Alternative World War One scenario.

[RF]

It is difficult to decide into which section this item actually falls, but as it would have clear implications over whether a Second World War could take place I have posted it here.

Suppose in 1899, when the Reichstag approved The German Navy Act, the Kaiser had agreed with the British to build to only 35% of the strength of the British Fleet (as the Germans were to actually do in 1934). Suppose this in turn led the British in 1904 to sign their ''Entente Cordiale'' not with France but with Germany, to counterbalance the strategic implications of colonial and seapower rivalry with France, Russia and the USA.
In 1914 the French in consequence were allied with Italy and Russia. The murder of Archduke Ferdinand led to Russia and Italy supporting Serbia against Austria-Hungary. The French General Staff saw an opportunity to avenge the defeat in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and recover Alsace-Lorraine for France. Russia was induced by French diplomacy to declare war on Germany. The French immediately declared in support of Russia and launched a two-pronged assault in an attempt to deliver a quick knockout blow against an ummobilised Germany, which had sought only to give diplomatic support to Austria.
This two-pronged assault on the Germans involved an invasion of the Rhineland hinged on either side of Luxembourg. Plan 17 was the direct assault into Alsace-Lorraine, to penetrate to the Rhine, while the northern prong was directed into southern Belguim to seize the Belgian forts at Liege and then thrust straight into the Ruhr (as the French actually did in their occupation of the Rhineland in 1923).
To the consternation of the French the Belgians resisted their troops and Britain declared war on France in support of Belguim. Germany quickly mobilised and blocked the French advance, but only after losing most of Alsace-Lorraine.
The British instituted an Atlantic blockade of the French coast and entrance to the Meditteranean. The USA protested against the interruption of their seaborne trade and when the British seized American ships in French waters the US declared war on Britain.
Encouraged by Britain and Germany the Mexicans and Japanese then declare war on the USA, and Texas and California are invaded whilst British forces engage the Americans from Canada. Japanese forces threaten Hawaii and the Philipines. Colombia is induced to enter the war with the promise by the Germans to recover Panama (which had broken away from Colombia in 1903 through American support for the Panamanian secessionists) as part of a British-German plot to seize the Panama Canal. At the same time the US sends support for the Sein Feinn rebels in Dublin.

This scenario would involve a world war far more catastrophic than the actual World War One. Here we have a line-up of:

Britain, Belguim, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Mexico and Colombia

versus

USA, France, Italy, Serbia, Romania and Russia.


Any comments anybody? And what of the eventual outcome?
Would there indeed be a Second World War, or would this conflict be a real war to end all wars?

[RF]

I am somewhat surprised that on an active forum such as this that no-one has so far commented on this scenario.

Most wars tend to start by accident and often feature unlikely or unforseen alliances and combinations, WW2 offers good examples of that, so I think the schematic outlined could have happened.

[Karl Heidenreich]

In the west continental european scenario the British involvement is unnecesary. In a one vs one match the Germans would defeat France without any help. If the Mexicans declare war on the USA would be suicide as in 1847. The conflict is likely to be fragmented and each portion will work on their own.

But to use RF scenario and mathematic simplification we wil have the following adversaries:

1. Western Front and Atlantic Battle

Britain and Germany

vs

USA


2. Eastern Front

Germany

vs.

Russia

3. Far East Front

Britain and Japan

vs.

USA

Winner in 1: Likely a stalemate with and negotiation table (with France singing Deutchalnd uber Alles)
Winner in 2: Germany
Winner in 3: Britain and Japan

[RF]

Hello Karl, welcome back!

However, this is not 1847. Then the Mexicans were on their own. Here the USA has three fronts, the Pacific as you acknowledge, the northern front (as in 1812 if you like) with the British attacking from Canada and where NY and DC are in the front line, plus Mexico where this time the southern front offers Mexico some support from Japan, Germany and Britain.
The key point here is that these won't be isolated conflicts, they will directly affect each other. As you say Karl France and Russia would be quickly defeated, but the main area of conflict is at sea - how does US naval power stand up against Japan, Germany and Britain? As soon as US naval power is degraded (especially if the Panama Canal is lost) then the land fighting in North America assumes a critical position for the US. For the Americans the Mexican and Pacific fronts become draining sideshows if the British in Canada are attacking backed by superior naval power.
Any other thoughts anyone?

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF. This is a most interesting scenario which is why I got out to write again.

I have to acknowledge that I didn´t give a real thought to Canada and that will be a real threat to the US mainland. Let´s see:

The conflict starts and France attacks Germany. They fail (obviously) and are quickly defeated. Then Germany turns to Russia which (at the same time) is also being threaten in the East by Japan and Britain. Germany defeats Russia, maybe not so quickly, but at the end prevails.

Colombia... One thing is to declare war on the US and the other thing is to wage the war. Not only the US is overxtended in this conflict; also Great Britain is. Being the Panamá Canal so important the British would not let Colombia run that show. Remember that latin american military (as the african ones) were never intended to fight wars but to have the aristocracy in power. When faced to real military situation they usually fail. If the Panama Canal operation must suceed it has to be a British show. There is where the great naval battle is gonna take place: three fleets (Britain, Germany and Japan) vs USN. The outcome, as all those of WWI and WII, is going to be determined by numerical superiority, this time against the USN.

In the Far East and the Pacific, once the Canal is down everything US is vulnerable: Hawai, the Philipines, everything. There the German influence is lesser and the Japanese and the British will share the spoils.

Now, continental America. US is more heavilily populated than Canada and is overwhelmin more powerful than rural Mexico. The British, Germans and Japanese are heavily engaged in their surroundings as Europe, Asia and Panamá Canal. So here is where they are weak. Mexico didn´t even fight, they fell. Canadá is the enigma: 1812? Maybe, maybe not. Now they have more in common with the US than with Britain. The US can march through the Canadian capital with their land forces whilst the Canadian forces serving abroad in Panamá or in Hawai or in Phillipines or even Russia. I do believe that the American continent, at least the northern part, will become a US victory.

My two cents because I´m on my way to work.

[lwd]

At that point in time the Far East is not critical to the US. North America is and the British and Japanese are not going to find it easy to operate close to the US coast if Vancouver falls and it's right on the border. The US can all but abandon the Pacific and send most of it's fleet to the Carribean. I'd suggest holding vs Mexico and a campaign vs Canada focused on the East and West Coast to cut off any British naval efforts in the northern part of the hemisphere. Then attack vs Mexico. The British are not going to find it easy to move enough troops to Canada or Mexico to help the land campaings there. If the US wins vs these two then it more than pays for losses in the Pacific. If the US British-Mexican conflict doesn't get going until Germany has defeated both the Russians and the French this may change things a bit but these campaigns are likely to be draining for Germany in any case and some of the British fleet will be tied up blockadeing France for some time as well.

welcome back Karl. Hope work and personal life are going well.

[Bgile]

I don't see how the US can win against the entire world, which is basically how you have postulated this. Eventually you have the USA completely isolated and defeated. By the time the rest of the world gets around to a ground attack the Canadian ports and the Mexican and Central American ports will have fallen to the US Army, but in the long run that won't really matter.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile,

I don´t think that what lwd or myself claim to be a possible outcome could be considered a US victory. The US will prevail in it´s inner continental proximity, which as lwd says would be more than a compensation for loses in the Pacific or Asia.

The Germans will prevail in continental Europe and the Japanese will eat up a good portion of Asian Russian.

Of course the British will come up with a good colonial and maritime influence and an extended Imperial era.

The important question is how the world would look like after that conflict and what will come from this:

1. No damm commies nor nazis.
2. England and Japan would become the antagonist naval powers for the 30ies
3. US territory would become bigger due to strategic need and would engulf all Mexico and Canada. Central America wouls likely be, as it was in the 80ies, of importance because the US will want the Canal back.
4. South America would see the super power interests in their favor but the goverments will steal all the money loaned
5. Germany will be the only european continental power with a lot of territory in Poland, Ukraine and European Russia. France will provide the R&R for the Germans as it is meant to be.
6. New possible wars: Second Panama Canal War; Great Liberation of Philipines War (GB vs Japan); South American War (USA vs Japan vs GB) and Southern European War (Germany vs everybody else conquering all the Mediterranean).

This is getting ridiculous.

[lwd]

I don't see how the US can win against the entire world, which is basically how you have postulated this. Eventually you have the USA completely isolated and defeated. By the time the rest of the world gets around to a ground attack the Canadian ports and the Mexican and Central American ports will have fallen to the US Army, but in the long run that won't really matter.

I wouldn't think it would get that far. Indeed if the US takes Canada and Mexico before they can be reinforced it's just to costly for the Germans, British, and Japanese to do much. Remember we're not talking World War II here. France and Russia will likely still exist even if they have to surrender.

[RF]

Then Germany turns to Russia which (at the same time) is also being threaten in the East by Japan and Britain. Germany defeats Russia, maybe not so quickly, but at the end prevails.

I think Russia, with a two front war plus hostilities against Britain, would collapse pretty quickly due to internal revolution (as happened in 1918, but this time a lot sooner).

The key point here, which I think that everyone so far has overlooked, is that the German High Seas Fleet, albeit smaller than it actually was in 1914, can contribute substantial and reliable back up to the Royal Navy, and won't be needed for the land war in Europe. In other words, it can immediately be deployed against US naval power and their French naval allies.
The Kaiser actually had a plan devised in 1912 for a German fleet to land troops and seize the area of the Panama Canal, so the Germans were certainly aware of its strategic importance before it was opened.
If France and Russia are defeated within months then large contingents of German troops could be deployed in those areas the British would prefer them to be deployed rather than risk their own army, ie Mexico. They could back up the British in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick etc they could do what the British did in 1812 and attack New Orleans. And how would German U-boats perform if they were supplied by the British and blockaded US naval bases? It is one thing for the US to send battleships to challenge the RN and HSF but sub attack would be a new and unexpected phenomenon, possibly far more devasting than Pauckenschlag in WW2.

The US has, set against this, a substantial war making capacity, and can fight on against all of this. It would be a very long war, and ultimately decided by who ultimately wins at sea.

[RF]

IColombia... One thing is to declare war on the US and the other thing is to wage the war.... the Panamá Canal so important the British would not let Colombia run that show. Remember that latin american military (as the african ones) were never intended to fight wars but to have the aristocracy in power. When faced to real military situation they usually fail. If the Panama Canal operation must suceed it has to be a British show.

Plus as I say above, a German show as well.

Colombia has to have outside help to recover Panama. There were no roads from Colombia into Panama, very little even today (except for the Pan-American Highway) and the Canal Zone has to be tackled from the sea. Colombian ports have to be accessed by the British/Germans for such an operation.
But I could imagine a military junta in Colombia giving this full support because there would be a great deal in it for them, if in return for shipping and defence rights in the Canal Zone the junta gets loads of shipping revenues and the ''prestige'' of recovering Panama. Their mistake in 1903 in pushing too hard a bargain on the US would be reversed.

[RF]

I don't see how the US can win against the entire world, which is basically how you have postulated this. Eventually you have the USA completely isolated and defeated.

Bgile, this is not how I have postulated this.

There are two points I would make to what you say here.

Firstly the US has allies with substantial navies - France, Italy and Russia. It will take time for the land war in Europe to come to a conclusion, time for the US to mobilise for total war, time enough for the US to mobilise a substantial force to fight on the Canadian border.
Even if France is defeated quickly on land, what happens to its surface fleet, which had a worldwide presence? The forces in the Med, along with the Italians would probably be lost, but I would expect that a US General Staff and President to say to their French allies that a large part of the French fleet should be based in the Atlantic, on French Morocco and bases such as Dakar and the French Caribbean islands. The French fleet could fight on at the side of the Americans if France is overunn where the French Government fights on in exile or more likely from North Africa (especially while Italy is still in the war).

Secondly the US even in 1914 was a substantial world power. It wasn't prepared for a world war but was certainly capable of mobilising for it within a time span of a year or so. Yes, with Mexico and Colombia at war backed by Britain and Germany, and Japan in the Pacific, there is risk of isolation but with its ''military/industrial complex'' the US is by no means defeated. As Karl quite rightly points out, the British are also exposed and overstretched. And as demonstrated in the Revolutionary War, the American Navy was quite capable of taking that war into Britain's back yard.....particulary if the Irish rebels give the US a foothold in Ireland.....

[RF]

The important question is how the world would look like after that conflict and what will come from this:

1. No damm commies nor nazis.

I think this sceanario makes the Bolshevik Revolution very likely, as the Germans could use it, as they did in 1918, to knock Russia out of the war. Now the question would be how a post war Germany reacts - it is likely Russia would be broken up and fragmented. But would communism be eliminated? Possibly not if you have a communist Siberia and Mongolia which are beyond the reach of Germany or Japan.

No Hitler? Well not in Germany. But the US had a Nazi Party in the 1930's and if the US was humiliated as the result of this postulated conflict you could have an American nazi or someboy like that (remembering that Hitler did not himself invent nazism, he joined the Nazi Party already in existence) or even )alternatively) an early version of George Wallace being elected on a platform of recovering American power.

Another consideration - what happens also to a humiliated France, if indeed France is humiliated? A communist France waging guerilla warfare against the Germans? And a defeated Italy? And Serbia? Communism could take root there.
Yet another consideration is indeed the postulation by Marx and Engels that the emergence or bolshevism would be in the colonial empires of Africa and Asia rather than initially in Europe. If that did happen on a substantial scale then all the colonial powers could face the problems that confronted the Portuguese under Salazar and more particulary Caetano - with the same results. Indeed in 1974 Portugal itself was briefly in danger of going communist.

[RF]

......

if the US takes Canada and Mexico before they can be reinforced it's just to costly for the Germans, British, and Japanese to do much. Remember we're not talking World War II here. France and Russia will likely still exist even if they have to surrender.

The US starts from a position of not being mobilised for a world war, or a multi front war. Taking both Canada and Mexico would take at least a year, during which time the war at sea develops and interferes with these campaigns. I believe that there would be time for both to be reinforced; and this time the multi-dimensional aspect of this war makes guerilla and irregular warfare more likely, so if even most of Canada and Mexico were occupied by the US, could the Americans hold them down?
Too costly for the British, Germans and Japanese? If all three closely co-operate and trust each other the costs can be shared and military costs of scale reduced. This really hinges on the outcomes of the naval campaigns and also on the development of airpower.

[lwd]

...
The US starts from a position of not being mobilised for a world war, or a multi front war. Taking both Canada and Mexico would take at least a year, during which time the war at sea develops and interferes with these campaigns.

I don't see this sort of conflict starting with out at least some warning and mobilization. On the other hand I wouldn't expect to see the US actually take both in the first year. The most important objective would be the Canadian harbors on the East Coast. The Canadian West coast should be fairly easy to capture simply because the population is so small and close to the boarder. At that point the Mexican (and possibly British Caribbean) ports become the prime objectives along with Ontario and Quebec. The latter might actually be a source of support if promised independence. To completely capture all of Canada and Mexico would probably take years unless the governments fold or come to terms. Both of which are possible..

I believe that there would be time for both to be reinforced; and this time the multi-dimensional aspect of this war makes guerilla and irregular warfare more likely, so if even most of Canada and Mexico were occupied by the US, could the Americans hold them down?

The land forces of Germany and to some extent Britain are going to be busy in Europe for the first year or two. Trans Atlantic warfare is problematic at that point in time and Germany's navy isn't well suited for it. Trans Pacific warfare is out of the question at that point in time (raids excepted).

Too costly for the British, Germans and Japanese? If all three closely co-operate and trust each other the costs can be shared and military costs of scale reduced. This really hinges on the outcomes of the naval campaigns and also on the development of airpower.

The problem is getting the fleets to the Americas and supporting them there. In all likelyhood I don't see the US staying in this war very long. If the US is successful in it's initial operations it's easier just to agree to a treaty for the European powers. Why have the distraction of a campaign in the Americas. The US is probably not going to try to hold onto any parts of Canada that don't want to join (although as I suggested a free Qubec might be in the offing). Mexico really doesn't matter that much to them either. If the US is unsuccessful vs Canada anyway then they can see that there will be severe long term problems the US Canadian border is too long so one Europe can start pumping resources in even a win is likely to see a lot of damage inflicted. At the same point is still a possible distraction so a treaty with reasonable terms should be acceptable to all parties. It seams to me that for instance the British and Japanese would like to see the US out of the western Pacific. That's not a big concession particularly if it comes with agreements to say diminish British naval forces in the Caribbean. If a treaty takes the US navy out of the Atlantic that also pretty much wraps up things on the continent for the Germans and British. Conquest of the US is going to be too much trouble for them. Likewise permanent conquest of Canada is probably not going to work for the US although they might absorb part or all of Mexico. Guess we'd really have to know more about what they are fighting over.