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.
Theoretically, did it make more sense for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I?
I mean, I am well-aware of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. However, had the U.S. allied with Germany at the start of World War I (or even later on, as long as Germany did nothing to provoke the U.S., that is), it would have had a great opportunity to capture Canada. While the U.S. didn't have much of an army in 1914, it could quickly build one--as both World War I and World War II demonstrated. Plus, Britain would have to devote a lot of troops to Europe in order to prevent France from falling (and this is not to mention Britain's troop contribution in the campaign against the Ottoman Empire in World War I).
Now, you might be asking why exactly the U.S. would need a bunch of ungrateful Canadians inside its borders. However, please keep in mind that the U.S. had much more people than Canada had and that the U.S. could thus (figuratively) flood Canada with American settlers and European immigrants. Indeed, think of the demographic "flooding" which occurred when large numbers of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians settled in Kazakhstan in the late 19th and 20th century. This is what I envision happening to Canada in this TL after a Central Powers victory in this TL's World War I--except that the U.S.'s demographic "flooding" of Canada will be more permanent than Russia's demographic "flooding" of Kazakhstan was in our TL.
Also, you might ask why exactly the U.S. should ally with a conservative, reactionary monarchy such as Imperial Germany. To that, I respond that a U.S. which would have allied with Imperial Germany would have been no threat to it and thus could have had very friendly relations with it. After all, Imperial Germany had no desire to export its form of government worldwide like the Soviet Union had during the Cold War in our TL. Plus, in any case, even if it would have won World War I, Imperial Germany could have more thoroughly democratized at some future point in time.
Anyway, any thoughts on this? Do you agree with me that, in terms of its national interests, it would have been better for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I (and the earlier, the better)?
I would imagine for most Americans, the idea of conquering Canada would have been a really hard sell, much more so than grabbing the Philippines or Hawaii was. First was scale - Canada raised hundreds of thousands of troops for the effort in Europe, troops that would surely be brought back to defend the homeland. Second was the racial component - Canadians looked, sounded, and worshipped like Americans. Given America's tendency towards isolationism pre-Cold War, I don't see how the American government gets the buy-in necessary.
As far as allying with Germany, the British navy crippled American trade with Germany even without an American alliance with Germany.
No, American interests were served by remaining 'neutral' until both sides had been decimated and then swooping in for a chance to broker the peace. Taking a side, especially Germany's, would have been folly.
I would imagine for most Americans, the idea of conquering Canada would have been a really hard sell, much more so than grabbing the Philippines or Hawaii was. First was scale - Canada raised hundreds of thousands of troops for the effort in Europe, troops that would surely be brought back to defend the homeland. Second was the racial component - Canadians looked, sounded, and worshipped like Americans. Given America's tendency towards isolationism pre-Cold War, I don't see how the American government gets the buy-in necessary.
As far as allying with Germany, the British navy crippled American trade with Germany even without an American alliance with Germany.
No, American interests were served by remaining 'neutral' until both sides had been decimated and then swooping in for a chance to broker the peace. Taking a side, especially Germany's, would have been folly.
Wouldn't having more White people in the U.S. be a good thing in the eyes of an early 20th century racist White American, though?
The bit about invading Canada sounds pretty far fetched to me. I do not see it having any real popular support.
Also, discarding the idea of an invasion of Canada, I am not sure I see the US being a big difference maker on the German side. England controlled the seas at that point and could have made it very risky for the US to send any support to its German allies in Europe. Given time, superior American resources could have led to a strong enough navy to make a real difference, but I do not see it being politically workable.
What might have happened is that American pressure could have led to a peace treaty sooner and on more favorable terms to the Germans. A more positive German result would likely have resulted in the German government remaining in power and the weakening of the fledgling Nazi party.
So, I guess a potential result of the American joining with the Germans early in WW1 might have been there would have been no WW II.
Theoretically, did it make more sense for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I?
I mean, I am well-aware of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. However, had the U.S. allied with Germany at the start of World War I (or even later on, as long as Germany did nothing to provoke the U.S., that is), it would have had a great opportunity to capture Canada. While the U.S. didn't have much of an army in 1914, it could quickly build one--as both World War I and World War II demonstrated. Plus, Britain would have to devote a lot of troops to Europe in order to prevent France from falling (and this is not to mention Britain's troop contribution in the campaign against the Ottoman Empire in World War I).
Now, you might be asking why exactly the U.S. would need a bunch of ungrateful Canadians inside its borders. However, please keep in mind that the U.S. had much more people than Canada had and that the U.S. could thus (figuratively) flood Canada with American settlers and European immigrants. Indeed, think of the demographic "flooding" which occurred when large numbers of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians settled in Kazakhstan in the late 19th and 20th century. This is what I envision happening to Canada in this TL after a Central Powers victory in this TL's World War I--except that the U.S.'s demographic "flooding" of Canada will be more permanent than Russia's demographic "flooding" of Kazakhstan was in our TL.
Also, you might ask why exactly the U.S. should ally with a conservative, reactionary monarchy such as Imperial Germany. To that, I respond that a U.S. which would have allied with Imperial Germany would have been no threat to it and thus could have had very friendly relations with it. After all, Imperial Germany had no desire to export its form of government worldwide like the Soviet Union had during the Cold War in our TL. Plus, in any case, even if it would have won World War I, Imperial Germany could have more thoroughly democratized at some future point in time.
Anyway, any thoughts on this? Do you agree with me that, in terms of its national interests, it would have been better for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I (and the earlier, the better)?
Some alternative history writers have conjectured that if the British and French had helped the Confederacy win its independence in the Civil War, then the Union North would have joined with the Germans in WW1. In which case, the Germans probably would have won the war.
In real life, there was some American anger toward the British blockade of Germany. That should not be underestimated, remember freedom of the seas was a major part of the reason for the War of 1812 a hundred years before WW1. But the British were far more diplomatic about the blockade with the Americans in 1914 then in 1812. Perhaps the British had learned a lesson from 1812.
But anyway, once the Germans Uboats started sinking civilian ships, American anger went from the British blockade to the German Uboat campaign. And eventually it was the Uboats that drove the USA and other neutrals into the Allied camp.
The bit about invading Canada sounds pretty far fetched to me. I do not see it having any real popular support.
Also, discarding the idea of an invasion of Canada, I am not sure I see the US being a big difference maker on the German side. England controlled the seas at that point and could have made it very risky for the US to send any support to its German allies in Europe. Given time, superior American resources could have led to a strong enough navy to make a real difference, but I do not see it being politically workable.
What might have happened is that American pressure could have led to a peace treaty sooner and on more favorable terms to the Germans. A more positive German result would likely have resulted in the German government remaining in power and the weakening of the fledgling Nazi party.
So, I guess a potential result of the American joining with the Germans early in WW1 might have been there would have been no WW II.
I agree with you about little popular support about invading Canada. That weakened the American war effort back in 1812 and if anything popular support for invading Canada was even less in 1914.
What I do disagree with you about is the USA not being a big difference maker on the German side.
First of all, the USA had a formidable battle fleet in 1914. Now the Royal Navy was huge but most of its battleships were locked up in the North Sea (The Grand Fleet) to counter the huge Germany Navy. Britain's allies in Europe (France and Italy) also had decent fleets, but were mostly needed in the Mediterranean. Neither were a match for the American Navy either IMO. However on the plus side for the British, the Japanese had a decent sized fleet in the Pacific (not as large as WW2 but still decent).
Anyway, so what the above means the Americans might have been on the defensive in the Pacific, they would have been very disruptive toward the Allies in the Atlantic. Keep in mind that in WW1, the Allies needed to import vast amounts of men, food and materials from overseas to keep their armies going on the Western front. If the Americans were on the Germans side, not only would they loose the USA as a supply source (that alone might have been a game changer), they also would have lost a Canada under assault as a supply source as well. Plus the US Navy could have been raiding British and French supply ships all over the Atlantic. It would have made what the USA did to the British merchant ships in 1812 look like child's play.
I agree with you about little popular support about invading Canada. That weakened the American war effort back in 1812 and if anything popular support for invading Canada was even less in 1914.
Do you have a source for the invasion of Canada being unpopular in 1812?
Quote:
What I do disagree with you about is the USA not being a big difference maker on the German side.
First of all, the USA had a formidable battle fleet in 1914. Now the Royal Navy was huge but most of its battleships were locked up in the North Sea (The Grand Fleet) to counter the huge Germany Navy. Britain's allies in Europe (France and Italy) also had decent fleets, but were mostly needed in the Mediterranean. Neither were a match for the American Navy either IMO. However on the plus side for the British, the Japanese had a decent sized fleet in the Pacific (not as large as WW2 but still decent).
Anyway, so what the above means the Americans might have been on the defensive in the Pacific, they would have been very disruptive toward the Allies in the Atlantic. Keep in mind that in WW1, the Allies needed to import vast amounts of men, food and materials from overseas to keep their armies going on the Western front. If the Americans were on the Germans side, not only would they loose the USA as a supply source (that alone might have been a game changer), they also would have lost a Canada under assault as a supply source as well. Plus the US Navy could have been raiding British and French supply ships all over the Atlantic. It would have made what the USA did to the British merchant ships in 1812 look like child's play.
I completely agree with all of this.
Also, do you think that the U.S. could have constructed a more powerful navy than Britain's was during World War I?
Theoretically, did it make more sense for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I?
I mean, I am well-aware of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. However, had the U.S. allied with Germany at the start of World War I (or even later on, as long as Germany did nothing to provoke the U.S., that is), it would have had a great opportunity to capture Canada. While the U.S. didn't have much of an army in 1914, it could quickly build one--as both World War I and World War II demonstrated. Plus, Britain would have to devote a lot of troops to Europe in order to prevent France from falling (and this is not to mention Britain's troop contribution in the campaign against the Ottoman Empire in World War I).
Now, you might be asking why exactly the U.S. would need a bunch of ungrateful Canadians inside its borders. However, please keep in mind that the U.S. had much more people than Canada had and that the U.S. could thus (figuratively) flood Canada with American settlers and European immigrants. Indeed, think of the demographic "flooding" which occurred when large numbers of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians settled in Kazakhstan in the late 19th and 20th century. This is what I envision happening to Canada in this TL after a Central Powers victory in this TL's World War I--except that the U.S.'s demographic "flooding" of Canada will be more permanent than Russia's demographic "flooding" of Kazakhstan was in our TL.
Also, you might ask why exactly the U.S. should ally with a conservative, reactionary monarchy such as Imperial Germany. To that, I respond that a U.S. which would have allied with Imperial Germany would have been no threat to it and thus could have had very friendly relations with it. After all, Imperial Germany had no desire to export its form of government worldwide like the Soviet Union had during the Cold War in our TL. Plus, in any case, even if it would have won World War I, Imperial Germany could have more thoroughly democratized at some future point in time.
Anyway, any thoughts on this? Do you agree with me that, in terms of its national interests, it would have been better for the U.S. to ally with Germany in World War I (and the earlier, the better)?
I told you over a year a go to quit starting "What If" threads about WWI.
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.
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.
