No American involvement in the First world War

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's say the Lusitania didn't sink or wasn't made as big a deal to the American populace and America saw the war in the trenches as nothing more than a conflict that was based on petty reasons and saw it better to stay at peace.

What would this mean for the war in Europe?

Up until 1917 the Americans did not participate but that year was also the year the Russians left the war and many German troops were sent to the western front; Without American forces to try and counter the surge in German forces would the British and French be able to hold out against the Germans?

From what I know the German navy put an end to British fishing during the war and this caused havoc on the British economy, if it were to be prolonged further or not received any support from America would it mean Britain would grow more desperate? With the Russians gone the Germans could freely fish in the Baltic from what I know.

Thoughts?
 
Let's say the Lusitania didn't sink or wasn't made as big a deal to the American populace and America saw the war in the trenches as nothing more than a conflict that was based on petty reasons and saw it better to stay at peace.

What would this mean for the war in Europe?

Up until 1917 the Americans did not participate but that year was also the year the Russians left the war and many German troops were sent to the western front; Without American forces to try and counter the surge in German forces would the British and French be able to hold out against the Germans?

From what I know the German navy put an end to British fishing during the war and this caused havoc on the British economy, if it were to be prolonged further or not received any support from America would it mean Britain would grow more desperate? With the Russians gone the Germans could freely fish in the Baltic from what I know.

Thoughts?

I think it would change the length of the war but not its outcome. The british empire hadn't fully tapped yet all its non-european resources with men and material being available in the dominions that were never sent OTL due to the war ending.

A ramification in my mind is that due to their effort during the war, the dominions might be even quicker to obtain full sovereignty then OTL and might benefit economically with helping to reconstruct europe.
 
I think it would change the length of the war but not its outcome. The british empire hadn't fully tapped yet all its non-european resources with men and material being available in the dominions that were never sent OTL due to the war ending.

A ramification in my mind is that due to their effort during the war, the dominions might be even quicker to obtain full sovereignty then OTL and might benefit economically with helping to reconstruct europe.

yes, although it would be hard to resupply Britain with german ships intercepting them so it would still leave an impact on Britain to some extent.

Although I can imagine the British going for a white peace in order to try and keep the empire together.
 
Let's say the Lusitania didn't sink or wasn't made as big a deal to the American populace and America saw the war in the trenches as nothing more than a conflict that was based on petty reasons and saw it better to stay at peace.

You have to avoid Wilson, or at least Wilson in 1916, to get this outcome. Also probably have to avoid many of the German government's very stupid actions (Zimmerman telegram, resuming unrestricted sub warfare in 1917) to keep the American public well against intervention. The Germans assumed the Americans were going to fall into the entente camp sooner or later once the British cut off any and all trade between them, and treated them as semi-enemies.

What would this mean for the war in Europe?

Very bad things for the entente.

Up until 1917 the Americans did not participate but that year was also the year the Russians left the war and many German troops were sent to the western front; Without American forces to try and counter the surge in German forces would the British and French be able to hold out against the Germans?

The French would collapse completely; their troops were rioting in 1917 and only agreed to go back to fighting when America entered the war. Without American entry they would fall apart and Germany would win on the western front.

From what I know the German navy put an end to British fishing during the war and this caused havoc on the British economy, if it were to be prolonged further or not received any support from America would it mean Britain would grow more desperate? With the Russians gone the Germans could freely fish in the Baltic from what I know.

Thoughts?

The British would be on the verge of bankruptcy and struggling to feed themselves without American entry, so I'd agree that they'd want out as soon as Russia and France gave in.
 
From what I know the German navy put an end to British fishing during the war and this caused havoc on the British economy, if it were to be prolonged further or not received any support from America would it mean Britain would grow more desperate? With the Russians gone the Germans could freely fish in the Baltic from what I know.

Thoughts?

Your contention sounds fishy

You must have some data to back up lost catch, effect on British economy and all that though right?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
World War I was a duel to the death for the European Empires- being on the losing side would mean the end of one's great power status. Unless your enemies prove stupid (i.e. Britain) afterwards, then there would never be a chance to recover

Neither France, Italy or Britain were anywhere near collapse in 1917 due to their easy resupply from overseas. The British and French had virtually unlimited manpower to draw upon from their colonies- both for military duty and for civilian use that freed up their soldiers

The most that American neutrality would mean, is that civilian living standards in Britain, France and their colonies would take a downturn

A separate peace with the Austrians would be a real possibility. Austria had no real quarrels with the Anglo-French and might fear a too powerful Germany. With Russia beaten, Austria's need for a strong Germany is greatly diminished
 
Your contention sounds fishy

You must have some data to back up lost catch, effect on British economy and all that though right?

Not at all fishy. It was in all the papers. Mined waters and all that. The cessation of pre-war over-fishing allowed fish stocks to rebound after both the big wars.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their

World War I was a duel to the death for the European Empires- being on the losing side would mean the end of one's great power status. Unless your enemies prove stupid (i.e. Britain) afterwards, then there would never be a chance to recover

Neither France, Italy or Britain were anywhere near collapse in 1917 due to their easy resupply from overseas. The British and French had virtually unlimited manpower to draw upon from their colonies- both for military duty and for civilian use that freed up their soldiers

The most that American neutrality would mean, is that civilian living standards in Britain, France and their colonies would take a downturn

A separate peace with the Austrians would be a real possibility. Austria had no real quarrels with the Anglo-French and might fear a too powerful Germany. With Russia beaten, Austria's need for a strong Germany is greatly diminished

Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their colonial manpower for obvious reasons; non-French citizens could not be drafted, and non-British subjects could not be forced to volunteer for overseas service - conscription was not in force in Ireland, for example, for obvious reasons, much less Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (white) South Africa... much less India and all the rest.

And while there very well may have been more men in the British and French African and Asian territories who would consider volunteering for their own purposes and for service in a "national" contingent with their own officers, sustaining British or French rule in their various home territories would not be among them, which raises the obvious question of why the British and French would have wanted such men in their armies.

The answer is no, they would not have, for the same reasons that - say - M.K. Gandhi's offer to raise Indian troops for the 2nd South African War was turned down.

There is a reason, after all, that India was never granted Dominion status; a national army means political equality, and that was not going to happen in 1914-18.

If the US did not enter the war, all else being equal, the French are limited to holding the line (the 1917 mutinies were just that) and the British and Dominion troops are either going to do the same or be a rapidly wasting asset.

Which means that sometime in 1918 the Allies and the Germans will meet and sign an armistice that - considering the Germans are still well inside French territory - is going to look a lot more like 1803 than 1814 (or 1815).

Which raises the question of how long before the next go-round; Europe as an armed camp in the 1920s is going to be debilitating.

Do the Germans win? No, but they sure as hell won't lose, either, especially with everything they can loot from the former Russian and Austrian empires.

The Turks are probably the worst off; Palestine and, presumably, the Levant and Mesopotamia are both gone, and if the British and French are denied gains in Europe, de facto or de jure (presumably they and the Japanese end up with what they got historically in Africa and Asia from the Germans), then Sykes-Picot or something similar will occur.

Best,
 
Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their colonial manpower for obvious reasons; non-French citizens could not be drafted, and non-British subjects could not be forced to volunteer for overseas service - conscription was not in force in Ireland, for example, for obvious reasons, much less Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (white) South Africa... much less India and all the rest.

errrr.... yes it was in new zealand and in canada (caused a stink too in quebec). In Australia the referendum in 1916 was only narrowly defeated (about 1%) but then, 40% of eligible people had served by the end of the war so volunteering was going well.

So all in all, I don't think it would be that hard to get more men.
 
I think it would change the length of the war but not its outcome. The british empire hadn't fully tapped yet all its non-european resources with men and material being available in the dominions that were never sent OTL due to the war ending.

Britain could keep up her own war effort, but without the massive unsecured US loans that she received in 1917-18, she couldn't have continued to bankroll France and her other Continental allies, without whom she can't keep up the Continental war (though a naval one might drag on a while longer.)
 
Which means that sometime in 1918 the Allies and the Germans will meet and sign an armistice that - considering the Germans are still well inside French territory - is going to look a lot more like 1803 than 1814 (or 1815).

Just to be sure I understand your allusion:
You mean that for Germany, the final peace treaty will look more like Amiens for the French than First or Second Paris for France, right?
 
You have to avoid Wilson, or at least Wilson in 1916, to get this outcome. Also probably have to avoid many of the German government's very stupid actions (Zimmerman telegram, resuming unrestricted sub warfare in 1917) to keep the American public well against intervention. The Germans assumed the Americans were going to fall into the entente camp sooner or later once the British cut off any and all trade between them, and treated them as semi-enemies.



Very bad things for the entente.



The French would collapse completely; their troops were rioting in 1917 and only agreed to go back to fighting when America entered the war. Without American entry they would fall apart and Germany would win on the western front.



The British would be on the verge of bankruptcy and struggling to feed themselves without American entry, so I'd agree that they'd want out as soon as Russia and France gave in.

not as likely that they would be having problems with food supply if there is not unrestricted submarine warfare. with it the USA will enter the war. the portrayal of the situation of the French is a little overstated. What it would mean is probably a complete switch to the defensive on the western front and a concentration by the allies on theatres such as the middle east.
and a continuation of the blockcade.
To be honest that was probably a better strategy anyway.
 
Not at all fishy. It was in all the papers. Mined waters and all that. The cessation of pre-war over-fishing allowed fish stocks to rebound after both the big wars.

But what was the effect on the British economy? I can understand the loss of catch being a concern as it is a major source of protein when sources of protein are being constrained. However in terms of revenue and in terms of the production of other items I have to wonder what level of impact it actually had?

Additionally a lot of the impact on fishing seems to have come from fishermen transferring from their boats to Royal Navy ships as they were Volunteer Reservists. Now you are probably aware that the Army had a comb out of service men with skills that in short supply for the war economy. Did anything similar happen with fishing or were the losses sustainable (as in Britain would not starve or experience severe malnutrition or face financial ruin)?
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their colonial manpower for obvious reasons; non-French citizens could not be drafted, and non-British subjects could not be forced to volunteer for overseas service - conscription was not in force in Ireland, for example, for obvious reasons, much less Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (white) South Africa... much less India and all the rest.

Both France and Britain make extensive use of their overseas colonial manpower and that includes Indian, Algerian and other non-white troops. They also use colonials as laborers in the rear- think Ho Chi Minh being a waiter Conscription isn't needed but its a possibility especially for rear service

And while there very well may have been more men in the British and French African and Asian territories who would consider volunteering for their own purposes and for service in a "national" contingent with their own officers, sustaining British or French rule in their various home territories would not be among them, which raises the obvious question of why the British and French would have wanted such men in their armies.

Both Britain and France made extensive use of colonials to aid in their rule over the colonies in OTL. If the choice is to use their black and Indians or be overrun by the Germans the answer is obvious The general ratio was one white troop for two natives. The heavy weapons (artillery and machine guns being kept under white control)

The answer is no, they would not have, for the same reasons that - say - M.K. Gandhi's offer to raise Indian troops for the 2nd South African War was turned down.

There is a reason, after all, that India was never granted Dominion status; a national army means political equality, and that was not going to happen in 1914-18.

How many Indians do you think actually served in WWI? Do you think that the British and the french are going to prefer the German peace terms? And why are you insisting that these men be used for combat roles?

If the US did not enter the war, all else being equal, the French are limited to holding the line (the 1917 mutinies were just that) and the British and Dominion troops are either going to do the same or be a rapidly wasting asset.

Not in the least- the British had huge numbers of troops in secondary sectors and with the equipment that could be bought because the Americans weren't using it, the Italians rearmed (if the Austrians don't defect)

Which means that sometime in 1918 the Allies and the Germans will meet and sign an armistice that - considering the Germans are still well inside French territory - is going to look a lot more like 1803 than 1814 (or 1815).

Insanely dumb of them if they would do it and they wouldn't. The British have no more reason to seek terms in 1918 then they had in 1915 and the French would never be able to recover from the terms, so they wouldn't be interested. The only way for this war to end, is for one side to lose all hope of victory.

In your scenario, the British and the French haven't and aren't
 
Last edited:
Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their colonial manpower for obvious reasons; non-French citizens could not be drafted, and non-British subjects could not be forced to volunteer for overseas service - conscription was not in force in Ireland, for example, for obvious reasons, much less Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (white) South Africa... much less India and all the rest.

What?

"The creation of a Foirce Noire in West Africa dated back to 1912, when, at Ponty's urging, the French government decreed that 5,000 Africans be recruited annually for the next four years. These troops were to replace the French units serving in Algeria, as well as to fight in Europe in the event of war. Although enlistment was intended to be primarily voluntary, compulsory enlistment-by voie d'appel- as introduced, which quickly became the norm before and during World War 1. Recruitment by voie d'appel assigned quotas to chiefs, who then had to present the necessary number of men to a commission de recruitment for medical inspection and enrollment. When war broke out, Africans recruited by voie d'appel gradually rose from 4 percent to more than 10 percent of the adult male population. It is estimated that 200,000 Africans were eventually mobilized between 1912 and 1919, and that 30,000 to 31,000 lost their lives."

Alice L. Conklin, A Mission to Civilize The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa 1895-1930, pg. 143

Now, the above method was inefficient - 1918 was the most productive year, since the French switched from forcibly rounding people up to military units to a persuasion and rewards based system of military recruitment - but the French did raise a lot of amount of manpower from West Africa during WW1, and they certainly weren't concerned about drafting non-citizens. In fact, easing barriers to naturalization was one of the rewards which was used during the later conscription drives; this was not honored post war so far as I can tell. As mentioned, 1918 was the biggest year of recruitment - 63,000 men recruited, thanks to the work of Blaise Diagne - and and this is only for West Africa, which although certainly very important, discounts in addition Indochinese, North African, Equatorial African, Malgasay, and other recruitment regions.

Whether that is enough to provide for sufficient military force for the Western front is up to debate of course. There were regions that were less tapped that could be potentially greater utilized under such schemes, such as Indochina - the Vietnamese faced prejudice as not being a "martial people", and thus were not recruited extensively as soldiers, doubtless in addition to political control concerns - but sans American involvement there is definitely a hugely reduced Allied force total in the long run. There is also the entire loans thing which is now being brought up and people will argue over for a long time too, which I don't really care much about. But the French did recruit and conscript a vast amount of manpower throughout their Empire, something that was only rising as the conflict went on and they got better at the recruitment campaigns.
 
I think it would change the length of the war but not its outcome. The british empire hadn't fully tapped yet all its non-european resources with men and material being available in the dominions that were never sent OTL due to the war ending.

A ramification in my mind is that due to their effort during the war, the dominions might be even quicker to obtain full sovereignty then OTL and might benefit economically with helping to reconstruct europe.

Some time look at the production totals for 1918 and whom made what for the Allies. If USA doesn't enter the war UK foreign currency reserves run out 1917 and UK and France are limited to importing what they can off of current accounts. If you just delete the USA's production its like 20% of small arms and munitions gone. This doesn't consider the negative impact of reduced raw materials on both UK and France.

This is just the tangible impacts the intangible is the knowledge in 1918 as the Germans hammered away in France that the troops just had to hold on as MILLIONS of fresh Americans were on their way is also lost.

Does it equal collapse for France and UK? Unknown, UK was in better shape than France and Germany was in very poor shape and A-H worse. Maybe no USA tips the balance and front collapses in 1918. Maybe it drags on for the bloody stalemate. Or perhaps Germany collapses on schedule.

I lean towards some version of French collapse in 1918. Or the interesting play. No US entry, no need for offensives in France by Germany. Instead Germany works to prop-up A-H vs. Italy and to get control in the Ukraine. And try to untangle their own industrial mess.

Michael
 
Except the British and French didn't WANT to mobilize their colonial manpower for obvious reasons; non-French citizens could not be drafted, and non-British subjects could not be forced to volunteer for overseas service - conscription was not in force in Ireland, for example, for obvious reasons, much less Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (white) South Africa... much less India and all the rest.

And while there very well may have been more men in the British and French African and Asian territories who would consider volunteering for their own purposes and for service in a "national" contingent with their own officers, sustaining British or French rule in their various home territories would not be among them, which raises the obvious question of why the British and French would have wanted such men in their armies.

The answer is no, they would not have, for the same reasons that - say - M.K. Gandhi's offer to raise Indian troops for the 2nd South African War was turned down.

The Indian army recruited almost 1.3 million men during WW1, of whom over 800,000 served overseas, mostly in the Middle-East. It is almost certainly the second largest volunteer army raised in history (the largest was the Indian army that fought in WW2) - several British generals bluntly said Britain could have lost the war without India's contribution. Over a hundred thousand men were raised in Africa (and the main barrier to raising more appears to have been the relative paucity of British officers who spoke an African language) and thousands more in the West Indies. So yes, they did want "such men" in their armies.
 
More details and the illegal blockade

In this situation, are you picturing the USA as a real neutral, or a not-so-neutral nation that accepts Britain's illegal closure of international waters and equally seizure of ships bound for NEUTRAL nations? That seizure is illegal no matter what the ships are carrying. (Note that, in the American Civil War, after a bit of a dispute, ships bound for Mexico were allowed through the Union blockade--even though their destination was just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, and the material was shipped to Texas without delay.)

How far would Britain go if the USA said, "NO! Respect our rights or else!"

(Even a one day embargo of war materials to the Entente would be a great shot across the bow...)
 
The Indian army recruited almost 1.3 million men during WW1, of whom over 800,000 served overseas, mostly in the Middle-East. It is almost certainly the second largest volunteer army raised in history (the largest was the Indian army that fought in WW2) - several British generals bluntly said Britain could have lost the war without India's contribution. Over a hundred thousand men were raised in Africa (and the main barrier to raising more appears to have been the relative paucity of British officers who spoke an African language) and thousands more in the West Indies. So yes, they did want "such men" in their armies.

exactly it is a massive insult to the huge numbers of colonial volunteers to ignore their huge contribution. Only someone whose consistent rewriting of history bllnds him to this contribution.would say such a thing.
I suppose I should not be surprised that a certain school of American analysis does not understand that empire and commonwealth history was and is complicated, and leaps to conclusions based on preconceptions.
Additionally It is interesting to note in light of todays world how many Muslims volunteered to fight, currently funds are being raised in Britain for an appropriate memorial for these gallant men.
 
In this situation, are you picturing the USA as a real neutral, or a not-so-neutral nation that accepts Britain's illegal closure of international waters and equally seizure of ships bound for NEUTRAL nations? That seizure is illegal no matter what the ships are carrying. (Note that, in the American Civil War, after a bit of a dispute, ships bound for Mexico were allowed through the Union blockade--even though their destination was just across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, and the material was shipped to Texas without delay.)


The US government was a bit embarrassed by that case. It turned out that the ship in question was carrying a large quantity on American goods as well as British. And for all anyone could prove to the contrary, it was perfectly possible (if improbable) that all the British goods were being legitimately sold in Mexico, whilst all the Union goods were going straight into the Confederacy.

See the chapter "Trading with the Enemy" in Bruce Catton's Terrible Swift Sword.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top