|
|
Post by puffyclouds on Jan 20, 2017 3:27:04 GMT
Could the United States' contribution to the Entente in WW1 have been to only attack German naval forces encountered in the Atlantic?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,815 
Likes: 45,953
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 20, 2017 7:44:44 GMT
Could the United States' contribution to the Entente in WW1 have been to only attack German naval forces encountered in the Atlantic? What year are you speaking of that the united States engages German naval forces before ore after Jutland. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,424
Likes: 12,036
|
Post by stevep on Jan 20, 2017 15:57:12 GMT
I'm guessing he's suggesting that the US joins the conflict as OTL in April 1917 but only engages in operations against German U boats. Possibly also sending a squadron to Scapa Flow to work with the Grand Fleet as OTL. However no soldiers sent to France.
That would appear to be very strange. Yoir at war but only in a limited manner. Even if initially accepted by Congress I could see it being stretched as US MS and occasional warships continue to be sunk, which their likely to in large numbers now the US is a belligient.
This might force a compromise peace as the allies could probably still defeat the German offensives in spring/early summer 1918 but lack the resources to defeat Germany as decisively as OTL.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,815
Likes: 45,953
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 20, 2017 16:05:18 GMT
I'm guessing he's suggesting that the US joins the conflict as OTL in April 1917 but only engages in operations against German U boats. Possibly also sending a squadron to Scapa Flow to work with the Grand Fleet as OTL. However no soldiers sent to France. That would appear to be very strange. Yoir at war but only in a limited manner. Even if initially accepted by Congress I could see it being stretched as US MS and occasional warships continue to be sunk, which their likely to in large numbers now the US is a belligient. This might force a compromise peace as the allies could probably still defeat the German offensives in spring/early summer 1918 but lack the resources to defeat Germany as decisively as OTL. After Jutland the German threat only consisted out of its submarines, troops on the land are needed to win the war. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,817
|
Post by James G on Jan 23, 2017 20:54:18 GMT
If the US had done just this, fighting a naval war for it was naval action (plus Zimmermann) which got them into the war, I would suspect there would be allegations of national cowardice at home and abroad. The US was still rather isolationist, apart from in Central America, at this time so it is possible where they won't send troops overseas. Yet it would be hard to keep that up when the negative comments come.
The Kaiser would bait the Americans, I think.
Wilson's political opponents who weren't happy with entry into the war would tear into such an approach too.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,815
Likes: 45,953
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 27, 2017 9:31:18 GMT
The Kaiser would bait the Americans, I think. Ore he would use it to his advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by puffyclouds on Feb 10, 2017 3:56:22 GMT
If the US had done just this, fighting a naval war for it was naval action (plus Zimmermann) which got them into the war, I would suspect there would be allegations of national cowardice at home and abroad. The US was still rather isolationist, apart from in Central America, at this time so it is possible where they won't send troops overseas. Yet it would be hard to keep that up when the negative comments come. The Kaiser would bait the Americans, I think. Wilson's political opponents who weren't happy with entry into the war would tear into such an approach too. I was thinking along the lines of the Quasi War with France. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,815
Likes: 45,953
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 10, 2017 10:27:00 GMT
If the US had done just this, fighting a naval war for it was naval action (plus Zimmermann) which got them into the war, I would suspect there would be allegations of national cowardice at home and abroad. The US was still rather isolationist, apart from in Central America, at this time so it is possible where they won't send troops overseas. Yet it would be hard to keep that up when the negative comments come. The Kaiser would bait the Americans, I think. Wilson's political opponents who weren't happy with entry into the war would tear into such an approach too. I was thinking along the lines of the Quasi War with France. The Royal Navy by 1917 was strong enough to deal with the Imperial German Navy, i do not think the United States Navy would be needed, men on the Western Front would be needed. |
|
doug181
Chief petty officer
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
|
Post by doug181 on Feb 10, 2017 13:33:03 GMT
No US ground troops 1918 a disaster for Entente
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 64,815
Likes: 45,953
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 10, 2017 13:40:38 GMT
No US ground troops 1918 a disaster for Entente That is something i agree with. |
|
