In OTL Lenin win,becouse Wall Street send Trocky with his thugs to made revolution.But since Winning Germany do not need soviets/they personally despised them/ now both Lenin and Trocky would get nothing,and Russia would be defeated normally.How would the world history and the world in general be changed if America joined the central powers in 1916?
Short answer- money and supplies. Which in OTL got sent to the British and the French, not to mention the HUGE loans those nations took out from the USA and a lack of US reinforcements during the last years of the war.The USA could had gone to war with the Entente in 1914 over the trampling of Neutral's rights. Just like in 1812.
However, America joins the Central Powers with WHAT exactly?
The US has no army to speak off and a middling navy. And it will have no army to speak off before 1919.
So, military action - besides the favourite of AH boards, i.e. invasion of Canada, is off the table.
The USA is blockaded by the RN from Bermuda, Halifax and Jamaica. Phillippines will be invaded by Japan (with UK funding).
IMO most of the effort wasted on the Ottomans (I'm speaking of Entente effectiveness in this regard, not of the purpose) will be diverted to the Caribean and Nova Scotia.
Hence the US is as good as an island, does not export anything anywhere, leading to very angry voters.
The Entente buys its grain and beef from Argentina (possibly other sources expanded - SA?), eats more rice from Asia. Japan makes even more money from its manufacturing, be it munitions or replacements for European exports.
The UK funds the war effort not with loans, but with Pound denominated bonds.
IMO not a defeat but a not-victory, or at least nothing comparable to scale of OTL victory.All in all American entry would guarantee a Entente defeat.
Biggest loser - USA, as it does not transform itself from a farm produce and raw materials exporter and capital and know how importer into the great power of OTL.
Agreed, and while I admit the Entente could win without U.S. support them whining with the U.S. aligned against them is another thing entirely.Your knowledge about economic history of the world is lacking. By 1900 the US was the largest producer and also the lowest cost producer of steel and heavy machinery.
I doubt this. The Republic was pretty much doomed from the start due to the bad state Russia was in and the almost non-existent foundations it was built upon. As the Tsar was also alive and the Kaiserreich was the premier monarchical state in Europe, he'd be pushing for the Romanovs to be restored to their thrones. Nicholas was Wilhelm's cousin after all.So,defeated but democratic Russia with resentyment for loosing war and territories
Honestly the Entente would probably still lose if the US stays neutral and instead in ttl is more German leaning than UK leaning. The Germans came close to taking Paris a couple times and the French army had begun to mutiny. The only reason why the Third Republic wasn't overthrown was because the mutinies weren't very well coordinated.Agreed, and while I admit the Entente could win without U.S. support them whining with the U.S. aligned against them is another thing entirely.
I doubt this part. The Germans came really close to winning the war prior to the US entry.Agreed, and while I admit the Entente could win without U.S. support them
I doubt this. The Republic was pretty much doomed from the start due to the bad state Russia was in and the almost non-existent foundations it was built upon. As the Tsar was also alive and the Kaiserreich was the premier monarchical state in Europe, he'd be pushing for the Romanovs to be restored to their thrones. Nicholas was Wilhelm's cousin after all.
Honestly the Entente would probably still lose if the US stays neutral and instead in ttl is more German leaning than UK leaning. The Germans came close to taking Paris a couple times and the French army had begun to mutiny. The only reason why the Third Republic wasn't overthrown was because the mutinies weren't very well coordinated.
Without the news that the Americans are coming to save them, French morale would be much lower.
I doubt this part. The Germans came really close to winning the war prior to the US entry.
Hear! Hear!They might have done so in 1914, although reports differ but the 1916 strikes are a less certain factor. The French troops were refusing in most cases to attack.
An argument can be made that Passchendaele 'campaign' broke the back of the German army, as they oh-so ingeniously counterattacked against British artillery. The consensus seems to be that losses on both sides were more or less equal, the German Imperial army possibly suffering slightly more.Germans didn't have the capacity to inflict a decisively military victory in 1917. They only approached this in 1918 because Haig had so bloodied the British army during the Passchendaele 'campaign'.
No, that was with American loans, not alone. By 1917, the Entente was running on fumes despite American financial support. Britain and France were literally starting to run out of things to put up as collateral for the loans.The Entente in 1917 was running on fumes of its ability to obtain Dollars. In this scenario there is no need for Dollars, as the UK/France make stuff at home or buy abroad for Pounds/Franks.
Germany and A-H somehow made it without US loans and supplies to 1918 ...
Given what the German Navy outside of Germany did despite not having safe ports in the US (a lot of hell marry chases across several oceans)? I wouldn't be surprised that if the US joined the Central Powers and the various colonial squadrons caught wind of it, then you would see the Germans heading towards the Philipines for a refuel before heading towards Hawaii and SanFran. Then add to the fact that the U-Boats now effectively have bases in the US that they can head to for resupply...The naval war indeed might be interesting. Nevertheless I imagine the US to be pushed back to Hawaii after losing Phillippines to Japan, while in the Atlantic ... convoy battles to Halifax/St.John? The Carribean is red with blood?
BTW - are German warships even capable of reaching the USA at economic speed? What if they have to leg it - i.e. they spot theat they had been spotted - when passing the GIUK gap?
Hear! Hear!
With no "wait for Americans strategy", the French would had done something else. Like adopt "bite and hold" a year earlier?
An argument can be made that Passchendaele 'campaign' broke the back of the German army, as they oh-so ingeniously counterattacked against British artillery. The consensus seems to be that losses on both sides were more or less equal, the German Imperial army possibly suffering slightly more.
The capacity to inflict a decisively military victory came only with the transfer of troops freed by Russia's collapse. So it is the German army of the West which ended up gutted, not the British ...
It was Lloyd George who gutted the British army, denying replacements, hence the nine battalion Divisions.
This discussion has been ongoing for a century or so
So, the HSF breaks out and does what, exactly?
I've given a POD - in 1914 Wilson stands up for the rights of Neutrals.Of course if for some reason the US went rabidly anti-entente even as early as 1914
The navy was decent, even if lacking in light units. But these can be built relatively quickly.how limited the US military was in 1914