

True although the US starts with minimal forces themselves and in this scenario aren't going to get the OTL aid in terms of heavy equipment and combat advice. Canada will fall without aid but it could take a good bit of time and holding it could be very expensive.

The big problem for the EPs would be food and how much they have to divert to opposing the US. If that prompts them to less destructive tactics Germany could still face a serious problem but if they do the OTL policy of insufficiently prepared and over-extended attacks Germany could well win in 1917 or early 1918.

Steve

 

[History Learner]

a) Wrong. The British had already taken a controlling share in the Persian oilfields to ensure supplies for the RN. Not sure how early production was started in Burma, Trinidad or the DEI, although the 1st two of those were fairly small sources and Trinidad, like Mexico which also had production capacity at the time were vulnerable to the US attacking - plus Mexico was involved in its own civil war.

b) Grain you had a much stronger point. N America is the primary source with Russia cut off from world markets by the Ottomans. That is the big threat to the allies being able to continue the war against Germany.

Other than those items the western allies can by 1916 produce pretty much all of what they want although total production will be somewhat less. Its not like 1914 when Britain was lacking a lot of capacity and France had seen much of its industrial core lost. As it was the allies supplied a lot of equipment to the AEF that the US weren't up to supplying themselves, especially in terms of a/c and tanks.

His point on oil is decisive, as I've pointed out to you previously:

Persia produces only 2% of American production; the British could steal every drop and the end result is they (and the French) still rapidly and decisively run out of fuel. You can mix and match from this chart and the end result is still the same no matter how you dice it. Likewise, you find the same for the idea that the British can produce everything they need themselves, as I've already pointed out upthread.

There is a reason every single Department in the British Government in late 1916 said the ending of American supplies would doom their war effort. Either everyone in the British government is correct-and they can't make up for said lacking-or they are insanely incompetent and that doesn't look good for them either given the war ended only after American involvement on the ground...

 

[ATP]

Russia had its own hitler you know that

Well,yes.I forget it.But now they would try revenge for lost war,not Germany.And probably blame all minorities,not only jews,for lost war.

 

[History Learner]

Another thing I will mention about Canada is that both of it's trans-continental railways run through Winnipeg the U.S. siezes that and it's over, the majority of Canadian forces are already in Europe a unexpected war would spell disaster.

Ultimately though the question boils down to if Germany can pull through with the U.S. on it's side. The U.S. could win uncountable victories in America but will only win minor concessions if the Entente wins in Europe ultimately.

Fun Fact: the Dakotas have the highest rail concentration in North America and in per capita terms, the highest in the world. This is because of Canadian needs, as the lines through Winnipeg aren't sufficient for their commercial usage. This is a pattern extending back into the 19th Century, with Minnesota instead of the Dakotas back then.

 

[Airedale260]

Fun Fact: the Dakotas have the highest rail concentration in North America and in per capita terms, the highest in the world. This is because of Canadian needs, as the lines through Winnipeg aren't sufficient for their commercial usage. This is a pattern extending back into the 19th Century, with Minnesota instead of the Dakotas back then.

It also helps that the industrial heartland of Canada at this time is in a very narrow corridor close to the Great Lakes and the U.S. border. And as you correctly point out, it’s a trivial matter for the U.S. to fuck with the rail lines (even if they can’t actually invade, they can still send in the cavalry to fuck with the rail links and such.

Seriously this topic has been debated so many times on SB it’s officially in the “done to death” column LTR put together over there. The only “victory” the British can claim is that they defeat the USN, which, as seen here, was not the massive fighting force it became in 1940. Meanwhile, America winds up eating Canada, because the British have precisely one port to use as a staging base for the RN and shipping troops in: Halifax.

At this point in time, the only real way for the U.S. to lose (meaning be invaded and occupied) is if all the European powers decide to work together to invade the U.S. And even if it were just the Entente, there is no fucking way Wilhelm doesn’t decide to pick another fight with France and take advantage of the distraction.

 

[Aaron Fox]

And even if it were just the Entente, there is no fucking way Wilhelm doesn’t decide to pick another fight with France and take advantage of the distraction.

Oddly enough, Wilhem was largely taken out of the decision process halfway into the war, it would likely be Hindenburg and his posse that might do that, although they are just as likely not to do it due to the necessary training, manpower, and material isn't there on the western front.

 

[Buba]

At this point in time, the only real way for the U.S. to lose (meaning be invaded and occupied) is if all the European powers decide to work together to invade the U.S.

I do not expect anybody to invade and occupy the USA.
Which works both ways as the USA cannot meaningfully harm the Entente i.e. attack its core territories either.
However, the USA wins by forcing Europeans to make peace*, meaning that the USA can go back to selling stuff to everybody.

* which I've read Wilson was planning to do in OTL before Germany committed "suicide by cop" by the USW and Zimmerman Telegram combo.

 

[stevep]

I do not expect anybody to invade and occupy the USA.
Which works both ways as the USA cannot meaningfully harm the Entente i.e. attack its core territories either.
However, the USA wins by forcing Europeans to make peace*, meaning that the USA can go back to selling stuff to everybody.

* which I've read Wilson was planning to do in OTL before Germany committed "suicide by cop" by the USW and Zimmerman Telegram combo.

Not to the entente because a 'peace' dictated by Germany would almost certainly mean that even if the allies wanted to trade with the US they wouldn't be able to afford to.

 

[Airedale260]

Oddly enough, Wilhem was largely taken out of the decision process halfway into the war, it would likely be Hindenburg and his posse that might do that, although they are just as likely not to do it due to the necessary training, manpower, and material isn't there on the western front.

Actually it was the war stalling out that resulted in Hindenburg and Ludendorff coming to power. If the U.S. actually enters the war on the side of the Central Powers, it likely means that they don’t get the opportunity, since the British likely peace out ASAP or else lose Canada (which means France is fucked), or they hang in but have to give up because once Russia falls (and it will), all Germany has to do is hold its position until the U.S. Army arrives in force.

I do not expect anybody to invade and occupy the USA.
Which works both ways as the USA cannot meaningfully harm the Entente i.e. attack its core territories either.
However, the USA wins by forcing Europeans to make peace*, meaning that the USA can go back to selling stuff to everybody.

* which I've read Wilson was planning to do in OTL before Germany committed "suicide by cop" by the USW and Zimmerman Telegram combo.

Oh, nobody is landing troops in sufficient numbers on the CONUS unless they have a staging base to do it. My point was saying the kind of power it would take to actually pull it off.

As far as the U.S. goes, they cannot do it by themselves, no, but if they have a sufficiently large staging base to deploy troops from such as, oh, I don’t know, Germany, they absolutely can. And if they’re fighting against the British, the U.S. is going to speed up naval construction because unlike Germany, the British can threaten the CONUS because Canada can be used as a staging base.

The moment the U.S. enters the war with the CP, the British will peace out. The Entente succeeded because they had access to U.S. production and a more or less unlimited line of credit until 1917 (at which point they would have been cut off if the U.S. entered the war).

Beyond that, I’d suggest checking out the 10+ threads on UK vs USA on this (there’s also a “RN+MN vs USN” thread that didn’t get cataloged but is also basically the same). They all come to the same conclusion (except for a pair of Teaboos who can’t accept that the RN and Britain can ever be defeated): namely, that the U.S. would be the ultimate “winner” (insofar as any peace is going to involve them getting part if not all of Canada and probably Bermuda and other territory in the Caribbean).

 

[Buba]

The moment the U.S. enters the war with the CP, the British will peace out. The Entente succeeded because they had access to U.S. production and a more or less unlimited line of credit until 1917 (at which point they would have been cut off if the U.S. entered the war).

I agree that this is indeed the most likely scenario and accurate depiction of OTL events.

Teaboo - LOL! Didn;t know this expression
As to Bermuda - yes, this is the dagger on America's throat.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

As to Bermuda - yes, this is the dagger on America's throat.

And Bermuda can't be held for more than a few months if the HSF keeps the bulk of the Grand Fleet stuck in the UK

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Alot of people point out that war means the U.S. can't pilfer Germany's processes and patends, but if anything war on their side means mass pilfering of British and French patent's and Germany backing off on previous U.S. thefts, I doubt they will allow Mauser to sue the U.S. goverment run Springfield Armory over the 1903 for example when they are aiding them in a war.

 

[Buba]

Alot of people point out that war means the U.S. can't pilfer Germany's processes and patends, but if anything war on their side means mass pilfering of British and French patent's

Maybe. Depends if "white peace" or "curbstomp".