German Emperor Wilhelm II planned attack on the United States

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doesn't matter. Both had a vested interest in containing German power, and would have jumped at the chance to do so if Germany attacked America.

Britain did not want to go war at all with Germany in 1904. It almost didn't go to war with Germany in 1914... only invading neutral Belgium pushed them off the cliff. Though they really may have if the US was attacked.

[walruskkkch]

I think everyone has over looked one tiny little thing about this plan. The US President was Teddy Roosevelt. If Germany had tried anything like that Teddy would not have let this country let up till the doughboys were marching in Berlin. It wouldn't matter how many early victories the Germans may have enjoyed, Teddy would not have let them stand and would not have negotiated any peace except at the victory table where he would have dictated the terms. Whatever the size of our starting army the Germans would have run into the same problem they ran into later as did the japanese. We have a very good ability to crank up the industrial power of this country for war and an unprovoked attack on our Eastern cities would have made the anger we felt after Pearl Harbour look like a bad hair day.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, that would have been a very interesting war indeed. I would imagine that it probably would have ended in about 1914 if the United States was not going to let up until it had occupied Germany. Even in 1918 the Allied armies didn't occupy Berlin. The very idea of a marine invasion WITHOUT Britain or France to be the launch point (thus being forced to have bring the transports and the landing craft straight from America) would be logistically impossible. In all likelyhood, Teddy would have been ousted from the Presidency by 1912 if he actually wanted to pull off something like that.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Well, that would have been a very interesting war indeed. I would imagine that it probably would have ended in about 1914 if the United States was not going to let up until it had occupied Germany. Even in 1918 the Allied armies didn't occupy Berlin. The very idea of a marine invasion WITHOUT Britain or France to be the launch point (thus being forced to have bring the transports and the landing craft straight from America) would be logistically impossible. In all likelyhood, Teddy would have been ousted from the Presidency by 1912 if he actually wanted to pull off something like that.

I don't know why most people in the world think the people of the United State will not fight. Every time a war come's our way we do fight and the only time we may loose is when the politician get in the way.

[Dom Pedro II]

I'm not saying the American people wouldn't fight, and I don't recall hearing ANYBODY ever suggest they wouldn't. Straw man! Straw man!

Anyway, I'm just saying its a matter of common sense. I know we pulled off Normandy, but we didn't just pack up everything in New York and whizz on over there and drop onto the beach. No, of course not! We had to move the men to England first and then cross over... it's a much shorter distance of water you realize . I think if we trounced the Germans quite thuroughly at home and in a naval war, the American people would be like "Ok, good nuff. We won!"... I mean, this concept of "total war" is just NOT that common throughout history.

[Ned]

I don't know how either country could have actually invaded the other without major buildup of armed forces and supplies near the territory of the other. If the Germans tried building a large army in Mexico, we certain would have responded with our own buildup.

If the war started by the Germans taking some pot shots at New York without a prior buildup, the war would most likely have taken one of three courses. The first would be a naval engagement and a negotiated peace. I believe this what the Germans wanted. The second might be a fight in a far removed location like the Philippines where both sides would have major logistical problems. The third might be a fight to the finish.

A fight to the finish would have been proceeded by an extended naval struggle. It is far from clear that the U.S. would have won this battle given the prowess of German seapower at that time.

And yes, the war may have expanded to include other countries. I think particularly of the Austrians if U.S. troops were to actually land in Germany.

This might make an interesting scenario for someone to devolop for CIV III or Alpha Centaui.

Ned

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I mean, this concept of "total war" is just NOT that common throughout history.

Yes, it is.

[Dom Pedro II]

1. I highly doubt it would have been possible to land troops in that day and age without Britain or some nearby country giving a location for American troops to supply themselves.

2. I don't think Germany would have just started this war just for the hell of it anyway. I mean, they certainly weren't stupid people, and there would be very little to gain without taking an enormous and very unlikely risk of trying to beat a huge country thousands of miles away.

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, the total war concept isn't really that frequent throughout world history. Really only World War I and II saw that type of mobilization of society, economy, and military to make the single "war machine". The only thing that comes closest to it is Robespierre's revolutionary French republic during its wars.

The very idea that Germany or the United States would actually waste the time and VAST resources to try to conquer the other is entirely beyond reason. War with each other: Yes. But trying to successfully invade and occupy the other's country? Certainly not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Really only World War I and II saw that type of mobilization of society, economy, and military to make the single "war machine". The only thing that comes closest to it is Robespierre's revolutionary French republic during its wars.

I would argue that the American Civil War came closest to living out the ideals Clausewitz's ideas regarding absolute warfare and even those ideals didn't spring out of thin air being based on the campaigns of Napoleon and themes running throughout military history. The idea of making war upon an enemy's entire society is not new to military history.

[Dom Pedro II]

But even still, at even the most intense part of the Napoleonic wars, the percentage of the population actually affected by the war was minimal.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Doesn't matter. Both had a vested interest in containing German power, and would have jumped at the chance to do so if Germany attacked America.

Britain did not want to go war at all with Germany in 1904. It almost didn't go to war with Germany in 1914... only invading neutral Belgium pushed them off the cliff. Though they really may have if the US was attacked.

Not wanting to go to war and not NEEDING to go to war, for national interests, are two entirely different things. The German unification caused alarm among many in Britain who saw it not only as a formidable trading adversary, but as the new supreme military power on the continent. The German army was universally regarded as Europe's best-trained, most intimidating fighting force.

Britain was happy to develop a close trading relationship with Germany if just to keep her closer, but Germany's aggressiveness towards France (again, the N. African flap over Morocco) and her build up of the Navy was alarming. In fact, it was for these reasons the entente was created.

Now, I surmise had Germany carried through on these plans, that would have been even more alarming for Britain, and anything they could do to weaken Germany's position on the continent would be jumped at. Especially since France almost certainly would have joined the United States as an ally and marched right towards Alsace-Lorraine for payback. Given that the bulk of Germany's forces would be engaged in the invasion of the U.S., France could mass her forces and probably be successful in attacking the Germans.

[TCO]

We would have ripped their butts apart.

Americans are blood thirsty bastards. It's part of the pioneer heritage.

[Ecthy]

And it was shown when said pioneer heritage came to action over Japan. Blood thirsty huns.

[Saint Marcus]

I think everyone has over looked one tiny little thing about this plan. The US President was Teddy Roosevelt. If Germany had tried anything like that Teddy would not have let this country let up till the doughboys were marching in Berlin. It wouldn't matter how many early victories the Germans may have enjoyed, Teddy would not have let them stand and would not have negotiated any peace except at the victory table where he would have dictated the terms. Whatever the size of our starting army the Germans would have run into the same problem they ran into later as did the japanese. We have a very good ability to crank up the industrial power of this country for war and an unprovoked attack on our Eastern cities would have made the anger we felt after Pearl Harbour look like a bad hair day.

You do know that in 1900, the USA wasn't a superpower yet. Without British/French support, it wouldn't have stood much of a chance if it wanted to defeat Germany completely.

In a one on one war between the USA and Germany, it would be a marginal victory for Germany. The Panama canal would have been captured by the Germans, but they wouldn't have been able to effectively invade the American homeland. At the same time, the Americans would have been powerless to retake Panama, and wouldn't even get the oportunity to invade the German homeland. So in the end, Germany would have gotten Panama and that's about it. Though it's unlikely of course that the French or British would have stayed out of the war.

Remember, this is 1900 not 1941.