Could the Entente + USA have beaten the Three Emperors' League?

[Zisheng_Zhang]

Ottomans and British would fight a front against the Russians in Anatolia, with the majority of British troops likely being ANZAC. The German East Asian Squadron would face the same problems, except they would be able to coal in Vladivostok, however their fate is likely the same as in OTL.
The Entente would likely face problems in the East, with Siam, and even Afghanistan, joining late in the war to capitalize off a potential Entente Defeat.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

So, I am spending time reading up on WWI, and so far I think we can safely say that the French will not be attempting an offensive into A-L, because they don't have a friendly Russian army on Germany's eastern border.

This means that, they have to wait until their allies arrive in country before they can even think about going on the offensive, so when and in what numbers will the armies of the UK and US start to arrive? Will they be in time, or will France be swarmed under before they can become a factor?

 

[Falecius]

France would prepare defensively ITTL. No élan bullshit, no offensive. They'd grimly expect the onslaught and dig in to attrite it long enough to let their allies come to the rescue. If they have sense and the scenario is anticipated, they'd go hedgehog.
Or, better yet, look at their chances, not liking those, and try to avoid war at all.

 

[I want to learn]

I've not heard of the many Russian warships that were built in the USA before. Please tell me more.

I think it was just the Retvizan, right?

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Anyone have any idea on how many troops/day the USA is going to be able to deliver to France in the remaining months of 1914? If the USA "Gets Serious" around 1910, what kind of a sealift capacity are they going to build, to get an American army numbering in the millions to France quickly, let alone keep them in supply.

I would think that 1,000 troops a day would be far to low, and wonder how far off a notional deployment schedule of 10,000 men a day might be?

Aug = 31 days
Sep = 30 days
Oct = 31 days
Nov = 30 days
Dec = 31 days

Looks like 153 days, and if 10,000/day is correct (or even conservative) then the USA could have ~1,500,000 deployed to France by the end of 1914. Personally, I think this is rather on the low side, but hey.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think it was just the Retvizan, right?

I simply don't know.

TBH I didn't notice Retvizan when I flicked through my copies of Conway's 1860-1905 and 1906-21. However, I did notice several ships that were built in Germany or were built with German turbines.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Are we assuming the 3Es are still going through Belgium like OTL Germany or do they just go through AL?

Cause if its the latter the French has more of a chance to hold the line until the UK and US can get into action, and might be economically/industrially better off.

Did you write that because much of France's manufacturing industry was in NW France?

Also if Belgium remains neutral France would be able to buy "stuff" like coal and steel from Belgium. It also denies the same to Germany, but imports from Russia would more than compensate for that.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Ottomans and British would fight a front against the Russians in Anatolia, with the majority of British troops likely being ANZAC. The German East Asian Squadron would face the same problems, except they would be able to coal in Vladivostok, however their fate is likely the same as in OTL.

And what becomes of the German Mediterranean Squadron? I want to say that it sails onto Sevastopol and reinforces the Russian Black Sea Fleet. However, I don't see the Ottoman Empire allowing that and instead it's more likely that it sails for Pola to reinforce the Austro-Hungarian Navy. We did have a thread about it returning to Germany a few years ago and as the causes of World War One have to be different ITTL maybe it has more time to return to Germany.

The Entente would likely face problems in the East, with Siam, and even Afghanistan, joining late in the war to capitalize off a potential Entente Defeat.

You beat me to it with Afghanistan.

Even the threat of a Russian invasion of India via Afghanistan (regardless of how impractical it would have been) would have forced the British to maintain a larger garrison in India.

IOTL most of the Regular British troops in India were withdrawn at the beginning of the war and 3 Territorial divisions took their place. I've not checked the details, but the withdrawn troops must have been a large proportion of the 6 infantry divisions which were formed early in the war from Regular troops withdrawn from India and the Colonies IOTL. Does that happen ITTL?

An Indian Corps of 2 infantry divisions and 2 cavalry brigades fought on the Western Front in the early days of the war and at the time were a significant proportion of the BEF's strength. Would that happen ITTL?

It has been pointed out that the Indian Army played a major role in the war against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were part of the Entente ITTL and the Indian Army would be fighting with them against Russia in the Caucasus, defending Constantinople from attack by Bulgaria and (see @Naval Aviation Fan) possibly in the Crimea. My guess is that fewer Indian troops would be available to fight with the Ottoman Army ITTL than fought against it IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

France would prepare defensively ITTL. No élan bullshit, no offensive. They'd grimly expect the onslaught and dig in to attrite it long enough to let their come to the rescue. If they have sense and the scenario is anticipated, they'd go hedgehog.

Plus they may create an even larger French African Army from the POD to reduce the difference between the size of the French Metropolitan Army and the German Army.

Or, better yet, look at their chances, not killing those, and try to avoid war at all.

I agree. However, that isn't an option in this thread.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm admittedly kinda out of my depth in this era/war. But I was imagining the US being in the war from the start. Like perhaps tensions have been ratcheting up between alt-CP and the Allies for a while, so the US has already been building up a peace-time army a la Roosevelt before WW2.

AIUI one of the things that kept the USA out of the war until 1917 IOTL was Tsarist Russia being an absolute monarchy and as Philip Madoc* said about the abdication of the Tzar "Now it's a fight for democracy!" ITTL the main players are two or three democracies (France, Great Britain & possibly Italy) fighting three absolute monarchies (Austria-Hungary, Germany & Russia) so it will be portrayed in America as a fight for democracy from Day One.**

***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

* Philip Madoc played the title role in the "Life and Times of David Lloyd George" on BBC2 in 1981. It was his second finest performance. The finest being the U-boat captain in "Dad's Army".

** Before anyone says that it may not be 100% fair to call Austria-Hungary, Germany & Russia absolute monarchies, that's how the American public probably felt about them IOTL and that's what the American Government & Press would tell them ITTL as part of the justification for declaring war on them.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 18.

Meanwhile at sea… the G/R/AH are screwed 6 ways from Sunday. The combined Royal Navy and US Navy is bad enough. Toss in the French fleet that flees to GB the Italian fleet (what there is) and the Japanese and it is hopeless. Heck just freeing up the entire US fleet be Japan being able/willing to go after any German ships in the Pacific would add even more US ships to the equation.

Now we know that the USA joins the war on Day One I more or less agree with you.

The US Fleet of August 1914 was the third largest in the World IOT with (according to Naval History Net) 10 dreadnoughts, 23 pre-dreadnoughts, 12 armoured cruisers, 24 protected cruisers, 3 scout cruisers, 50 destroyers and 27 submarines. It only added another 4 dreadnoughts, 18 destroyers and 22 submarines to April 1917 IOTL, but ITTL it will be a lot more than that. Plus as you wrote the US Fleet might be even larger than OTL in August 1914 ITTL.

Part of Post 31.

And unless you are changing the world beyond recognition… The US fleet will be large because the US is A) a lot more powerful economically and industrially by 1900 then most believe and B) the oceans that separate the US from threats are the obvious battlefield that the US needs to win on to protect itself. So the US will have a very large Fleet.

GB will still have its fleet and between the two of them Germany hasn't. any chance at sea.
Toss in France and anyone else on that side and… I stand by my point that Germany is screwed at sea,

And this is why I wrote more or less because the World will be changed somewhat. The POD is circa 1890 because the League of the Three Emperors doesn't end and instead continues until 1914.

Therefore, the countries that the Three Emperors ruled may reduce the size of their armies and increase the size of their navies with the money saved in the 25 years of peace between the POD and 1914.

It certainly means that the British economic blockade will have negligible effects on Germany during the TTL World War One because it can buy all the food and most of the raw materials it needed from Russia. Not fighting each other means that the countries ruled by the Three Emperors don't need do mobilise as many men for their armies so they probably increased their industrial & agricultural production ITTL and smaller armies mean smaller arms industries to support them so they can put more effort into their navies. Therefore, in the case of Germany they at least complete the whole of the Bayern & Mackensen classes plus more cruisers & destroyers and last but not least more U-boats.

Meanwhile, France may have to have a smaller navy to pay for a larger army and AIUI the OTL MN of 1914 was impressive on paper but the quality of its ships and (possibly) its personnel left a lot to be desired. Britain probably expands its navy even more ITTL but that may be at the expense of its army.

This WWI is effectively a war between two continents. North America is one continent. The half of Europe controlled by the Three Emperors plus Russian Asia equals the second. The side that mobilises the resources of those continents best wins.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If Germany and Russia had been allies from circa 1890 to 1914 the KM may have converted from coal to oil by 1914 as they would have had a secure supply of Caucasian oil. Or at least it would have been as insecure as the RN's supply of Persian oil.

 

[Post]

I think these alliances would butterfly WW1 as we know it away. When Prinzip assasinates Franz Ferdinand, Russia is not going to object AH invading Serbia. Germany won't be mobilizing because Russia did. France isn't going to mobilize because Germany did. Germany is not going to invade France/Belgium and Russia because France and Russia were mobilizing.

Serbia is occupied by AH and nobody really cares about it.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

POD in the late 1800s I suppose (no Franco - Russian agreements, worse Anglo-Russian relations, either Kaiser Willy dies or gets some sense knocked into his head, and Germany is much friendlier to Russia) to set up the proper alliances. Perhaps an Anglo-Russian incident in Central Asia or a Russo-Japanese incident in East Asia could trigger a similar chain of interlocking guarantees as OTL Sarajevo 1914. To have the USA involved from the start, maybe much worse German-American relations going in? Colonial clashes?

Some dumb thing in a Samoan harbor mayhaps? The foolish have been known to try repeated shenanigans even after having humiliated themselves before the entire world: P

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is something that I want to happen ITTL rather than what I think would happen.

Build the Rhine-Main-Danube canal in the 1900s. It would be built to improve communications between Germany & Southern Russia, e.g. the tankers taking the Caucasian oil to Germany.

I discussed the practicability of building it in the 1930s in detail in the "Optimize German army for the ww2" and "Optimize the Axis Navies for WW2" threads in February and I think it wouldn't be much harder to build it in the 1900s.

The locks of the OTL canal could accommodate German WWII warships up to an including including the Type VIIC U-boat, Type 1935 M-boat, Type 1939 T-boat and were only 2-3 feet too narrow for a Type 1936B Z-boat. They were also big enough for all German WWI destroyers and were also long enough for all German WWI light cruisers but were at least 5 feet too narrow for them. Therefore, it would also be a way for the Germans & Russians to send ships of destroyer size from the Baltic to the Black Sea and vice versa.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Did you write that because much of France's manufacturing industry was in NW France?

Also if Belgium remains neutral France would be able to buy "stuff" like coal and steel from Belgium. It also denies the same to Germany, but imports from Russia would more than compensate for that.

That and just having less of the country occupied probably does wonders for the economy

 

[prester.john208]

I think these alliances would butterfly WW1 as we know it away. When Prinzip assasinates Franz Ferdinand, Russia is not going to object AH invading Serbia. Germany won't be mobilizing because Russia did. France isn't going to mobilize because Germany did. Germany is not going to invade France/Belgium and Russia because France and Russia were mobilizing.

Serbia is occupied by AH and nobody really cares about it.

Does Serbia dare to antagonize AH in the first place? The Russian ambassador will not urge them on as in the OTL. Its likely that the leaders of the Black hand gets shot earlier, so no assassination of FF.

 

[thaddeus]

The locks of the OTL canal could accommodate German WWII warships up to an including including the Type VIIC U-boat, Type 1935 M-boat, Type 1939 T-boat and were only 2-3 feet too narrow for a Type 1936B Z-boat. They were also big enough for all German WWI destroyers and were also long enough for all German WWI light cruisers but were at least 5 feet too narrow for them. Therefore, it would also be a way for the Germans & Russians to send ships of destroyer size from the Baltic to the Black Sea and vice versa.

I've seen mention of overland movement of the u-boats sent during WWII, were there some bottlenecks or too much traffic to transfer u-boats and TBs? they certainly sent too few and too late (sorry to distract from topic at hand)

everything I've read, if there were any degree of cooperation between Germany-A-H-Russia this would all be over quickly? then we are faced with the same question as during WWII, would the Anglo-American alliance engage in the bloodbath necessary to liberate France(?)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've seen mention of overland movement of the u-boats sent during WWII, were there some bottlenecks or too much traffic to transfer u-boats and TBs? they certainly sent too few and too late (sorry to distract from topic at hand).

FWIW that was discussed in the relevant threads earlier this year.

Everything I've read, if there were any degree of cooperation between Germany-A-H-Russia this would all be over quickly? Then we are faced with the same question as during WWII, would the Anglo-American alliance engage in the bloodbath necessary to liberate France(?)

FWIW that's what I thought until I read Post 43 by @Falecius.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

So, getting back to this:

Premis: If we have the USA in this from day one, then the USA must be in a formal military alliance.
If the USA is in a formal alliance, they need to have a professional, standing army.
Who is the USA mad at, and who are they allies with?

For me, the Germans did some historical things that didn't end in war, but could at least have been blown up in the press to carry more negative public opinion, so I'm going with a Franco-American alliance.

This gives us a clear need for the USA to be building a 'real' army.

If the USA is allied with France, and needs a real army therefore, what better model to use that the French one for universal conscription?
If the USA is going to be fighting a ground war in europe, how fast will the USA need to get her troops to France?
Given a start date in 1898, how long before the USA has an army equal to or greater than Germany?
If the USA is ticked off at Germany, will she pass her own naval laws, but perhaps the United States Naval laws might be timed to match Germany, but give us +1 BB over theirs?
This would give the USN an authorized strength of 20 BB in 1898, and then in 1900, 40 BB.

I have already detailed what I think the USA would build for an army in post #38.