America post CP victory

Alright here goes. So the Central Powers can seize victory in 1917/1918, likely during either the Spring offensive or one of the French mutinies. So what becomes of American foreign and domestic policy?​

On the foreign front, the US will have to share the globe with:
  • the rebuilding but incredibly powerful Germany
  • a right/left revanchist France
  • potentially fascism in Italy and Spain
  • Japanese expansion into East and North or South Asia
  • Ottoman survival (good chance IMO) and discovery of oil in their territories
  • China collapsing
  • Russia collapsing, with the Bolsheviks potentially still taking power
  • and a disgruntled but still strong British empire
  • no Nazis, and therefore likely no Euro theatre of ww2, but maybe Trotsky or Stalin or a fascist Russia pushing into MittleEuropa as an equivalent?
  • Lastly, Latin American intervention is very probable to still occur
So all in all, where does America seek its alliances? where are her rivalries? Or will it be even more isolationist than OTL?

Now for the domestic field, what social changes, cultural shifts, and laws are passed ITTL? There's a wide array of topics to consider including:
  • Jim Crow and southern segregation, still occurring around the same time? earlier? or even later?
  • I imagine that women's sufferage still comes to being, but what about second-wave feminism without ww2?
  • Does the midwest's enormous german population still assimilate under heavy pressure?
  • I've read that without Versailles, the stock market crash of 1929 is much less likely, so how does the nation proceed without the great depression? Also without the new deal or most of the other policies invented by FDR to combat the depression? IE social security, unemployment benefits, and the federal reserve and more.
  • Mass immigration from S+E Europe and other places, does the 1924 quota/restriction still get enacted?
  • and everyone's favorite subject, healthcare...
Sorry for another massive word dump, but given that there's a century of politics to discuss, I'd say this warrants it. Secondly, while I understand that many of these events won't crop up for 20+years, the great war did plant the seeds for the rest of human history so given all the subsequent butterflies, so I think it's worth bringing them up.
Have at it.
 
Without WW2 civil right movement would appear later, probably it would begin rise in 1960's or early 1970's.
 

Riain

Banned
The 1916 Defense and Naval Acts lay the groundwork for the US to face a more hostile world in the event of the CP victory.
 
Alright here goes. So the Central Powers can seize victory in 1917/1918, likely during either the Spring offensive or one of the French mutinies. So what becomes of American foreign and domestic policy?​

On the foreign front, the US will have to share the globe with:
  • the rebuilding but incredibly powerful Germany
  • a right/left revanchist France
  • potentially fascism in Italy and Spain
  • Japanese expansion into East and North or South Asia
  • Ottoman survival (good chance IMO) and discovery of oil in their territories
  • China collapsing
  • Russia collapsing, with the Bolsheviks potentially still taking power
  • and a disgruntled but still strong British empire
  • no Nazis, and therefore likely no Euro theatre of ww2, but maybe Trotsky or Stalin or a fascist Russia pushing into MittleEuropa as an equivalent?
  • Lastly, Latin American intervention is very probable to still occur
So all in all, where does America seek its alliances? where are her rivalries? Or will it be even more isolationist than OTL?

To your points:
  • A so late victory has a potentially incredibly powerful Germany. But that Germany is decades away to even dream of realising its potential. Its society was very near breaking point and it has huge issues at home to solve - while at the same time maintaining the system it created in Europe. Including propping up A-H or manage its downfall. Whatever happens it will be costly if Germany gets involved. Point is a lot has to go right for Germany to realise that potential.
  • And how is a right revanschist France different to pre WWI France? Even if it goes batshit crazy it wont be aimed at the USA. I also doubt Germany would let it go the same shade of crazy (red) as Russia. Its number 1 priority is to prevent another Franco-Russian alliance and if both are red thats a serious danger.
  • Italy, Spain, Japan, Russia, China: OTL
For the british - and partly to France - the question is what lessons the americans draw from WWI.
They can go back to isolationism. Germany - however strong in Europe - is no real threat to them. Its the most likely scenario IMO.
If they decide that Germany is a threat there are 2 paths:
1. Build up the fleet. Could work together in this regard with the british. Would achive security easily as the last thing Germany will have money for is the Fleet. Especially as it did not have a stellar showing during the war. If Germany does manage to consolidate its hegemony on the continent and plays its cards right (a big If) it might be in a position for another naval arms race maybe in the 30's. But if the British and the Americans are allied Germany has no chance whatsoever to win this.
2. If the americans take a much more aggresive path they could decide to prop up France. I think this is unlikely as the USA would need to invest a lot of money after loosing a war and thats very unlikely. But if they decide so they could make it work.

But I think that it would be in Germanies best interest to normalise relations with the USA as soon as possible and I do think they would go out of their way to achive this after the war - and depending of how they make the approach (letting Willy with his anti Midas touch of diplomacy go anywhere near it could ruin the best intentioned attempts) - it would likely work. There are no conflicting interest between the USA and Germany.

I cant comment on the domestic questions.
 
Russia is likely to be a Neo-Tsarist regime beholden to the Germans; Berlin had been planning a final, decisive strike against the Bolsheviks since at least June of 1918 IOTL. Much more pressing then the rise of Germany for the United States is going to be the collapse of the British Empire; the UK itself is very likely to fall to Bolshevism. The status of Canada and Australia (New Zealand too!) are going to be serious factors in consideration.

Finally, the U.S. is likely to get into a Second Mexican War in 1919:
Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Interventionist Movement of 1919
1919: William Jenkins, Robert Lansing, and the Mexican Interlude
Tempest in a Teapot? The Mexican-United States Intervention Crisis of 1919
 
I've read that without Versailles, the stock market crash of 1929 is much less likely, so how does the nation proceed without the great depression?
If anything a second long recession Is coming when a bankrupt France stall His consumption and Will be More localized.


Mass immigration from S+E Europe and other places, does the 1924 quota/restriction still get enacted?
Yes as those always were targeted against asians
 
If anything a second long recession Is coming when a bankrupt France stall His consumption and Will be More localized.
After a CP victory France would go bankrupt long before 1929, as in when all most US loans to the Entente powers were secured ones with collateral. A milder debt crisis followed by a recession in the 20s might just be the kind of mild flu, that while painful strenghtenes the immune system in the long run.
 
Much more pressing then the rise of Germany for the United States is going to be the collapse of the British Empire; the UK itself is very likely to fall to Bolshevism. The status of Canada and Australia (New Zealand too!) are going to be serious factors in consideration.

Why would the British Empire fall? Even more questionable is why britain would go red? Germany winning in 1918 is very unlikely in any case. Even if its pulled off its on land and France collapsing. The british still can easily fall back on their naval superiority to ensure that they wont get worse than a white peace. Maybe they even can keep some of the german colonies.
 
Why would the British Empire fall? Even more questionable is why britain would go red? Germany winning in 1918 is very unlikely in any case. Even if its pulled off its on land and France collapsing. The british still can easily fall back on their naval superiority to ensure that they wont get worse than a white peace. Maybe they even can keep some of the german colonies.

Britain very nearly went Red in victory, now imagine what occurs in defeat:
A few general points, give that some people seem grossly ignorant about the state of Britain in 1919.

OTL even after victory Britain came close to revolution in 1919. Troops, armoured cars, artillery, tanks and warships were widely deployed to maintain order. The view that the British military was monolithically loyal to the government is a superficial one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There were numerous (illegal) military strikes and outright mutinies in 1918-19. Some examples:
1. In Purbright camp in early 1919 machine-gunners of the Guards went on strike
2. On 13NOV1918 Shoreham camp experienced a full-scale mutiny over conditions and the slow pace of demobilisation. The troops won and were released from service rapidly, by the thousand.
3. On 09DEC1918 Royal Artillery units in Le Havre rioted and burned down army depots.
4. January 1919 saw sustained and violent mutiny and rioting at the camps around Calais, including the election of a Soldiers’ Council at Valdelièvre (where the rebellious troops fortified the camp against attack. The military headquarters at Calais was occupied and a Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Association twenty thousand strong formed. The mutineers enjoyed extensive support of French civilians, including railway workers who refused to transport troops to suppress the nascent Calais Soviet. When Byng finally arrived to suppress the mutiny he found his troops unwilling to fire on their own.
5. A mutiny at Felixstowe saw over ten thousand men voted to form a Soldiers’ Union and refuse to obey orders until their demands were met.
6. At Kimmel Park camp over 15,000 Canadians rioted in early March 1919.
7. The period January-March 1919 saw a huge number of muties and "acts of disobedience to lawful authority" at Aldershot, Biggin Hill, Blackpool, Briston, Chatham, Dover, Fairlop, Folkestone, Grove Park, Kempton Park, Maidstone, Osterley Park, Park Royal, Shoreham, Shortlands, Southampton, Southwick, Westerham Hill and elsewhere.
8. In addition there were outbreaks of disobedience at several railway stations (mainly in London) where troops refused to embark for France and (especially) Russia.
9. The Royal Navy there were refusals to weigh anchor for Russia on numerous occasions in 1918-19 at Invergordon, Portsmouth, Rosyth, Devonport and Fort Edgar.
10. In February civilian workers at Rosyth discovered that the cruiser they were involved in refitting was to go to Russia; with members of the Socialist Labour Party they leafleted the crew, who refused to sail and were paid off after a three-week standoff in the port. This civilian resistance to intervention in Russia, suggests an active Labour/Union force available; for example in May 1920 dockers in the Port of London refused to Jolly George with an arms consignment for Poland.
11. Rosyth saw other mutinies, for example that on the mine-sweeper detachment in January 1919.
12. A few days later the patrol boat 'Kilbride' at Milford Haven mutinied and raised the Red Flag.
13. At Port Edgar a destroyed flotilla due to return to Russia was a hotbed of rebellion; eventually less than half the ships departed, with crews drawn from Atlantic fleet battleships. Some of the destroyers' crews evaded the security at the port and (with assistance from others) 44 men made their way to London to present petitions at Whitehall.
14. A Royal Marine battalion at Murmansk also mutined, with two companies refusing orders.

1919 saw active resistance to the British government in Scotland, parts of Wales, Ireland as well as cities like Liverpool.
1. Warships (including the battleship Valiant) were sent to Liverpool in a show of force, with orders to occupy the docks and be prepared to bombard the city.
2. Thousands of troops, with tanks and armoured cars in support, had been deployed "suppress disorder" in the streets of several cities. Including Liverpool
3. The "Battle of George Square" on 31JAN1919 occurred when Glasgow police attempted to suppress strikers. Churchill ordered soldiers and tanks to the city to prevent any further gatherings and to deter a "Bolshevik uprising. There were explicit parallels with the 'Forty Hours'. Scottish units were confined to barracks/camps under guard due to fear of mutiny and insurrection.
4. Over a thousand soldiers had marched under arms on Downing Street in early 1919, before being disarmed by a battalion of the Grenadier Guards loyal to the government.
5. Rioting in Luton had led to the arson of the town hall and further deployment to troops.

As for the Germans, if they take Amiens and Hazebrouck, it's game over; the BEF would be destroyed from that and the French would collapse. Without French industry, the AEF is useless and the control of the Channel Ports will definitely force the British to the table if nothing else doesn't because the Germans could starve out England.
 
Last edited:
Since most readers here do not have jstor access, best to summarize the links

American citizens were abused, bipartisan support for war with Mexico emerged and was supported by the Oil companies (concerned about possible Nationalization of their assets by Mexico) and the media, with the Secretary of State very nearly kicking things off until Wilson recovered from his stroke at the last possible second.
 
Would a possible conflict between the Americans and the British and / or French occur over issue of their inability or unwillingness to repay loans taken out over the course of the war?
 
Would a possible conflict between the Americans and the British and / or French occur over issue of their inability or unwillingness to repay loans taken out over the course of the war?
No. US loans to the Entente were secured until the U.S. joined the war. Britain and France know they have no chance of preventing the seizure of the collatoral and for whatever writeoffs the banks still suffer, the U.S. wont go to war since they warned the banks.
Read up some "WI US Neutral in WW1" discussions for more information. The debt situation is discussed a lot in those.
 
Britain very nearly went Red in victory, now imagine what occurs in defeat:
Germany didn't go Red in defeat, why would the wealthier British nation which had lost no domestic or overseas territories? A lot of political careers would be destroyed by British defeat but not those of any of the significant players in the OTL 1920s and 1930s -Ramsay McDonald, J.R. Clynes, Philip Snowden, Jimmy Thomas, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain -possibly excepting Austen Chamberlain and Lord Curzon . The Liberals are actually likely to be stronger and more unified than OTL with both Asquith and Lloyd George as discredited figures.
 
Britain very nearly went Red in victory, now imagine what occurs in defeat:
...

No we didn't some might have feared it (and thought sending tanks against striking workers who had paid for them was a good idea*), but it was never close to happening, just like hardly any union backed strike ended with guillotines in Trafalgar square.


Britain losing in WW1 is going to cosy up to the US hard and try as much as they can to get the US to take an active international role in curtailing German overseas ambition** and concentrate on overseas and try and forget Europe exists as much as possible. (it will however keep a very close eye on German naval build up and efforts over seas. I'd imagine we'll see some proxy colonial wars).



*and what were the demands of this Glaswegian "Bolshevik uprising" (as described by the Secretary of Scotland)? Redistribution of the means of production? ....no a 40 hour working week to allow more demobilised soldiers to find work and prevent mass unemployment


**not sure how successful the UK will be with that.
 
Last edited:
Germany didn't go Red in defeat, why would the wealthier British nation which had lost no domestic or overseas territories? A lot of political careers would be destroyed by British defeat but not those of any of the significant players in the OTL 1920s and 1930s -Ramsay McDonald, J.R. Clynes, Philip Snowden, Jimmy Thomas, Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain -possibly excepting Austen Chamberlain and Lord Curzon . The Liberals are actually likely to be stronger and more unified than OTL with both Asquith and Lloyd George as discredited figures.
No we didn't some might have feared it (and thought sending tanks against striking workers who had paid for them was good idea*), but it was never close to happening, just like hardly any union backed strike ended with guillotines in Trafalgar square.


Britain losing in WW1 is going to to cosy up to the US and try as mush as they can to get the US to take an active international role in curtailing German overseas ambition** and concentrate on overseas and try and forget Europe exists as much as possible. (it will however keep a very close eye on German naval build up and efforts over seas. I'd imagine we'll see some proxy colonial wars.



*and what were the demands of this Glaswegian "Bolshevik uprising" (as described by the Secretary of Scotland)? Redistribution of the means of production? ....no a 40 hour working week to allow more demobilised soldiers to find work and prevent mass unemployment


**not sure how successful the UK will be with that.

You had mass Bolshevik unrest in the streets and in the military, to the point that several major cities were put on lockdown with orders to, in some cases, mass bombard them if it came down to it. Now imagine what happens when the Treasury defaults and you have mass unemployment and a collapsed economy...
 
You had mass Bolshevik unrest in the streets and in the military, to the point that several major cities were put on lockdown with orders to, in some cases, mass bombard them if it came down to it. I mean, if there's citations that can dispute these events, that's one thing, but it seems to be mainly opinion based to be honest.
There was some evidence of mass unrest particularly in Glasgow and Liverpool but there was no realistic prospect of red revolution I am afraid. Any "Bolshevism" existed in the fears of the ruling classes and not in a genuine revolutionary movement within Britain. Read the Wikipedia article on "Red Clydeside" and the question of whether it represented a genuine Revolutionary movement if you want a fairly concise summary of the position. No doubt the atmosphere would have been somewhat more tense had the UK lost the war rather than won it, but the King summoning George Barnes or J.R. Clynes and a fairly mild reformist Lib-Lab coalition is really a lot more likely than Red Terror in the streets of Britain.
 
Russia is likely to be a Neo-Tsarist regime beholden to the Germans; Berlin had been planning a final, decisive strike against the Bolsheviks since at least June of 1918 IOTL.

There is no proof that Germany planned that. The Hoffmann Plan was not German policy. Germany was exhausted and even the OHL knew that. Nobody would accept going to war with Soviet Russia. Another question would be: Who would like to be supported by the Germans? The White Army was incredibly anti-German and thought that the Bolsheviks were traitors for signing Brest-Litovsk.
 
Last edited:
You had mass Bolshevik unrest in the streets and in the military, to the point that several major cities were put on lockdown with orders to, in some cases, mass bombard them if it came down to it. Now imagine what happens when the Treasury defaults and you have mass unemployment and a collapsed economy...

yes and as i said just because there was such plans in place (partly due to fear of the Russian revolution and unrest in Germany and France*) doesn't mean the threat they were in place for was actually there in the UK.

Mass Bolshevik unrest in the streets? Did you read what I linked, they put tanks in Glasgow (the city that had per capita raised more tank bonds than any other for extra irony) because the unions were striking to go from a 47 hour week to a 40 hour week in order to free up jobs for returning soldiers!

Mass Bolshevik unrest my arse.


*and man if we deployed tanks in our streets every time there was unrest in France we'd be forever tanked!
 
Last edited:
Top