Thread: What if? The US entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

but this IS a 'what if WWI scenario'

we verved off the question in the title a long time ago.

Anyways my What if WW1 question would be fairly simple. What if the British managed to destroy half of German fleet and decided to do a landing in Northern Germany instead of Gallipoli. I am thinking a forced landing into Denmark (and it "compeled" to join the Allied side) Then selectively marine landings in weakpoints from Danish border with Germany through Stettin forcing Germans to stretch to thin or actually creating an active useful Northern Front, all of this in 1914-15 with the taking of major cities in North Germany and perhaps even pushing for Berlin. Basically knocking out Germany out of war by the end of 1915. Theoretically possible since Baltic Sea was dominated by Britain at that point already. Ergo 500k troops land in North Germany instead of Gallipoli. With perhaps 100k of it being mobile landings that would land destroy roam around damage go back to ships move on to a different area while Germans try to contain it in this one. Public outcry would collapse the war effort almost immediately I think if capital was in danger and population would be fearful where the next raid would come through.

The question is thus, if war ends before 1916 or perhaps at early 1916 both Russia and Austria-Hungary would have ability to survive. How would the world look and would this prevent WW2?...

Ok I apologise for not getting back to this yesterday... will have a go now.

Firstly the main question is what happens if the US joins on the side of the Central Powers? I take the point of the loss of financial cooperation between Britain and the US, but the investments went to two ways. US investors in the Britain made a profit but these markets would be closed as would any British investment in the US. The US would be vitualy blockaded in the Atlantic and Japan, while 'neutral', was certainly pro British and may even enter the war on the Entente side. This seems to be the only point raised to support a theory that Russia would collapse a year earlier and therefore the European theatre could be won by the Central Powers. IF Russia is going to collapse in 1916 it implies US interference in the European theatre and, in my opinion, the lack of investment ect is not sufficient alone to cause this. How else will the US help the Central Powers? This seems to me impossible without naval supremecy.

My very first comment on this subject was "Certainly the war goes on longer." Of course I was thinking at the time of a secondary US campaign after the Central Powers collapse. However it is clear that with the Entente Powers having naval supremecy the longer the war goes on the more the pendulum swings in their favour. zraver you seem to believe that the war will be shorter, thus increasing the CPs chances, because the US on their side. Aside from the two sided loss of financial resources I cannot see any reason why this should be so.

The rest of your arguement is based around a theory that Central Powers can win Europe once Russia collapses but Russia DID collapse, it did survive the 1915 defeats though they certainly helped the collapse. But even after Russia collapsed the Central Powers were unable to win in the West or in Italy. You then argue that Italy could be knocked out quickly but Italy DID survive after Caparetto and defeated Austria at the Pave River.

Basicly in WW1 NO country was fully defeated in the field (as for example France was in 1940); Russia collapsed from inside as did, in the end, the Central Powers. To 'knock out' a country in WW1 was done by military pressure leading to internal collapse. The 'quick knock out' was not an option as long as there was the political will to continue. Therefore the Entente Powers have only to keep their allies happy, their own Governments stable, and victory is nigh on inevitable.

The basic problem for the thesis is that the Entente Powers, having naval supremacy, can keep the two theatres seperate. Presumably they would decide to concentrate on European theatre first (the Frogs would demand it!). So the problems of the European/Middle Eastern/Caucasus campaigns would probably follow a similar course to those that happened. My guess is that ANZACS troops may have been sent to Canada or perhaps landing in Alaska and then south so Allenbys march north may have been delayed but he was capable of holding Suez anyway. For those who would suggest an alternative scenario it seems to me that you must prove: A. That the US can help the Central Powers to win in Europe faster - say end of 1917 start of 1918, before they start starving and B. That either the US or Central Powers can subsequently achieve naval supremecy. As yet I do not see this.

Originally Posted by snapper

Ok I apologise for not getting back to this yesterday... will have a go now.

Firstly the main question is what happens if the US joins on the side of the Central Powers? I take the point of the loss of financial cooperation between Britain and the US, but the investments went to two ways. US investors in the Britain made a profit but these markets would be closed as would any British investment in the US. The US would be vitualy blockaded in the Atlantic

and Japan, while 'neutral', was certainly pro British and may even enter the war on the Entente side.


This seems to be the only point raised to support a theory that Russia would collapse a year earlier and therefore the European theatre could be won by the Central Powers. IF Russia is going to collapse in 1916 it implies US interference in the European theatre and, in my opinion, the lack of investment ect is not sufficient alone to cause this. How else will the US help the Central Powers? This seems to me impossible without naval supremecy.


My very first comment on this subject was "Certainly the war goes on longer." Of course I was thinking at the time of a secondary US campaign after the Central Powers collapse. However it is clear that with the Entente Powers having naval supremecy the longer the war goes on the more the pendulum swings in their favour. zraver you seem to believe that the war will be shorter, thus increasing the CPs chances, because the US on their side. Aside from the two sided loss of financial resources I cannot see any reason why this should be so.

The rest of your arguement is based around a theory that Central Powers can win Europe once Russia collapses but Russia DID collapse, it did survive the 1915 defeats though they certainly helped the collapse. But even after Russia collapsed the Central Powers were unable to win in the West or in Italy. You then argue that Italy could be knocked out quickly but Italy DID survive after Caparetto and defeated Austria at the Pave River.

Basicly in WW1 NO country was fully defeated in the field (as for example France was in 1940); Russia collapsed from inside as did, in the end, the Central Powers. To 'knock out' a country in WW1 was done by military pressure leading to internal collapse. The 'quick knock out' was not an option as long as there was the political will to continue. Therefore the Entente Powers have only to keep their allies happy, their own Governments stable, and victory is nigh on inevitable.

The basic problem for the thesis is that the Entente Powers, having naval supremacy, can keep the two theatres seperate. Presumably they would decide to concentrate on European theatre first (the Frogs would demand it!). So the problems of the European/Middle Eastern/Caucasus campaigns would probably follow a similar course to those that happened. My guess is that ANZACS troops may have been sent to Canada or perhaps landing in Alaska and then south so Allenbys march north may have been delayed but he was capable of holding Suez anyway. For those who would suggest an alternative scenario it seems to me that you must prove: A. That the US can help the Central Powers to win in Europe faster - say end of 1917 start of 1918, before they start starving and B. That either the US or Central Powers can subsequently achieve naval supremecy. As yet I do not see this.

uhmm... Japan declared war on Germany on Ag 27, 1914....

uhmm... Serbia, Romania and the Ottomans were defeated in the feild

Assuming the US enters on the side of the CP in 15 then some 500,000 Canadians including 3 crack divisions are not going to Europe, if the US enters later, those Canadians including 4 crack divisions need to leave Europe asap to face a multi-million man army forming in the US.... admittedly a later US entry delays the US offensive into Canada due to a shortage of materials...

Either way that is the loss of hundreds of thousands of bodies directly from the Western Theater as the CP gains a million- net+1.5 million to the CP.

Now on to financing

In the period from 1915-18 the UK ran up a war debt to the US of $5 billion dollars in 1918 dollars. That is 1/7th of total British spending. That money was used to buy arms and supplies from America that the UK could not produce itself (or not in enough numbers). The obvious place for the UK to cut spending is its aid to Russia. US, Dutch and French loans backed these UK loans to the point where in 1917 when Russia dropped out of the war her external debt had increased $11 billion dollars 9to 16 billion)- half her total war time spending of $22 billion. Without such aid (loans and materials) Russia won't recover from the disasters of 1915. She had given almost all of her artillery to the Germans and used up her ammunition and most of her rifles. The Ottoman Empire might have been the sickman of Europe, if so Czarist Russia was the Ottoman's half dead sister...

In 7 battles in 1914 and 15 (Tannenburg, 1st and 2nd Masurian Lakes, Warsaw and Lodz vs Germany plus Battle of Galicia vs the Austro-Hungarians ad the combined Gorliz-tarnow offensive) the Russians lost almost 1.2 million men to the Central Powers losses of half a million. Russia used up most of her small arms and artillery ammunition ad lost much of her artillery and many of her priceless machine guns...

Russia needed that foreign money to fight on in 15, 16 and 17, without it she dies early- no money means no arms. Lets look at what a Russian collapse in 1916 really means for the CP. The CP gets an additional 2 million men to use elsewhere. The extra million for the Austro-Hungarians are admittedly not that impressive unless your an Italian. But those million German troops are not the young, half starved boys of 17 and 18 but well fed well equipped men at the peak of German power. In 1918 half a million were sent west. The others had to be used for occupation duty. If Imperial Russia and Germany sign a treaty that provides food stuffs and removes the need for occupation that number might grow by an additional 50%

Those 750,000 men are enough to completely replace German losses in the West taken in 1916. While the British and French add half trained conscripts in 1917 the Germans add veterans... Also with no fight in the East daily allotments of shells to German guns in the West meets Allied totals. The shortage of shells was a persistent complaint of Ernst Junger a much decorated storm trooper who wrote "The Storm of Steel, From The Diary of A Storm Trooper"- which by the way should be required reading for anyone wanting to study WWI.

In Italy, the Austro-Hungarians were almost always outnumbered so the removal of Russia means the Austrians now have the numbers edge, plus terrain and artillery which they already enjoyed... Plus with no Russia, there is no Romanian entry into the war so that side war isn't a drain either. Italy: until Caparetto the Italians were lead by Cardona who seems to have felt that the Roman policy of decimation was how you make an army fight. His leadership was widely detested by the rank and file, which is why Italy lost more men to desertions in 17 than to enemy fire. On top of that he was insane... if the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result... 11 battles over roughly the same patch of ground.... Even Haig only did that 3 times... Give the Austro-Hungarians superior numbers and Italy is in trouble even without a German intervention.

For the Ottoman Empire the fall of Russia means an extra 190,000 men for use in Gallipolli, Egypt and Iraq... That's enough t swing the balance in at least contest, maybe in all three cases.

For France the loss of US backed loans by the UK has a negative impact as well. Although she can cut some funding to Russia, most of her cuts have to come out of spending on herself. This means fewer heavy guns, fewer machine guns, fewer aeroplanes.... The French went to war in 14 superbly equipped for mobile warfare. Lots of calvary, bayonets and quick firing 75mm's and only a few dozen 105mm and no 155mm's... from the fall of 14 onwards they were rapidly trying to convert to heavy guns which are expensive plus add machine guns... Without those loans she can't and the 75mm's are forced to soldier on... Britain was in a simialr problem and had to rapidly convert from 13lb to 18 and 25lb guns.

But the loss of loans to Russia is not the end of the UK's financial woes...

What we end up with in 16 so far is the Allies with half a million fewer men in the West, fewer planes, fewer guns, no money, battered armies, a political crisis in England leading to the fall of Asquith and facing a Germany now fighting a one front war... And 2 major factors you have ignored.

1- A Germany who does not fear unrestricted submarine warfare. In 1915 before it was called off the Germans were sinking 100,000 tons of merchant shipping a month and an average of 1.9 ships a day. The UK can not sustain those losses, especially as in 1917 when it resumed increased German numbers and expertise drove that number to 500,000 tons a month plus... a number reached in 1916 if the campaign is not called off. The only counter is increased spending on naval escorts and merchant ships which is going to take steel and men away from the Army, this after all munitions workers were recently exempted from conscription and even denied volunteering without their employers permission. In April 1917 Britain had only 6 weeks worth of wheat left in England... move that forward a year and as Adm Beatty observed in 1917, "The real crux lies in whether we blockade the enemy to his knees, or whether he does the same to us." If Germany has friendly US ports to use with high quality US supplied petrol...

2- OK and finally sending the Anzacs to the US West Coast and British naval supremacy... Alaska is out... in the period of WWI there are no roads and the gold fields n the Yukon are already Canadian. The obvious targets for such an expedition are Guam, the Phillipines, Hawaii or California. Puget Sound is a giant protected bay ringed by three forts so its out. The Anzacs are not up for Gallipolie Part Duex which is what Western Washington with its narrow coastal plain and steep mountains to the east, and mile wide Columbia to the South is. I would know that is where I grew up. Most of the Anzacs would see Rainier, St Helens, Adams and Baker and try and swim home. If they made it to the Columbia they would probably mutiny and try and shoot who ever ordered the invasion- the terrain is that bad.

However landing farther south on the West Coast has its own problems... Los Angeles lets them seize a major urban center but then what? The San Fransisco Bay Area is the real gem at the time and is heavily protected. Plus the US has 14 dreadnoughts, 13 pre-dreadnoughts and 3 coastal battleships in 1916 with 3 dreadnoughts under construction. Assuming a 50/50 split that is 7 modern battleships, 6 older ships and a coastal ship. Unless the Royal navy wants to detail ships off of the Grand Fleet, since Japan can't offer much 11 pre-dreadnoughts, 1 semi dreadnought, 2 dreadnoughts- most of Japan's pre-dreadnoughts are former Imperial Russian ships (pre-1904) and are more closely related to coastal ships. So if the RN does detail some of its 28 ships off the Grand fleet for operations in the pacific, and details more off to blockade the US coast... Suddenly the German disadvantage in numbers is gone and Jutland may turn out very badly indeed for the Royal Navy given the German ships were better gunnery platforms and didn't stack cordite in the open...

Also in the period after Jutland the US adds 4 new battleships between 16-18 and Germany adds 2, the UK adds 3, France 0 as best I can tell. this means a Royal navy divided by the need to blockade the German and American coasts and support an invasion of the US West Coast is is going to be eager to force three battles before June 1916, but if the US and Germany refuse battle until 17 or 18 then the odds are actually stacked against the Royal navy numbers wise (she still has battle cruisers to add throw weight but they are vulnerable)

Originally Posted by zraver

In Italy, the Austro-Hungarians were almost always outnumbered so the removal of Russia means the Austrians now have the numbers edge, plus terrain and artillery which they already enjoyed... Plus with no Russia, there is no Romanian entry into the war so that side war isn't a drain either. Italy: until Caparetto the Italians were lead by Cardona who seems to have felt that the Roman policy of decimation was how you make an army fight. His leadership was widely detested by the rank and file, which is why Italy lost more men to desertions in 17 than to enemy fire. On top of that he was insane... if the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result... 11 battles over roughly the same patch of ground.... Even Haig only did that 3 times... Give the Austro-Hungarians superior numbers and Italy is in trouble even without a German intervention.

As long as the italians are on the offensive Cardona gets credit no matter how much attrition does he sustain , however if the Italian suffer a major reversal in the field as they historically did , i have no reason to believe they would keep betting on a losing horse.

Originally Posted by BD1

unless you go to Brave soldier Schweik mode .....

He was Czech serving in the AH-army.

Originally Posted by cyppok

we verved off the question in the title a long time ago.

Anyways my What if WW1 question would be fairly simple. What if the British managed to destroy half of German fleet and decided to do a landing in Northern Germany instead of Gallipoli.

I've often pondered similarly. One thing us simplistic air-power people never quite understood was the amazingly brutal, static nature of WW1. The obvious questions... "Why not attack somewhere, ANYWHERE, in the rear of the enemy, in some decent force?" Both sides tried a frontal assault followed by "the breakthrough that would roll up the enemy rear, and win the war", and they all petered out after a couple of miles with horrendous losses. Was it a problem of logistics? Lack of any decently mobile units that could carry supplies sufficient for more than just 3 days of combat?

Obviously, men like Guderian pondered the maneuver war in later years, and more modern panzers permitted it, but you'd have thought that the sheer mass of a British landing, protected by naval guns, could have created a potent beachhead that would have done the job... cut the German supply to the main front, and forced a massive redistribution of forces in France & Belgium.

Gallipoli failed for a number of reasons, but the obvious one was a terrible location, trapped onto a rocky peninsula, rather than more open terrain with perhaps rail that could be exploited.

Originally Posted by Chogy

I've often pondered similarly. One thing us simplistic air-power people never quite understood was the amazingly brutal, static nature of WW1. The obvious questions... "Why not attack somewhere, ANYWHERE, in the rear of the enemy, in some decent force?"

they did.... the race to the sea, Gallipolli, Salonika, Tigris, East Africa... the problem is the rear was not the center of gravity which was Germany.

Both sides tried a frontal assault followed by "the breakthrough that would roll up the enemy rear, and win the war", and they all petered out after a couple of miles with horrendous losses. Was it a problem of logistics? Lack of any decently mobile units that could carry supplies sufficient for more than just 3 days of combat?

lack of an ability to move supplies forward over shattered terrain. Massive artillery barrages turned the ground into mud and moon scape and supplies had to be manhandled forward from the attackers rail heads to the start line, across no man's land and then across the shattered landscape of the enemy trenches. Meanwhile the defenders were blessed with only having to move from their rail head to the penetration and inherent advantage.

Originally Posted by 1979

As long as the italians are on the offensive Cardona gets credit no matter how much attrition does he sustain , however if the Italian suffer a major reversal in the field as they historically did , i have no reason to believe they would keep betting on a losing horse.

yes, but that one historic reversal almost knocked Italy out of the war. If Caparetto happens in late 16 there are no British and French divisions to ride to the rescue.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

He was Czech serving in the AH-army.

the book, although there´s much hyperbole and jokes, still shows just how strained were the relations between the A-H nations, classes etc.

Originally Posted by cyppok

we verved off the question in the title a long time ago.

Anyways my What if WW1 question would be fairly simple. What if the British managed to destroy half of German fleet and decided to do a landing in Northern Germany instead of Gallipoli.

Then their army would be really arrested by the Berlin police,like the Kaiser boasted.

Originally Posted by cyppok

we verved off the question in the title a long time ago.

Anyways my What if WW1 question would be fairly simple. What if the British managed to destroy half of German fleet and decided to do a landing in Northern Germany instead of Gallipoli. I am thinking a forced landing into Denmark (and it "compeled" to join the Allied side) Then selectively marine landings in weakpoints from Danish border with Germany through Stettin forcing Germans to stretch to thin or actually creating an active useful Northern Front, all of this in 1914-15 with the taking of major cities in North Germany and perhaps even pushing for Berlin. Basically knocking out Germany out of war by the end of 1915. Theoretically possible since Baltic Sea was dominated by Britain at that point already. Ergo 500k troops land in North Germany instead of Gallipoli. With perhaps 100k of it being mobile landings that would land destroy roam around damage go back to ships move on to a different area while Germans try to contain it in this one. Public outcry would collapse the war effort almost immediately I think if capital was in danger and population would be fearful where the next raid would come through.

The question is thus, if war ends before 1916 or perhaps at early 1916 both Russia and Austria-Hungary would have ability to survive. How would the world look and would this prevent WW2?...

1 majr flaw in your reasoning- destroying half the German fleet. For that to happen the Germans had to be willing to give battle and they weren't. Whle this helped Britain by keeping a powerful enemy fleet out of action and her own massively expensive fleet safe, it also preserved the High Seas Fleet as a fleet in being so no invasion was possible.

US Navy early 1916

69x destroyers
11x merchant cruisers
22x protected cruisers
12x armored cruisers
3x scout cruisers
3x monitors
0x battle cruisers (7)
4x coastal battleships
20x pre-dreadnoughts (22)
8x dreadnoughts (15)
2x super dreadnoughts (1)
34 coastal submarines (+8 in the Philippines)
(German High Seas Fleet)

In early 1916 the USN had a battle fleet comparable to the German High Seas Fleet. By the end of 1916 the USN would add 4 more super dreadnoughts with 14" guns (Germany had 1 x 15" super dreadnought and her early dreadnoughts were 11" gunned.

The maximum US battle line could in theory call upon the firepower of 218 guns 10" or larger or the equal to 20 dreadnoughts. Granted not all guns are created equal but the Royal navy did not have the numbers to blockade both the US with its 3 three coasts and Germany.

12x 10" guns
144x 12" guns
32x 13" guns
20x 14" guns

The US naval build up following the Spanish American war was actually comparable to what Germany was doing if less threatening to the UK. Regardless the US battle fleet in 1916 even if split among both major coasts and a few over seas deployments presents serious problems to any RN plans to blockade the US where the number of harbors and the sheer length of the coast do not allow easy choke points like the North Sea.
vs 9 battle cruisers


Here is a surprise- The British were are outgunned at sea in a US/German vs UK in WWI what if... all together the US and German navies had 3 super dreadnoughts, 23 dreadnoughts, 7 battle cruisers and 42 pre-dreadoughts vs 1 super dreadnought, 22 dreadnoughts,9 battle cruisers, 29 pre-dreadnoughts. What this shows and it is surprising is that the British naval building was unable to keep pace and actually maintain a 2 war navy as required by the Naval Defense Act of 1899. Granted the British could concentrate but to try and face both means the are facing either even up of a slight edge in one contest at the risk of a disadvantage in the other.

You need to add the French to the RN.Granted they focused on the Med historically,but with US against the Entente all previous calculations would be turned up.
Italians were too small and busy in the Adriatic to have any say in the oceans,but the French definetely could.