US-German alliance in WWI: Causes & Consequences
Moderator: K. A. Pital
- Sidewinder
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5466
- Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
- Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
- Contact:
US-German alliance in WWI: Causes & Consequences
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?
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?
Last edited by Sidewinder on 2008-09-10 02:37am, edited 2 times in total.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
- Guardsman Bass
- Cowardly Codfish
- Posts: 9281
- Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
- Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea
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.
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.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
-Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
-
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4736
- Joined: 2005-05-18 01:31am
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.
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.
-
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1725
- Joined: 2004-12-16 04:01am
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.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.
I'd be very interested in reading about this if you can find it again.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.
- Guardsman Bass
- Cowardly Codfish
- Posts: 9281
- Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
- Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea
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.Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: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.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.
Me too. I've never heard of this happening around World War I.I'd be very interested in reading about this if you can find it again.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.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
-Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
-
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: 2006-10-24 11:35am
- Location: Around and about the Beltway
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.
Turns out that a five way cross over between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, the Ali G Show, Fargo, Idiocracy and Veep is a lot less funny when you're actually living in it.
- Juubi Karakuchi
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 641
- Joined: 2007-08-17 02:54pm
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).
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).
Right after the Easter Uprising, all the Irish-American votes nearly demolished any chances the Allies had of the US entering on their side.Guardsman Bass wrote:
Me too. I've never heard of this happening around World War I.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
- Sidewinder
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5466
- Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
- Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
- Contact:
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?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.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
- CmdrWilkens
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 9093
- Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
- Location: Land of the Crabcake
- Contact:
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.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).
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 636
- Joined: 2006-08-08 09:29pm
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
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.Sidewinder wrote: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?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.