WI: Earlier US entry into WW1

[Fabius Maximus]

There's been lots of speculation about what would happen if the US never got involved in WW1, but much less about the oppose scenario, i.e., the US getting involved much earlier in the conflict. So let's say that the US isn't as isolationist in the early 20th century, is more eager to expand its overseas holdings, and consequently is more involved in the pre-WW1 system of alliances, specifically on the British/French/Russian side. My questions are:

(1) What difference would this have on German planning in the run-up to/early stages of the war? IOTL they didn't expect Britain to intervene, so a fortiori I don't think they'd expect America to intervene ITTL, either. So would they still be as gung-ho about getting involved in a potential war? Or would the potential of US involvement, even if they don't expect it to be realised, make them more hesitant, perhaps deterring them from pledging support to Austria-Hungary against Russia in the first place?

(2) Assuming war still breaks out, and the US declares war on Germany in August 1914, how does the war pan out with the US being involved from the get-go?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

(2) Assuming war still breaks out, and the US declares war on Germany in August 1914, how does the war pan out with the US being involved from the get-go?

I don't know how you get American entry that early, but a USA more eager to expand overseas would be focused on the Americas and Oceania. I think we'd make a bid for the Northern Marianas, German Samoa, and the Caroline Islands (especially Kosrae), assuming they're still German colonies.

 

[DougM]

The fight vs the subs will be a different if the US is involved from the start. Ultimately I think you see subs being less effective (or course they will have a hell of a happy time to start)
It will still take the US a fair bit of time to ramp up its army and its industry. But once it is going and troops and equipment get to Europe it is going make Germanys position very hard.

Another interesting thought is that by being in the war from the get go you have a much better chance to actually get American Aircraft that don’t suck as they will be (presumably) figuring it out at the same time everyone else does. So it would be interesting to see how a 4th country involved in the development of war aircraft will effect design development.

And if the US gets involved in tanks from the start…

I think there is a lot of interesting potential in design development and tactics and such of the US starts at the same time as everyone else and learns with them instead of having yo play catch-up.

But ultimately I think the war ends sooner in a negotiated peace treaty as Germany will be radically out numbered in the West much sooner. Give it a couple years and by 1916 when the US is in gear and GB and France are doing there thing and it will become impossible for Germany to shift its troops around fast enough to counter the three powers arrayed against it. So I think that Germany will realize it has no chance much sooner. So I would not be surprised if the war ends in 1916.
I don’t think the US can have enough troops to effect 1914. And once everyone is entrenched I think it will take a while for attrition and tactics and such to put enough pressure on Germany to get them to look for a way out. Thus I think 1915 will really suck for Germany but I think they will be able yo absorb the hits long enough to last to 1916.

 

[Driftless]

You need to sideline Woodrow Wilson, first and foremost. He was originally so dead set against US military involvement that even the miniscule US Army senior leadership wasn't permitted to even do contingency planning for an AEF, for fear of it leaking to the Germans. Any preparations were largely done outside US government operation. The Secretary of War, Newton Baker was a pacifist, and had a loooooong learning curve ahead of him in 1917-18.

IF the US gets involved earlier, it would need to be on a much smaller scale for expansion than the Pershing plans of 1917. He first called for 1,000,000 men, then upped it to 2,000,000. The US Army could not prepare a coherent and effective fighting force that size for well over a year. There wern't enough officers and NCOs, bases, tents, blankets, uniforms, guns, ammunition, etc, etc, etc. Go with a Corps size first pass and even then, cherry pick the best units for constituting the AEF in France.

By comparison, the Navy was in better shape, but still needed plenty of practical work.

 

[frenchfrogs]

There's been lots of speculation about what would happen if the US never got involved in WW1, but much less about the oppose scenario, i.e., the US getting involved much earlier in the conflict. So let's say that the US isn't as isolationist in the early 20th century, is more eager to expand its overseas holdings, and consequently is more involved in the pre-WW1 system of alliances, specifically on the British/French/Russian side. My questions are:

(1) What difference would this have on German planning in the run-up to/early stages of the war? IOTL they didn't expect Britain to intervene, so a fortiori I don't think they'd expect America to intervene ITTL, either. So would they still be as gung-ho about getting involved in a potential war? Or would the potential of US involvement, even if they don't expect it to be realised, make them more hesitant, perhaps deterring them from pledging support to Austria-Hungary against Russia in the first place?

(2) Assuming war still breaks out, and the US declares war on Germany in August 1914, how does the war pan out with the US being involved from the get-go?

Even if the US had any sort of ties in alliance with Europe, it's highly unlikely the Germans would ever consider this, especially with the fearmongering position of the military that Russia was going to get more and more powerful if a war didn't happen as soon as possible, so the war still happens. It probably ends by 1916 or 17 at the latest and Russia doesn't fall into civil war, which is an interesting prospect in and of itself. However I feel like the most important consideration is, how does the US even break isolationism in the first place and align itself with the Anglo-Franco-Russian bloc? I would propose a scenario but I honestly can't bring myself to think of one.

 

[Dorknought]

He was originally so dead set against US military involvement that even the miniscule US Army senior leadership wasn't permitted to even do contingency planning for an AEF, for fear of it leaking to the Germans.

But he was quite the hawk against Mexico. The desire to be 'neutral' in respect with Germany 1914-1915 was that Wilson wanted the US to broker a peace where as the Germans just saw this as weakness or that they were being pro-Entente anyway.

Perhaps to have the US in earlier would be overt support and intervention for Mexico by Germany (not just private interests gun running) in the first half of 1914 and causing a rupture by mid 1914 so that the US throws in as common cause with the Entente.

 

[raharris1973]

But he was quite the hawk against Mexico. The desire to be 'neutral' in respect with Germany 1914-1915 was that Wilson wanted the US to broker a peace where as the Germans just saw this as weakness or that they were being pro-Entente anyway.

Perhaps to have the US in earlier would be overt support and intervention for Mexico by Germany (not just private interests gun running) in the first half of 1914 and causing a rupture by mid 1914 so that the US throws in as common cause with the Entente.

That Mexico thread is just about the only one I think you can pull in order to jumpstart US-German conflict ahead to earlier in the 1910s and get an American commitment to the European Entente powers.

 

[naraic]

By comparison, the Navy was in better shape, but still needed plenty of practical work.

Looking at the US navy as the start of ww1 theres 10 dreadnoughts and honestly not a whole lot more thats modern.

If a battleship squadron shows up to help out the naval balance of power will swing further towards the Entente. There's value supplementing the grand fleet or the channel fleet or forcing the Dardanelles early.

It would take much longer for the army to make an impression.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

There's been lots of speculation about what would happen if the US never got involved in WW1, but much less about the oppose scenario, i.e., the US getting involved much earlier in the conflict. So let's say that the US isn't as isolationist in the early 20th century, is more eager to expand its overseas holdings, and consequently is more involved in the pre-WW1 system of alliances, specifically on the British/French/Russian side. My questions are:

(1) What difference would this have on German planning in the run-up to/early stages of the war? IOTL they didn't expect Britain to intervene, so a fortiori I don't think they'd expect America to intervene ITTL, either. So would they still be as gung-ho about getting involved in a potential war? Or would the potential of US involvement, even if they don't expect it to be realised, make them more hesitant, perhaps deterring them from pledging support to Austria-Hungary against Russia in the first place?

(2) Assuming war still breaks out, and the US declares war on Germany in August 1914, how does the war pan out with the US being involved from the get-go?

This would require TR winning the Republican nomination in 1912 and easily defeating Wilson. He would declare war on Germany after the Lusitania sinking and a naval buildup.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

However I feel like the most important consideration is, how does the US even break isolationism in the first place and align itself with the Anglo-Franco-Russian bloc? I would propose a scenario but I honestly can't bring myself to think of one.

Maybe if the US is more into overseas imperialism, they might be persuaded to ally with Britain against Germany in exchange for support/a free hand somewhere else -- Latin America, maybe, or somewhere in the Far East (perhaps Britain concedes part of its sphere of influence in China, say).

 

[David Flin]

That Mexico thread is just about the only one I think you can pull in order to jumpstart US-German conflict ahead to earlier in the 1910s and get an American commitment to the European Entente powers.

What about the Von Papen plot actually being attempted?

It would be a fiasco, of course, but it would certainly royally piss off the US.

 

[kham_coc]

TBH, I think a US entry on the CP side is more likely early than an Early Entente entry - There was a lot of Americans that were very angry about the economic impositions of the blockade. (not that I regard it as likely, obvi).

 

[Garrison]

TBH, I think a US entry on the CP side is more likely early than an Early Entente entry - There was a lot of Americans that were very angry about the economic impositions of the blockade. (not that I regard it as likely, obvi).

That really doesn't accord with the actual history, the British paid for the items that were blockaded and the US didn't protest precisely because they favoured the Entente side, in no small part because of economics.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

This would require TR winning the Republican nomination in 1912 and easily defeating Wilson. He would declare war on Germany after the Lusitania sinking and a naval buildup.

Congress declares War, not the President though.

It also depends on the public mood, because even in OTL they were still wary after the sinking of the Lusitania. Plus, with a Republican in the White House, for all intents and purposes the mid-terms will probably be a factor as well. If the House and Senate is a democratic majority, then he's not going to declare war unless the Democrats agree with him...

That Mexico thread is just about the only one I think you can pull in order to jumpstart US-German conflict ahead to earlier in the 1910s and get an American commitment to the European Entente powers.

The US invading Mexico is not generally explored that much in an alt-WW1 scenario. And not just talking about them taking Veracruz or the Punitive Expedition under Pershing. Something far larger, causing them to fight in Mexico whilst WW1 is ragiung in Europe...

 

[kham_coc]

That really doesn't accord with the actual history, the British paid for the items that were blockaded and the US didn't protest precisely because they favoured the Entente side, in no small part because of economics.

Yes, but there was substantial anger about ancillary policies, like Rubber restrictions and impositions in regards to trade with other neutrals. (Some policies was about trade with Italy!).

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Congress declares War, not the President though.

It also depends on the public mood, because even in OTL they were still wary after the sinking of the Lusitania. Plus, with a Republican in the White House, for all intents and purposes the mid-terms will probably be a factor as well. If the House and Senate is a democratic majority, then he's not going to declare war unless the Democrats agree with him...

Thanks for correcting me. Btw, most Americans supported the Entente due to accusations of war crimes in Belgium and the militarist character of the German and Austro-Hungarian monarchies, and East Coast Democrats of the time were internationalist, although I'm not sure if the Solid South would support declaring war. In any case, I can see Roosevelt's proposal to declare war being blocked, if it happens at all.

 

[Garrison]

Yes, but there was substantial anger about ancillary policies, like Rubber restrictions and impositions in regards to trade with other neutrals. (Some policies was about trade with Italy!).

None of which comes even close to anything that would support the idea that an entry on the CP side was more likely than an early entry on the Entente side.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Would it change German planning. I doubt it. They would gamble on what is popularly known as the Schlieffen Plan to defeat France before Russian can mobilise effectively, and certainly before any meaningful number of American troops make it over the Atlantic.

Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia all saw the war as the opportunity to stave off revolution, social democracy, internal nationalist movements etc. [It seemed pretty popular in France & Britain too.] Unless the US is butterflied into the 800lb gorilla in the corner of the cage, with large numbers of trained men available at short notice to reinforce allies on another continent, and an interventionist government & national mindset, I doubt Berlin would hesitate. Vienna certainly won't anyway, which brings in Russia, then Germany, France & finally Britain.

 

[kham_coc]

None of which comes even close to anything that would support the idea that an entry on the CP side was more likely than an early entry on the Entente side.

My point is that there really weren't any friction points with the CP early.
There were plenty with the entente.

 

[Garrison]

My point is that there really weren't any friction points with the CP early.
There were plenty with the entente.

And your point is just plain wrong, there were plenty of things that stirred up antipathy towards the CP, just not economic ones.