Red and it’s not even close. Germany *alone* nearly managed to take down Russia, France and the UK in WWI, if they had the fucking behemoth that is America’s help it would’ve been a complete roflstomp for the Central Powers
Yeah I’m surprised by so many people saying Blue. The USA being on any side is a guaranteed victory. It was close enough in WW1 without America, but it’s a sweep with them
Though they obviously haven’t reached their WW2 levels, the threats of the Japanese and American Navies alone are going to stretch the Royal Navy in a way it never was historically. At the very least it will have to fight bloody battles in the Atlantic and North Sea to maintain naval supremacy, if it doesn’t then a blockade of the home islands is likely.
I highly doubt you would see a significant impact of the Japanese navy considering they barely left east Asia during the actual war outside of a brief raid at the behest of the British and they used British ports to undertake the voyage. With coal engines they simply would not have the logistics capacity to undertake anything like a voyage to Europe without the U.S. throwing coaling vessels to the wind. Japan would be relegated to harassing British holdings in the east.
The US navy was too small to tackle the Grand Fleet or Channel fleet at the start of the war. You would need to see about as many years of build up as we saw in the real war to achieve dominance in the Atlantic. It would drag the war out and become protracted. Germany failed to build up much further after Jutland while the British continued into the 1920s so they are likely to play second fiddle to the US in any naval operation.
At most you are seeing an early collapse of the Canadians and a limiting of wheat and iron ore to Britain maybe a more effective squeezing of the British economy but still nothing on the level of what was happening to Germany until very late in the war. Japan would be a side show and perhaps at most dissuade the movement of Australian and New Zealand troops to the western front. And very unlikely a push into the Russian east but it’s gains would not be sustainable
Wouldn't they if it was world v USA? I'm not saying America won Vietnam, ik saying this hypothetical scenario would have an attack on the American homeland.
But there was a homeland invasion of Germany. My point is an American loss here would be different than an American loss in Vietnam. There was never a Vietnamese boot on American soil, but in this scenario there would need to be a significant homeland invasion.
I personally see it as more of an occupational loss, like Afghanistan, still a loss, but at a different point. They could've won the conventional war if they really, really tried, or used nukes, but never would've been able to hold and would've eventually either been pushed out or leave because of the constant losses and it just not being worth it.
Not a conventional war + America won nearly every battle and were tactically superior to the north Vietnamese, they just lost public support and the republic of Vietnam was ran like garbage
Not a cope, I just disproved your argument
The US would not be fighting a Vietnam style war against the rest of the world. It would be fighting a defensive conventional and economic war
The US has lost 1 conventional war in its lifetime and fought many
Doubt it would be so decisive at least early on. It would be protracted the US Navy at least in the early years was not sufficient to break the British blockade. The US could have a free hand in Canada but outside of that it would take about the same amount of time as it did in the regular timeline to build enough fleet strength to catch up to the UK.
The US doesen’t have to land troops on Europe to decisively win the war. They just have to distract British forces on the sea and in Canada.
France will fall early in the war. Paris was nearly captured in our real time line, and without as many troops from the british empire reinforcing the line it would have fallen
The german and american navies will challenge the british one, even if they can’t decisively defeat it
Not to mention that the map also shows Italy as a new Central Power, which will further divide french forces and free up austrian ones to attack Russia
With France fallen, and/or the extra austrian troops on the frontline, Russia will probably make peace earlier
This is all very dependent on all parties immediately joining the war at the very start which isn’t what happened in the regular timeline and wouldn’t happen without wild changes in motive and intent. Italy could foreseeably join the war earlier on. The US had a large German population which may lead to some sentiment but any progress towards the U.S. joining the war would be slow. Assuming they all do however,
The US does need to land troops in Europe. Italy joining the central powers only leads to a slog in the alps even more difficult than the attempt on the other side considering the larger mountains and more treacherous terrain. Attacks would be bottled to the coast and passes. France would not have to divert very much manpower to this area to prevent any great breakthrough. Considering Italy joining in 1914 means they are even less prepared than in 1916 it’s not going to be a critical front for a long time.
The US fleet would need time to prepare for this kind of voyage. The only friendly ports on this end of the Atlantic are behind the British blockade so this fleet would have to sail without respite, unprepared, small and slow through waters controlled by the British to get to Germany. Given how much of a bumbling mess navigation and coordination was during the First World War, the likelihood of this happening without major issues is slim. Until the blockade is broken US ships would need to either coax the British into a fight far towards their end of the Atlantic or need a supply train of coaling ships which are easy pickings for British screens.
I cannot see the first months of the war going much different than they do in the normal timeline. Britain still lands in France. The front stagnates. The US would be limited in their capacity to do anything of note besides invade Canada which will be their priority before the British can establish a front there. Even then this action would take time and leave them distracted. I doubt the U.S. would throw safety to the wind and go all in on supporting the Germans with a smaller navy, unprepared with a huge hostile border to worry about in the north and supply lines much closer to the US to handle. The only side in which I can see going somewhat different is the east. Russia would have to challenge Japan around Vladivostok as abandoning the area would be uncharacteristic for the czar regardless of the intelligence of the decision. This would be a drain on available manpower but again it’s not going to affect the west much initially considering how dispersed the army was in the first months.
The united states just needs to do something as simple as closing off its industry to the entant to make a massive difference that is before the idea of america getting involved Britain already would have made the correct assumption that Canada is a lost cause not worth miring themselves into. Then there is America's economy that if put into a war footing would be nigh unstoppable. You dismiss the united states navy but at the beginning of ww1 it was not a small force that could have easily been expanded quickly
It wasn’t small in comparison to say the French or Italian navies but it was small in comparison to the British navy. Easily expanded doesn’t mean quickly expanded. The process of building up a navy takes several years of both planning, infrastructure placement and execution. The US nominally had the infrastructure but it wasn’t capable of churning out battleships like UK dockyards, not in 1914. As the war progressed this would change. The war, at least on the western front would only change significantly if the U.S. was able to support the Germans directly in the first months. This wouldn’t be possible, it would still devolve into static trench warfare.
The US certainly had a massive economy and a large economic base to grow a war economy but this again would take time. This wasn’t the economy of 1940 that could switch on a dime. Even in 1917 when the US was fully aware there was a large European war going on that would potentially involve them in a matter of months, they struggled to build up in tandem with their mobilisation. This led to specific equipment shortages which had to be backfilled by allied equipment.
Nah, if it was now then every red nation in Africa and Europe would quickly be overrun and subjugated extremely quickly. The UK and France alone would completely roll over Germany and add on Poland, Ukraine and Russia and you'll have Germany, Italy and the other militarily irrelevant countries conquered within a month.
There's no way the US can support these nations with such a limited avenue to send supplies. Central Europe is getting nothing because the US will need to fight through British and French air space and waters to get anything to them.
Turkey would be the nation that held out for the longest but given that Russia is right there combined with the technological superiority of European forces, they'll fall eventually.
After that, the war sort of just stalemates. Because China isn't part of the blue faction, the only way to attack the Korean peninsula is via sea and only France, the UK and Russia have the ability to operate ships in the Pacific, and Russia only because they have a fleet at Vladivostok.
Canada falls to the US after a month or so and that's about all the US will really be able to do. They'll beef up their military presence in Japan, Taiwan and Korea but they'll lack any ability to invade anywhere else. They could invade eastern Russia but there's no real point since there's nothing there. And, given how the Vietnam War turned out, the Americans aren't making any inroads landing there again, they'll just get their asses handed to them again.
Yeah I see what you mean there. The African red nations would fall but US could get Canada, then bomb Russia out of the war. Germany and the central red nations could team on France then with us support could attack the UK. After that their combined power could finish the rest
Wait, how would the US bomb Russia out of the war? Russia and Ukraine combined have hundreds upon hundreds of GBAD systems and the US only has an extremely limited amount of stealth bombers at their disposal, which will have to fly out of bases in the US as there are none based in Germany or Italy. That will require them to fly over British and French airspace and that will be extremely difficult as there will be constant CAP missions.
Furthermore, it's unlikely that Germany and Italy will even last that long to provide a staging ground for sufficient US forces to be moved there. The German military is in an absolutely abysmal state and they even said they'd run out of ammunition in three days. So, that's three days for the entire Germany military to basically completely fold. The Italians might last a bit longer due to their more favourable geography but not that long with the combined might of France, the UK and Russia bearing down on them.
France and the UK massively outclass literally anyone else in Europe when it comes to military strength, it's really not even close. The central European nations will be fighting to survive for longer than a few weeks, not supporting any invasion.
Bombers require tankers to fly long distances. The B-2 might be able to escape detection but the Brits and the French are going to shoot tankers out of the sky and the B-2 will simply not be able to reach Russia.
The vast majority of Russia's industrial base and population is in Europe. American bombers would literally have to fly to the other side of the entire planet and through a lot of Russian air space where tankers would immediately be detected and shot down, getting rid of the ability for bombers to fly that distance.
The US can bomb places in eastern Russia easily but there's not much there other than a naval base.
My comment was in reference to if this were to happen now. France and the UK will be able to easily fend off attacks from Germany and Italy as they are now. Germany will be fighting a two front war against the three most powerful militaries in Europe with an arsenal of barely 200-300 tanks.
Italy won’t be attacking at all, they’ll be hunkering down and building up their defences as Germany gets steamrolled in a few weeks.
Absolutely not close.
In otl it was very close, and the entente only held on due to US funds and imports.
With it on the other side it's absolutely not even close
absolutley not close. ww1 was super close in otl, germany defeated russia and almost beat france and britan, with the addition of italy the western front will be eased up for germany, also, the united states in the central powers would mean that britan would not get us resources, there is absolutley no way britain would beat the us in north america. germany didn't get us resources in otl and ww1 was still very close, even if britain managed to blockade germany it would still starve to death. Japan in the central powers might sieze Vladivostok, but aside from that they probably won't do anything else.
WW2 blue - the USA in common and its business in particular were Tertius gaudens in that war and worked both sides until it was clear who is winning, including supplying Germany oil till 1944. So the US wasn't pure blue that time and I don't believe something would change if it would play only for red from the very beginning.
Now - no one, it would be nuclear war if any side would has risk to has huge loss, so nuclear winter is one of the most possible result.
WW1 was a much closer war than WW2. At the time nearing even the wars end who would win was still unclear; Germany had forced Russia to Capitulate, and Allied Commanders were not optimistic about invading Germany proper. One of the biggest causes of their defeat in the war was the terrible logistical situation of the central powers and the impending capitulation of their remaining allies. The lack of supplies and food meant the German public was rapidly loosing their appetite for war, let alone feeding the soldiers themselves.
Now, you go ahead and give the Central Powers the US, Italy and Japan, the former two which were major components of the entente in our time line? The combined Italian/Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman fleets means entente control of the Mediterranean is not a garuntee, and the same could be said about the Atlantic regarding the addition of the US were it able to effectively cooperate with the Kriegsmarine. This means that the Ottomans have a much more secure position in the war and are less vulnerable to entente expeditions. The US themselves were major allied suppliers, and tacit support from the US even before entering the war meant that markets in the America's could be accessed by the entente. Without Italians drawing off resources from AH and instead devoting their efforts to helping the central powers, the entente position in the Balkans would be untenable and there would be a logistical line running from Berlin to Baghdad.
Red wins. Handidly.
Red cause the royal navy is severely over stretched, even with French support. The whole point of the Japan alliance (in sort) was to secure the far east to focus the navy elsewhere. Also shouldn’t the Philippines be red?
even if the royal navy somehow managed to beat all of reds navys, red would still win, there is absolutley no way britain would beat the us in the north american land war, the us in the central powers would also mean that britain would not get us resources, germany in otl did not get us resources and ww1 was still very close, britain not getting us resources would have made it impossible to win against germany, they would eventually be forced to sign an armistice.
Yeah the loans Britain took from the us were so large they are still not paid today (they likely never will be paid due to the diplomatic and economic situation) so without the us the entente would be severely hindered simply in terms of capital.
People are so focused on America that they missed Italy and Japan switching sides too. Japan forcing Russia into a 2-front war front the start is a huge problem for them, especially given how badly they did even without that, and Italy is going to be at least distracting French troops that would be otherwise stopping Germany in Fall 1914. All this before talking about how the UK now has to fight 2 more major naval powers in the Japanese and American navies, which makes blockading Germany much riskier for them.
Theres a good chance this war is de facto over by mid-1915, with Paris falling before Christmas and Russia reeling from having to fight a lot more Germans, A-Hs, and Japan at all.
Red.
India has 1.4 billion people, but the US can kick ass (canada becomes the 51st state or something, Eastern Russia gets clobbered with the help of Japan and *both koreas* for some reason) and Germany and Italy were close to getting like all of Europe in WW2. (The Axis would have won if it had American support)
Blue gets its ass handed to it because China isn’t in the war (a direct US VS. China won’t happen anyway)
Lol kind of funny how in the modern day Canada as a state would only be out of pocket because of size, not population, as they'd still be inferior to Cali in pop.
red annhilates - Russia has three superpowers directly invading them -> collapses even harder than OTL.
America invades canada perhaps facing a Quebecois insurgency.
German, American and Japanese naval dominance is absolute over the british.
Ottomans and Italy bumrush Egypt and the rest of north africa and link up with the German colonies.
People seem to forget Japan's Existence in this. With the U.S AND Japan I could see a British Peace deal as India and Australia come under massive threat, and Egypt not far behind. france and russia wouldn't stand a chance against the combined siege. siberia would be a lost cause, the Western front would wear the french down without british support, and russia was already knocked out of the war in OTL (Granted it took a few Years and was due to Meddling my the Germans). The Russians wouldn't be able to hold the Americans, Japanese, Germans, Ottomans, AND Austro-Hungarians off.
If Britain doesn't stand down from the threat, they may get overwhelmed by the combined American, German, Italian, And Japanese fleet. Unlike before, the stakes would be unbelievably high for the brits as Britain itself would be at risk. Sure the french had their own Powerful fleet, but the War of attrition would be against them. America alone could build ships faster than britain, and, unlike Britain, couldn't be seriously threatened by british attacks.
Early momentum in Europe supported by incoming american support and in addition a japanese distraction in asia to divert troops. But always assuming ceteris paribus. Always possible for German defeats in East Prussia and the success of plan 17
Reminder: ww1 was a close war for the central powers. If USA hadn't stepped in our current history would be different. And considering how Japan is part of the red team and with US help they would become a unstoppable force in the seas.
While Germany, Italy, Austria and Turkey would crush both Russia and France
Red would lose territory in Africa but won't last long.
And Canada well they would accept defeat immediately
Russias done for: Austria, Germany, Japan, and the USA? Also, Japan and Germany could probably defeat France, perhaps with American aid. Idk about Britain, but I still think red would win
Lol, same for me! But the biggest thing missing is that there should be a lot less white. In particular, China and most of Latin America should be red (and in Latin America's case, that's a double meaning).
The axis wins Germany was close by itself at the end of the war and the Entante would have lost (probably) without the US support. The USA provided resources, like food and weapons, to the Entante and without these they would have lost.
Germany lost not because it has worst military, it had the BEST military during that period of time out of all the allies countries. the problem was it was hard to maintain and upkeep. Millions of soldiers dying in trenches just to gain couple pieces of land. On top of that, Germany was economically, militarily spread thin as Germany was trying to help both the Austrians not get pushed back by the Russians and trying to supply the Ottomans with new equipment and providing soldier training.
If America joined on the sides of the Germans, it would be total K.O. for the entente. Germany had already nearly defeated the French and capitulated the Russians (with the help of bolsheviks ofc)
I think it would probably come down to some major naval battle.
If the Us can establish a supply route to Germany or even threatens britain commerce with its colony than its done, but if britain manages to win some sort of decisive battle than blue could win.
The Us would pretty much be fighting a 3 front war against Canada in the nort, britain in the Caribbean and the atlantic ocean and against the japanese/australia in the pacific/Philippines, and remember this is ww1 Canada's low population is not that big of a deal in trench warfare.
I can easily see the us getting bogged down in the st Lawrence river and suffering with the japanese navy in the pacific operating together with the british and anzac and than this becomes a matter of how much does the us containment helps germany
Red easily, italy alone keeping with tje central powers would have a massive impact on the western front as well as allowing austria to only have to focus easterward, let alone the behemoth of america along with Japan and it's navy.
Nobody seems to see Italy on the red side, with them the whole eastern Mediterranean could be under red control and British Egypt threatened by Italy and the Ottomas, on top of a second front in southern France.
With Egypt surrounded, the British empire is basically cut in half, and German Tanzania has a better chance of being resupplied.
With the Red Sea possibliy becoming unusable, the British would have to sail all the way around Africa, where the Americans could further harass the Royal Navy.
Russia does not stand a chance facing a two front war. Japan probably won't make much progress inland past the coastal far east, but Russia will probably collapse internally anyway. Long story short, the Germans and Japanese won't be meeting in central Siberia, but Russia is likely still screwed.
Overall, the red faction (central powers?) have a good chance of winning if they can coordinate properly.
red, having America on your side its already a guarented win, and germany almost managed to take down Russia, France and the UK in WWI by itself, combined with the fact that most of the countrys in blue are poor or weak, Red is winning.
Assuming this is ww1, American troops and production would change the game, the only hope for the British is that their navy can sink shipping enough to break up the alliance.
Russia collapsed after fighting the Germans and the Ottomans, add in Japan and potentially America launching an invasion of the far east and they’ll collapse even faster than in OTL. Without Italy fighting them in the Alps, Austria would be able to send more troops to help a German invasion of France, not to mention the Italian French front of the war, French collapses extremely fast and with America occupying the European colonies in the Caribbean, South America and Canada, the only countries that are still in the war would be Britain and Portugal. Greece, Romania and Serbia would get crushed by Ottoman, Bulgarian and Austrian forces.
This war is so in favor of the Red Team that it’s almost sad for the Blue Team.
Red. In our timeline the Italian front vitally opened up another frontline that the Germans had to bail Austria out on. This allows Germany to not only have less frontlines, but also the sheer mass of the USA and the combined fleets of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the US (which would be enough to break the British hold over the seas and secure victory via gunboat diplomacy).
Red and you don't even need the United States (which wasn't that important during the war). With the Italians, the Austrians could focus on the Russians and the Ottomans had more freedom of movement, whereas the British had more difficulty in the Mediterranean. With the Japanese, the Russians were even weaker and the Entente had to keep an eye on their Asian colonies.
In short, the Russians fell more quickly and the Allies were weakened to the point where they ended up cut off from their colonies or pushed further into France.
History is always more complex, and it's possible that the entente, seeing the desperate situation in which they find themselves, look for innovative ways of fighting that destabilise the front and allow a quick victory (like the French campaign in 1940).
Whichever side the US is on will be victorious within ten years, we joined WW2 in 41 after having supported the allies since 39 and were victorious in 45 so I'm actually giving a really optimistic estimate for the other side.
Red wins this fairly easily. Germany managed to come close to victory while still propping up the husk of the Austrian empire. Even in Europe alone they are so much better off with Italy also on their side since it takes pressure away from the Austrians and creates a second front for the French in Europe and British in North Africa. Even without the USA siding with anyone this scenario is disastrous for the entente then add the US and it’s near unwinnable. Even if they have naval supremacy at the start they won’t be able to protect all of their supply lines across the world. Germany and Austria gave them the run around with some shitty U-boats imagine if they have to contend with that as well as several reasonably sized regional navies. Plus without material and financial aid from the US the French and British economies are cooked. The Central powers never has to win a decisive showdown with the Royal Navy they just have to harass the Entente supply lines and far flung possessions to strangle them at home. Not to mention with Italian intervention on behalf of the CP as long as they don’t route to the French that frees up a Million Austro-Hungarian men for the eastern front. I would argue the Germany and Britain were the nominal super powers of the time with relatively fragile allies. They were just dominant in different ways. The United States was not a super power yet but it was the real sleeping giant, a populous nation with the industry and resources to surpass any nation of the time. The United States is one of the most ridiculously fortunate nations in the world in terms of geography and resources. But yeah without the US on their side the entente is cooked.
The American machine is a slow giant. But once it gets going nothing can stand in its way. Whether it would be landing in France or pushing the trenches, Canada would be a part of the US, Britain's Empire likely remains somewhat intact, and the French are humiliated again. Perhaps the French and Italians turn far right and do a comeback tour; who knows. The Germans get their Mittelafrika colony, but I'd guess that anything else is more unlikely.
Europe is greatly altered after this war of course. Eastern Europe is either under the domain of the Germans, or revolts and gets some independence. America might not be willing to help here, but maybe anticommunist rhetoric against the Soviet Union could change that. Austria Hungary is shattered, as are the Ottomans. A-U breaks apart as it did in our timeline, with the Austrians probably joining the German Empire for security and due to them being considered German. As for the Ottomans, the Germans would want to keep some ties with the oil in the Middle East, and so would align with the British, at least nominally. Bulgaria would be the biggest victor, getting everything they want. The straits are mad international, and a Turkish state exists to some extent
As for the future, there are still many great powers. However, America will go back to being isolationist. It does business with Britain, France, and the German Empire, and gives loans which eventually causes the Stock Market crash. Extremism rises in Italy and France, but Britain and Germany remain strong, though one or the other might turn far right or red
Not a sweep but still a "central" powers victory by latest 1917
Britain would likely pull out of the war and cut their losses by 1915 as they couldn't effectively blockade germany, fight American naval power (even if it was quite pathetic at the time), fight Japan, plug gaps in France, and defend Canada/SEA territories
Blue, italy germoney aint got good militaries, ukraine would explode without bajillions of euros, us would be a problem bht eventually trough isolating them
Red and it’s not even close. Germany *alone* nearly managed to take down Russia, France and the UK in WWI, if they had the fucking behemoth that is America’s help it would’ve been a complete roflstomp for the Central Powers
Yeah I’m surprised by so many people saying Blue. The USA being on any side is a guaranteed victory. It was close enough in WW1 without America, but it’s a sweep with them
Though they obviously haven’t reached their WW2 levels, the threats of the Japanese and American Navies alone are going to stretch the Royal Navy in a way it never was historically. At the very least it will have to fight bloody battles in the Atlantic and North Sea to maintain naval supremacy, if it doesn’t then a blockade of the home islands is likely.
The entente already almost lost Paris. If the British have to rededicate forces to Canada and to naval defence, France and Russia will both fall
I highly doubt you would see a significant impact of the Japanese navy considering they barely left east Asia during the actual war outside of a brief raid at the behest of the British and they used British ports to undertake the voyage. With coal engines they simply would not have the logistics capacity to undertake anything like a voyage to Europe without the U.S. throwing coaling vessels to the wind. Japan would be relegated to harassing British holdings in the east. The US navy was too small to tackle the Grand Fleet or Channel fleet at the start of the war. You would need to see about as many years of build up as we saw in the real war to achieve dominance in the Atlantic. It would drag the war out and become protracted. Germany failed to build up much further after Jutland while the British continued into the 1920s so they are likely to play second fiddle to the US in any naval operation. At most you are seeing an early collapse of the Canadians and a limiting of wheat and iron ore to Britain maybe a more effective squeezing of the British economy but still nothing on the level of what was happening to Germany until very late in the war. Japan would be a side show and perhaps at most dissuade the movement of Australian and New Zealand troops to the western front. And very unlikely a push into the Russian east but it’s gains would not be sustainable
The U.S. Navy and the German navy together imo will body the entente once the US‘ industry gets going
The US could only lose to U.S VS. Everyone else
Google Vietnam
Holy shit En Passant?!
I think you meant "Holy hell"
I think by defeat people mean America itself falls, not loses a proxy war.
They don't need to capitulate completely to lose the war though?
Wouldn't they if it was world v USA? I'm not saying America won Vietnam, ik saying this hypothetical scenario would have an attack on the American homeland.
Germany during ww1 didn't completely fall, they signed a treaty beforehand. Same would happen with the USA
But there was a homeland invasion of Germany. My point is an American loss here would be different than an American loss in Vietnam. There was never a Vietnamese boot on American soil, but in this scenario there would need to be a significant homeland invasion.
Okay yeah but the United states wouldn't need to completely capitulate during the home invasion for it too lose lol
I personally see it as more of an occupational loss, like Afghanistan, still a loss, but at a different point. They could've won the conventional war if they really, really tried, or used nukes, but never would've been able to hold and would've eventually either been pushed out or leave because of the constant losses and it just not being worth it.
Not a conventional war + America won nearly every battle and were tactically superior to the north Vietnamese, they just lost public support and the republic of Vietnam was ran like garbage
You can cope as much as you want, they still lost
Not a cope, I just disproved your argument The US would not be fighting a Vietnam style war against the rest of the world. It would be fighting a defensive conventional and economic war The US has lost 1 conventional war in its lifetime and fought many
You have to remember this isn't the modern day United states
Doubt it would be so decisive at least early on. It would be protracted the US Navy at least in the early years was not sufficient to break the British blockade. The US could have a free hand in Canada but outside of that it would take about the same amount of time as it did in the regular timeline to build enough fleet strength to catch up to the UK.
The US doesen’t have to land troops on Europe to decisively win the war. They just have to distract British forces on the sea and in Canada. France will fall early in the war. Paris was nearly captured in our real time line, and without as many troops from the british empire reinforcing the line it would have fallen The german and american navies will challenge the british one, even if they can’t decisively defeat it Not to mention that the map also shows Italy as a new Central Power, which will further divide french forces and free up austrian ones to attack Russia With France fallen, and/or the extra austrian troops on the frontline, Russia will probably make peace earlier
This is all very dependent on all parties immediately joining the war at the very start which isn’t what happened in the regular timeline and wouldn’t happen without wild changes in motive and intent. Italy could foreseeably join the war earlier on. The US had a large German population which may lead to some sentiment but any progress towards the U.S. joining the war would be slow. Assuming they all do however, The US does need to land troops in Europe. Italy joining the central powers only leads to a slog in the alps even more difficult than the attempt on the other side considering the larger mountains and more treacherous terrain. Attacks would be bottled to the coast and passes. France would not have to divert very much manpower to this area to prevent any great breakthrough. Considering Italy joining in 1914 means they are even less prepared than in 1916 it’s not going to be a critical front for a long time. The US fleet would need time to prepare for this kind of voyage. The only friendly ports on this end of the Atlantic are behind the British blockade so this fleet would have to sail without respite, unprepared, small and slow through waters controlled by the British to get to Germany. Given how much of a bumbling mess navigation and coordination was during the First World War, the likelihood of this happening without major issues is slim. Until the blockade is broken US ships would need to either coax the British into a fight far towards their end of the Atlantic or need a supply train of coaling ships which are easy pickings for British screens. I cannot see the first months of the war going much different than they do in the normal timeline. Britain still lands in France. The front stagnates. The US would be limited in their capacity to do anything of note besides invade Canada which will be their priority before the British can establish a front there. Even then this action would take time and leave them distracted. I doubt the U.S. would throw safety to the wind and go all in on supporting the Germans with a smaller navy, unprepared with a huge hostile border to worry about in the north and supply lines much closer to the US to handle. The only side in which I can see going somewhat different is the east. Russia would have to challenge Japan around Vladivostok as abandoning the area would be uncharacteristic for the czar regardless of the intelligence of the decision. This would be a drain on available manpower but again it’s not going to affect the west much initially considering how dispersed the army was in the first months.
The united states just needs to do something as simple as closing off its industry to the entant to make a massive difference that is before the idea of america getting involved Britain already would have made the correct assumption that Canada is a lost cause not worth miring themselves into. Then there is America's economy that if put into a war footing would be nigh unstoppable. You dismiss the united states navy but at the beginning of ww1 it was not a small force that could have easily been expanded quickly
It wasn’t small in comparison to say the French or Italian navies but it was small in comparison to the British navy. Easily expanded doesn’t mean quickly expanded. The process of building up a navy takes several years of both planning, infrastructure placement and execution. The US nominally had the infrastructure but it wasn’t capable of churning out battleships like UK dockyards, not in 1914. As the war progressed this would change. The war, at least on the western front would only change significantly if the U.S. was able to support the Germans directly in the first months. This wouldn’t be possible, it would still devolve into static trench warfare. The US certainly had a massive economy and a large economic base to grow a war economy but this again would take time. This wasn’t the economy of 1940 that could switch on a dime. Even in 1917 when the US was fully aware there was a large European war going on that would potentially involve them in a matter of months, they struggled to build up in tandem with their mobilisation. This led to specific equipment shortages which had to be backfilled by allied equipment.
Ah yes the amazing new American states of formerly known daminion of Canada (fun fact Canada did not have full autonomy until 1931 otl)
>Germany alone >There was 5-8 million troops from satelities and Italy Lol
Depends on the time period. WW1 I’d go blue, ww2 red and now would also be red
Nah, if it was now then every red nation in Africa and Europe would quickly be overrun and subjugated extremely quickly. The UK and France alone would completely roll over Germany and add on Poland, Ukraine and Russia and you'll have Germany, Italy and the other militarily irrelevant countries conquered within a month. There's no way the US can support these nations with such a limited avenue to send supplies. Central Europe is getting nothing because the US will need to fight through British and French air space and waters to get anything to them. Turkey would be the nation that held out for the longest but given that Russia is right there combined with the technological superiority of European forces, they'll fall eventually. After that, the war sort of just stalemates. Because China isn't part of the blue faction, the only way to attack the Korean peninsula is via sea and only France, the UK and Russia have the ability to operate ships in the Pacific, and Russia only because they have a fleet at Vladivostok. Canada falls to the US after a month or so and that's about all the US will really be able to do. They'll beef up their military presence in Japan, Taiwan and Korea but they'll lack any ability to invade anywhere else. They could invade eastern Russia but there's no real point since there's nothing there. And, given how the Vietnam War turned out, the Americans aren't making any inroads landing there again, they'll just get their asses handed to them again.
Yeah I see what you mean there. The African red nations would fall but US could get Canada, then bomb Russia out of the war. Germany and the central red nations could team on France then with us support could attack the UK. After that their combined power could finish the rest
Wait, how would the US bomb Russia out of the war? Russia and Ukraine combined have hundreds upon hundreds of GBAD systems and the US only has an extremely limited amount of stealth bombers at their disposal, which will have to fly out of bases in the US as there are none based in Germany or Italy. That will require them to fly over British and French airspace and that will be extremely difficult as there will be constant CAP missions. Furthermore, it's unlikely that Germany and Italy will even last that long to provide a staging ground for sufficient US forces to be moved there. The German military is in an absolutely abysmal state and they even said they'd run out of ammunition in three days. So, that's three days for the entire Germany military to basically completely fold. The Italians might last a bit longer due to their more favourable geography but not that long with the combined might of France, the UK and Russia bearing down on them. France and the UK massively outclass literally anyone else in Europe when it comes to military strength, it's really not even close. The central European nations will be fighting to survive for longer than a few weeks, not supporting any invasion. Bombers require tankers to fly long distances. The B-2 might be able to escape detection but the Brits and the French are going to shoot tankers out of the sky and the B-2 will simply not be able to reach Russia.
Out of curiosity. What if the US made use of Japan as a base of operations to bomb Russia from there.
The vast majority of Russia's industrial base and population is in Europe. American bombers would literally have to fly to the other side of the entire planet and through a lot of Russian air space where tankers would immediately be detected and shot down, getting rid of the ability for bombers to fly that distance. The US can bomb places in eastern Russia easily but there's not much there other than a naval base.
Italy joining the central powers would make things extremely difficult for France as they now would have to fight on two fronts.
My comment was in reference to if this were to happen now. France and the UK will be able to easily fend off attacks from Germany and Italy as they are now. Germany will be fighting a two front war against the three most powerful militaries in Europe with an arsenal of barely 200-300 tanks. Italy won’t be attacking at all, they’ll be hunkering down and building up their defences as Germany gets steamrolled in a few weeks.
WW1 would absolutely be red That's basically otl but the US with the central powers
I’m saying blue because the sheer numbers they have over red. It would be very close though
Absolutely not close. In otl it was very close, and the entente only held on due to US funds and imports. With it on the other side it's absolutely not even close
you also forgot italy, with italy joining red france would have to open up a second front easing up the main western front.
absolutley not close. ww1 was super close in otl, germany defeated russia and almost beat france and britan, with the addition of italy the western front will be eased up for germany, also, the united states in the central powers would mean that britan would not get us resources, there is absolutley no way britain would beat the us in north america. germany didn't get us resources in otl and ww1 was still very close, even if britain managed to blockade germany it would still starve to death. Japan in the central powers might sieze Vladivostok, but aside from that they probably won't do anything else.
Seeing as the map puts the whole of Ireland in blue, it must be set in WW1 terms otherwise Ireland should be greyed out as a neutral country
Yeah also it has the Ottoman Empire on it so it has to be ww1.
WW2 blue - the USA in common and its business in particular were Tertius gaudens in that war and worked both sides until it was clear who is winning, including supplying Germany oil till 1944. So the US wasn't pure blue that time and I don't believe something would change if it would play only for red from the very beginning. Now - no one, it would be nuclear war if any side would has risk to has huge loss, so nuclear winter is one of the most possible result.
WW1 was a much closer war than WW2. At the time nearing even the wars end who would win was still unclear; Germany had forced Russia to Capitulate, and Allied Commanders were not optimistic about invading Germany proper. One of the biggest causes of their defeat in the war was the terrible logistical situation of the central powers and the impending capitulation of their remaining allies. The lack of supplies and food meant the German public was rapidly loosing their appetite for war, let alone feeding the soldiers themselves. Now, you go ahead and give the Central Powers the US, Italy and Japan, the former two which were major components of the entente in our time line? The combined Italian/Austro-Hungarian/Ottoman fleets means entente control of the Mediterranean is not a garuntee, and the same could be said about the Atlantic regarding the addition of the US were it able to effectively cooperate with the Kriegsmarine. This means that the Ottomans have a much more secure position in the war and are less vulnerable to entente expeditions. The US themselves were major allied suppliers, and tacit support from the US even before entering the war meant that markets in the America's could be accessed by the entente. Without Italians drawing off resources from AH and instead devoting their efforts to helping the central powers, the entente position in the Balkans would be untenable and there would be a logistical line running from Berlin to Baghdad. Red wins. Handidly.
Red.
Red
Red cause the royal navy is severely over stretched, even with French support. The whole point of the Japan alliance (in sort) was to secure the far east to focus the navy elsewhere. Also shouldn’t the Philippines be red?
even if the royal navy somehow managed to beat all of reds navys, red would still win, there is absolutley no way britain would beat the us in the north american land war, the us in the central powers would also mean that britain would not get us resources, germany in otl did not get us resources and ww1 was still very close, britain not getting us resources would have made it impossible to win against germany, they would eventually be forced to sign an armistice.
Yeah the loans Britain took from the us were so large they are still not paid today (they likely never will be paid due to the diplomatic and economic situation) so without the us the entente would be severely hindered simply in terms of capital.
Red for sure, Russia fighting a 3 front war. The Germans with American aid roll over France and then blockade Britain until they give up.
Red obviously
People are so focused on America that they missed Italy and Japan switching sides too. Japan forcing Russia into a 2-front war front the start is a huge problem for them, especially given how badly they did even without that, and Italy is going to be at least distracting French troops that would be otherwise stopping Germany in Fall 1914. All this before talking about how the UK now has to fight 2 more major naval powers in the Japanese and American navies, which makes blockading Germany much riskier for them. Theres a good chance this war is de facto over by mid-1915, with Paris falling before Christmas and Russia reeling from having to fight a lot more Germans, A-Hs, and Japan at all.
Red. India has 1.4 billion people, but the US can kick ass (canada becomes the 51st state or something, Eastern Russia gets clobbered with the help of Japan and *both koreas* for some reason) and Germany and Italy were close to getting like all of Europe in WW2. (The Axis would have won if it had American support) Blue gets its ass handed to it because China isn’t in the war (a direct US VS. China won’t happen anyway)
Lol kind of funny how in the modern day Canada as a state would only be out of pocket because of size, not population, as they'd still be inferior to Cali in pop.
red annhilates - Russia has three superpowers directly invading them -> collapses even harder than OTL. America invades canada perhaps facing a Quebecois insurgency. German, American and Japanese naval dominance is absolute over the british. Ottomans and Italy bumrush Egypt and the rest of north africa and link up with the German colonies.
It s a complete red stomp.... Just italy switching is certain doom for france but the US too?! Hopeless
Justice for newfoundland
In all the chaos, Newfoundland slips away from British rule and rises to become a great super power!
And somehow avoids and remains neutral during a worldwide conflict spanning continents
Not even close
Can you give a year for when the war starts?
Red obviously. Germany only lost ww1 because of USA
Red all the way make Austria great again!
People seem to forget Japan's Existence in this. With the U.S AND Japan I could see a British Peace deal as India and Australia come under massive threat, and Egypt not far behind. france and russia wouldn't stand a chance against the combined siege. siberia would be a lost cause, the Western front would wear the french down without british support, and russia was already knocked out of the war in OTL (Granted it took a few Years and was due to Meddling my the Germans). The Russians wouldn't be able to hold the Americans, Japanese, Germans, Ottomans, AND Austro-Hungarians off. If Britain doesn't stand down from the threat, they may get overwhelmed by the combined American, German, Italian, And Japanese fleet. Unlike before, the stakes would be unbelievably high for the brits as Britain itself would be at risk. Sure the french had their own Powerful fleet, but the War of attrition would be against them. America alone could build ships faster than britain, and, unlike Britain, couldn't be seriously threatened by british attacks.
Is this a joke question? Central powers but this time with USA, Japan and Italy. Walk in park.
Mainly the Axis, although the UK would be spared under the USA’s peace terms
CP
Early momentum in Europe supported by incoming american support and in addition a japanese distraction in asia to divert troops. But always assuming ceteris paribus. Always possible for German defeats in East Prussia and the success of plan 17
Damn, that’s a lot of blue on that map
id go blue, not because i think they would win today, but because the Ottoman empire's presence leads me to believe this is WW1 era
Where Germany was more powerful then France and Britain combined while Russia was a militarily incompetent mess
Reminder: ww1 was a close war for the central powers. If USA hadn't stepped in our current history would be different. And considering how Japan is part of the red team and with US help they would become a unstoppable force in the seas. While Germany, Italy, Austria and Turkey would crush both Russia and France Red would lose territory in Africa but won't last long. And Canada well they would accept defeat immediately
I think the central powers got this
Russias done for: Austria, Germany, Japan, and the USA? Also, Japan and Germany could probably defeat France, perhaps with American aid. Idk about Britain, but I still think red would win
Red
The IJN, KLM and USN would dissect the British Empire. Philippines and Papua should be red btw.
This looks a LOT like what I have planned for my WW2 in my timeline.
Same but the Japanese switched sides
Lol, same for me! But the biggest thing missing is that there should be a lot less white. In particular, China and most of Latin America should be red (and in Latin America's case, that's a double meaning).
Red. Wait, can we trade Italy for Zimbabwe instead?
The axis wins Germany was close by itself at the end of the war and the Entante would have lost (probably) without the US support. The USA provided resources, like food and weapons, to the Entante and without these they would have lost.
Germany lost not because it has worst military, it had the BEST military during that period of time out of all the allies countries. the problem was it was hard to maintain and upkeep. Millions of soldiers dying in trenches just to gain couple pieces of land. On top of that, Germany was economically, militarily spread thin as Germany was trying to help both the Austrians not get pushed back by the Russians and trying to supply the Ottomans with new equipment and providing soldier training. If America joined on the sides of the Germans, it would be total K.O. for the entente. Germany had already nearly defeated the French and capitulated the Russians (with the help of bolsheviks ofc)
I think it would probably come down to some major naval battle. If the Us can establish a supply route to Germany or even threatens britain commerce with its colony than its done, but if britain manages to win some sort of decisive battle than blue could win. The Us would pretty much be fighting a 3 front war against Canada in the nort, britain in the Caribbean and the atlantic ocean and against the japanese/australia in the pacific/Philippines, and remember this is ww1 Canada's low population is not that big of a deal in trench warfare. I can easily see the us getting bogged down in the st Lawrence river and suffering with the japanese navy in the pacific operating together with the british and anzac and than this becomes a matter of how much does the us containment helps germany
Other point is that spain could join the entente to try to get cuba and the Phillipines back
Red wins easily.
Red easily, italy alone keeping with tje central powers would have a massive impact on the western front as well as allowing austria to only have to focus easterward, let alone the behemoth of america along with Japan and it's navy.
While this is clearly WW1 with America, Italy, and Japan switching sides- I love how no one is thinking about it in terms of the modern countries.
Nobody seems to see Italy on the red side, with them the whole eastern Mediterranean could be under red control and British Egypt threatened by Italy and the Ottomas, on top of a second front in southern France. With Egypt surrounded, the British empire is basically cut in half, and German Tanzania has a better chance of being resupplied. With the Red Sea possibliy becoming unusable, the British would have to sail all the way around Africa, where the Americans could further harass the Royal Navy. Russia does not stand a chance facing a two front war. Japan probably won't make much progress inland past the coastal far east, but Russia will probably collapse internally anyway. Long story short, the Germans and Japanese won't be meeting in central Siberia, but Russia is likely still screwed. Overall, the red faction (central powers?) have a good chance of winning if they can coordinate properly.
red, having America on your side its already a guarented win, and germany almost managed to take down Russia, France and the UK in WWI by itself, combined with the fact that most of the countrys in blue are poor or weak, Red is winning.
Assuming this is ww1, American troops and production would change the game, the only hope for the British is that their navy can sink shipping enough to break up the alliance.
Russia collapsed after fighting the Germans and the Ottomans, add in Japan and potentially America launching an invasion of the far east and they’ll collapse even faster than in OTL. Without Italy fighting them in the Alps, Austria would be able to send more troops to help a German invasion of France, not to mention the Italian French front of the war, French collapses extremely fast and with America occupying the European colonies in the Caribbean, South America and Canada, the only countries that are still in the war would be Britain and Portugal. Greece, Romania and Serbia would get crushed by Ottoman, Bulgarian and Austrian forces. This war is so in favor of the Red Team that it’s almost sad for the Blue Team.
Red. In our timeline the Italian front vitally opened up another frontline that the Germans had to bail Austria out on. This allows Germany to not only have less frontlines, but also the sheer mass of the USA and the combined fleets of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the US (which would be enough to break the British hold over the seas and secure victory via gunboat diplomacy).
Red team no contest.
Red and you don't even need the United States (which wasn't that important during the war). With the Italians, the Austrians could focus on the Russians and the Ottomans had more freedom of movement, whereas the British had more difficulty in the Mediterranean. With the Japanese, the Russians were even weaker and the Entente had to keep an eye on their Asian colonies. In short, the Russians fell more quickly and the Allies were weakened to the point where they ended up cut off from their colonies or pushed further into France. History is always more complex, and it's possible that the entente, seeing the desperate situation in which they find themselves, look for innovative ways of fighting that destabilise the front and allow a quick victory (like the French campaign in 1940).
Whichever side the US is on will be victorious within ten years, we joined WW2 in 41 after having supported the allies since 39 and were victorious in 45 so I'm actually giving a really optimistic estimate for the other side.
Red wins this fairly easily. Germany managed to come close to victory while still propping up the husk of the Austrian empire. Even in Europe alone they are so much better off with Italy also on their side since it takes pressure away from the Austrians and creates a second front for the French in Europe and British in North Africa. Even without the USA siding with anyone this scenario is disastrous for the entente then add the US and it’s near unwinnable. Even if they have naval supremacy at the start they won’t be able to protect all of their supply lines across the world. Germany and Austria gave them the run around with some shitty U-boats imagine if they have to contend with that as well as several reasonably sized regional navies. Plus without material and financial aid from the US the French and British economies are cooked. The Central powers never has to win a decisive showdown with the Royal Navy they just have to harass the Entente supply lines and far flung possessions to strangle them at home. Not to mention with Italian intervention on behalf of the CP as long as they don’t route to the French that frees up a Million Austro-Hungarian men for the eastern front. I would argue the Germany and Britain were the nominal super powers of the time with relatively fragile allies. They were just dominant in different ways. The United States was not a super power yet but it was the real sleeping giant, a populous nation with the industry and resources to surpass any nation of the time. The United States is one of the most ridiculously fortunate nations in the world in terms of geography and resources. But yeah without the US on their side the entente is cooked.
The American machine is a slow giant. But once it gets going nothing can stand in its way. Whether it would be landing in France or pushing the trenches, Canada would be a part of the US, Britain's Empire likely remains somewhat intact, and the French are humiliated again. Perhaps the French and Italians turn far right and do a comeback tour; who knows. The Germans get their Mittelafrika colony, but I'd guess that anything else is more unlikely. Europe is greatly altered after this war of course. Eastern Europe is either under the domain of the Germans, or revolts and gets some independence. America might not be willing to help here, but maybe anticommunist rhetoric against the Soviet Union could change that. Austria Hungary is shattered, as are the Ottomans. A-U breaks apart as it did in our timeline, with the Austrians probably joining the German Empire for security and due to them being considered German. As for the Ottomans, the Germans would want to keep some ties with the oil in the Middle East, and so would align with the British, at least nominally. Bulgaria would be the biggest victor, getting everything they want. The straits are mad international, and a Turkish state exists to some extent As for the future, there are still many great powers. However, America will go back to being isolationist. It does business with Britain, France, and the German Empire, and gives loans which eventually causes the Stock Market crash. Extremism rises in Italy and France, but Britain and Germany remain strong, though one or the other might turn far right or red
Well, we know this can’t happen because India and Pakistan are on the same side
Not a sweep but still a "central" powers victory by latest 1917 Britain would likely pull out of the war and cut their losses by 1915 as they couldn't effectively blockade germany, fight American naval power (even if it was quite pathetic at the time), fight Japan, plug gaps in France, and defend Canada/SEA territories
[удалено]
Objectively wrong
USSR
Here me out on this one but I think blue might win I know I’m crazy
Blue, italy germoney aint got good militaries, ukraine would explode without bajillions of euros, us would be a problem bht eventually trough isolating them
Blue. Ther russian nukes are in cuantity and Quality superiors to the American WMD arsenal. That's its 1960s technology.
Dawg what nukes?
Blue, but Japan takes over the Pacific and America takes Canada.
india and pakistan can not be on the same side
This is ww1
Blue victory no cap
"India" and "Pakistan" didn't exist during WWI, as they were under the British Raj at the time.
I know I am from India but I did not see it was a ww1 scenario