ALTERNATIVE HISTORY

[Greg]

Lets assume America joins the war at the same time as in traditional history.

How long till Britain pulls from the war? Could the US convince Britain to turn neutral?

Oops, you beat me to it.

Sure that date seems as good as any other.

If the US joined the war on the German side, Britain would been in a bad way. Starving, both people starving for lack of food and war industries starving for lack of raw materials. And possibly in line for internal disorder, because the government that aligned Britain with France had done so in a very dishonest way.

[Aglifter]

The Brits couldn't withdrawal - culturally impossible at that time - unless it is a result of Britain turning Commie.

Furthermore, I think the Ottoman Empire surviving merely increases the chance that the Wahhibists take over a vastly more powerful region - the Ottomans with oil wealth would be even more of a mess than it was.

[Highspeed]

Lets assume America joins the war at the same time as in traditional history.

How long till Britain pulls from the war? Could the US convince Britain to turn neutral?

If the US joined the war on the German side, Britain would been in a bad way. Starving, both people starving for lack of food and war industries starving for lack of raw materials. And possibly in line for internal disorder, because the government that aligned Britain with France had done so in a very dishonest way.

Both sides were in a mess by 1917, imagine a couple of punch drunk boxers hanging on the ropes, waiting to come out for the last round.
There wasn't much appetite for internal discontent at the time, not in Britain. That came later in the 20's and was the catalyst for the first gun control legislation. I suspect there was rather more discontent in Germany ( although that was exaggerated later by the National Socialists as part of the 'stab in the back' lie )
As for raw materials, Britain still had the Empire and the German U boats weren't having anything like the effect on trade that they had in WW-2

[Greg]

The Brits couldn't withdrawal - culturally impossible at that time - unless it is a result of Britain turning Commie.

Well maybe not withdraw, but having to deal with the USN as well as the U-boat blockade wouldn't have been good for the Brits' commerce and shipping. And they were dependent on overseas supplies. Not sure how Canada as leverage would have influenced their decision-making.

Furthermore, I think the Ottoman Empire surviving merely increases the chance that the Wahhibists take over a vastly more powerful region - the Ottomans with oil wealth would be even more of a mess than it was.

If any of them survived, maybe. Immediately before WWI the Sauds (and Wahhabis they were effectively one and the same) were at a fairly low point, having just barely begun to recover from losing their lands for the *second* time. Allying with the Brits certainly helped them in RL, both during and after the war. Had the Brits been the losers... I can't see them escaping Ottoman reprisals, postwar, and certainly not being able to consolidate their power the way they did RL in the 20's and early 30's.

As to the effects of an Ottoman Empire with oil wealth... Well that's hard to say. It's hard to say *what* would have happened with the Ottoman Empire, had they not been on the losing side. Kemal might never have remade the place. Failing that, any attempt by ragged desert loons to have asserted religious leadership of the Muslim world would have been met with violence. The Ottomans had already beaten down uppity Sauds before. And the possibility of a secular Turkey, with an empire, and then with oil wealth, is an eye opener. The Turks are simply much more effective than the Arabs, as a people and a culture (at least in recent centuries).

[Greg]

Lets assume America joins the war at the same time as in traditional history.

How long till Britain pulls from the war? Could the US convince Britain to turn neutral?

If the US joined the war on the German side, Britain would been in a bad way. Starving, both people starving for lack of food and war industries starving for lack of raw materials. And possibly in line for internal disorder, because the government that aligned Britain with France had done so in a very dishonest way.

Both sides were in a mess by 1917, imagine a couple of punch drunk boxers hanging on the ropes, waiting to come out for the last round.
There wasn't much appetite for internal discontent at the time, not in Britain. That came later in the 20's and was the catalyst for the first gun control legislation. I suspect there was rather more discontent in Germany ( although that was exaggerated later by the National Socialists as part of the 'stab in the back' lie )
As for raw materials, Britain still had the Empire and the German U boats weren't having anything like the effect on trade that they had in WW-2

Internal discontent would have made itself felt in Britain after the war was lost, as it was in Germany. During the war the people were (almost entirely) too steadfast to start fighting inwardly.

Britain might have had the Empire, but they would have just acquired an enemy with a substantial fleet and global reach. That second one would have been a killer. The High Seas Fleet was bottled up and effectively useless (though it did tie up a huge proportion of the RN as Home Fleet), the USN had no such problem.

[Highspeed]

I'm going to bow out of this discussion for now, but I'll still continue to read. I'm reaching the limit of what I can back up with any kind of evidence.

[Yogimus]

Don't you dare, this is fun!

[Greg]

You know, now I'm wondering what would have happened to Egypt and Libya after an Allied loss in WWI. I'd never thought about that before. Would Britain have had to give Egypt back? Same for Italy and Libya.

[randy]

Just how powerful was the USN at that time? Particularly as measured against the RN?

Especially given, that Japan was an ally of Britain (or at least had a deal to take control of German colonies and suppress German naval/merchant activity in the Pacific) at the time and therefore West coast fleet units would have the IJN to be concerned with? Don't think they're heading to the Atlantic anytime soon.

I don't see much of an AEF going to support Germany, not with having to fight their way into the Baltic to disembark. And having all of that lovely un-fortified border to the North to be concerned about here at home.

So, I think probably, early at least, it's mostly moral support for the Central powers, and the lack of new manpower for the Allies. That and the drain on the Empire to keep troops in Canada in case those uppity Yanks decide to re-fight 1812, and giving the RN another direction to keep an eye on. Which might have been enough to encourage them to negotiate an armistice without the punitive measures on Germany.

And of course we would need the good luck of having Woodrow Wilson slip on a banana peel and break his neck at his first inauguration ceremony. (Which would have the potential of being a VERY good thing for the US).