World War 1: America's on Germany side

[o1pickleboy]

What would have happen in the U.S had entered World War 1 on the side of the Germans. If I remember my history correctly we were considering joining the side of the Germans. Even if it wasn't likely it still could of happened.

[cactusmaac]

Not much effect on the actual fighting. The Royal Navy would have prevented American forces from ever landing in Europe.

The lack of American troops on the Allied side however, would have made victory over Germany far tougher and even defeat more feasible.

[Grazzt]

Not much effect on the actual fighting. The Royal Navy would have prevented American forces from ever landing in Europe.

The lack of American troops on the Allied side however, would have made victory over Germany far tougher and even defeat more feasible.

Let's not forget that a North American theatre would have opened up. I mean, I doubt America is going to come in on Germany's side without making a play for Canada.

[o1pickleboy]

Not much effect on the actual fighting. The Royal Navy would have prevented American forces from ever landing in Europe.

The lack of American troops on the Allied side however, would have made victory over Germany far tougher and even defeat more feasible.

True, but with the royal navy busy with the Americas and the British now fighting a war on two fronts. I see the german's getting a great advantage here.

[Phrozen]

Britain would have to send troops and navy to India and the Pacific. While America couldn't land in Europe it could probably mess up British colonies something fierce.

[traxler]

well id say theirs a strong pobability that the US would try to invade Canada but whose to say it wouldnt be a loosers game like tring to invade Russia. All that snow and the eskinoes are sneeky looking.

[moebius]

My educated-ish guess is that with the Germans no longer engaged on the Eastern front and no "doughboys" to act as a stopgap, the Germans would have broken through the Allied lines in 1918.

Of course, when you add the US harassing Caribbean possessions and possibly making a play for the resource rich western Canada, I think the British/French would be in pretty bad shape.

[o1pickleboy]

well id say theirs a strong pobability that the US would try to invade Canada but whose to say it wouldnt be a loosers game like tring to invade Russia. All that snow and the eskinoes are sneeky looking.

Good point The U.S could also attacked Russia thou Alaska. This could have hurt Russia too. Having them now fighting a war on two fronts.

I hope we get the war ironed out before this becomes a rumbles thread. I wanted to talk about how this affects history.

[traxler]

Good point The U.S could also attacked Russia thou Alaska. This could have hurt Russia too. Having them now fighting a war on two fronts.

I hope we get the war ironed out before this becomes a rumbles thread. I wanted to talk about how this affects history.
but wait Russia opts out of the war when they get revolutioned.

America has no African colonies and in asia only the Philipines (ha see I did this at school) so maybe 2 continents to the Brits.

[Tadhg]

I hope we get the war ironed out before this becomes a rumbles thread. I wanted to talk about how this affects history.

What is this, if not a rumbles thread? I'd say alternate history speculation is definitely more rumbles than Comm board.

[traxler]

if i was Australia Id launch a sneak attak on Hawaii.

[o1pickleboy]

What is this, if not a rumbles thread? I'd say alternate history speculation is definitely more rumbles than Comm board.


Well you learn something new everyday. I though rumbles was the battles. The fights. Not history spec, I always felt we were the ones who did that. Considering we are the "politics board"

[DarkSoldier]

Read the Great War series by Harry Turtledove. The USA joins the Great War on Germany's side against Britain, France, and the Confederate States of America. It's the first war against the CSA that the USA wins, having lost the Civil War and the Second Mexican War.

The CSA experiences the same repercussions that Germany did in reality; massive war reparations, demilitarization, and hyperinflation that sees one million CSA dollars barely buy a cup of coffee. It takes a misanthropic yet charismatic CSA artillery sergeant with a rabid hatred of blacks to rally his nation, through a combination of rousing speeches and violence against other political parties, and gets elected President of the CSA.

He covertly rearms his nation, using the excuse that it's for internal security, forces the USA to allow occupied territories to decide if they want to rejoin the CSA (two of them do), dissolves the Supreme Court by forcing them to oppose make-work projects, and then gets the "Seven Words" repealed from the CSA Constitution, allowing him to run for a second term. In the meantime, he's stripping blacks of their civil and human rights, eventually shipping them off to concentration camps.

He then invades the USA. It's a series of victories until the CSA army gets stuck in Pittsburgh when winter sets in.

[Grazzt]

Well you learn something new everyday. I though rumbles was the battles. The fights. Not history spec, I always felt we were the ones who did that. Considering we are the "politics board"

Rumbles does do historical speculation when that historical speculation comes down to fighting. Rome vs. China pops up occasionally, and there was a really nasty thread about (IIRC) fencers vs. katana users that ended up getting closed because of flaming.

[Tages]

What would have happen in the U.S had entered World War 1 on the side of the Germans. If I remember my history correctly we were considering joining the side of the Germans. Even if it wasn't likely it still could of happened.
The American fleet can't break through the Royal Navy. The real problem for the Allies lies in the lack of American loans for the war effort.

[FBHthelizardmage]

Well, Britain can navally defeat both German and the USA so they're stuck there. In Canada, I'd actually say America will have a hell of a time taking it, seeing as the Canadians in WW1 were one of the most progressive and best led groups.

However, it might mean that the Germans can pull of some kind of limited but bloody peace in 1917-18... though then again, they might waste their operational advantages... as they did historically, through poor strategy

[Tages]

And while in the beginning there were more pro-Central Powers than pro-Allied Americans*, to my knowledge no one in any position of authority seriously considered entering on Germany's side.


*At the time roughly a quarter of the country was composed of first and second-generation German immigrants, who favored the Vaterland, and Irish, who wanted to see the British lose. Also, Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe considered the Russian Czar the unofficial head of international anti-Semitism and were thus quite anti-Russian.

[Iangould]

A lot of this comes down to WHEN the US gets involved.

If the US enters the war in 1914, it has time to build up its naval forces.

It would also have been able to support the U-Boat fleet in the Battle of the Atlantic, the most important part of such support would have been naval bases, but the US fleet would also have been useful but probably not decisive.

[Guapo Méndez]

I had a scenario where Porfirio Diaz deals with Francisco I. Madero earlier and is still in power by the time Germany sends the Zimmerman Telegram.

A stronger Mexico would be a good platform for a second front against the US, should they decide to enter the conflict.

[Pól Rua]

Nonono, silly historical analysis people!
We don't want to hear facts, we want to hear

"If the Americans had sided with the Germans during WWI, we would all be dead because AMERICA RULEZ!!!1!
"And if not for America kicking the Germans AZZ in WWII, we would all be DEAD!!!
"YAAAAYYY AMERICA!!!"

You need to understand that any 20th Century war in which they were involved is 'The America Show' and no other country's sacrifice counts for shit.

[Tages]

Nonono, silly historical analysis people!
We don't want to hear facts, we want to hear

"If the Americans had sided with the Germans during WWI, we would all be dead because AMERICA RULEZ!!!1!
"And if not for America kicking the Germans AZZ in WWII, we would all be DEAD!!!
"YAAAAYYY AMERICA!!!"

You need to understand that any 20th Century war in which they were involved is 'The America Show' and no other country's sacrifice counts for shit.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people assert that sans American intervention in WWII the Nazis would still be running the world. Some very bad things may have happened, but come on, people.

Still, though we didn't sacrifice as much as other nations did in the World Wars, our noninvolvement or involvement on the other side in either case causes history to go wildly into a tailspin.

[o1pickleboy]

It is a pet peeve of mine when people assert that sans American intervention in WWII the Nazis would still be running the world. Some very bad things may have happened, but come on, people.

Still, though we didn't sacrifice as much as other nations did in the World Wars, our noninvolvement or involvement on the other side in either case causes history to go wildly into a tailspin.

I have to disagree here tages. With the british on their knees almost and france already conquered. I definitly seeing the nazis at least taking Europe. Granted Russia would have still been around, but if what we know about the stortages Russia had on just about everything. They would have fell to.

Without Britian and Russia, if the nazis decide to take a swoop at the U.S. I believe they would have won. Depending on when they would strike. Also factoring that Hittler had nuclear research going on. The U.S only started to get serious about their's after they entered the war.

If Hittler had developed the A bomb first it would be no contest because Hittler would have definitly used it.

If nazis germany won and survived WW2. There is a good chance at it lasting. look at the USSR that oppressive dicatorship lasted over 80 years. Several oppressive monachys lasting for centuries.

[Tages]

I have to disagree here tages. With the british on their knees almost and france already conquered. I definitly seeing the nazis at least taking Europe. Granted Russia would have still been around, but if what we know about the stortages Russia had on just about everything. They would have fell to.
Not unless the Germans figure out what they're going to do once they've won. German war strategy was great for the short term, crappy at waging long-term wars of attrition. They had great tactical thinking but very poor strategic thinking.


Without Britian and Russia, if the nazis decide to take a swoop at the U.S. I believe they would have won. Depending on when they would strike.
How? There's a giant friggin' ocean patrolled by the US Navy (and whatever remains of the Royal Navy) in the way of a country with superior financial and industrial strength with gigantic swaths of wide-open space for guerillas to hide. No way could the Kriegsmarine have established the necessary base for a serious invasion of the US, especially considering that the Germans had exactly zero functioning aircraft carriers at the time.


Also factoring that Hittler had nuclear research going on. The U.S only started to get serious about their's after they entered the war.
The progress of the Nazi nuclear program is seriously overrated these days. It would have taken many more years before they had anything workable, especially since Hitler didn't see much use for it.


If nazis germany won and survived WW2. There is a good chance at it lasting. look at the USSR that oppressive dicatorship lasted over 80 years. Several oppressive monachys lasting for centuries.
Not Nazism. Nazism was an ideology too unstable to last as long as the USSR did (also, consider that while the Soviet Union lasted seven decades, Stalinism was in vogue for only three of them). Way too reliant on perpetual conflict to keep unity, and without the kind of internationalist appeal the Soviets used to make their own tyranny more palatable to their satellites. Witness what happened in the final days of the war in Germany as Hitler and his cronies shattered into petty, squabbling camps.

As soon as Hitler dies in this timeline, Doenitz, Goering, Himmler and Goebels are going to be at one another's throats. The Nazi love of violence could be turned against itself.

[o1pickleboy]

Not unless the Germans figure out what they're going to do once they've won. German war strategy was great for the short term, crappy at waging long-term wars of attrition. They had great tactical thinking but very poor strategic thinking.

I concede here, I have no way of knowing or proving that they would have changed there thinking



How? There's a giant friggin' ocean patrolled by the US Navy (and whatever remains of the Royal Navy) in the way of a country with superior financial and industrial strength with gigantic swaths of wide-open space for guerillas to hide. No way could the Kriegsmarine have established the necessary base for a serious invasion of the US, especially considering that the Germans had exactly zero functioning aircraft carriers at the time.

I was seeing them go though Russia. Plus I believe the Jap's would have started attacting the west coast.



The progress of the Nazi nuclear program is seriously overrated these days. It would have taken many more years before they had anything workable, especially since Hitler didn't see much use for it.

This all depends on how long they wait to attack the U. S after Germany takes Britian and Russia(if they do). I believe they would be a period of peace(or a cold war) while Hittler would stablizes his forces in Europe and rebulit his miltary. Then goes into a arms race(possibly) on who could make it first. That would be completely up in the air. Considering we would not know where the U.S nuclear program would be at without WW2.



[/QUOTE]Not Nazism. Nazism was an ideology too unstable to last as long as the USSR did (also, consider that while the Soviet Union lasted seven decades, Stalinism was in vogue for only three of them). Way too reliant on perpetual conflict to keep unity, and without the kind of internationalist appeal the Soviets used to make their own tyranny more palatable to their satellites. Witness what happened in the final days of the war in Germany as Hitler and his cronies shattered into petty, squabbling camps.

As soon as Hitler dies in this timeline, Doenitz, Goering, Himmler and Goebels are going to be at one another's throats. The Nazi love of violence could be turned against itself. [/QUOTE]/

Victories bring unity and higher morale. This increases the chances of the Nazis sticking around. If something is proven right(or at leasted victorous) is tends to last longer. If Hittler would have won Europe, he would have stronger supporters which may or may not have copied him. Since the nazis shattered do to loss, not out of natual causes. We don't know how long they would have lasted if not taken out of power. Either way a German empire would at least have Europe and more than likely been in a cold war with the U.S leading to a possible domino effect that could have spread Socialism/nazis acrossed the world.

V

[Alex]

I hope we get the war ironed out before this becomes a rumbles thread. I wanted to talk about how this affects history.
No holocaust.
Even an imperilistic america wouldn't put up with that noise, and if Germany was never weakened by a defeat in ww2, hitler wouldn't have come to power.
so there would have been one good side.

[Fish Sauce]

Nonono, silly historical analysis people!
We don't want to hear facts, we want to hear

"If the Americans had sided with the Germans during WWI, we would all be dead because AMERICA RULEZ!!!1!
"And if not for America kicking the Germans AZZ in WWII, we would all be DEAD!!!
"YAAAAYYY AMERICA!!!"

You need to understand that any 20th Century war in which they were involved is 'The America Show' and no other country's sacrifice counts for shit.

Heh, just post something similar anywhere on IMdB. Friggin' hilarious.

[traxler]

Heh, just post something similar anywhere on IMdB. Friggin' hilarious.
Oh that Paul Rua he's always kidding but he comes back for more so we no he likes it anyways if Hittler wins with American suport how do we get to carve up the world wich is now ours oviusly NOT europe.

[Adam Crocker]

If Hittler would have won Europe, he would have stronger supporters which may or may not have copied him.

Well that's a bit of tough prediction to make since except for Italy and Germany, there weren't many successful fascist groups. The closest might be Juan Peron's regime in Argentina and the Spanish Falangists. In the latter's case that's only because Franco co-opted the group as an arm of his regime (and jailing their leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera as well as dispensing with much of the group's ideology) which was more based on authoritarian European conservativism rather than Fascism. (And even then he progressively abandoned the trappings of Fascism after the 1950s as he developed closer ties with the U.S.)

Moreover, Communism (or Leninism depending on what you think's more accurate, I prefer the latter) spread to the third world because the ideology had its appeal in having the language and rationality of the west while serving as a rebuke to western colonialism. (Plus Lenin had written a tract titled "Imperialism: the Highest State of Capitalism.") Its no coincidence that the successful communist movements in the China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, etc. were also nationalist movements reacting to European (and Japanese) imperiaism (or American imperialism in Cuba's case). And with the exception of the East European regimes, most of these regimes got into power by building up a wave of popular support in their countries based on discontent against corrupt authoritarian regimes (yes it's ironic I know) and economic conditions. Ho-Chi-Minh for example had the prestige of fighting the Japanese and enacting land reform in Vietnam. Ngo Dinh Diem on the other hand hid out in America during the war and actively antagonized the country's Buddhinst majority.

Granted many of these regimes came to power because the Americans took the Japanese out of the war and the USSR provided backing for them, but there's a reason they spread beyond just the Soviets being one of the dominant powers left at the end of the war. Hitler' might likely be copied by certain right-wing dictatorships in the third world, but saying it would spread in a fashion similar to Leninism is a bit dubious considering the actual circumstances that led to its spread.


Either way a German empire would at least have Europe and more than likely been in a cold war with the U.S leading to a possible domino effect that could have spread Socialism/nazis acrossed the world.

"Could have spread Socialism/Nazism across the world?" Where does socialism come into play here?

[SOGG]

<snipped for space>
"Could have spread Socialism/Nazism across the world?" Where does socialism come into play here?

just a guess -- maybe because Nazi was some type of primitive portmanteaux of Nationalism/Socialism.

[SOGG]

I think that very little would have changed.

I still think that one of the defining moments post-WW2 was the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions. With a victorious America/Germany combo, these would still be created.

Basically, the rich would still be fucking us over and enacting laws to make said fucking over legal.

[Adam Crocker]

just a guess -- maybe because Nazi was some type of primitive portmanteaux of Nationalism/Socialism.

Probably, but while "National Socialism" is what Hitler called his ideology (largely from propaganda purposes) socialism/Nazism makes it sound like the two are interchangeable which isn't the case.

[cactusmaac]

Socialism was a huge element in what Hitler tried to build. If you have a society where the state is paramount, then all things must flow from the state.

That's not to say socialism in other countries had much to do with Nazism, but Nazism in Hitler's Germany relied on socialism - building on the social welfare programs of earlier Prussian states - as a counter to the liberal, democratic capitalism the Easterners disdained.

[SOGG]

Probably, but while "National Socialism" is what Hitler called his ideology (largely from propaganda purposes) socialism/Nazism makes it sound like the two are interchangeable which isn't the case.

Ah. I didn't really see it that way. I sort of saw it as socialism elements + nationalist elements.

[Grazzt]

Also, I think its possible that the Americans might have lost some of their Pacific possessions, as well. Didn't the Japanese pretty much take over any Central Powers colony in Asia that they could get their hands on?

[Iangould]

Moreover, Communism (or Leninism depending on what you think's more accurate, I prefer the latter) spread to the third world because the ideology had its appeal in having the language and rationality of the west while serving as a rebuke to western colonialism. (Plus Lenin had written a tract titled "Imperialism: the Highest State of Capitalism.") Its no coincidence that the successful communist movements in the China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, etc. were also nationalist movements reacting to European (and Japanese) imperiaism (or American imperialism in Cuba's case).

In the 1920's, Ho Chi Minh was a member of the French Socialist Party, not the Communists.

He walked out of the party with a group of other Vietnamese members when they failed to get a resolution from the party condemning imperalism.

[Iangould]

Socialism was a huge element in what Hitler tried to build. If you have a society where the state is paramount, then all things must flow from the state.

That's not to say socialism in other countries had much to do with Nazism, but Nazism in Hitler's Germany relied on socialism - building on the social welfare programs of earlier Prussian states - as a counter to the liberal, democratic capitalism the Easterners disdained.

Read Hitler's comments about capitalism as the application of the fuhrerprinzip to economics.

[Iangould]

Also, I think its possible that the Americans might have lost some of their Pacific possessions, as well. Didn't the Japanese pretty much take over any Central Powers colony in Asia that they could get their hands on?

Yes thanks in large part to Australian PM Billy Hughes who turned down offers of Guam and various other strategic islands.

Hell, he was prepared to give them the German part of New Guinea until the British put their foot down.

[cactusmaac]

Japan was invaluable in WW1. Australian troops wouldn't have been able to reach the European theatre if it had been on Germany's side.

[Grazzt]

Probably even more invaluable in the event of America siding with the Central Powers. I mean, if they can divert American attention to the Pacific, it would be enormously helpful for the British.

[Phrozen]

Japan was invaluable in WW1. Australian troops wouldn't have been able to reach the European theatre if it had been on Germany's side.

Not to mention it was a huge manufacturing base that was sending things to Europe.

[Adam Crocker]

Socialism was a huge element in what Hitler tried to build. If you have a society where the state is paramount, then all things must flow from the state.

That's not to say socialism in other countries had much to do with Nazism, but Nazism in Hitler's Germany relied on socialism - building on the social welfare programs of earlier Prussian states - as a counter to the liberal, democratic capitalism the Easterners disdained.

Maybe and various fascist thinkers did draw from socialist ideas.

On the other hand I think you're defining it as merely a subset of socialism. Your statement above seems to rely too much on an idea of socialism as merely statism, which ignores the utopian socialism of Fourier and Owen (the earliest strains), syndicalism (which even when it favoured central planning as the British syndicalists did, was above all about worker management of industries), and left-wing anarchism.

For one thing pretty much every form of socialism was an impulse towards levelling of social inequities (though to different degrees) which is almost wholly absent in fascism, which is explicitly elitist. In fact it rejected the concept of class conflict explicit or implicit in all strains of socialism.

Moreover, in socialism (be it social democracy or Leninism) the state is understood as a guarantor of collective rights, whereas fascism its seen as an organic body defining the whole of society and embodying the nation itself. As an understanding of society that's a lot closer to pre-modern, feudalist views of the society such as "The Body Politic" than anything socialist. And let us not forget feudalism had its own forms of social programs (if primitive and limited compared to those provided by the modern state) designed to ameloriate social inequities. In many ways it was an update of feudalism with the nation state in place of a king. One of its major intellectual roots was the Revum Novarum encyclical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum) written by Catholic Pope Leo XIII. While I don't want to give the impression that it was a proto-fascist document itself (in fact it was the intellectual grounding point for Europe's Christian Democratic Parties; Mussolini just grafted these ideas onto authoritariansim) it makes a key point about the state :


Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity.

Which is essentially how fascism views the state, not as a corporation but a corpus or body in the medieval sense, that it is an organic representation of society as a whole. It also urged solidarity among the classes and for the government to protect people from exploitation while reaffirming private property. Essentially it's a very conservative view, particularly for Europe of the time where most countries at least had feudal systems in recent memory (as opposed to America which was founded on classical liberalism.)

[cactusmaac]

Socialism's statist aspects are what typify it, not the intentions of whoever's running the system. .

Hayek reckoned the economic policy differences between socialists, communists and fascists were mostly rhetorical ones. All three made heavy use of wages, capital and price controls as part of their policy of state intervention in the economy.