If in 1913 Britain and her colonies had joined
forces with germany with the intention to conquer
as much of the world as possible how far would they
have got?
Wow,thats a tough one.Considering if that happened,Germany wouldn't of had to rely on Austria-Hungary near as much because Germany wouldn't have been as isolated as they were.It would have definately made Russia balk,and France would of been resigned to turn over a large part of her empire or loose it at the point of a gun.I think they would have been fairly hard to stop and given US isolationism at that time,if they didn't venture into the US hemisphere(i.e. South America ,or try to disrupt the Asian trade routes),I'm not sure America would have came into a 'conflict ' with the two powers.Of course the US would have ahd to 'militarize' the North American continent,no doubt.
A German-British alliance in 1913 brings Austria and Italy with it. Same with Turkey and Portugal. Sweden was pretty pro-German at the time, and Norway was pro-British. Denmark and the Netherlands are so close to both alliance partners they are brought over, too.
Russia and France shouldnt take more than, say, 2-3 years.
Another 10 years of build-up, and the alliance can begin taking on the US.
Anglo-German alliance would still be very weak compared to USA potentially. Also, the only way any Anglo-German alliance could be world's strongest, would be to have an empire like the British empire. However, there is a difference when the bulk of your raw materials is being produced by a hostile oppressed population (which, if they want to, can just stop working and bring your entire empire to its knees), and when the bulk of your raw materials are being produced in your land, by your own people. That is why, the USA would have always been ahead of the game of the Europeans. America is dependent on nobody for staying ahead of the game. Britain needed its colonies in order to compete.
In an all-out war between the US and Anglo-German, all the US would need to do would be simply have all colonies stop functioning, and Europe without its colonies is reduced to nothing.
In that time, America wasnt the big player it is nowadays, they gained a lot of strengh through the first world War, because all European Powers had big debts, and the gold from England went to America. If Germany and its Colonies and Britain worked together, they could have conquered Europe together. (Germany could almost do it alone as the first World War had shown, imagine it without British and American help)
---------------------------------------------
A German Soldier doesnt die, he goes to hell and regroups !
@Henrik
I wouldn't be so sure if Italy would have joined Germany and the British Empire (and Austria). I mean, Italy already made a secret alliance with France after growing tensions with Austria and Germany (because they rejected Italy's invasion of Turkish Libya.
‘‘Italy unfortunately has been long excluded from the number of European powers. If Italians today are worthy of resuming their rights, someday they will see their country arise with glory among the powers of the earth.’’--Napoleone Buonaparte
Italy is surrounded by the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy rules the Mediterranean. That makes a pretty convincing argument for joining the Germans and British, no??
What Italy made an agreement with was a France allied to both Russia and Great Britain. If you take Great Britain away and add it to Italys official allies (Germany and Austria), you make a rather convincing argument for going that way.
2) Colonies
Contrary to popular myth, colonial possessions are generally a net loss. Not to begin with - thats why it was created at all -, but over time by the continuous accumulation of territory that had to be garrisoned, administered and developed, but didnt give off any profit.
Take India. Bengal might have given a profit, but continuous fighting led to the aquisition of such worthless pieces of real estate as the NW Frontier Province. Those were a drag, and created a net drag on England. The finances of the Indian government were generally on balance, and India was running huge trade surpluses with the rest of the world.
While nice for India, it really wasnt good for England in the long run. And England even had time to actually get a few colonies that were surplus areas, like Malaya and Trinidad. Germany didnt, and was thus left with what is today Namibia, for example.
In 1913, both the UK and Germany independently were more powerful militarily than the US. A combined UK-German axis would have compounded that even more.
If you are talking about total global domination, then I think that is rather unrealistic. If, however, you are talking about a global hedgemony, where you own enough of the land, and rule over enough of the people in each continent, that your influence is practically absolute, then this was definitely possible.
Conquering Europe would have been the main problem, but then we are talking about the number one superpower attacking from the west, and the challenging powerhouse Germany penetrating from the east and centre.
I think France would have been the key, but also, possibly the easiest victory in Europe. Not because it would have been a push over, but because it was in an impossible position between the two powers, and it was a major civilised country with a central government, making it easier to control after invasion. The Balkans, like today would have been the problem.
Once France was taken, you have their worldwide territories. By now, most of Africa is yours, with further parts of the middle east and Asia.
Yea, you think france would sit and watch you. We would have totally changed strategy. When the enemy frightened your own existence, everyone in the nation is a warrior. If the entire europe has frightened france we would have kicked their @ss as we have done before during the wars of the coalition and during Louis the Sun King reign. As long as we have russia on out side, this is all that we needed. France would have turned in a military society.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
A German-Anglo alliance would certainly have been able to establish a global hegemony, but it wouldn't have been able to invade and occupy the United States. The United States is a massive landmass, and we are talking about a day and age when armies mostly slogged it out on foot, and before the invention of the tank. That makes the chances of successfully invading the US all the more difficult, especially when you have an extremely nationalistic local population that is armed to the teeth.
It probably wouldn't do much in the way of curbing Anglo-German hegemony, but an invasion of the US would become a quagmire and end in defeat for the Germans & Brits.
The American Marine Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments.
---Mao Tse Sung to General Song, prior to Chosin Reservoir
I certainly think europe would eventually be
conquered, with russia being the biggest problem.
As for the states, well the german and royal navy would
have supremacy but it would be hard to disrupt their industry.
And where could the anglo-germans use as a staging post?.
Im guessing that the states would attempt to take canada beforehand??. Hmm i guess a crafty build up of forces in canada wile offering the hand of friendship to the us might work>?
I think most of Western Europe would have been easily conquered (France would have been the hardest, but given what actually happened the year later in WW1 France would have fallen to combined UK and German forces). Russia could be negotiated with (and left ot its own very serious problems),
The trick would be to follow the pattern used by Britian in colonial times, i.e. conqueor one area and then raise troops there and use them to invade the next area. Blatantly UK and Germany combined didn't have manpower necessary to occupy large number of countries, but UK was running an empire that outnumbered the Britihs soldiers many times over, however recruiting troops from one country and using them to invade / occupy another one was extremely effective.
Next stage would be to consolidate hold over Africa (using the large numbers of exisiting British + some German colonies plus those 'inherited' from the conqueroed European countries (especially Belgium and France), would already control the majority of the continent and the remaining countries would have been relatively easy.
That would give a vast pool of manpower that could be enlisted in the colonial army.
After that the middle east, I think most of it was already under British control? so could negotiate with Austrio-Hungary / Turkey for them to occupy northern areas, the remaining few countries would be relatively easy.
After that Asia, at the time UK already had India, Singapore and Hong Kong (and I think Malaysia and Burma?) + very good relationship with Australia.
Japan had already invaded China and they were fighting a protracted war, Russia had been fighting Japan (over some northern islands) so UK/Germany could stand off and watch those 3 fight it out.
By then US would have probably had to annex Canada and agreed defensive agreements with south America.
So UK and Germany wouldn't be able to conqueror the world ( would live the Americas, Eastern Europe, Russia, China and Japan as independent (and major) power but given some luck UK and Germany would have gone a long way.................
Of course funamentally this couldn't have happened as UK and Germany would disagree over who controlled what. Maybe if the Kaiser had met an 'accident' and a closer relation to UK's Royal Family had been appointed ruler of Germany then they could have worked things out.
Kaiser Wilhelm remarks toward England are contradictory. He greatly enjoys the time he spends there, and commends England plenty, yet he mentions that if they intefere with Germany right to "a place under the sun," that they will be forced to act decisively.
I forget where, but I read the major issue with an alliance was that Germany would play a junior role in it, and that is why they did not come together.
lol at Erxy. "If you had joined together, we wouldnt have just sat back and let you".
Well judging by history, you would. WW1 and WW2.
About the 'fiercly nationalistic' America. This would have been no more a factor in the US than anywhere else. I wouldnt say the US is any more nationalistic than anyone else, particularly in such a scenario.
The aim isnt particularly invasion, but influence. As long as the US doesnt grow into a threat to the alliance, and remains subordinate, the Anglo-German aims would be met in North America.
Partition of the US would have been a possiblity. Breaking the country down instead of treating it as a central country would have been more effective. No matter how large the US is, the vast majority of the population live on, or close to the East coast. If the east coast was focused on, the ability of America to counter would be seriously diminshed.
With the country severly weakened, a large standing force could be stationed in Canada, and naval blockades preventing foreign trade and investment, US growth would be massively hampered while the Anglo-German hedgemony grows worldwide, along with their respective economies and industrial output.
--------
"I bet you five bucks I can hit that house"
"SCORE!"
Just wanted to make one small point: if this alliance will happen...you'll need to roll back the date of its establishment to the Conference of Algesiras in 1906. At that conference Britain firmly sided with France against Germany in order to assert French claims to Morocco. That cemented a sort of tacit agreement of cooperation and support between the British and French (this had been building since the 1890's) and Wilhelm's plan to split this nations failed (so did his plan to bring the United States in on his side...President Roosevelt knew he was trouble).
For an Anglo-German Alliance to be formed by 1913 this is the time to do it...Britian wasn't firmly with France yet and German was receptive to isolating one of the two nations.
If you read Mein Kampf, you will see how pro-British Hitler was. In fact, in page 688, he says that he would India under British rule, than self-rule. That little son of a bitch.
Hitler was a European white supremacist. He is careful to say anything anti-Mussolini or anything anti-Japanese in the Mein Kampf. He says that Britain and Germany should join in a crusade against Bolshevism, America and France. To him, America and France were "negrified", and he despised the French liberals who didn't care for the European strain of blood as long as France stayed up. As for Arabs, he calls them just above monkeys and Jews.
U.S,France and Russia would have armed anglo-german colonies and third world countries to the teeth, the british empire and German colonies would have ceased to exist.
A USA-USSR is always superior to Anglo-German alliance due to potential. And we saw how the sleeping giants reacted when they awoke in WW2. We saw what happened in Stalingrad, what would happen in Moscow would be worse.
Russia has strategic depth. They can scorch-and-burn everything from Europe to Siberia, and then hit back.
As for invading American land, that is a wet dream. How do you propose to blockade America's massive coastline? What will happen if you do blockade America? America is totally self-sufficient. You blockade all of America's Atlantic harbors, they will make ships in California (first get around Panama Canal).
If the war is allowed to go on for 20 years, the victory of USA-USSR is inevitable.
The US navy at this time was small, very small compard to a combined high seas fleet / grand fleet they would have been swept form the seas or Compenhagend.
The US could out produce them, if the allies gave them enough time which they would not, same thing with the Soviet Union
In fact the US was anti Soviet, they sent troops to help the Whites why would they even help them? If the allies made it look like a crusade againt communisum untill after the SU was defeted the US would have been cheering them from the sidelines. The allies could have switched atention the the US afterwards, devide and conqure
In fact the US was anti Soviet, they sent troops to help the Whites why would they even help them? If the allies made it look like a crusade againt communisum untill after the SU was defeted
"A USA-USSR is always superior to Anglo-German alliance due to potential. And we saw how the sleeping giants reacted when they awoke in WW2. We saw what happened in Stalingrad, what would happen in Moscow would be worse."
We beat Russia in WWI with a secondary effort. Yes, Russia is big, but it has a big disadvantage you can exploit. It is a multiethnical construct and all those countries beside Russia don't like this at all. That's what we did. Incite rebellions and come as a liberator and the Baltic, the Ukraine and Belorussia will even support you against their occupiers.
"Russia has strategic depth. They can scorch-and-burn everything from Europe to Siberia, and then hit back."
Without European Russia, the nation counts for nothing, especially as early as 1914. Capture Petersburg and the Ukraine and they will beg for peace.
"As for invading American land, that is a wet dream. How do you propose to blockade America's massive coastline?"
Wrong question, instead how does the US blockade the Canadian coast with a far smaller navy to prohibit convoys carrying invasion troops?
" What will happen if you do blockade America? America is totally self-sufficient. You blockade all of America's Atlantic harbors, they will make ships in California (first get around Panama Canal)."
Aside from the very high probability that Japan will stab the US in the back to gain Hawaii during such a war, I doubt any nation could outbuild the UK during these times. Look at their infrastructure. And they' ve got Germany with the second best infrastructure as an ally.
"If the war is allowed to go on for 20 years, the victory of USA-USSR is inevitable."
Russia will break apart in 2-3 years and the US will be lucky not to lose any territory other than their islands.
I try May, why cause yourself problems when you dont have too??
Hell lots of people consider the Empier to be some big bad evil thing created by design, they don't understand it was esentialy an accident. If we had rearly been bent on world domination we could have done a hell of a lot more then we did!
"How exactly? this alliance would own the seas, nothing would move if they didn't want it to. Can you say blockade?"
If only Germany and Britain had a combined force of 5 million ships to block off the U.S from Africa,Middle east and asia, then yes a blockade would have worked wonders.
Also can you say Russia has land borders with asia?
-------------------------------------
This message has been edited by DevanT on Jun 11, 2004 9:06 AM
your missing the devide and rule concept, the US was not in love with the Soviets. If the allies spun the war against Russia corectly they would have had the US chearing them on from the sidelines. Liberateing the opressed masses and all that after Russia has fallen (and it will with no outside help) then they are back to one potential threat axis and why invade the US at all? As long as they don't make trouble in Asia and Africa, or try anything stupid against Canada we would be happy to leave Johnathon alone. But if Jonathon was a bad boy he would be in trouble
Divide and rule can be used opposite way as well, US and USSR will unite in fight against imperialism (and even now, Americans have anti-monarch sentiments).
That the United States actually sent units of the United States Army into Russia at a time especially critical in Russian history, the first months of the Russian Civil War, no one disputes. That these soldiers, three regiments to Northern Russia, to the Russian ports of Murmansk and Archangel, and one division, some 8500 men, to Vladivostok on the Sea of Japan, engaged in combat with elements of the Red Guard and the Red Army is also not disputed. That these soldiers, especially those sent to Siberia, actively assisted the anti-Bolshevik forces in the area in various and numerous non-combatant ways, thus liberating them for combat against the Bosheviks, is also generally agreed upon.
The question that American historians have attempted to resolve has had nothing to do with the fact of "intervention," or invasion, depending upon your point of view, but with the motivation behind those two military expeditions and the policy of which they were a manifestation.
I have already stated the traditional interpretation; let me add a few specifics. It has been argued that the American President, Woodrow Wilson, and his various key advisors, "abhorred the very thought of intervention." The United States, this argument insists, intervened only after considerable prodding by its allies, and then only to assist in the evacuation of the Czech Legion from Siberia, to prevent the Germans from seizing essential war materials, and finally to keep a watch upon the Japanese – who were also intervening in Siberia.
This interpretation maintains that the intervention continued for sixteen months after the end of the First World War because of indecision, confusion and inertia on the part of American leaders – and not because of any sinister, imperialistic or anti-Bolshevik intent.
In recent years, various American historians have challenged that traditional argument. Without doubt the most important and influential of these historians is Professor William Appleman Williams, to whose insight, scholarship and fundamental humanism this writer and this article are indebted. Williams’ books, as well as those by other "revisionist" authorities are included in the "selected bibliography," but special attention should be given to his article "American Intervention in Russia: 1917-1920," in Containment and Revolution, edited by David Horowitz.
When in November of 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power, the initial American response was non-recognition of the new government. Some years earlier, in relation to the Mexican Revolution, President Wilson had instituted a new principle in American diplomacy – the principle of non-recognition. That is, the United States would extend its diplomatic recognition and blessing not upon the traditional concept of recognizing the de facto government as the de jure government, but instead upon the rather original notion of personal acceptance by the President. Since Wilson did not approve of either the Bolsheviks or the way in which they came to power, the United States would not grant diplomatic recognition to the new Soviet government.
It is also true that under the moral and political guidance of Woodrow Wilson, the United States had militarily intervened previously in Haiti, Nicaragua, and Dominican Republic and Mexico. Now these earlier military interventions in no way prove that Wilson had determined to intervene in Russia in response to the Bolshevik revolution; on the other hand, however, these earlier military interventions do indicate that the American President obviously did not oppose on principle military interventions in other countries.
Both President Wilson and his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, were fundamentally opposed to the Bolshevik revolution; however when the President and other members of the administration publicly attacked the Bolsheviks, in November of 1917, the British government advised the U.S. that "any overt step taken against the Bolsheviks might only strengthen their determination to make peace [with Germany] and might be used to influence anti-Allied feeling in Russia."
Colonel Edward House, a personal advisor to the President, added his suggestion that criticism be suppressed, as "it will throw Russia into the lap of Germany if the allies and ourselves express such views at this time." Accepting this advice, Wilson and Lansing ceased their attacks upon the Bolsheviks for being communists, and began to describe them in terms of "German intrigue," both of them knowing that this was not true. Thus, for a time, the leaders of the administration used two different descriptions in reference to the Bolsheviks: in public, they were referred to as German agents, while in private, they were called "dangerous social revolutionaries."
The Bolsheviks, Lansing wrote in a private memorandum to Wilson, on December 7, 1918, pose "a direct threat at existing social order in all countries." He urged upon the President that "the correct policy for a government which believes in political institutions as they now exist and based on nationality and private property is to leave these dangerous idealists alone and have no direct dealings with them." While this continues to be the basis of United States’ foreign policy toward militant communists, December 7, 1918, was but one month after the Bolshevik seizure of power. Not only was their power not consolidated, but they had yet to do anything that the United States – or President Wilson – might oppose. American opposition was on ideological grounds; it was because these new leaders of Russia were communists.
The public charge that the Bolsheviks were agents of German Imperialism enabled the President to dismiss Lenin, Trotsky and the other leaders of the Soviet regime as legitimate products of the Russian Revolution. As you probably know from somewhere in your reading of American History, Woodrow Wilson on several occasions proclaimed his adherence to the principle of self-determination – that is, that each and every nation has the right to determine its own form or system of government. To be publicly consistent, Wilson had to phrase his opposition to the Bolsheviks in terms of foreign intrigue in the affairs in Russia. The Bolsheviks, according to Wilson, were violating the principle of self-determination, not he – they were the agents of German Imperialism.
INTERVENTION
Shortly after Lansing wrote his private memorandum to President Wilson, rumors reached the United States that several Tsarist generals had organized armed opposition to the Soviets in the south of Russia. The Secretary of State then proposed that the Secretary of State then proposed that the U.S. support "a military dictatorship backed by loyal troops." And on the night of December 11, 1917, Wilson and Lansing spent an hour and twenty minutes going over the Russian situation, finally deciding to extend aid to the rumored anti-Bolshevik forces. In fact, the next day, Lansing approached the Secretary of the Treasury, William Gibbs McAdoo, and officially requested the necessary funds.
In other words, the United States, independent of its associated allies, and knowing full well from reports of their own people in Russia that the Bolsheviks were not agents of the German government, had decided to intervene in the Russian Revolution on the side of the anti-Bolsheviks, and in support of a "military dictatorship." The actual American intervention did not take place then, in December, 1917. Those rumored Tsarist generals proved to be generals without soldiers, and the United States had to wait until a more suitable military force arose in opposition to the Bolsheviks. That suitable military force came later, in 1918, and the United States then intervened. The point that must be made here is that as early as December 11, 1917, only one month after the Bolshevik seizure of power, the President of the United States had decided in principle on intervention in Russia.
The predicament facing President Wilson was a common enough one: he wanted to intervene against the Bolsheviks, but he had to phrase the intervention operation in terms that would not force the mass of Russians to enthusiastically support the new Soviet government, or drive the Soviet government and the Russian people into the arms of the Germans, with whom the United States was still at war.
Proof of this contention can be found in the American opposition to a Japanese proposal for intervention in late December, 1917— when Lansing told the Japanese ambassador that "it would be unwise for either the United States or Japan to send troops to Vladivostok as it would undoubtedly result in the unifying of the Russians under the Bolsheviks against foreign intervention."
Additional evidence of the essential and primary bias against the Bolsheviks in motivating American intervention came in the first month of 1918, when American military advisors in Russia urged the United States government to assist the Bolsheviks in resisting the continuing German advance -- with whom Russia was still at war. Then, in February, the French government formally asked the United States if it would join with France in a general collaboration with the Bolsheviks, against the Germans.
Lansing, after submitting the formal French request to Wilson, later penciled the notation upon it: "This is out of the question. Submitted to the President who says the same thing." That was February 19, 1918. In Moscow, a few days later, the Bolshevik Central Committee voted to accept assistance from the allies if it was offered --Lenin himself cast the tie-breaking vote. And on March 5, Lenin and Trotsky gave to Raymond Robins, an official of the American Red Cross mission in Russia, a specific inquiry about the possibility of beginning talks concerning United States aid to Soviet Russia.
It seems clear that had the United States government been more anti-German than it was anti-Bolshevik, February and March, 1918, would have been the time to demonstrate some. As Professor William A. Williams has correctly observed, "American leaders were of course interested in re-establishing resistance to the Germans on the eastern front, but they were not sufficiently anti-German to overcome their anti-Bolshevism." Without assistance, the Bolsheviks had to seek peace with the Germans. Their decision to accept the heavy demands of Germany in order to gain peace and, in their minds, to save the revolution, set in motion a series of events, leading to armed intervention by over a dozen nations, the United States included, and one of the most brutal and costly civil wars in history.
By the terms of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in March of 1918, Russia had to give up one-third of her farm lands, half of her industrial strength, and some 60 million people. But even more serious than this loss, for this was a loss that could be recovered later, with the recovery of Russia, was the intense opposition of many Bolshevik and Socialist Revolutionary allies of the Soviet leaders to the terms of the treaty. Then, refusing to recognize the Treaty, British, French, and Japanese troops landed in Russia: The British and French, in Murmansk and Archangel; the Japanese, in Vladivostok. By May, the Socialist Revolutionaries were in open political opposition to the Bolsheviks, arming, and aligning themselves with the interventionists. Also in May, began the conflict in Siberia between the Czech Legion and the Bolsheviks, the conflict that precipitated the civil war.
With the withdrawal of Russia from the war against Germany, the 40,000 strong Czech Legion, which had been fighting with the Russians against the Germans, began a slow retreat eastward, through the Ukraine, and then into Siberia. The allies had decided to remove the Czechs from the port of Vladivostok and transport them around the world to the western front in France, but on their way across Siberia on the Trans-Siberian railroad, conflicts developed between them and the Bolshevik officials along the route -- conflicts which by May had become open warfare. The Czechs succeeded in defeating the local Bolsheviks and seized control of the entire Trans-Siberian, from western Siberia to and including the city of Vladivostok itself. Then, around the towns and cities in the hands of the Czechs, sprang up armed bands of Socialist Revolutionaries who joined the opposition to the Bolsheviks. Encouraged by British, French, and American agents, the Czechs and S.R.’s established two independent governments in Siberia.
Wilson was becoming impatient, probably because the Japanese were making louder and louder noises about intervention, and Wilson did not want the Japanese to gain control of that which was to be taken from the Bolsheviks. At the end of may, 1918, and before he had learned of the fighting between the Bolsheviks and the Czechs, Wilson told a British representative that he was prepared to "go as far as intervention against the wishes of the Russian people knowing it was eventually for their good, provided he thought the scheme had any practical chance of success." He was sill opposed to unilateral Japanese intervention, stating that he felt this might antagonize the non-Bolsheviks in Russia. He then told the English, "We must watch the situation carefully and sympathetically and be ready to move whenever the right time arrives."
On June 2, the president received information about the fighting between Czechs and Bolsheviks in Siberia. A paper then prepared by an Assistant Secretary of State for Lansing pointed out that since the Czechs were antagonistic to the Bolsheviks, they would be "available to be used as a military expedition to overcome Bolshevik influence, and under Allied guidance to restore order." One week later, Lansing became concerned about the increasing public and newspaper discussion of the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Russia, and he offered to Wilson an ingenious proposal – he suggested that Herbert Hoover, the Food Administrator of the Wilson Administration, take charge of an economic mission that would in turn provide a sort of excuse for military intervention before this work had begun."
In July, the final decision to intervene was made; in August, United States troops landed in Vladivostok, others reaching Archangel the following month. The United States had begun its participation in the Russian Civil War.
This essay does not argue that the United States was the prime mover or initiator of the Allied "intervention" or invasion of Russia. Neither is it my contention that the United States was the principle financial backer of the anti-Bolshevik forces; Great Britain, once again, holds that dubious distinction. Rather, it has been my argument that the United States acted in essentials no differently than the rest of the interventionists, and that the primary motivation in that intervention was the desire to destroy the newly established Bolshevik regime – to put a stop to the Russian Revolution.
The last American troops left Russian soil for the United States on April 1, 1920, one year and four months after the end of the First World War, one year and four months after any need to combat either German Imperialism or German intrigue – and it must be added, only after the last major anti-Bolshevik force had been destroyed.
It is true that the number of American soldiers involved in the intervention or invasion were too few to be effective in defeating the Bolsheviks. President Wilson even apologized for this small number to Winston Churchill at the Versailles peace Conference, telling him, "Conscripts could not be sent and volunteers probably could not be obtained." He felt guilty, he told Churchill, that the United States had in Russia insufficient forces, but, he insisted, it was not possible to increase them.
Secretary of State Lansing’s explanation to a close personal friend was, "I wish you to know that it was not lack of sympathy which prevented the employment of a large active force in Siberia...We were bound hand and foot by the circumstances."
Trust me if the allies spun the war corectly there would have been no US intervention to save the Sovite Union. Look at how oposed the Americans were to the october revolution
The notion that an Anglo-Germanic alliance could invade the United States is farcically absurd. The United States, even back then, was Economically and industrially MANY times more powerful than both Germany and Britain. Any invasion would have had to come through Canada, and the buildup that we saw wouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the buildup began, we would have heavily militarized... and we all know what happens when the US starts to militarize.
Aside from the fact that your supply chain will be many thousands of miles long... and that you will be invading a nation with a gigantic landmass, large population, which is fiercly nationalistic, and, as a result of the 2nd ammendment, armed to the teeth... you wont be able to devote your full strength to the invasion, because you have to maintain your colonies, and deter any French or Russian "cheekiness."
An Anglo-German axis could easily dominate Europe... Russia included. But definitely not America.
United We Stand.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Thats my point if the two could leave each other alone they could live in harmony prety much, some one was going on about the us invadeing Canada if the Germans and Brits did a job in Europe and Russia but why would the US become involved? It took long enough for them to enter WWI for god sake, why would they fall overthemseves saveing the French and Russians (who they were ideologicly oposed too anyway). Yes they were anti colonial but I cant see them pissing of the new order in Europe buy supying weapons to independence movements in Africa/Asia or invadeing Canada. I can see them trying to do something in South America to keep out any medeling from Europe, some kind of mutual trade/defence pact?
There was war plan Red of course, but how realistic that was I dont know
'The notion that an Anglo-Germanic alliance could invade the United States is farcically absurd. The United States, even back then, was Economically and industrially MANY times more powerful than both Germany and Britain. Any invasion would have had to come through Canada, and the buildup that we saw wouldn't be ignored.
As soon as the buildup began, we would have heavily militarized... and we all know what happens when the US starts to militarize.
Aside from the fact that your supply chain will be many thousands of miles long... and that you will be invading a nation with a gigantic landmass, large population, which is fiercly nationalistic, and, as a result of the 2nd ammendment, armed to the teeth... you wont be able to devote your full strength to the invasion, because you have to maintain your colonies, and deter any French or Russian "cheekiness."
An Anglo-German axis could easily dominate Europe... Russia included. But definitely not America.'
A combined british and german economy of 1913 would have been stronger anglo.An invasion through either canada OR mexico would have been very feasible.In 1913,in comparison to european armies the US army was a load of ****e.Just think,after the lusitania was sunk in 1915,the US started preparing for war,when US troops first saw action 3 years later(april 1918),they were largely equipped with british or french weapons,from rifles to clothing,tanks,biplanes,helmets etc etc Quite simply the US military was not self suffiecent.oh and not only was it badly equipped,it was also tiny.Roughly 140000 men i think?
'As soon as the buildup began, we would have heavily militarized... and we all know what happens when the US starts to militarize.'
No,we all know what happens when a US economy thousands of miles away from a battle front bursts into life.But with german and british forces invading from either the north or south your industry would shrink in size.Just like in 1814 when your economy nearly collasped....
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Anglo German Alliance 1913
June 12 2004, 10:54 AM
Invasion would be difficult and of course would be putting an immense strain on our economies. We would have to ferry millions of troops to Canada.
I would propose the following:
- Streghten the Carribean patrols and rout the US navy from there.
- Invasion of Hawaii and the Philippines (Japanese help would be nice from a logistics POV). We could promise them the Philippines after that.
- Go on the defense in Canada.
- Block the main ports.
The US mal have had great potential already in 1914, but not enough to defeat the combined Empires. Not to mention that these Empires would now also have the resources of France and Russia. Not to mention the vast financial superiority. Enormous amounts of wealth in the US for instance were owned by German and British businessmen. America during WWI had serious problems with manufacturing weapons such as artillery or fighters. They had to use French ones.
Let the US bleed itself on the Canadian border while we cut off all trade and grab their colonies.
hmm i dont know if germany/britain would have been able to invade both europe/russia and the USA.That would be pushing it in imo...
about the caribean islands,thats a good point.Britain already had a couple of colonies down there.So the RN would beable to stay close to supplies.I definatly think an invasion through mexico would be worth a shot aswell.A german/british/mexican force invading from the south could gain a lot of ground very quickly.
There is not even a shred of doubt about this. An Anglo-German alliance is 1913 would, if desired, secure total world domination including the total destruction of both the Russian Empire and the USA.
To think otherwise would be looking at 1913 with 1944 spectacles. Let's give the Brits and Germans some credit. The alliance would probably remain secret so as not to alarm the French and Russians. Everyone would think the British had retreated back into Splendid Isolation. Perhaps the Brits would have provided only naval support in the initial stages against France with the BEF ready to enter the scrum if necessary. I don't think the alliance would strike out without some kind of justification, manufactured or otherwise. Remember, Russia mobilised first in WWI forcing everybody's hand.
First target. France would fall easily against just Germany's forces. No BEF would leave a hole in France's line or fatally thin it out (arguably the Germans should have taken France out in 1914 anyway - see Barnett's Swordbearers). British naval blockade hardly necessary as it should be a lightning victory.
Russia too would be easy. Russia lost WWI against a German Second XI. Imagine what would happen with a combined British and German First XI. The Japanese, as British allies, may have been persuaded to invade the Russian Far East too (remember, after the Bolsheviks took over, the Japanese occupied huge areas of Siberia for some time). I cannot recall a single WWI battle in which the Russians defeated the Germans (I'm not talking about the Austrians here).
With Russia and France gone, the entire world apart from the USA and Latin America is under Anglo-German control or influence (China at this point being totally prostrate). So would the USA fall? If the US fully mobilises and transforms its economy to a war footing in the year tops that the Anglo-German alliance would need to dominate the rest of the world, then maybe.
But somehow I doubt it. We must remember that Canadian troops could be mobilised (as they were in WWI and WWII to significant effect). These would form at least a reinforced corps and perhaps up to army strength. While Germany is defeating France, the Brits could transfer at least a corps to Canada. I think this would dissuade a pre-emptive US attack. After all, the US did not attack Japan even after its key ally in Asia was attacked, the Panay sunk etc. The US is generally not good at warding off threats in advance and needs symbolic events to gee up the populace (Pearl Harbor, the Maine etc). The US did not even have the guts and determination to take out Pancho Villa for God's sake.
After Russia has fallen the screws can be turned on the US. Mexico is hardly friendly and could with some encouragement be brought in against the US. If the US invades Mexico even better; it would take key troops away from the theatre of decision. Germany could move over an army group to Canada quite leisurely given the threat of US invasion has been countered. The Brits could form an army group with the Canadian and Indian troops. I should think two army groups should be sufficient to take out the eastern US. With the eastern US gone, all of the US would fall into their lap.
"I should think two army groups should be sufficient to take out the eastern US. With the eastern US gone, all of the US would fall into their lap. "
What kind of Army group? How many soldiers.
Really, I see the main thrust theatre being on the Atlantic shore. Fight down from Halifax to Washington. Use the naval superiority to bombard the Americans. Mexico would be a diversion attack since the Eastern USA matters most. I can also see armies of Ukrainians and Austrians in the fight, since they are basically puppets of Germany. The key problem is how to beat the US. WWI tech immensly favours the defense, so this strategy in Canada seems wiser, but on the other hand this gives the US time to mobilise.
very intresting if some what unrealistic story line but very very detaied, it deals with a British/German pre WWII aliance. The quality of the writeing is rearly very good and they coveer the wole story month by month right up to today
It's quite interesting, but there are a few holes in the tale. I think the idea that technology would be about 40 years behind what it is at currently is all wrong. Rocket testing only beginning in the 21st century? Gimme a break. The Germans would have had rocket technology in the 50s or 60s given that they did not speed up production of the V1 and V2 to fire against Britain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Coming to a Theatre of War soon...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yes there are holes hes rearly goes in for the whole "no world war 2 retarded tech development" thing at misslie tech is a part of that. I do agree the Germans would be much more advanced then that, and I have a bit of a problem with how fast the Soviet Union was pacified as well
but I do think its a good read and it looks like the site is updated every few months, I have read upto September 2003 which was just added so very much a work in rogress it would seem.
Yup, also the fact that Rommel replaced Hitler. What was that? Rommel was not a Nazi. It would have been nice if they went into the concentration camps aswell and what happened there. Presumably they did solve the "Jewish question"?
I'd also like to see what equipment they're talking about. The military section is badly laid out imho and is not categorised into countries.
But then again i nit pick Enjoyable though
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK Coming to a Theatre of War soon...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK -06-02-2003%5Dnew%20carrier.jpg)
-15-02-2002]T45_v4_print%20A.jpg)
-16-07-2001%5Dastute6_200.jpg)
