Search results for query: *

I doubt that American imperialism would desire reaching as far as Australia and New Zealand and they could find Canada a pain to hold unless their willing to treat 'whites' as badly as they treated 'Indians' or Filipinos during earlier conflicts. It all depends on how deranged Washington is in...

That is one factor. Another is that the Japanese felt deserted by the western powers because of: a) The US insisted on an unfavourable ratio in the WNT and the ending of the defensive alliance with the UK and the UK accepted this b) Both powers, albeit for understandable at the time reasons...

Guys I suggest you look at Giant with Feet of Clay. Its a fascinating 1 hour+ - if you ignore the 1st 5 minutes of intros - on what problems the US had in fielding an army in WWI. It also explains why US divisions were much larger that European ones, and its not a strength. As I've said...

The problem is its unclear why the US is going to war with the EPs? If its some made expansionist kick then peacing out isn't an option for the UK. Neither is letting Germany dictate a peace in the west similar to what they did to the Russian in 1918. That would be an even bigger threat to...

Not to the entente because a 'peace' dictated by Germany would almost certainly mean that even if the allies wanted to trade with the US they wouldn't be able to afford to.

True although the US starts with minimal forces themselves and in this scenario aren't going to get the OTL aid in terms of heavy equipment and combat advice. Canada will fall without aid but it could take a good bit of time and holding it could be very expensive. The big problem for the EPs...

a) Wrong. The British had already taken a controlling share in the Persian oilfields to ensure supplies for the RN. Not sure how early production was started in Burma, Trinidad or the DEI, although the 1st two of those were fairly small sources and Trinidad, like Mexico which also had...

Yes some were exaggerated but most still occurred. Plus the fact there were some exaggeration didn't matter to the diplomacy until is realised that that was the case. As such that makes no difference to the actual German actions in the period and their perception. Your suggestion in a later...

Skallagrim As you say it would mean something bloody huge happening on the entente side for such a swing in the US position, especially considering how Germany's diplomatic position was steadily worsening. [Repeated USW, initiating use of lethal gas attacks, reported attrocities on occupied...

Because only Britain had big enough navy to excuse the sort of navy the USN was arguing for. [Other than possibly an imperial Germany that had won domination in Europe]. That they stated Britain did unpleasant things to secure their survival means nothing. I could probably fairly easily...

Apologies on my part. I may have been reading something else but a sudden dow by the US at some point in 1916 would cause serious if not fatal problems for the allies and secure a German victory. One better feature in 1916 rather than 1914 is that Canada may be better positioned for...

Very little as it lacks the range, especially in escort and scout units, to do anything. Of course if for some reason the US went rabidly anti-entente even as early as 1914 it would end up as a German victory but that would be against US as well as everybody else's interesting other than the...

It damaged the German army but both in terms of blood and morale it damaged the British army more. Haig's refusal to consider limited bite and hold actions, which would have done a lot more damage to the Germans when they counter-attacked and saved a lot of British/Imperial lives was the deadly...

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. They were determined to still defend France against further German attacks and the Germans didn't have the capacity to inflict a...