German Emperor Wilhelm II planned attack on the United States

[Captain Antilles]

Someone actually wrote a Turtledovian alternate history about this idea

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891415378/qid=1020866669/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/104-9133731-2911910

I read it about 7 years ago, I think. I don't remember much, so it couldn't have been that great.

[Ecthy]

a book about mother's day?

[chequita guevara]

Cosica wasn't conquered by the French, it was purchased. Genoa sold it.

The French provided the US with Layfette, one of our better generals during the Revolution.

[Captain Antilles]

a book about mother's day?

When I click on the link I get brought to "1901: A Novel", a book about the German invasion of the US in 1901.

Hmm.

[Bereta_Eder]

who cares what you planned?
you are now completely castrated and working your butts off paying all of us

[Boris Godunov]

Had Germany attacked the U.S., it would have started WWI 14 years earlier. Britain and France would have seized the opportunity, under pretense of defending the U.S., to declare war on Germany, as both had gripes with Germany and were concerned with her military power and economic dominance of the European continent. Also, France was itching for revenge after their humiliation by Bismarck in the Franco-Prussian war. The big difference is that Austria and the Ottomans might not have supported Germany, as the attack on the U.S. would likely come across as unprovoked aggression. Thus, Germany likely would have been alone against 3 major powers, likely more if Russia decided to get involved. Germany's defeat likely would have been swifter and more decisive than in WWI.

As for those making the laughable suggestion that the U.S. would cave in if Germany attacked our coastal cities...that's nonsense. Remember, the Brits in 1812 burned our capital, and we still kept fighting and won. Lincoln didn't surrender when the South invaded Maryland and PA. When the Japanese thought the same thing in WWII, that we'd cave after a quick attack, we showed them they were wrong.

Germany wouldn't have been able to beat the U.S. at that time.

[Sprayber]

Some will say that we survived the War of 1812 instead of really winning it. The Brits will no doubt point out the many other things that were going on at the time of that war, but in the end it was their fault for over extending themselves to begin with.

Your point though is valid and that's what Zribbler tried to say earlier but people were too busy climbing to their ivory towers and didn't get it.

[Ecthy]

note: the entente cordiale between the UK and France wasn't before 1904.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
note: the entente cordiale between the UK and France wasn't before 1904.

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.

Germany's building up of its fleet was viewed by the British as a direct threat to their own navy, as there wasn't anyone else it could be directed towards (they felt). This was a major source of British concern with German arms build up.

[Ecthy]

So they didn't even need an entente cordiale to hate Germany together?

(I know. the word itself stands for an agreement over colonial issues...)

[Boris Godunov]

The thing is, had Germany not been quite so aggressive in North Africa with the French and in building up her fleet to match the Brits, Britain might very well have stayed out of WWI. Until the above incidents, Britain and Germany were actually heading towards the path of a somewhat amicable relationship.

We come back to the idea that had Bismarck been running things, Germany probably would have had a far better time of it during the last century.

[Ecthy]

Yeah, but then North Africa was an issue for the French? I thought they were deep into their Revanche.

As for the Brits and the fleet, that's probably true. Too much confrontation there, but that's what Wilhelm II. was like. Mememememe. His grandfather is said to have been better there. Under Wilhelm II. the 2nd Empire was just not the same as under Wilheml I., Bismarck and Moltke. Basically 2 eras in 1, isn't it a laugh?

[Dom Pedro II]

Sprayber : I was actually saying that I thought it WAS a good thing that the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack them. I said that quite plainly. But facts are facts... Pearl Harbor wasn't just out of the clear blue sky. I supported instigating the conflict because it let us stop the Japanese reign of terror.

[Dom Pedro II]

And in addition to that, the reason why I was being "indignant" is because in most of the situations he described, we were not the ones who were attacked, or at least not attacked without provoking attack.

The American public wasn't enraged about paying tribute to the Barbar Coast, it was rich trade merchants that didn't want to have to shell out more money.

The thing is that the only times when his statement is applicable would be World War II and the American Revolution because those were the only times that either the great majority of the population was forced to throw its weight behind a war or that there was a general wide-spread mobilization of the economy. I'm not denying that when America gets a war machine going, it really GOES! But most (note the word most, please) of these circumstances were really like any other conflicts of their day. There was nothing particularly spectacular about any of them.

And with regards to Vietnam, we lost Vietnam not because the public wasn't supporting it but rather because we didn't even know why the hell we were there! We had very abstract goals, and when you haven't got your objectives clearly defined, you lose. I don't care how powerful you are.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans (remember, they sided with the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War), and were quite cozy with the Germans, as the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor were practically the same people.

Actually Britain was never anywhere close to recognizing the Confederacy. The Europeans generally thought that the war was primarily over slavery. Britain had freed it's slaves only 30 years before, and the evangelical movement that had forced this issue was still very strong. During the war a British shipbuilder built a commerce raider christened "The Alabama" for the Confederacy. When this was discovered riots broke out in several major British cities. Particularily notable were riots by textile workers laid off because of the short supply of cotton. The major factories were located areas dominated by evangelism, and these people were willing to sacrifice their jobs if it meant helping to end slavery. The incident nearly brought down the government in a vote of no confidence.
I did a college paper on the subject.