Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Had the U.S joined the Central Powers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Depends on how many Canadians were left in Canada and not already in Europe. The U.S. could plan on fighting it's own war and try to take out Canada while U.k is still on the continent--if the Germans don't use up troops trying to bereakthrough the U.K./French lines before the yanks get there, the Brits and French have a hard task of attacking since Russia is gone and German forces are shifting westward.
    The Austrians can either hit the Italians or reinforce the Tujrks.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by No_Nickname View Post
      How would the war have went if the U.S had joined the Central powers in WWI.
      Ha, Owned Allies, Owned!
      Really, I think the Centrals would have won. Werent they nearly going to win if the US didnt come to the allies side? WAs that Spring Offensive thing mainly stopped cause of the new US troops just to overwhellming. Fresh new troops vs there last best troops that are now worn down a bit. Along with other French and British vets.

      Now the Ottoman Empire, I still dont know what to say about them. Yet I want to know!

      EDIT: Even though there are problems, like Canada. I think the Centrals just might have been able to win victory alone in the end. With the US setting presure on the war would be dragged out and I eventually would think that the New Central Powers would win.

      The Central Powers is such an awesome name.
      Last edited by maian; 30 Jan 07, 21:11.
      yeah!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by maian View Post
        The Central Powers is such an awesome name.
        Better than the Entente, at least.

        Now, while I believe an America within the Central Powers would tip the scales in thier favor, the war would still be a very close thing.

        In the aftermath, Canada would be occupied, France and (to a lesser extent) England would lay defeated, Japan would be holding onto a few German colonies but may be pressured to release some, depending on how willing to Germans are to regain them or if the Americans wish to confront the Japanese (both unlikely), and Austrio-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire would both still remain in power.

        For some specifics: Ireland would become a united and independent nation under the peace treaty. Germany would obtain Belgian, British and French colonies in Africa and Asia, but not India (too hard to hold onto) and other Commonwealth areas like Australia and New Zealand.

        - Germany would obtain some more area from France/Belgium/Luxembourg(?), AH would recieve disputed areas from Italy, and the Ottoman Empire would obtain Egypt from the Brits and control the Suez Canal.

        - The US would obtain French and British holdings in the Americas, would annex areas of Canada, create an independent Quebec to help administer the conquered regions, and keep garrisons in the other regions of Canada until either releasing it later or fully annexing it and making it into states of the republic (something I find unlikely, but still possible).

        - Germany, AH, the Turks, and the US would obtain the surrendered French and British ships (that weren't scuttled), either scrapping them or using them to augment thier fleets (specifically for the Turks and AH).

        - The French and Belgians would suffer the harshest terms, although the English would suffer badly too. Large reparations, forcibly small militaries (making administrating remaining colonies difficult), and all they would be forced to acknowledge that they were the agressors in The Great War.

        - Austria-Hungary gains control over Serbia, Romania, Albania, and Montenegro, but is forced to institute some form of local rule in all but Serbia to ensure stability. Serbia, however, is blamed for being the start of the war and is treated harshly by the occupying AH.

        - Ukraine (dependent on AH), the Belarusian Peoples Republic (dependent on Germany), and other former Russian lands became semi-independent. In total, a Central Powers victory took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines, leaving her far from being a new world power later.

        The lands of Poland fall into the German Empire, where the Germans decide to take a larger slice of Polish lands before giving Poland thier 'independence'.

        - Japan comes out of the war on a good footing, having gained a small slice of territory while not loosing anything in the peace. Now it turns it's eyes to China and the weakened Russia, plotting it's rise to Empire-hood.

        Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II, Emperor Karl I of Austria-Hungary, Mehmed VI of the Ottoman Empire, and the President of the United States (either a more pro-German one, or just Wilson having been forced into war) meet together in Berlin for peace accords and a celabratory parade.

        -----

        Here's a map I did of what I think a post-victorious Central Powers Africa would look like. Germany would, in essence, control Africa, and might find it prudent to begin trying to form independent or semi-independent regions of Africa to help control such a large land mass. The Ottomans would gain control of Egypt and Italy's holdings in Libya. The Italian lands in Eithiopia would either go to Germany (it already owns so much)or the AH (if they want those lands, which is a possible negative), or maybe even the Ottoman Empire.



        Once I had finished the map, I realized just how much land Germany had obtained!

        I would have done one to show Asia and S. America too, but I got to go to classes soon. Also, I wonder if America would recieve any of the defeated power's former colonies in Asia. I mean, the US already controls the Philipines, maybe they would get control over some of the former French /Belgian/ British lands there.



        And I think that a future war between Japan and Russia is inevitable, along with a number of uprisings within the newly conquered regions that will cause lots of upheaval within the post-war years.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by daemonofdecay View Post
          In the aftermath, Canada would be occupied,
          I think you are missing the key period in your supposition. That period is the time between the US declaration of war and the raising of an American army. My understanding is that the US was practically unarmed in 1917.

          Every Canadian regiment has a home battalion , constantly training more men for the front. Plus there are the conscripted men available for home defence. Canada would be able to very quickly field a large modern army for home defence.

          The opening phase of the war would probably parallel the war of 1812. Quick acting commonwealth forces would sieze key spots (like the Soult St Marie narrows) and the Detroit area before the US had geared up. Much of the US heavy industry is in the Detroit area at this time.

          Politically parliament would demand the recall of the Canadian corps from France. Should that corps be redeployed before the US fields an army the US would be in severe trouble.

          The RN and French navy could very well destroy the US atlantic fleet. A joint British Canadian force could seize and burn Washington, Baltimore and the rest of the US East coast.

          It would be a race: can the Canadians and British do enough damage to the US and force congress to accept peace before the mass of US forces overwhelms the Canadians.

          The campaigns would be more like the ACW because neither side could field enough men for a continuous front.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
            I think you are missing the key period in your supposition. That period is the time between the US declaration of war and the raising of an American army. My understanding is that the US was practically unarmed in 1917.

            Every Canadian regiment has a home battalion , constantly training more men for the front. Plus there are the conscripted men available for home defence. Canada would be able to very quickly field a large modern army for home defence.

            The opening phase of the war would probably parallel the war of 1812. Quick acting commonwealth forces would sieze key spots (like the Soult St Marie narrows) and the Detroit area before the US had geared up. Much of the US heavy industry is in the Detroit area at this time.

            Politically parliament would demand the recall of the Canadian corps from France. Should that corps be redeployed before the US fields an army the US would be in severe trouble.

            The RN and French navy could very well destroy the US atlantic fleet. A joint British Canadian force could seize and burn Washington, Baltimore and the rest of the US East coast.

            It would be a race: can the Canadians and British do enough damage to the US and force congress to accept peace before the mass of US forces overwhelms the Canadians.

            The campaigns would be more like the ACW because neither side could field enough men for a continuous front.
            I doubt that the Canadians would be able to pull more troops out of Europe once war is declared. The US navy could, at the least, blockade major Canadian ports and threaten troops crossing the Atlantic (along with German U-boats).

            And I guess it really matters how prepared both sides are for war. The Americans would, of course, be much worse off than the Canadians in the initial months of the war. The Americans would, while low on artillery and other goods, would have lots of infantry with a good LMG (The BAR).

            Also, I imagine that if the US' public opinnion was turning against the Entente before 1917, then the military would be slightly better prepared than its real life 1917 counterpart due to the proximity to a potential enemy. If I were the president, and I was planning to declare war on an adjacent nation, I would be sure to move whatever National Guard units exist to the border or to protect critical areas first.

            So I agree, the Canadians would do very well in the initial phases of the war due to thier experience, training, and equipment. But the US would have more men fighting on thier home turf (if Canada invades), and we know how that worked for the Russians in WW2.

            So would the US accept peace with the Canadians right away? I don't think so. The Canadian attack on the US' industrial heartland would cost the US essential industry for arming the army, but in the end I just don't see the Canadians striking a critical blow to the US. In fact, the invasion might just serve to create greater support for the war (where earlier there would have been a number of people opposed to getting involved in a 'European War').



            Oh! Canada. . .

            Comment


            • #36
              "I doubt that the Canadians would be able to pull more troops out of Europe once war is declared. The US navy could, at the least, blockade major Canadian ports and threaten troops crossing the Atlantic (along with German U-boats)."

              ***The British Navy would certainly have been strained. From US bases German & US surface raiders would have made the Atlantic hell for British cargo ships. The RN would have to rebase a significant part to Canada to fight for the sea lanes from there, which makes the blockade of the kaisers high seas fleet problematic.

              And I guess it really matters how prepared both sides are for war. The Americans would, of course, be much worse off than the Canadians in the initial months of the war. The Americans would, while low on artillery and other goods, would have lots of infantry with a good LMG (The BAR).

              ***The US could have recruited lots of infantry, but other than rifles there were no weapons for then in 1917. The BAR was barely in production & even in late 1918 most US soldiers carried the sorry French Chauchat automatic rifle, or a few Lewis guns.

              Also, I imagine that if the US' public opinnion was turning against the Entente before 1917, then the military would be slightly better prepared than its real life 1917 counterpart due to the proximity to a potential enemy. If I were the president, and I was planning to declare war on an adjacent nation, I would be sure to move whatever National Guard units exist to the border or to protect critical areas first.

              ***The National Guard technically did not exist in 1917. It was refered to as state militias & those were largely paper organizations without much more than obsolete rifles, little training, and no logistics support. The majority owned only a single uniform per man.

              ****Wilson did all he could historically to prepare. Any larger preration assumes much less opposition to war than he faced historically, & much earlier start at preperation.

              So I agree, the Canadians would do very well in the initial phases of the war due to thier experience, training, and equipment. But the US would have more men fighting on thier home turf (if Canada invades), and we know how that worked for the Russians in WW2.

              ***The Canadians had a bit better training. One assumes Britian sees the threat & provides more than a few MG or cannon for training. But a decent artillery park & logistics for a field army proportionally reduces British capability in Europe.

              So would the US accept peace with the Canadians right away? I don't think so. The Canadian attack on the US' industrial heartland would cost the US essential industry for arming the army, but in the end I just don't see the Canadians striking a critical blow to the US. In fact, the invasion might just serve to create greater support for the war (where earlier there would have been a number of people opposed to getting involved in a 'European War').

              Comment


              • #37
                Hitting the U.S. industrial heartland would mean getting to the Pennsylvania steel mills. Somehow i don't see a Canadian offense getting that far. If it did, it would be the greatest offensive thrust of the war and rank with any WWII blitz.

                Comment


                • #38
                  "Hitting the U.S. industrial heartland would mean getting to the Pennsylvania steel mills."

                  I suspose they could make an naval thrust down Lake Michgan to capture Chicago!

                  Capturing Detroit would not be a significant disaster in 1917. Only a small portion of US heavy industry was located there, & the automotive industry was much more dispersed. In general industrial capacity regions like Ohio, northern Illinoise, south eastern Wisconson, & many others had more capacity than SE Michigan of 1917.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                    The US could have recruited lots of infantry, but other than rifles there were no weapons for then in 1917. The BAR was barely in production & even in late 1918 most US soldiers carried the sorry French Chauchat automatic rifle, or a few Lewis guns.
                    I heard that the reason the US used the French rifles were the allies were afraid of the Germans getting thier hands on them, and the reason they didn't have Lewis guns were because of the British initially wanting American troops to serve as British reinforcements. When Pershing said no, the British withheld the Lewis guns, and therefor the Americans were stuck with the French LMG.



                    I think DoD saw it on the History Channel.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by robcraufurd View Post
                      Highly risky, especially considering the Japanese. With only 14 Dreadnoughts to play with and two oceans to fight in, the US Navy would be putting itself in real danger of overstretch. I think that with the threat of Austria-Hungary's navy decreasing, the French might have spared one or two ships to reinforce the Grand Fleet.
                      Did Japan have the ability to project power into the eastern Pacific? If we assume that the U.S. would have a hard time operating in the eastern Atlantic how much harder would Japan have operating on the U.S. west coast?
                      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tsar View Post
                        Did Japan have the ability to project power into the eastern Pacific? If we assume that the U.S. would have a hard time operating in the eastern Atlantic how much harder would Japan have operating on the U.S. west coast?
                        no. Japan ships were mainly coal operated - as were most ships of the era. for traveling long distances they need re-supply, or travel very slowly. bth are really not possible in the Pacific.

                        Japanese cruisers and battleships would only be able to sail a few 1000 miles before turning back from their bases in Japan. At the time they had not yet Formosa nor big bases in the pacific.

                        Japan was very pro-british and very opportunisitc but not mad to take the US at that time.
                        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X