America stays out of World War One

Status
Not open for further replies.

Redbeard

Banned
tom said:
Could this have happened? How would the war have turned out?
The 1918 German spring offensive will be stopped by the British 5th Army, as it was in OTL. But when it comes to the Entente offensive from summer and autumn of 1918 a million fresh US troops will be missing, and it is unlikely that the German line will crumble as in OTL. On the other hand the Germans know thay can't win the war, having spent their last resources in the failed spring offensive, and I guess they will be motivated for an armistice - on reasonable terms (but probably meaning the Kaiser falling). In the Entente the French are a spent ball not having recovered energy after the 1917 mutinies (never has), and the British only have their plans for a 1919 blitzkrieg to hope for. But seen from a 1918 perspective it would not be the first time that somebody says: "just one more offensive, and we're there!". I guess the British with a German diplomacy short of the usual Wilheminian arrogancy and stupidity could be tempted into a peace agrement, perhaps with a free looting in the Ottoman shop as the price.

In Germany ending the war they started themsleves by invading Belgium and France without a victory will probbaly mean the fall of Kaiser Wilhelm, but there will be no humiliating versailles Treaty, no "Dolkenstoss Legende" and no nazis.

France will have problems in ending the war without a victory too (too big losses for so little), and I guess we could very well have this mean a national socialist movement/regime emerging in French instead of in German. I could imagine some animosity against the British for let the French down just before goal.

All over Europe the communists will be very active though, and the agitators have golden days everywhere refering to the capitalist imperialist rulers butchering milions of men without even winning the war. A communist revolution attempt could very well be what has the old enemies from WWI find each other, but also risk be a factor that has right wing totalitarian regimes appear acceptable to the centre.

In this scenario a Troskist (interventionist) apparoach will give more meaning in the USSR and a Stalinist (isolationist) less. I guess we could very well have the Soviets unleash thousands of tanks and planes westwards sometime in the 1930's or 40's. This could very well have the USA get involved in a war which by many contetemporaries will be seen as a replay of a war in early 19th century when the old regimes stood up to/fell over an revolutionary enemy.


Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Any "compromise" in the West would have left Brest-Litovsk in place in the East, and with germany still a threat the allies would have massively supported teh whites against their perceived Bolshevik puppets, so we can forget any great power USSR.

Actually I rather doubt that the war in the West would be ended so easily. Previous attempts to negotiate in periods of military stalemate had failed because the Germans were unwilling to consider pulling back to prewar borders without additional compensation (which the Allies would insist on as a bare minimum) unless they were loosing pretty badly, at which point the allies have little reason to accept a compromise.

My money's still on an Allied victory sometime in 1919, the preponderance in tanks, artillery, aircraft and motorised transport is still there, as is the edge in supplies. They don't have the Americans, but they have the Canadians and Australians who were relatively fresh AND COMPETANT to act as spearheads as in OTL. The French also weren't totally spent, they recovered markedly in the course of 1918, although they never reached 1914-16 levels of offensive spirit they wouldn't have needed to to pose a real threat to teh Germans and enough of a distraction to let the British push forward in Flanders.

Without the Americans German morale wouldn't have collapsed and the war would have dragged on into 1919 before they were defeated. On the plus side, Wilson wouldn't have been involved in the peace negotiations . . .
 
President Kane

An interesting POD is 1906 William Randolph Hearst wins election as governor of New York and in 1912 becomes President of the US in the 3 way race (there is an argument to be made that Teddy R would've dropped out of the race to prevent this though)

President Hearst was something of an Anglophobe and would have handled the blockade issues differently--pressuring the British more to respect the Hague Treaty and insisting on American shipping rights. He would've negotiated via Bethmann-Hollweg a restricted KM submarine campaign.

The second question is one of those "done before" on the old Board. To cut to some key points--without the need to win before the Yanks arrive the German offensive would've started later and been spaced more. On this last point let me make the needed distinction between going slower in an offensive in a particular sector (which is not good to do) and having more time to prepare between opening an offensive in a new sector (which is good to do). So 1918 ATL is not the same as 1918 OTL. Still I don't see the Germans taking a Channel Port much less Paris but there is a chance they may take either Amiens or Rheims or both and if they do and can hold it makes the rail line situation worse for the AngloFrench counterblow.

Bottom line prediction: Mutual Exhuastion forces a negotiated end to the war.
For Germany it's better than Versailles but worse than ante bellum--eg. they lose Lorraine but keep Alsace. Reparations are smaller and they keep a dozen dreadnoughts--but no Uboats. Kaiser is likely to go and if he stays his powers are reduced to near figurehead levels.

Socialists are much stronger all over Europe. So are various extreme right wing types. One of my favorite points about a WI France that either loses or does less well in World War One is that there would be not one but two Far Right elements in play--an ultraCatholic monarchist one and an AntiCatholic UltraNationalist one (looking to Clememnceau as a father figure). The former may well be the lesser evil. Though actually in this situation I would think the French Left to be stronger.

Meanwhile back in the Americas the Second Mexican War is ending.
 
USA with WWI anti-German problems

On ething that did come out of WWI in the USA was a fair (although not overwhelming) amount of anti-german feeling, probably necessary to whip us up to go to war. This had a termendous impact on german americans, names were changed, german schools closed.

If no entry, no hysteria, these things stay in place. What would the impact of htis be??
 
With no WW1 anti german the histeria would be overwhelming come round two. Both Japs & Huns in the Camps.
 
"On ething that did come out of WWI in the USA was a fair (although not overwhelming) amount of anti-german feeling"

Fair? Woodrow Wilson basically unleashed a reign of terror. German-Americans were lynched, for crying out loud! Conscientious objectors and other opponents of US entry into the war got horribly mistreated too.

With none of that happening, I guess there'd be a lot more German names in the US, plus more German taught in schools, German food, etc.
 
Norman said:
On ething that did come out of WWI in the USA was a fair (although not overwhelming) amount of anti-german feeling, probably necessary to whip us up to go to war. This had a termendous impact on german americans, names were changed, german schools closed.

If no entry, no hysteria, these things stay in place. What would the impact of htis be??

I get the impression that while this hysteria was more intense than some people realize (esp. those who think positively of Wilson) it faded remarkably quickly after the war. One thing to note is that some of this antiGerman sentiment surfaced before American entry so if America stays out there would still be a goodly amount of low level hostility.

One person to mention is HL Mencken who was an unabashed Germanophile.
He was starting to take off in the trendy magazine Smart Set when the growing American hostility towards Germany made his politics unacceptable. While America was actually in the war he was forced to write about apolitical topics and was watched day and night by government agents who were sure he was a traitor. After the war he soon made a quick comeback in American Mercury. Without the US in the war his ascendancy would've been unitterrupted.
 
I have the impression that the anti-german hysteria was ramped up to get us into the war. If we chose not to get into the war, maybe they don't begin the campaign, and the hysteria doesn't occur.

It is worth noting that in areas with high german populations it wasn't as prevelent as other areas.
 
As a matter of interest, without looking it up somewhere, would you people like to make a guess as to how many deaths in battle Britain suffered during the Napoleonic Wars? (No, this is not irrelevant.)
 
Prunesquallor said:
As a matter of interest, without looking it up somewhere, would you people like to make a guess as to how many deaths in battle Britain suffered during the Napoleonic Wars? (No, this is not irrelevant.)
between 25 and 40 thousand?

Now that I've guessed I'll go look.

I was able to get back and edit

UK Navy, 1804-15:
KIA: 6,663
Shipwrecks, drownings, fire: 13,621
Disease: 72,102
TOTAL: 92,386
UK Army, 1804-15:
KIA: 25,569
Disease: 193,851
TOTAL: 219,420
 
Last edited:
Redbeard, actually the German economy will tank anyway and without Versailles as an excuse. Germany had accepted a horrifying level of debt which could not be paid off under any reasonable circumstances. Only the so-convenient rampant inflation after 1918 saved the farmers, Junkers and other extremely conservative elements.

Well, let's assume the German advance in 1918 is similar and forced back as it was, but the great Allied counteroffensive is either cancelled or much more modest, with bigger things for planned for 1919.

Meanwhile, as spring dawns on 1919...

Bulgaria and the Ottomans are both down, while German troops are diverted to hold the Italians from breaking into Austria proper.

In the east, the German occupation army, gutted to a mere one million for the great 1918 offensive, had already lost ground to Russian factions. Now that the US has failed to act, the 200,000 strong Czech Legion surges forward and liberates everything east of the Dnieper, rapidly rallying Russians to the cause(anti-German and pro-White Russian). With nothing in the way of reserves remaining, German troops suffer heavily while retreating.

Serbia is free, Austria begins to break up, and the German forces in Romania are threatened with envelopment from two sides.

Then came the great western offensive, spearheaded by over 500 new tanks...
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
I do not think France would have held without the promise of American troops. It was a MASSIVE morale booster to an army that had already risen once in mutiny and which could hardly be trusted to endure an endless topil without some form of outside help being on the horizon. If the USA does not enter, then even their favourable loans and sales of materiele would not equate with the finance they pumped into the war effort in 1917-1918. You cannot just remove the US forces from the equation but leave morale and finance in it

Grey Wolf
 
More successfull entente

The US got into the war because Germany was about to win and dominate Europe. So to keep the US out, the Entente has to do better.
That means that Turkey has to stay out to keep the Russians in, better armed, clothed, fed, and paid.
The war lasts until 1919 and mutual exhaustion sets in. Russia had had less casualties than the Western Allies had, but their economy could not stand the strain in OTL. In this ATL they get more material and suffer more casualties. The Western Allies get less material and launch less attacks.
 
Norman- I'm not really concerned with deaths from disease, shipwreck, etc. I mean only the real butcher's bill- those whose deaths contributed to the defeat of France (a very imprecise instrument, I agree, but a good indicator.) You have a figure of 32,000 British battle deaths 1804-1815. I'd be interested to hear what your sources are. They're rather higher than mine. After Waterloo, Lord Henry Temple (the future Lord Palmerston), in his capacity as Minister at War, gave the Commons an account of British military activities from the engagement at Valenciennes (July 1793) to the taking of Peronne (a week after Waterloo). In 22 years of warfare (including the War of 1812) , the British Army lost 920 officers and 15,214 other ranks, the Navy lost 3,662 men. Less than 20,000 KIA. Having read the books and watched the tv series, Hornblower, Sharpe, etc, these figures came as a shock to me (I found them in Jasper Ridley's life of Palmerston.) I suddenly realised how minor Britain's direct military involvement in the French Wars was, as opposed to,say, Austria. The point I'm trying to make is that Britain, with only limited involvement in Europe, tended naturally to overstate the value of its armed contribution. It saw itself as an overall arbiter, not realising that in fact it was a peripheral power. In fact, just like America in 1918. To me the importance of American forces in Europe is greatly overstated. It's one of these myths like the crucial role of the tank or the unparalleled iniquity of Versailles. What finally broke the will of the German High Command was events in the East, not West, the collapse of Germany's allies.

GW- I don't think American entry had anything greatly to do with French Army morale. In fact the great mutinies occured after America entered the war. What kept the French going was the implied promise that there would be no more pointless offensives like Nivelle's.
 
Prunesquallor said:
You have a figure of 32,000 British battle deaths 1804-1815. I'd be interested to hear what your sources are.

The point I'm trying to make is that Britain, with only limited involvement in Europe, tended naturally to overstate the value of its armed contribution. It saw itself as an overall arbiter, not realising that in fact it was a peripheral power. In fact, just like America in 1918. To me the importance of American forces in Europe is greatly overstated. It's one of these myths like the crucial role of the tank or the unparalleled iniquity of Versailles. What finally broke the will of the German High Command was events in the East, not West, the collapse of Germany's allies.

I just pulled the numbers off an internet search, so I can't really attest to the accuracy, but your point is very good, the actual contribution of US troops in WWI wasn't great. However, consider that even in the napoleonic wars GB's contribution was less than that of other countries. The real impact of England was that it served as a type of giant warehouse of the things needed for the war.

Similarly, I suggest that contribution and effect are not the same. German realization that the US was in the war meant that the US could serve as the 'untouchable' warehouse for the allies. Without this, the Germans continue to fight if only hoping to cut a better deal for themselves.
 
I'd always thought that the US's biggest role in WW1 was in supply, not combat troops. One of my books makes the claim that the US underestimated just how much help the allies needed after the US entered the war, but after talking to allied leaders, Wilson got the rather numbing news that they needed everything from food to footsoldiers. The US's greatest achievement in the war was vastly increasing it's short wheat crop in a matter of months, and supplying steel and all the other things required for war. The US simply didn't have the time to raise huge armies to send to Europe. However, from what I've read, even though the US troops weren't in great numbers, they did allow the Brits and French to concentrate their own troops for important attacks.
This topic came up on the old board as well; someone there came up with the rather nasty notion that the US butted into a war where they weren't wanted and caused Germany's utter defeat and ruined the economies of Europe. Thus, the US's unwanted entry caused the Great Depression, the rise of the Nazis, WW2, and the Holocaust. That whole theory relied on the unproven notion that a WW1 without the US would have led to a finely balanced peace agreement where all sides would be happy (or at least equally unhappy). I have serious doubts it would work out so handily....
 
Ask the Germans

The sources I read said it was a combination of an American army increasing by 100,000 a month on one hand, and an American promise of a peace without victory on the other hand.
The Salonika front was only possible because the American army had 1,500,000 troops in Europe. Churchill said that otherwise the British and French would have pulled them home for a desperate last ditch defence of Paris.
 
So same outcome same time?

So, is Germany likely to be forced a treaty like Versailles in late 1918 or possibly just a few months later?

Will Versailles be much harsher? I tend not to think so. Various things the French wanted to do to Germany, like breaking off the Rhineland, were opposed by the Uk just as much as by the US. At most, Germany is just imposed higher reparations, which are just inflated away eventually. Oh, and there might be outright annexation of German colonies rather than League Mandates. I think the British wanted a League of Nations all on their own without Wilson forcing the idea. So in sum, the real aspects of Versailles remain the same, only the fictional aspects change.

Now a generation later Germany will probably be ready for some type of rematch. Will it be easier or harder to get the USA into that rematch?
 
US homefront in neutral WWI

Another aspect of a neutral US in WWI- how would the civil rights movement been affected, if at all ? Would the Jim Crow system have been less challenged in this ATL had there not been 200,000 African-American soldiers sent to France who came back unwilling to accept the traditional inequality they'd always been subject to ? Without these vets and the NAACP's political attempts to support substantial black participation in the US war effort (including lobbying for an effective anti-lynching bill), would there still have been a Red Summer in 1919, with assertive blacks (esp vets returned from the Western Front) taking up arms to protect themselves and kill any rampaging whites who threatened them ? There would still have been lynchings thruout the country, esp in the Deep South, for 1 thing, and of the same ferocity as occurred during OTL war yrs (such as the Jesse Washington lynch-burning in Waco, in 1916 and 1917 lynching-burnings in Tennessee).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top