America stays out of WWI

[luakel]

Wendell, I'd say it's most likely the Germans will lose all overseas colonies, with the Brits taking over administration of Kamerun and Togoland when/if the French fall apart.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by luakel

Wendell, I'd say it's most likely the Germans will lose all overseas colonies, with the Brits taking over administration of Kamerun and Togoland when/if the French fall apart.

But, in return, Germany might get a bit more in Europe.

[Gladi]

Originally Posted by Kaiser James I

How would it be defeated? They needed more men to stop it and then the men to drive the Germans out of France. That they got from America.

Bright day
They would get some spare change (100 000) from America... Czech-Americans. And didn't BEF keep several million in reserve?

[Wozza]

Originally Posted by Kaiser James I

With America completely out of the War, Germany would have been victorious, though it would have been a costly victory.
Would the world have been at a loss for a German victory? I doubt that it would have come to an end. What would the aftermath and following peace have been like?

In fact it was impossible for the Germans to win as they had run out of rubber.
Which means no gas masks in 1919.
(as well as no food of course)

The first strikes started in Germany in January 1918, and the spring offensive was in part a reaction to those strikes as well as the US intervention.

The spring offensive would probably still be launched, and still fail, the British army would still breach the Hindenburg line, the Germans might last the winter, but it is unlikely many of them would feel like fighting by spring 1919.

Not launching the spring offensive may bring a respite, or it may accelerate collapse, with a passive army finding itself destroyed bit by bit even as the home front collapses.

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by Wozza

In fact it was impossible for the Germans to win as they had run out of rubber.
Which means no gas masks in 1919.
(as well as no food of course)

The first strikes started in Germany in January 1918, and the spring offensive was in part a reaction to those strikes as well as the US intervention.

The spring offensive would probably still be launched, and still fail, the British army would still breach the Hindenburg line, the Germans might last the winter, but it is unlikely many of them would feel like fighting by spring 1919.

Not launching the spring offensive may bring a respite, or it may accelerate collapse, with a passive army finding itself destroyed bit by bit even as the home front collapses.

If, as previously stated, the blockade of Germany was made more effective by US entry into the war, then it seems quite reasonable to state that the major effects of the blockade might not be so pronounced as they were historically.

If there were a negotiated peace, I would expect Germany would the occupied portions of Belgium and France as leverage to regain their colonies. In economic and industrial terms I would not be surprised if Flanders was worth more than the entire German colonial empire.

[Wozza]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

If, as previously stated, the blockade of Germany was made more effective by US entry into the war, then it seems quite reasonable to state that the major effects of the blockade might not be so pronounced as they were historically.

I have never heard this, and although you are no doubt correct in an absolute sense I am not sure it was decisive or of very great significance (as oppsed to the US role in u-boat warfare), some of the worst hunger was the previous year I recall.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

I might be wrong, but I also recall hearing that the blockade on Germany was not fully effective until US entry into the war. US entry provided their navy to fill in gaps in any remaining gaps in the blockade, as a fair amount of the British Navy had to be kept in a position to counter any German sortie rather than being on blockade duty.

I believe you are referring to North Sea Mine Blockade, which only became possible with American industry and a new mine designed by the USN. Some people during and after the war (not just Americans, one of the theory's proponents was Admiral Roger Keyes, RN) claimed that the mine barrage eliminated the illicit traffic to Germany that the naval blockade didn't catch. In recent decades, there has been much doubt cast on that hypothesis. Besides the American minelayers, the only ships that could be considered part of the blockade were the battleships of the Sixth Battle Squadron that served with the Grand Fleet.

[luakel]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

If, as previously stated, the blockade of Germany was made more effective by US entry into the war, then it seems quite reasonable to state that the major effects of the blockade might not be so pronounced as they were historically.

If there were a negotiated peace, I would expect Germany would the occupied portions of Belgium and France as leverage to regain their colonies. In economic and industrial terms I would not be surprised if Flanders was worth more than the entire German colonial empire.

Then the Pacific Colonies and SW Africa are lost, and Britain likely gets some deal with Germany to have Railroad Rights through East Africa.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by luakel

Then the Pacific Colonies and SW Africa are lost, and Britain likely gets some deal with Germany to have Railroad Rights through East Africa.

What if Belgium was persuaded to part with Congo in return for, say, Luxembourg?

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

Naturally one gets two quite different answers to this question depending upon whether the US is still "the arsenal of democracy" b.

Sorry, but you're confusing wars.
In WWI, US was NOT the 'arsenal of democracies. FRANCE was. In fact EVERY weapon the US army used, heavier than a riffle, was french made, even down to light machine guns. It can be said that equippying the US army actually weakened the french one in late 17, early 18.

For exemples, in OTL WWI, France produced :
+ 3,800 tanks, 400 of which were provided to the allies ( 240 to USA )
+ 51,000 war planes, 10,600 of which were provided to allies ( 4,000 to USA )
+ 95,000 planes engine, of which 25,000 were provided to allies

In addition France provided a total of 7,000 cannons to her allies, 4,000 of which to the USA ( I don't have total production ). That's in addition to machine guns, ammo, ...etc

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by Shadow Knight

Africa...maybe but then risk your white African citizens refusing to fight alongside the africans.

Do you have an idea how many french African troops fought in WWI OTL?

FYI, they were 400,000 and we're not speaking white men here. These men were volunteers from Africa. That's about 5% of the french troops in the war. There were no colonial troops from Idochina ( through about 150,000, IIRC, were conscripted as labour in the war factories ).

AT that time, the population of the french empire was about equal to that of metropolitan France, so even if we admit that the conscription system would have been about half as effective in the empire, France could have upped its army by 50%, getting another 4,000,000 men. Much more than the US ever sent to france, let alone to the front.

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by Chengar Qordath

If, as previously stated, the blockade of Germany was made more effective by US entry into the war, .

Why would that be? In what way did US entry make the blocade more effective?

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by fhaessig

Why would that be? In what way did US entry make the blocade more effective?

Since the most powerful neutral on the planet was now an Ally, Britain did not have to respect neutral rights anymore and was able to put a lot of pressure on states that still traded with Germany (I'm thinking the Netherlands).

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by Kaiser James I

How would it be defeated? They needed more men to stop it and then the men to drive the Germans out of France. That they got from America.

Do you know how many US troops actually went to the front ( as opposed as getting ready for war in 1919 ) in time to stop Michael offensive and to push the germans back ( I'm not speaking of actual fighting, but just being on the front )?

IIRC( someone correct me if I'm wrong ), the numbers are on the order of 20,000 for the former and 135,000 for the later. Not neglectable, but Not that significant in the west front in 1918 ( IIRC, there were about 12,000,000 men ).

One number I'm sure of is that in late 1918, out of 205 allied division, 29 were americans, and the number has been growing during the year.

The main effect of US entry in the war until 1918 was moral, not material.

1919 would have been different - which is why Germany surrendered instead of fighting to the end ( but the end would have been allied occupation of Berlin ) -. The potential of the USA was much more important than its actual physica action ( In fact, USA total mobilised troop strength in WWI was about half that of France or UK ).

NB : I'm putting numbers from memory, here, so, again, if I'm wrong, correct me.

[fhaessig]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Since the most powerful neutral on the planet was now an Ally, Britain did not have to respect neutral rights anymore and was able to put a lot of pressure on states that still traded with Germany (I'm thinking the Netherlands).

Was it that significant? I thought the british blockade was already really tight on neutrals woho would trade with germany prior to US entry.

Do you have numbers of tonnage of shipping to the Netherland prior to and after US entry in the war? Is it very different? Or of Netherlands selling imported goods to the Reich?

[luakel]

Originally Posted by Wendell

What if Belgium was persuaded to part with Congo in return for, say, Luxembourg?

No, if Germany wins Luxemburg as a nation is gone. I'd say that having Germany gain the Congo from a mostly occupied Belgium in exchange for giving up SW Africa and the Pacific islands is reasonable.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by fhaessig

Was it that significant? I thought the british blockade was already really tight on neutrals woho would trade with germany prior to US entry.

Do you have numbers of tonnage of shipping to the Netherland prior to and after US entry in the war? Is it very different? Or of Netherlands selling imported goods to the Reich?

I remember reading, a long while back so not sure of the details, that the blockage tightened during the war. Both in terms of greater skill in intercepting blockage runner and, probably more importantly in the steadily growing definition of goods which could be impounded. Once the US joined the war it did remove the last neutral of any significant economic strength. As a neutral it had opposed tightening the blockage, as a combatant it actually pushed for further restrictions.

Steve

[Saladin]

The answer to the original thread question is very simple ... The Allies win, suffer more casualties from having to take up about 80 miles more front (The length manned by the US in 1918 IIRC) and the individuals who die are altered by those damn butterflies.

Why?

Well ... firstly the blockade. A purely British operation, so it is uneffected by US involvement. As such people will reach breaking point at roughly the same time. Ciountering this is the lslightly higher german morale from not knowing they have a new enemy.

Second ... The British are manning about 55% of the trench front at this point, although they are beginning to feel a slight manpower pinch, they can absorb the very limited amount of frontline manpower that the US provided.

Third ... by 1918 the British Army had become a Victory machine. They had taken 4 years to do it, but had eventually worked out a way of successfully carrying out offensive operations; so they have the material, the skills and (just) the manpower to win the war

I would refer people to the following books: Trevor Wilson's The Myriad Faces of War and two books by Wilson and Robin Prior Somme and Passchendaele

A disclaimer: Trevor Wilson and Jackson Hughes (who is extensively cited by Wilson) were my Masters Special subject teacher and Dissertation advisor respectively. And we actually had this discussion one day in a tutorial that started at 11. At 12 it continued in the Bar and finished at 11.20 PM when we were unceremoniously slung out of the University bar for tryuing to re-create trench systems with fag ends

[Chengar Qordath]

Originally Posted by fhaessig

Sorry, but you're confusing wars.
In WWI, US was NOT the 'arsenal of democracies. FRANCE was. In fact EVERY weapon the US army used, heavier than a riffle, was french made, even down to light machine guns. It can be said that equippying the US army actually weakened the french one in late 17, early 18.

For exemples, in OTL WWI, France produced :
+ 3,800 tanks, 400 of which were provided to the allies ( 240 to USA )
+ 51,000 war planes, 10,600 of which were provided to allies ( 4,000 to USA )
+ 95,000 planes engine, of which 25,000 were provided to allies

In addition France provided a total of 7,000 cannons to her allies, 4,000 of which to the USA ( I don't have total production ). That's in addition to machine guns, ammo, ...etc

You are correct that I was in error over the arsenal of democracy thing; a side effect of trying to post after having gotten six hours of sleep in the past 72 hours. However, as I recall the US was an important trading partner and materials supplier to the Allies, which was one of the reasons the Germans chose to target American ships in submarine warfare.

[stevep]

Two things that Wilson could have done to stay out of the War are policies that we have today and also went into the Neutrality Laws of the 1930s. He could have banned the sale of munitions to both sides, thus eliminating the reason for the sinkings, and he could have restricted or banned American passenger travel overseas into a potentially dangerous war zone. Instead he did neither of these and chose to plunge into the War against Germany thus sentencing 126,200 young men to death.

Not sure about that. Apart from upsetting a lot of business interests you would still have attacks on shipping carrying non-munitions items. As said elsewhere the allies generated the vast majority of their own weapons and actually supplied most of the heavier equipment for the US army. It was other material, such as grain imports and raw materials that were the main items sold to the allies. Would be very difficult banning all of those as it would probably cause a serious contraction of the US economy.

In terms of Americans travelling overseas I presume the government could advise [strongly] against it but not sure if they could actually ban it, so there would probably still be Americans amongst the civilians killed by the unrestricted U-boat campaign. Also, don't forget that values were a lot different then. It was considered deeply repugnant, as well as against international law, to target civilians. Furthermore could the government ban people travelling overseas as part of their work. At least some of those Americans were probably travelling in part due to business interests in Europe, which might well have been in neutral countries, totally unrelated to the war.

Steve