StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lonestar wrote:If the goal is securing America's resources, the European powers may have bitten off more than they can chew. The United States has all the advantages that Russia has…lots of land and a big population, with the added benefit of the two biggest moats in the world.

If the purpose of 'teaming up' is a resource grab, a joint invasion of Russia would make more sense (and would take less time, and have a higher probability of success).

My conclusion is that after several years of war in which millions of people die, the USA loses all of its colonies and minor border regions to the Anglo-German Empire and recognizes Russian control of Alaska; the worst lost possible would be a chunk of northern Wisconsin and Minnesota including the Mesabi iron range, along with Upper Michigan, which was traditionally disputed territory in the 1830s; we might also lose the Aroostook region, also disputed, the islands in the Great Lakes, and maybe all of Washington State to the west and north of the Columbia river.

The loss of the Minnesota iron ranges and the coastal ports of Washington State would be the worst economic effects, which would cause a post-war depression, but one that we could easily recover from. The Columbia could be enhanced for barge traffic with locks on the American side and Portland developed into a vast port infrastructure, so that the major railroads running historically into Washington (Three of them) are not useless; they just transfer and receive cargoes to barges on the Columbia river, which are shipped down to Portland and transferred to boats, and probably a couple more rail-lines are built across the Cascades in Oregon as well.

In exchange, Europe would also have a depression as British finances were wrecked by the cost of the war, and with the USA turned into a highly militant Republican (as in anti-monarchist) garrison state, and more money thrown into aggressively developing iron deposits in Utah and Colorado (the Moffat tunnel route will probably be built earlier than historical, for instance) to compensate for those lost in the midwest, the development of American industrial power will not be hampered much. Since government power will be tremendously increased by the war, pulling off the massive New Deal infrastructure requirements will be much easier.

Communism will never take root, however, as the Russians will not face the risk of revolution in this scenario. The big winner will be France, which as a neutral country will enjoy renewed economic prosperity, and with Belgian industry will have a generally healthier economy under the Bonapartist dynasty.

The end result is US industrial capacity going into huge infrastructure projects which eventually yield massive fortifications along the northern and southern borders (since Mexico will be under heavy Anglo-German/Russian influence as a result of the war) and, by the 1930s, the start of a tremendous fleet buildup the likes off the world has never seen which will start to increase tensions again.

Starglider wrote:If the purpose of 'teaming up' is a resource grab, a joint invasion of Russia would make more sense (and would take less time, and have a higher probability of success).

No, it doesn't. Siberian oil superdeposits will not be discovered until late 50s. This is 1913. Russia is a second-rate country and it's only usefullness is to feed Europe with grain. While it's own populace starves. And it will remain so up until the 1940s.

Duchess of Zeon wrote:Since government power will be tremendously increased by the war, pulling off the massive New Deal infrastructure requirements will be much easier.

Sometimes government power is weakened by the war, not increased. I somehow doubt the US will pull it off so easily with wrecked industry. Great Depression is not war. War is far more widely damaging.

Duchess of Zeon wrote:Communism will never take root, however, as the Russians will not face the risk of revolution in this scenario.

If as you say there will be millions of dead and massive economic strain even on Britain - the wealthiest Empire - Russia is hardly safe from a major revolt. And anyway, the Czar's monarchy was on a self-destruction course, so the question is only how radically socialist the future Revolution in Russia will be. 1905 already happened. The self-destructive use of agriculture for exports with massive famines has already happened. Czar's attempts at reforms have already happened and failed. There's not much which can save the Russian monarchy if it only doesn't massively profit from the invasion.

In this case, it can team up with France as the new arbiter power in the world.

Surlethe wrote: God yes, Wilson should have kept us out of that European pissing match. You can build mild case that World War II wouldn't have happened, at least not in its real form, if the US hadn't flooded Western France with soldiers and forced Germany to capitulate instead of Germany and the Allies signing a cease-fire.

A mild case that it wouldn't have happened? A German-Allied cease-fire?

Hell no. Far worse than that.

The Germans might well have forced the surrender of France in 1918 without the USA being in the war.

I don't think people realize that the Blucher-Yorck offensive made Paris seem like a realistic objective. 50,000 allied troops and 800 artillery pieces had been captured and 130,000 casualties inflicted on the allies additionally, who were on the verge of cracking. Then two American divisions, each a massive unit of 25,000 men, and entirely fresh, most of them veteran regulars rather than the less skilled doughboys, along with an attached Marine Brigade, also of long-service veterans, engaged the Germans at Belleau Wood on 1 June, 1916--bogging the German advance down in a month-long bloodbath, with the Blucher-Yorck offensive having considered to have been called off by 3 June.

Nearly 60,000 American troops participated in that battle, and it was still a very near-run thing. If 10,000 American troops were not arriving in France every single day, what would have been the result? How would the allies have found 60,000 fresh men to throw into the gap at Belleau Wood without us?

Not to mention that the Austro-Hungarians would not have collapsed if the Hungarian political establishment had no 18 Points to naively believe in and imagine that this meant that Wilson would guarantee the preservation of Greater Hungary if they revolted from Habsburg rule.

The only place the allies can take troops from in time is the Italian Front, but that would mean the Italians seeking an early peace with the central powers, as the Italian Army had virtually ceased to exist after the battle of Caporetto in late 1917, and was still being reconstituted, so that the allied troops reinforcing them there were desperately needed.

Offensives could also be called off and forces evacuated in Greece and the Ottoman Empire, but this means essentially abandoning any effort to knock both Bulgaria and the Ottomans out of the war, and leaving the Ottomans free to send troops to seize large portions of Russia and support the German occupation efforts there, which would send the better German troops freed up to the west. And it would take time to shift them.

With the fortifications of Paris directly brought under German artillery fire by the advances made in the Blucher-Yorck offensive without those 60,000 Americans to stop them, and the city at risk of being cut off and besieged by another Big German Push, using the remaining veteran divisions occupying Russia, if the Germans can just free up enough of their allies' troops to replace them, the Austrian Army able to hold off the ravaged Italians indefinitely with the political situation at home not nearly so unstable, how long will it be until the French feel compelled to seek terms at any price?

Will the Italians defect and seek a separate peace, seeing as they have no hope of victory, no political divisions to exploit in their main enemy, and a shattered army which they only stopped from retreating by decimating several units? (Yes, the Italians really did this--to halt the mass, panicked retreat after Caporetto, 10% of the men in several units were summarily executed--probably thousands in all). Even if the allies keep pushing at the Bulgarians, will they surrender like they did historically, when allied troops hadn't even occupied any of their territory, when the situation is going so much better for the Central Powers? And if they don't, then all the troops in the Macedonian expedition are stuck there indefinitely.

If the Ottomans fight on, then Mustafa Kemal Ataturk will be--as he was being sent to do when they capitulated--preparing defences in mountainous northern Syria, with much better lines of supply than the forces in Palestine had. And again, those troops will not be available for the western front.

And the hardened Sturmbatalliones containing the veterans of the like of Ernst Juenger would be resting and waiting for the orders to fling them into the spearhead of the next big offensive under the cover of massive amounts of poison gas and Bruchmueller artillery tactics the moment that the Germans could concentrate their last reserves of veteran divisions from the Russian occupied territories, for a last big offensive, surely the double-envelopment of Paris itself, while in the Trentino the Austrians rebuild their strength for a second Strafexpedition to break out of the mountains and try and encircle the demoralized and hopeless Italian armies defending Venice and seize that city, giving an excellent chance to effectively destroy the Italian Army and seize the whole of Venezia...

With regards to the Duchess' scenario, what if instead of simply fortifying strongpoints the US dusts off its 'War Plan Red' and tries to seize Halifax and the maritimes to prevent England from landing troops while striking further inland at Winnipeg and the St. Lawrence?

The question then is would a French surrender have been a disaster for the US?

PeZook wrote:The USN won't be able to do anything to the Home Fleet for the exact same reasons why the Brits will have it very difficult fighting the USN at their own shores

Actually, the USN doesn't even NEED to do anything. Look at how much effort the Royal Navy spent in WW1 trying to keep the HSF bottled up into the North Sea. Now imagine trying to keep the USN bottled up into it's own harbors over a much larger area....

East coast and northern urban centers (Chicago and all) in the hands of the Europeans, but devastated horribly after lots of urban fighting, barricades, heavy shelling etc.

Nah. Canada is our bitch. It's impossible for the Euros to ship in enough men or artillery to fortify the place without us noticing, or fast enough to make a difference.

This is my worse case scenario:



Basically, the eastern Coastal plains get taken, and washington is burned for the second time; but we hold at the Blue Ridge mountains/Appalachians.

In the north, American forces drive up and seize the major population areas of Canada; and hold them under occupation.

The major fighting areas would be:

Quebec Front
Boston-Washington Front
Missipippi Front
Carolinas Front.

The mexican front and the rest of canada would essentially be sideshows.

God, that'd be a nightmare of a war. Though imagining germans chasing confederate veterans leading partisans through Louisiana makes me smile.

The Germans might well have forced the surrender of France in 1918 without the USA being in the war.

And so? Germany also took Ukraine. Germany's industries were falling apart, the Empire was just as much on a self-destruction course as Russia. The overthrow of the Keiser was already determined by the late 1918 and this last-attempt battles like the push for Parise or whatnot, even if succeeded, would soon leave Germany fallen apart and taken up by a revolt. European powers will get what they want back from Germany in a heartbeat. Hell, Soviet Russia amidst a Civil War managed to get back the lands which the Germans abandoned due to their internal breakdown, why would France or Britain be incapable of re-taking everything once Germany falls to turmiol?

MKSheppard wrote:

PeZook wrote:The USN won't be able to do anything to the Home Fleet for the exact same reasons why the Brits will have it very difficult fighting the USN at their own shores

Actually, the USN doesn't even NEED to do anything. Look at how much effort the Royal Navy spent in WW1 trying to keep the HSF bottled up into the North Sea. Now imagine trying to keep the USN bottled up into it's own harbors over a much larger area....

Except that the HSF was a match for the Royal Navy, in numbers and skill. The U.S.N., which at this point has never fought a serious naval war, is hopelessly small and hopelessly inexpirienced.

Stas Bush wrote: And so? Germany also took Ukraine. Germany's industries were falling apart, the Empire was just as much on a self-destruction course as Russia. The overthrow of the Keiser was already determined by the late 1918 and this last-attempt battles like the push for Parise or whatnot, even if succeeded, would soon leave Germany fallen apart and taken up by a revolt. European powers will get what they want back from Germany in a heartbeat. Hell, Soviet Russia amidst a Civil War managed to get back the lands which the Germans abandoned due to their internal breakdown, why would France or Britain be incapable of re-taking everything once Germany falls to turmiol?

The German revolution was the result of the failure of will at the highest levels of the German government when it was clear that the war would be lost. It wouldn't have happened with a German victory, period.

Unless you think that Germany winning would make the Freikorps less able to suppress the revolutionaries than they were when Germany lost? That just doesn't make sense.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The end result is US industrial capacity going into huge infrastructure projects which eventually yield massive fortifications along the northern and southern borders (since Mexico will be under heavy Anglo-German/Russian influence as a result of the war) and, by the 1930s, the start of a tremendous fleet buildup the likes off the world has never seen which will start to increase tensions again.

So the Second World War starts with an aggressive and embittered United States rather than an aggressive and embittered Germany. With the fun difference being that a fully industrially developed US has about 40% of the war-making potential of the entire planet.

Adrian Laguna wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The end result is US industrial capacity going into huge infrastructure projects which eventually yield massive fortifications along the northern and southern borders (since Mexico will be under heavy Anglo-German/Russian influence as a result of the war) and, by the 1930s, the start of a tremendous fleet buildup the likes off the world has never seen which will start to increase tensions again.

So the Second World War starts with an aggressive and embittered United States rather than an aggressive and embittered Germany. With the fun difference being that a fully industrially developed US has about 40% of the war-making potential of the entire planet.

IIRC, at the height of the second World War, the US constituted over 50% of world GDP, and we were still getting into the swing of things.

Surlethe wrote:
IIRC, at the height of the second World War, the US constituted over 50% of world GDP, and we were still getting into the swing of things.

Russia would be more economically developed here.

Nice points all.

I believe the US wins this war by playing defense and using it's own substantial natural defenses and resources.

Europe simply can not out produce the US in terms of weapons and required transportation. The biggest issue would be the actual sailing from continental Europe and the UK all the way over the atlantic. The logistics of this grand scale couldn't be fathomed in 1913. The US sent over troops bit by bit, not in 100k pops.

What I believe would kill the US wouldn't be the war, it would be the economic sanctions and embargos.

From my understanding that from the early 1900's all the way up to mid to lat 30's that both Canada and the U.S. had plans to invade each other. If that is true then the Canadian government must have had reasons to think they had a chance against the Americans. I think that if the U.S. were to go to war against Europe then Canada would definitely jump in since they have already made plans to invade the U.S. and should be able to put up a fight and slow the Americans until help from overseas arrive.

But then again that is what I believe would happen and I do not have any hard figures to back it up.

The Canadian idea was that the best defense was a good offense. They knew they could not win. Their plan was to hit first and then try and buy time till British reinforcements arrived.

Enigma wrote:From my understanding that from the early 1900's all the way up to mid to lat 30's that both Canada and the U.S. had plans to invade each other. If that is true then the Canadian government must have had reasons to think they had a chance against the Americans. I think that if the U.S. were to go to war against Europe then Canada would definitely jump in since they have already made plans to invade the U.S. and should be able to put up a fight and slow the Americans until help from overseas arrive.

But then again that is what I believe would happen and I do not have any hard figures to back it up.

You know the size of the Regular Canadian Army between 1919-1939 was only 5000 men right? That's enough to maintain a training cardre in case war broke out in Europe again. We wouldn't be invading anyone, let alone the US despite what the plans say. If indeed they ever existed.

Aeolus wrote:The Canadian idea was that the best defense was a good offense. They knew they could not win. Their plan was to hit first and then try and buy time till British reinforcements arrived.

From what I understood was that the Canadian government planned to scout every major american city to find weaknesses they could exploit (i.e. electrical power plants, water supply, etc...).

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Enigma wrote:From my understanding that from the early 1900's all the way up to mid to lat 30's that both Canada and the U.S. had plans to invade each other. If that is true then the Canadian government must have had reasons to think they had a chance against the Americans. I think that if the U.S. were to go to war against Europe then Canada would definitely jump in since they have already made plans to invade the U.S. and should be able to put up a fight and slow the Americans until help from overseas arrive.

But then again that is what I believe would happen and I do not have any hard figures to back it up.

You know the size of the Regular Canadian Army between 1919-1939 was only 5000 men right? That's enough to maintain a training cardre in case war broke out in Europe again. We wouldn't be invading anyone, let alone the US despite what the plans say. If indeed they ever existed.

But if Canada was going to actually mobilise to invade the U.S. they could be up to about WW1 levels (i.e. armed forces of about 600,000), or at least maintained those levels.

Enigma wrote: But if Canada was going to actually mobilise to invade the U.S. they could be up to about WW1 levels (i.e. armed forces of about 600,000), or at least maintained those levels.

It certainly could, provided that Britain agreed to supply the necessary armaments and mobilized its industry to produce them, with resulting negative effects on its civil economy. Of course, since the US also has at least several years to mobilize under the terms of the thread, it can field as a minimal the 5 million man Army (and that’s 5 million just in Europe) it would have had under Plan 1919. More realistically, since its arming up for total war on home soil, it could have 10-20 million men under arms. The border and coastal defenses would be massive to say the least, and the US railroad system would bring new meaning to interior lines of communication.

Are we discussing invading the US pre-WWI or pre-WWII here? Because the pre WWI situation is even worse for the Canadian Army and it took a year if memory serves before the first expeditionary troops from Canada reached the lines in Europe. Because it took that long for our recruiting and training system to build up the numbers enough to make a worthwile contribution. While an invasion of the States would have the benefit of being closer it would still take a while for troops to be available in numbers enough to be useful. If memory serves the Canadian Army pre-WWI consisted of four Regiments.

How many troops does the US have at it's disposal in 1913 anyways which can immediatly invade Canada once the intentions of the Alliance are known?

Cpl Kendall wrote:How many troops does the US have at it's disposal in 1913 anyways which can immediatly invade Canada once the intentions of the Alliance are known?

The US army compromised 98,000 men in 1914.

About half were abroad (mostly Mexico but also the Philippines, Puerto Rico and even China).

Orbat

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: The German revolution was the result of the failure of will at the highest levels of the German government when it was clear that the war would be lost. It wouldn't have happened with a German victory, period.

True. Though the German situation in terms of food and resources was millimeters from total collapse when the armistice went through historically, a successful Spring Offensive in 1918 would have allowed Germany full access to French stockpiles, and the inevitable acquiescence of the other allies to armistice on the German terms would have allowed world market access to resume. These shortages and the collapse of the military in the face of strategic disaster were the approximate cause of the Kaiser's abdication and ensuing revolution. These things just wouldn't have obtained in the event of German victory.