U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-27-2015, 07:10 AM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,078,614 times
Reputation: 13743

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
If the US declared war against former colonial master Britain during World War 1. The US first military engagement with the British wont be in Europe, or even on the high seas. It would result with the invasion of Canada and occupation. Also the US would also invade all of Britain's Caribbean holdings such as Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermuda which are not far from the US. Also another tactic would be is to persuade Latin America to go against Great Britain.
Except that the US army did not have the capability at the time. It lacked experience, training and equipment all of which was provided by the British and French when they arrived in France.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-27-2015, 12:01 PM
 
8,280 posts, read 10,214,122 times
Reputation: 9980
I really think that the most incredible thing about WW1 was how long the Central Powers were able to keep up the fight. When Russia was in the war, the Allies had France, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, and various smaller armies ( Belgian, Canadian,Serbian etc). The Central Powers has Germany, Austria-Hungary, and much smaller armies in Bulgaria and Turkey. The Allies outnumbered them by quite a large margin..but when Russia had its interval revolution, and left the war, the numbers were becoming a bit more equal. But then the US entered the war, and as long as there was a sustained effort to help, there was no chance that the Central Powers could win, at that point.

Remember reading "All Quiet on the Western Front"? Paul Baumer, the fictional German soldier who narrated the book, pointed out ( paraphrasing) that the Americans were now on the front lines, confident and strong, not encumbered by years of trench fighting, with their new equipment, fresh food, and endless supplies, while "we" (the Germans) were old and tired, worn out, and basically starving.

There are some parallels with the American Civil War here, too. The longer the war lasted, the less chance the Confederacy had to win, because they just didn't have the manpower to do so.

WW1 --what a waste of human life, for no really no purpose at all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2015, 02:47 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,426 posts, read 10,636,776 times
Reputation: 6980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
But could the Americans have broken the British blockade sufficiently to allow large quantities of men, equipment and other supplies to get to Germany before Britain and France struck decisively on the Western Front? In addition, much of the equipment used by the AEF was supplied by Britain and France. Would Germany have had the means to equip the AEF to the same extent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
If the US declared war against former colonial master Britain during World War 1. The US first military engagement with the British wont be in Europe, or even on the high seas. It would result with the invasion of Canada and occupation. Also the US would also invade all of Britain's Caribbean holdings such as Bahamas, Jamaica, Bermuda which are not far from the US. Also another tactic would be is to persuade Latin America to go against Great Britain.
No, in case of war with the Allies there is no way the Americans would have tried to run convoys through the English channel to supplies to Germany. It would be suicidal. Besides the Grand Fleet of the Royal Navy (stronger then the American navy), there would have been British and French torpedo boats, destroyers, submarines, minefields etc. all the way through the Channel. Rather the Americans would have tried to do what Bronxguyanese suggests.

No what I am saying is that the Americans may have demanded the British to modify the blockade to just actual war contraband. There could have been a compromise where the British would have allowed food and medicine to go through. After all, from the British POV it is better to have a partial blockade of Germany then war with the United States.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2015, 02:51 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,426 posts, read 10,636,776 times
Reputation: 6980
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
I really think that the most incredible thing about WW1 was how long the Central Powers were able to keep up the fight. When Russia was in the war, the Allies had France, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, and various smaller armies ( Belgian, Canadian,Serbian etc). The Central Powers has Germany, Austria-Hungary, and much smaller armies in Bulgaria and Turkey. The Allies outnumbered them by quite a large margin..but when Russia had its interval revolution, and left the war, the numbers were becoming a bit more equal. But then the US entered the war, and as long as there was a sustained effort to help, there was no chance that the Central Powers could win, at that point.

Remember reading "All Quiet on the Western Front"? Paul Baumer, the fictional German soldier who narrated the book, pointed out ( paraphrasing) that the Americans were now on the front lines, confident and strong, not encumbered by years of trench fighting, with their new equipment, fresh food, and endless supplies, while "we" (the Germans) were old and tired, worn out, and basically starving.

There are some parallels with the American Civil War here, too. The longer the war lasted, the less chance the Confederacy had to win, because they just didn't have the manpower to do so.

WW1 --what a waste of human life, for no really no purpose at all.
I agree. All four of the Central Powers lasted a lot longer then expected. The Germans fought exceptional well and on a smaller scale so did the Bulgarians. The Austrians held their rickety empire longer then expected and the Turks actually had some surprising victories against the British.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2015, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Bronx
16,231 posts, read 19,962,626 times
Reputation: 8236
But on the flip side. Can Britain and its Empire afford a war with the United States again, which is a former British colony? During 1812-1815 Britain warred with United States, but also Britain was also warring with the French Empire and having small global conquests elsewhere. Britain would be stretched thin again because World War 1 was being fought all over the world. Britain Empire in Africa and in East Asia bordered German holdings where conflicts where being fought and engaged. Britain would be stretched thin if they fought a war wit the USA. Britain's best aim would be a full blockade of the US East Coast. But also the US does not have the naval capability to put troops onto European ground to assist Central Powers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2015, 10:03 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,078,614 times
Reputation: 13743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
But on the flip side. Can Britain and its Empire afford a war with the United States again, which is a former British colony? During 1812-1815 Britain warred with United States, but also Britain was also warring with the French Empire and having small global conquests elsewhere. Britain would be stretched thin again because World War 1 was being fought all over the world. Britain Empire in Africa and in East Asia bordered German holdings where conflicts where being fought and engaged. Britain would be stretched thin if they fought a war wit the USA. Britain's best aim would be a full blockade of the US East Coast. But also the US does not have the naval capability to put troops onto European ground to assist Central Powers.
Alternatively .....

The USA declares war on Great Britain in 1917 rather than Germany. She successfully invades part of Canada and other British colonies in the Caribbean but is unable to intervene in Europe due to the British naval blockade.

At the end of 1918, the Central Powers surrender. Great Britain now has an army of four million men fully trained, battle hardened and equipped and a dominant navy capable of transporting them across the Atlantic. Royal Navy battleships bombard Boston, New York and Washington as a prelude to landing troops. Refugees stream out of the cities to avoid the shelling.

British forces come ashore at several points along the Eastern Seaboard. Canadian troops, fresh from France, are landed around Halifax and the St. Lawrence. The US army is stretched thin with significant elements still occupying Canada and who are caught in a pincer of Canadian troops moving west and south and British troops moving north from their landing points in Massachusetts. Faced with a hopeless military situation, the US is forced to sue for peace.

I don't think war with Great Britain was ever a valid alternative.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Bronx
16,231 posts, read 19,962,626 times
Reputation: 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Alternatively .....

The USA declares war on Great Britain in 1917 rather than Germany. She successfully invades part of Canada and other British colonies in the Caribbean but is unable to intervene in Europe due to the British naval blockade.

At the end of 1918, the Central Powers surrender. Great Britain now has an army of four million men fully trained, battle hardened and equipped and a dominant navy capable of transporting them across the Atlantic. Royal Navy battleships bombard Boston, New York and Washington as a prelude to landing troops. Refugees stream out of the cities to avoid the shelling.

British forces come ashore at several points along the Eastern Seaboard. Canadian troops, fresh from France, are landed around Halifax and the St. Lawrence. The US army is stretched thin with significant elements still occupying Canada and who are caught in a pincer of Canadian troops moving west and south and British troops moving north from their landing points in Massachusetts. Faced with a hopeless military situation, the US is forced to sue for peace.

I don't think war with Great Britain was ever a valid alternative.
The US actually had an invasion plan to invade the British Empire. Pretty interesting. It talked about invading Canada, amassing airbase to bomb Canada. And building a Navy to choke British trading routes.

http://gizmodo.com/5842415/how-the-u...e-world-war-ii

Here is a much more detailed link of a possible way between British Empire and United States. It involves invading Canada mainly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 12:22 AM
 
14,256 posts, read 16,078,614 times
Reputation: 13743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
The US actually had an invasion plan to invade the British Empire. Pretty interesting. It talked about invading Canada, amassing airbase to bomb Canada. And building a Navy to choke British trading routes.

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II
But the reality was that, in 1917, the US army was very small, poorly equipped and lacked battle experience. The US navy was not only considerably smaller than the Royal Navy, they were also less effective. When United States Battleship Division Nine joined the British Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow in December 1917:

"Where British battleships by the end of 1917 generally managed a rate of fire per salvo of 40 seconds or less, and an average spread (that is, the distance measured between the closest and furthest shots in a salvo) of 300–500 yd (270–460 m), the four ships of the American squadron proved both slow and inaccurate. The rate of fire of Delaware (with an acceptable spread of 475 yd (434 m)) was 108 seconds, and Wyoming '​ and Florida '​s average spreads were 956 and 1,131 yd (874 and 1,034 m), respectively.[29]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...e_(World_War_I)

So, while the US may have had an invasion plan, in 1917 and 1918, they could only wage a successful war against Great Britain while that country was fully occupied fighting the Central Powers. As soon as WW1 ended and the full resources of Britain and her Empire could be brought to bear, it would have been a very different story.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 10:04 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,426 posts, read 10,636,776 times
Reputation: 6980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese View Post
But on the flip side. Can Britain and its Empire afford a war with the United States again, which is a former British colony? During 1812-1815 Britain warred with United States, but also Britain was also warring with the French Empire and having small global conquests elsewhere. Britain would be stretched thin again because World War 1 was being fought all over the world. Britain Empire in Africa and in East Asia bordered German holdings where conflicts where being fought and engaged. Britain would be stretched thin if they fought a war wit the USA. Britain's best aim would be a full blockade of the US East Coast. But also the US does not have the naval capability to put troops onto European ground to assist Central Powers.
Good question. The USA was a lot stronger during WW1 then it was a weak new nation during the Napoleonic Wars.

By World War I, the USA had a population of about 100 million. The USA already shown 50 years before it could create large armies during the Civil War. Canada would have had no chance in World War 1 if it faced American armies that could rapidly travel on American railroads stretching right up to the Canadian border. And the USA had the industrial production to create massive amounts of artillery, planes and machine guns.

During the War of 1812 the small American fleet, only frigates and no battleships, was able to embarrass the Royal Navy. But in WW1, the USA had a large battlefleet including 30 or so battleships. With most of the Royal Navy tied up in the North Sea watching the German High Seas Fleet, the USA would have had control of the western Atlantic and the Caribbean. And American subs, cruiser and destroyers would have gone after British trade as the British were already stretched thin facing the German Uboat threat.

Also, the industrial potential in the United States was incredible by World War 1 (the Americans built hundreds of destroyers alone during WW1) and it should be remembered that it not only would added to the Central Powers but taken from the Allies who would be considerably weaker without American equipment, supplies and food.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2015, 10:23 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,426 posts, read 10,636,776 times
Reputation: 6980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001 View Post
Alternatively .....

The USA declares war on Great Britain in 1917 rather than Germany. She successfully invades part of Canada and other British colonies in the Caribbean but is unable to intervene in Europe due to the British naval blockade.

At the end of 1918, the Central Powers surrender. Great Britain now has an army of four million men fully trained, battle hardened and equipped and a dominant navy capable of transporting them across the Atlantic. Royal Navy battleships bombard Boston, New York and Washington as a prelude to landing troops. Refugees stream out of the cities to avoid the shelling.

British forces come ashore at several points along the Eastern Seaboard. Canadian troops, fresh from France, are landed around Halifax and the St. Lawrence. The US army is stretched thin with significant elements still occupying Canada and who are caught in a pincer of Canadian troops moving west and south and British troops moving north from their landing points in Massachusetts. Faced with a hopeless military situation, the US is forced to sue for peace.

I don't think war with Great Britain was ever a valid alternative.
I don't think the Germans would have surrendered in 1918 if the American entered the war on their side. Their offensive in Spring 1918 might have been better considered and they would not have the morale problems that they were fighting a new American army and the propaganda of Wilson's 14 points. In fact it would be the British that would be having the morale problems of fighting another Democracy and the 14 points could be turned into an anti-colonial crusade against the British Empire!

Besides the war lasting at least until 1919, I do not see how the British could have transferred and then keep supplied an army of four million men over to North America. The US navy is cut from the same cloth as the Royal Navy and would not stand idly by while it happened. There would be constant raids against British convoys and merchant ships. In fact, the British would have enough trouble feeding and supplying Britain itself let alone a army in North America. And the Americans would be creating a huge army of their own in North America.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top