StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I started a similar thread in 2006, but that one simply asked what would happen if the US decided to become a German ally during World War I; it didn't address reasons why the US would become a German ally, or long-term consequences of this decision.

So I ask what might get the US to join the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ottoman Empire). Most people agree the US will bring victory to the group it becomes part of, thanks to its natural resources, population, and industrial capacity; but what would happen in the 50 years after the Central Powers plus the US beat the shit out of the UK, France, and Russia?

My thoughts on possible reasons the US would join the Central Powers:

1) The American public feels SEVERE antagonism towards Slavs, the French, and/or the Brits. Possible reasons include recognition of the Confederacy during the American Civil War (the US would still win, due to its greater industrial capacity, access to natural resources and imported arms the USN blockade would deny the CSA); conflict with the French puppet government of Mexico; foreign nationals launching terror attacks in the US (as Russian anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted); or the Royal Navy blockade of Germany leading to the deaths of American citizens or the destruction of American-flagged ships (take "Remember the Lusitania" and replace the guilty party with a RN ship).

2) Germany does NOT declare unrestricted submarine warfare. The sinking of the Lusitania almost brought the US into the war in 1915; remove German responsibility for American deaths and you remove a reason for the average American to REALLY hate Germans.

3) Arthur Zimmermann does NOT become State Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The American public initially thought the Zimmermann Telegram was a British forgery, a trick to bring the US into the war on the Allies' side; then the moron gave a speech to confirm its authenticity. The average American hated Mexicans at the time, thanks to Pancho Villa's raid; now the Germans were offering to help Mexico reconquer territory that now belonged to the US? If we switch things around and have the US offer to help France reconquer Alsace-Lorraine in 1900, wouldn't the average German REALLY hate Americans?

It would have to be a pretty steep antagonism, like the British and/or French going beyond mere recognition of the Confederacy to actually providing military and/or economic support. I can't imagine the British doing that, but maybe the French under Napoleon III (although that would probably require Maximilian I to not be an idiot).

Presumably, in this universe, you wouldn't have Wilson as President. I have no idea how favorable Teddy Roosevelt and/or William Taft were in real life towards Germany before the war, but they were the next best alternatives.

You need to understand that the United States almost didn't get involved in the WWI in the first place. The Wilson Administration had to undertake the mother of all mass propaganda efforts (perhaps literally), and engage in ruthless and unconstitutional repression of all dissenting voices to convince the American people, and Congress, to approve of the war. The reason the Zimmerman Telegram happened in the first place was that the Germans weren't completely stupid or uninformed, and they could see which way the wind was blowing. Even with all that, by 1919 everyone hated Wilson's guts anyway.

That said, I do believe the US did almost declare war on Britain, the measure failed to pass the House by a vote or two. It could be useful to investigate the whys of this event, but I can't seem to ever find any information on it, I'm not even entirely sure it actually happened.

Guardsman Bass wrote:Presumably, in this universe, you wouldn't have Wilson as President. I have no idea how favorable Teddy Roosevelt and/or William Taft were in real life towards Germany before the war, but they were the next best alternatives.

Roosevelt was actually pushing for action against Germany early on. Taft was pushing for a mediated peace until the very end of war. Hughes favoured more mobilisation of the country in the 1916 election, but I'm not aware of him actually advocating action against Germany at all.

Adrian Laguna wrote:That said, I do believe the US did almost declare war on Britain, the measure failed to pass the House by a vote or two. It could be useful to investigate the whys of this event, but I can't seem to ever find any information on it, I'm not even entirely sure it actually happened.

I'd be very interested in reading about this if you can find it again.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:

Guardsman Bass wrote:Presumably, in this universe, you wouldn't have Wilson as President. I have no idea how favorable Teddy Roosevelt and/or William Taft were in real life towards Germany before the war, but they were the next best alternatives.

Roosevelt was actually pushing for action against Germany early on. Taft was pushing for a mediated peace until the very end of war. Hughes favoured more mobilisation of the country in the 1916 election, but I'm not aware of him actually advocating action against Germany at all.

In that case, you probably couldn't get anything more than US neutrality for the most part, unless you had the antagonism between Britain and the US go back further (like I said, to the Civil War or the like). Even then, odds are you're only going to get neutrality on the American part unless the British start attacking American shipping.

Adrian Laguna wrote:That said, I do believe the US did almost declare war on Britain, the measure failed to pass the House by a vote or two. It could be useful to investigate the whys of this event, but I can't seem to ever find any information on it, I'm not even entirely sure it actually happened.

I'd be very interested in reading about this if you can find it again.

Me too. I've never heard of this happening around World War I.

A good starting point for antagonism between America and Britain could be to the Venezuela Guyana border dispute in the 1890s. If the British smash us up in a limited war, there would be a lot of calls for revenge once WWI rolls around.

It would be very difficult for the USN to stand up to the RN in the 19th century. The USN would probably not have been able to maintain its Civil War blockade in the face of a forceful British or French response (the Confederate strategy seems to have been predicated on this). For Britain or France to have smashed their way through the blockade and supplied the Confederacy, even if they still lost, would certainly create the requisite resentment and anger for this scenario.
As for the Venezuela/Guyana border dispute, it's difficult to say. The USN began a Renaissance in the 1880's and was considered 1st rate by 1907 at the latest (Roosevelt's Great White Fleet).

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Me too. I've never heard of this happening around World War I.

Right after the Easter Uprising, all the Irish-American votes nearly demolished any chances the Allies had of the US entering on their side.

Lonestar wrote:Right after the Easter Uprising, all the Irish-American votes nearly demolished any chances the Allies had of the US entering on their side.

So if the Irish-Americans had enough political influence to actually get the US to declare war on the UK in the aftermath of one of the many conflicts between Unionists and Irish nationalists, with a casus belli as flimsy as the one that started the Spanish-American War, the UK might hate the US enough to do something REALLY STUPID, like declare unrestricted naval warfare and attack American-flagged ships?

Juubi Karakuchi wrote: As for the Venezuela/Guyana border dispute, it's difficult to say. The USN began a Renaissance in the 1880's and was considered 1st rate by 1907 at the latest (Roosevelt's Great White Fleet).

The problem is twofold, for starters the USN in 1897 (when the issue kicked off thanks to tensions over the diamond and other high value finds in the disputed region) is still several years away from Rosevelt's investment and upgrades so the RN vastly outclasses them and outnumbers them. While the costal defenses of the US and the lack of a truly large professional Army on the British side woudl probably keep the mainland of the US from suffering the British were in no way hampered in creating a host of problems for the US in its colonial possesions. Certainly they could have stirred toruble in Hawaii which was still reeling from Dole's Coup d'etat. If the dispute hadn't flared up until after arbitration in 1899 then they could attack possesions gained in the Spanish-American War while the US was still trying to consolidate the gains made.

Sidewinder wrote:

Lonestar wrote:Right after the Easter Uprising, all the Irish-American votes nearly demolished any chances the Allies had of the US entering on their side.

So if the Irish-Americans had enough political influence to actually get the US to declare war on the UK in the aftermath of one of the many conflicts between Unionists and Irish nationalists, with a casus belli as flimsy as the one that started the Spanish-American War, the UK might hate the US enough to do something REALLY STUPID, like declare unrestricted naval warfare and attack American-flagged ships?

I'd think that the possibility of Catholic-Protestant violence in the US might be pretty high, at least in those areas where the Protestants didn't come from Germany.