Then you'd all be speaking Canuck
Was this even a remote possibility?
The US would have neutralized Canadian contribution to the British war effort.
The US might have swayed Japan to exit the war, if not switch sides.
The Royal Navy would certainly have contained the US Navy in the Atlantic, but at what cost?
Kaiserliche Marine might have achieved local parity, or even superiority with a portion of the Royal Navy busy fighting the US Navy.
Most importantly, there would not be nearly 5 million doughboys fighting on the western front against Germany.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
and eating Canadian bacon.
Which is o.k. That'd be pretty good.![]()
"This aggression will not stand, man!"
Jeff Lebowski
but after the war Die Europa-Union would be run smoothly and efficiently, if a little boringly, unlike now
If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today
Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok
I can't see the US entering WWI on the side of the Central Powers (the Triple Alliance), but I CAN see the US NOT entering the War at all, and letting the Eurpean powers slug it out on their own. There were too many historical & natural ties between the US and the Western European powers for us to consider siding with the Central/Eastern European Powers, but we could conceivably have stayed out of the War altogether, and let Europe immolate herself. Isolationism wasn't quite as prevalent then as it was pre-WWII in the US, but it was close; the US didn't really have a compelling reason to enter WWI, besides the fact that it was bad for business to NOT enter the War (most of our overseas economic markets, at that time, were in Europe). IMHO, if the US HADN'T entered WWI, the German border would've been REALLY close to Paris, and they would've kept Poland and Austria-Hungary after the War; maybe then WWII wouldn't have happened?
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
For the sake of argument, lets say British predation on American shipping plus the voice of the sizable and vocal German immigrant community at least gets Wilson to take a true nuetral approach... The loss of financing through New York alone means the allies lose the war... In 1932 when the UK stoppedmaking payments the amount owed in 2011 dollars was 225 billion...
No loans means no Kansas wheat, Bethlemhelm Steel, Du Pont, southern cotton, Texas oil.... No support for Czarist Russia (England borrowed from the US to buy Russia supplies) so Russia falls early...
I think he means earlier.
All of this could have happened....but if the Germans handled the rest of their hack handed diplomacy as thye actually did, the Zimmerman Telegram would still have been sent and then it would still have been game over.
Once the US became an imperial power there was no way for the US to stay out of WW 1 on the margins at first and then in for the shooting match. We had too much to lose by staying out and not being present at the dividing opf the spoils of influence afterward. Being in the war gave us freedom to influence the Pacific for the rest of the century.
Last edited by Albany Rifles; 11 Nov 11, at 16:43.
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is to know to not use it in a fruit salad.
How would those 5 million doughboys get to Europe? - with the RN sinking their transports. And then there's the war with Canada back home...
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
Certainly the war goes on longer. I think Germany still cannot win without achieving naval supremecy; even if France falls the UK remains. So a second Jutland would be needed with a clear German victory would be needed in the European theatre and this is improbable.
It would also depend on what the US did: Presumably Canada as a European commitment would, as Pari says, leave them open to Imperial Canadian attack and the at least temporary loss of some regions.
Presuming then that a US strategy would focus on Canada it would down to which side could resolve either theatre in order to support their allies in the other theatre.
For the US this would depend on finishing Canadian effective resistance as quickly as possible, which is unlikely, and then commiting to the European war, which again relies on at least temporary sea control for an effective supply of any troops. Also should France not be knocked out the war and the RN be undefeated it is unclear where US troops might land to support Germany. Too many 'ifs' here for me to bet on.
For the UK and France the defeat of Germany would become paramount to be able to send aid to Canada. You'd probably more tank thinking and early stage production and alot more gas on what would then be the 'Eastern Front'. Essentialy though all Britain and France have to do is maintain naval supremacy and not collapse, as long as some resistance continues in Canada the US can be dealt with AFTER Germany collapses.
In short I think no difference of outcome, barring a fast Canadian collapse.
Last edited by snapper; 11 Nov 11, at 19:53.
Celine would've been born an American and we wouldn't have a reason to hate Canada as much...
Yello, have you qualified for a redneck title yet?
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: