what if? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By mikema63
#13965209
what if the US had sided with Germany in the first world war, i was surprised in history class a few years ago when i was told that was actually considered by the US government.

if we had invaded England from the other side i could see Germany actually winning, Nazi Germany wouldn't have arisen either, but what would the world have looked like?

just bored
User avatar
By Daktoria
#13965250
The U.S. had a few close encounters with Britain before WW1 itself. You should look into the Venezuela and Morocco Crises.

That said, I'm not sure how the U.S. would invade Britain. The Atlantic Voyage would be long enough, and Britain has an extremely irregular coastline. Ireland might be liberated at best. Any engagement with Britain would also trigger a front with Canada. That wouldn't be a hard fight though considering how sparsely populated Canada is.

It's important to remember that Germany tried to ally with Britain as well during Joseph Chamberlain's Ministry. Even before that, Bismarck admired Disraeli, but his amity wasn't reciprocated during the Congress of Berlin when Disraeli pressured and fractured the Three Emperor's League.

I think if the U.S. allied Germany, the best European strategy would be an expedition into French Gascony, but that would really be a shame. American-French relations were twisted only after the World Wars. Before then, we remembered France as a dear friend even with its provision of the Statue of Liberty.

Harry Turtledove has an interesting series where the U.S. allies the Central Powers after the Confederacy secedes. The one discrepancy I have with Turtledove is Mexico allying the Confederacy since it ignores the French Intervention, the French who assisted the South, but were repulsed in Mexico. He even starts the series in the 1880s with the Second Mexican War where the South goes to war against Mexico after purchasing territories, but afterwards, Mexico has a change of heart.

In the Second World War, Germany is still a monarchy, and corporatism takes root in Britain. The Confederacy becomes fascist against blacks, and the U.S. is lead by a socialist party which ends up nuking the South into defeat. Britain gets nuked by Germany as well, and Japan has its own oddball sphere of influence after being left alone by the West following an interbellum Pacific War with the U.S. On the other hand, Japan does declare war on Russia to acquire Siberian territory following Russia's annihilation to German nukes; Russia also failed after 10 years to become the Soviet Union following its permanent loss of Poland and Ukraine to the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

Oddly enough, the Holocaust still happens with Russia persecuting Jews, but Jews run the socialist United States. Alaska is still owned by Russia while Canada is occupied by the U.S., but America doesn't invade out of retaliation.
By GandalfTheGrey
#13965692
at what stage? 1918 was obviously a completely situation than 1914. Also why on earth would the US need to invade Britain? They just need to help the Germans defeat the French and the BEF in France. Germany can easily hold their own against Russia.
User avatar
By Section Leader
#13965719
GandalfTheGrey wrote:at what stage? 1918 was obviously a completely situation than 1914. Also why on earth would the US need to invade Britain? They just need to help the Germans defeat the French and the BEF in France. Germany can easily hold their own against Russia.

Exactly, unlike the Second World War Britain could very well have been utterly defeated and the Germans could have accomplished all their aims. Moreover it would have been without a single German soldier setting foot on British soil. Invading Britain would have been a death sentence for the small US Navy, which the Imperial forces would have quite easily liquidated. If they landed in Ireland it would have set off an absolute nightmare that would have made our world's very brutal and nasty Irish Civil War look like the invasion of Grenada.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#13965755
I have spoken on this quite often, if not here then in private.

Considering the fact that then and now the largest white European ethnic groups in the United States were Germans and Irishmen, that the United States had absolutely no history of antagonism between itself and the German people (not counting the small role of Hessian mercenaries in the revolutionary conflict), and that the German Empire in no way directly menaced U.S. interests, it is all quite plausible indeed. What great love did the American population of that specific era have for the British Empire? Many were Irish immigrants, and there were many recent German immigrants as well.

I would submit that this is when U.S. foreign policy decisions concerning its outlook toward and beyond the 20th century went terribly wrong. Woodrow Wilson was the single worst commander-in-chief this nation has yet seen, and the ideology of Wilsonianism functions much like a cancer and has unfortunately persisted in its permeation.

The United States, for reasons of its own interests, could have aligned itself with Berlin, annexed Bermuda off the coast of the Carolinas and a few other small British possessions, and waged a rather limited war on continental Europe, primarily in France, to this effect.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13965763
GandalfTheGrey wrote:at what stage? 1918 was obviously a completely situation than 1914. Also why on earth would the US need to invade Britain? They just need to help the Germans defeat the French and the BEF in France. Germany can easily hold their own against Russia.
It wouldn't matter at what stage because even in 1918 Germany was far from defeated. In fact, after the Russian revolution Germany freed up forces to join the Western Front which was still in an impasse. Had the US not joined the war, Germany might have well exhausted the British and French forces, breaking the impasse and defeating the allies.


Far-Right Sage wrote:What great love did the American population of that specific era have for the British Empire? Many were Irish immigrants, and there were many recent German immigrants as well.
Obviously the US government didn't want to see all the British and French debt to go up in thin air if they were defeated by Germany.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#13965764
Obviously the US government didn't want to see all the British and French debt to go up in thin air if they were defeated by Germany.


Of course, but the antagonism directed against the German Empire started long before the ultimate U.S. decision to declare war against Germany and enter the fray. Had a more balanced policy been enacted to begin with, most borrowed assets financed by Wall Street did not have to go into the hands of either the British or French. As it stood in 1917, if Britain and France lost the war, the New York City elite stood to lose a lot of money. This was a situation which the United States itself helped create.
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13965781
Far-Right Sage wrote:Of course, but the antagonism directed against the German Empire started long before the ultimate U.S. decision to declare war against Germany and enter the fray. Had a more balanced policy been enacted to begin with, most borrowed assets financed by Wall Street did not have to go into the hands of either the British or French. As it stood in 1917, if Britain and France lost the war, the New York City elite stood to lose a lot of money. This was a situation which the United States itself helped create.
Like in any other war, the financial and industrial elite saw an opportunity to make profits. And as the American elite had closer ties with the elites of France and Britain and as these countries could not compete with the industrial output of Germany, the American elite made the obvious choices. In time they found their financial fate to be entangled with the fates of Britain and France and compelled their government to throw away its tradition of isolationism from the continental affairs of Europe. And of course Germany gave all the opportunity for the US government to exploit this situation in accordance with American necessities. I see no long term design against Germany in all of this. The fact that the US tolerated so much German submarine aggression against Atlantic merchants attests to the great difficulty the US had to break away from its isolationism.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#13965809
Like in any other war, the financial and industrial elite saw an opportunity to make profits. And as the American elite had closer ties with the elites of France and Britain and as these countries could not compete with the industrial output of Germany, the American elite made the obvious choices. In time they found their financial fate to be entangled with the fates of Britain and France and compelled their government to throw away its tradition of isolationism from the continental affairs of Europe. And of course Germany gave all the opportunity for the US government to exploit this situation in accordance with American necessities.


I believe it's both crucial and incumbent upon us to differentiate between the "American elite" (presumably a private financial clique) and the long-term material interests of the United States, its population, and position in the world. I am not surprised by the actions of Wall Street, but as it is so important to understand in a modern context, the interests of Wall Street are not the interests of the United States.

I see no long term design against Germany in all of this. The fact that the US tolerated so much German submarine aggression against Atlantic merchants attests to the great difficulty the US had to break away from its isolationism.


The German Empire maintained a declared policy on merchant shipping which was made clear to all. The feigned outrage over "German submarine aggression" is quite similar to the blown out of proportion Lusitania incident as a whole. It was made clear to American citizens that British shipping and liners were going to be targeted and any Americans aboard a ship entering contested waters (the ship was en route from New York City to Liverpool) were putting themselves in unnecessary danger. The German embassy even published a column in a New York newspaper to this effect, as a direct warning and show of concerns for U.S. citizens, as well as a desire not to exacerbate the situation and cause needless casualties. This warning was ignored. There was no "aggressive" German policy directed against the United States until it was already clear that the U.S. government had aligned itself against the Kaiser and the German people.
User avatar
By Rancid
#13965813
Shit, we'd probably be importing German Schize films like hell!
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#13965815
Inappropriate, Rancid.

They are a marginalized and minute aspect of the culture and warrant no discussion here.
User avatar
By Rancid
#13965821
It's Gorky man, and I'm sure that those films are not widely consumed in Germany. Can't a guy try a little comic relief on these forums?

Hell, 2girls1cup is Brazillian!
User avatar
By Cookie Monster
#13965824
Far-Right Sage wrote:I believe it's both crucial and incumbent upon us to differentiate between the "American elite" (presumably a private financial clique) and the long-term material interests of the United States, its population, and position in the world. I am not surprised by the actions of Wall Street, but as it is so important to understand in a modern context, the interests of Wall Street are not the interests of the United States.
Apparently it was. Foreign policy, industry and finance had been married far before Eisenhower warned about its dangers.

Cookie Monster wrote:I see no long term design against Germany in all of this. The fact that the US tolerated so much German submarine aggression against Atlantic merchants attests to the great difficulty the US had to break away from its isolationism.
Far-Right Sage wrote:The German Empire maintained a declared policy on merchant shipping which was made clear to all. The feigned outrage over "German submarine aggression" is quite similar to the blown out of proportion Lusitania incident as a whole. It was made clear to American citizens that British shipping and liners were going to be targeted and any Americans aboard a ship entering contested waters (the ship was en route from New York City to Liverpool) were putting themselves in unnecessary danger. The German embassy even published a column in a New York newspaper to this effect, as a direct warning and show of concerns for U.S. citizens, as well as a desire not to exacerbate the situation and cause needless casualties. This warning was ignored. There was no "aggressive" German policy directed against the United States until it was already clear that the U.S. government had aligned itself against the Kaiser and the German people.
I mentioned aggression in the technical sense rather than asserting any moral judgement, which I must concede it might imply. The point I tried to raise in that sentence is that isolationism (from continental European affairs) was strongly rooted in the American tradition and retained its grip over American politics for quite a long time, despite American casualties at seas. I see no antagonism in design by the Americans but rather a well crafted exploitation of the conditions as they presented themselves.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13965833
Quite honestly, the US would probably have spent most of the war gobbling up Canada as that had been disputed until that point for ages.

Most people, as had been pointed out, probably wanted to fight Britain-the traditional adversary of the US then and point of ire for the immigrants pouring in. As has also been pointed out, fighting against the French would have left a bad taste in everyone's mouth-which I think would have contributed to the idea of just taking over Canada and other British colonies.
User avatar
By Section Leader
#13965859
The Immortal Goon wrote:Quite honestly, the US would probably have spent most of the war gobbling up Canada as that had been disputed until that point for ages.

But then Britain would invade Canada a decade or three later on and eat into pre-1914 US territory, while probably supplying Mexico with lots and lots of the latest military hardware to run rings round the US forces.
User avatar
By Dave
#13965922
In industrial and demographic terms Britain was far weaker than the United States in 1914. After the war ended it lost its financial supremacy as well. I don't see any reason to be concerned about postwar British actions at all.

The only real worry would be the Royal Navy, but the USN and Kaiserliche Marine combined would've dominated the RN during WWI. And after WWI (historically), the USN and RN were at rough parity.

WWI was a lost opportunity for America. We should've joined with Germany in order to capture all the possessions in the Western Hemisphere and Pacific Basin from Britain and France.

Instead we propped up the Entente and gained nothing but a financial entanglement with Europe.
User avatar
By Section Leader
#13965928
Dave wrote:In industrial and demographic terms Britain was far weaker than the United States in 1914.

Citation needed.

I don't see any reason to be concerned about postwar British actions at all.

In response to Versailles, Germany built up an army of ten million men from nothing and totally beat France within months, no getting bogged down in Belgium for them that time around. You think we wouldn't do much the same to take down and destroy our new enemy? How quaint.

WWI was a lost opportunity for America. We should've joined with Germany in order to capture all the possessions in the Western Hemisphere and Pacific Basin from Britain and France.

Not only would you be fighting thousands of miles from home, you'd be facing established powers with far more manpower which was already incredibly experienced in colonial warfare, dream on son. The Germans had very little expertise in fighting far from home, which is why all their colonies were taken fairly rapidly.
User avatar
By Dave
#13965937
Section Leader wrote:Citation needed.

US population in 1914: 100m
UK population in 1914: 45m
UK and white dominions population in 1914: 77m

US steel production in 1914: 35m tons
UK steel production in 1914: 11m tons

US GDP in 1914 (1990 dollars): $500bn
UK GDP in 1914 (1990 dollars): $250bn
British Empire GDP in 1914: $550bn

This is all off the top of my head but it should be basically right with minor adjustments. The USA passed the UK in industrial output in the late 1880s and in overall economic output in 1871. Recall also that Britain was a net food importer, and while other sources were available (e.g. Canada and Argentina), there was significant dependence not only on American industrial output but agricultural as well.

Section Leader wrote:In response to Versailles, Germany built up an army of ten million men from nothing and totally beat France within months, no getting bogged down in Belgium for them that time around.

Germany was superior to France in population, industrial output, technical sophistication, and in military arts. It also directly bordered France.

With the (arguable) exception of military arts, the exact opposite is true with respect to Britain and America. There is no common border (not counting Canada, a 10% version of America) and America was superior in manpower and industry.

Section Leader wrote:Not only would you be fighting thousands of miles from home, you'd be facing established powers with far more manpower which was already incredibly experienced in colonial warfare, dream on son.

Why would we be doing this? There would be no need to take the field in Europe at all. Germany was doing quite well in grinding down the Entente one by one. Belgium, Serbia, Rumania, and Russia were all effectively knocked out by Germany. Italy was rendered ineffective and dependent on Anglo-French support after Caporetto.

America would simply invade Canada (cutting off an important source of manpower and food), embargo the Entente (cutting off American supplies of food, industrial production, and loans), attack British possessions in the Caribbean and Pacific, and support the Kaiserliche Marine in the North Atlantic.

The established powers you refer to, with the exception of the Russian Empire (which lost), all had less manpower than America so I don't know what you're talking about. The British Empire in total had significantly more manpower than America, but good luck attempting to impose conscription in India and Africa given that it wasn't even possible in Canada.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]