Had the U.S joined the Central Powers would they have won?
>>890008
The Central Powers
>>890011
would have won
>>890012
if not for France fucking it all up
>>890008
When would they join?
Mind you that Central powers were blocked by British, French and Italian navies and the US wouldn't be able to overpower them with Germans alone, so the reinforcements from the states wouldn't be able to reach Germany and the economic situation in Germany was horrible. So what would happen would be - Germans would lose anyway, but then you'd get ANOTHER huge conflict between entente and the US.
>>890019
I'm thinking before the Schlieffen Plan was put into action but after war was declared. When the U.S was pissed at Britain because they wouldn't let any goods through their blockade of Germany.
>>890008
It was inevitable that the Italians would attack the austros. New Italian nationalism was too high to let Austria keep "Italian land". The Germans did not have enough supplies to last more than 5 years without all their country starving to death with a British blockade and the introduction of American supplies would also be stopped by the blockade so there would be little the US could do to actually help the central powers.
>>890008
American intervention with the central powers would have probably negotiated somewhat of a status quo with the western allies.
>>890008
Even if the USA had stayed neutral Germany would have won. Britain and France were heavily in debt to America by the time the war ended.
>>890008
Why did Sardinia not exist in 1914?
>>890270
Ice melt and the sea levels rose for a decade. Also, a huge volcano eruption.
Could the Royal navy have defeated the US navy in WW I? How would a Commonwealth vs US war play out? Would Canada become part of the US?
Yes.
>>890243
>Even if the USA had stayed neutral Germany would have won. Britain and France were heavily in debt to America by the time the war ended.
Germany took out more war loans than France and Britain combined. By 1918 a huge proportion of German spending was just paying down the interest on their loans. Of all the European powers, the Germans were the only ones who thought the war would be short - and their financing was done accordingly. That's why the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was so punitive. The only way Germany could make WWI profitable was massive territorial acquisitions followed by resource extraction.
The Somme had destroyed the flower of Germany's NCO corps and their peacetime army. After it, the German intelligence reported that British POWs were uniformly smug: 'Don't you think we have done very well?' and the German army basically said: 'We can't do this again and win'. Britain had sacrificed conscripts to kill Germany's professionals.
Their last throw of the dice was the Kaiserschlacht. Which was a dismal operational failure: they took a lot of ground, but in so doing exhausted their capability for further offensives and exposed themselves. American troops were not particularly decisive in the Kaiserschlacht - however, they were decisive in the rapid destruction of the fought-out German Army following the failure of the Kaiserschlacht to win the war.
>>890280
>Could the Royal navy have defeated the US navy in WW I?
Possibly. However, it might have had a difficult time fighting the US in the Atlantic and the Germans in the North Sea.
>How would a Commonwealth vs US war play out?
The US invades Canada and the British Pacific territories. Britain tries to deal with Germany and then hit back in the Western Hemisphere. Both the RN and USN dance around each other, neither commander wanting to risk losing the war with a direct battle.
>Would Canada become part of the US?
Doubtful since Canadians would be so hostile to the idea.
>>890353
Hello American, you don't quite seem to grasp how large the Royal Navy was in the 1910s. The Royal Navy at the outbreak of hostilities was larger than the US Navy and the KM combined, and unlike WW2, was still able to out-produce its rivals by a huge margin (see the naval arms race). Keep in mind that there were 30 years in between the wars, and that the economies and industrial bases involved were vastly different.
In combination with the not insignificant French Navy, no matter which side the US was on, the Allies would have total naval dominance.
Also in the case of the US attacking in Canada, the US covered that eventuality in war plan red (which was actually produced after the war, and IIRC after the Washington Naval Treaty), where they reached the conclusion that while they could overwhelm the British forces stationed in Canada before the Empire could mobilise, they would be unable to confront the Royal Navy directly, and would have to negotiate peace based on their position in Canada before amphibious counter-attacks could be mounted. Admittedly if Britain was also at war with Germany at the time, it would not be able to commit anything to a counter attack and would most likely have had to cede Canada in peace terms. It would also have been in serious economic trouble due to the lack of US war loans and supplies, which would have put Germany in a stronger position against France.
>Hello American
I'm from Scotland you fucking English ringpiece.
Other than that, your post was quite good.
>>890008
No goddamn way. Germany was fucked as early as 1916, the Americans only sped up the inevitable entente vicktory.
>>890008
Maybe if Italy joined the central powers they could have. Russia would still have the revolutions, so really the big question is if they could turn the tide on the western front.
