Anaxagoras
Banned
If the United States had never entered World War I (whatever the POD), what would the outcome of World War I have been?
WWI Result without American Involvement
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
Max Sinister
Banned
The CPs would have a good chance to win. It'd become an extended slugfest, but without Russia, they should have a chance. If the Allies put up too much resistance in France, they could instead concentrate on Italy, which might be easier. If the German leadership is sane enough (which hasn't to be), they'd offer the western Allies a compromise peace (no changes to status quo ante bellum).
Russia is down by Brest-Litovsk, Germany has major manpower surge to Western Front and major morale boost. France is likely to fail due to mutiny and failure of common troops to follow orders, leaving UK largely by itself to negotiate peace. Italy gets hammered by A-H and might lose Venice but there will be no liberation of Trieste and certainly no Italian counterattack to speak of.
End result: Germany takes Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, eastern 1/3 of Belgium, rest of Lorraine, Franche-Comte, possibly Latvia. Austria-Hungary takes much of Venezia, northern Serbia, Moldavia. Bulgaria takes Macedonia, Southern Dubrojna (Maybe northen Dubrojna if Germany doesn't make a colony out of it), Wallachia. Ukraine and Finland gain independence as German satellites, maybe a rump Polish kingdom does too. Ottomans gain Crete, Cyprus, Dodecanese Islands, possibly reminder of Aegean Islands, and has its eyes on much of North Africa. Beyond Europe I'm not as sure...
End result: Germany takes Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, eastern 1/3 of Belgium, rest of Lorraine, Franche-Comte, possibly Latvia. Austria-Hungary takes much of Venezia, northern Serbia, Moldavia. Bulgaria takes Macedonia, Southern Dubrojna (Maybe northen Dubrojna if Germany doesn't make a colony out of it), Wallachia. Ukraine and Finland gain independence as German satellites, maybe a rump Polish kingdom does too. Ottomans gain Crete, Cyprus, Dodecanese Islands, possibly reminder of Aegean Islands, and has its eyes on much of North Africa. Beyond Europe I'm not as sure...
Last edited:
The 100 day offensive starting on Aug 8th 1918 which Ludendorff called 'The Black Day of the German Army' involved British,French,Canadian and Australian forces. It was not until the end of September that significant numbers of American forces went into action to break the Hindenburg Line and this was only 250,000 men, of course not a trivial number but that many troops could have been found elsewhere by the allies.
The real effect of the American entry was on moral for both sides, it boosted the allies and demoralised the Germans. If Ludendorff had brought his 8th army back from Russia without the prospect of American forces the outcome would have been in the balance, but not a foregone conclusion either way.
The real effect of the American entry was on moral for both sides, it boosted the allies and demoralised the Germans. If Ludendorff had brought his 8th army back from Russia without the prospect of American forces the outcome would have been in the balance, but not a foregone conclusion either way.
As Napoleon said, the moral is to the physical as three to one. The entry of the United States on the side of the Allies was a tremendous blow to the morale of the Central Powers and just as large a lift for that of the Allies. Certainly the absence of this would have an impact on the performance of Allied and CP armed forces. I think victory for both sides would have hung in the balance.
Go on stick your neck out, between December of 1918 and June of 1919 for which side?
When does Germany know that the US will not get involved?
The earlier the better.
If they know by 1910 or even 1914, they go mad crazy building submarines, AND use unrestricted submarine warfare as soon as the war starts [because they know the US is not coming in], and they have a chance of a knocking out or crippling Britain. Even in 1915 or 1916, I think they may have a decent chance with this strategy.
By 1917 or 1918 they have to go for the land victory, which is a gamble.
The earlier the better.
If they know by 1910 or even 1914, they go mad crazy building submarines, AND use unrestricted submarine warfare as soon as the war starts [because they know the US is not coming in], and they have a chance of a knocking out or crippling Britain. Even in 1915 or 1916, I think they may have a decent chance with this strategy.
By 1917 or 1918 they have to go for the land victory, which is a gamble.
I'm not entirely certain, I mean with have two major factors one of which seems likely to cause a CP victory and another likely to cause a CP loss.
The two factors:
1. Extra German troops freed up by Brest-Litovsk.
2. Growing shortages within Germany and Austria-Hungery caused by the allied blockade.
How the war goes depends on how well the Germans use those extra troops and can they put a decent dent in the Allies before the shortages causes them too many problems.
In all probability I would think a negotiated settlement is the most likely.
The two factors:
1. Extra German troops freed up by Brest-Litovsk.
2. Growing shortages within Germany and Austria-Hungery caused by the allied blockade.
How the war goes depends on how well the Germans use those extra troops and can they put a decent dent in the Allies before the shortages causes them too many problems.
In all probability I would think a negotiated settlement is the most likely.
M79, the French mutiny were more a matter of the frog troops being sick of useless attacks... not because the french troops were sick of the war. So twhile those Frogs won't be too willing to attack they were (in OTL) more than willing to stand and fight when the Jerries attacked.M79 said:
Like SunilTanna says it depends how the US stays nuetral. If the OTL pre-1917 situation continues then Allied victory before 1919. If the US is less pro-allied (vital credit, recources and equipment) then it could be very different.
If the US just stays pro-allied neutral then the outcome is pretty much unchanged; yes the US entry did give a big boost to the allies especially when the first Army units arrived in France. However, by 1918 German industrial production was going through the floor, the rationing system was breaking down and the people were overwhelmingly in favour of an immediate end to the war unlike in France and the UK which knew they could win.
But, what about Brest-Litvitosk and all the extra German troops?
The Germans problem wasn't men it was supplies one of the reasons why the Hundred Days offensive was so successful was that Germans units were having fall back or surrender because they didn't have enough ammunition to fight on, Brest Litvitosk could/would have solved those problems in the long run (2+ years) not in the 6 months up to Christmas 1918.
Ah yes but what about the French mutinies, the cowardly Frogs would have all run off if a German shouted loudly at them? Look up on the Second Battle of the Marne, while there were American and British units present the vast majority of the units were French and the defeated the best the Germans had, also the mutinies while widespread in 1917 where all over by 1918, partly this was due to the boost from the American entry into the war but mainly it was from the knowledge that the Germans were on their last legs.
If the US just stays pro-allied neutral then the outcome is pretty much unchanged; yes the US entry did give a big boost to the allies especially when the first Army units arrived in France. However, by 1918 German industrial production was going through the floor, the rationing system was breaking down and the people were overwhelmingly in favour of an immediate end to the war unlike in France and the UK which knew they could win.
But, what about Brest-Litvitosk and all the extra German troops?
The Germans problem wasn't men it was supplies one of the reasons why the Hundred Days offensive was so successful was that Germans units were having fall back or surrender because they didn't have enough ammunition to fight on, Brest Litvitosk could/would have solved those problems in the long run (2+ years) not in the 6 months up to Christmas 1918.
Ah yes but what about the French mutinies, the cowardly Frogs would have all run off if a German shouted loudly at them? Look up on the Second Battle of the Marne, while there were American and British units present the vast majority of the units were French and the defeated the best the Germans had, also the mutinies while widespread in 1917 where all over by 1918, partly this was due to the boost from the American entry into the war but mainly it was from the knowledge that the Germans were on their last legs.
Well the first off is that Germany doesn't need to stockpile, nor plan for a quick victory in 1918. If anything the Germans have an advantage with more troops, and the ability to retreat to prepared defenses as they wish.
I can see the war going either way. Cause both sides are pretty haggard. A few more failed allied offensives, or gaining ground only to discover the Germans pulled out already would certainly not help. As for Germany the nation cannot handle it that much longer.
Of course....
Do Austrians go the western front?
Can say Italy sign apeace treaty?
I can see the war going either way. Cause both sides are pretty haggard. A few more failed allied offensives, or gaining ground only to discover the Germans pulled out already would certainly not help. As for Germany the nation cannot handle it that much longer.
Of course....
Do Austrians go the western front?
Can say Italy sign apeace treaty?
The Sandman
Banned
At this point in the war, France, Britain and Germany are all, IIRC, scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel. Russia, meanwhile, is gone, and A-H, the Ottomans, and Italy are no longer capable of fighting.
My guess is that the war grinds to a halt at the existing trench line, and the Germans negotiate a withdrawal from northern France in exchange for recognition of German control over Luxemburg, recognition of Brest-Litovsk, and dismantling of the Belgian fortifications. The colonies (except possibly for German East Africa) are gone; the Ottomans are still reduced to Anatolia (although they probably get some Caucasian land), and Austria probably still falls apart.
The CP win part of this comes from the recognition of Brest Litovsk; while Germany gains nothing in the West and loses their overseas possessions, they now have what amounts to an enormous and resource-rich colony in the East.
My guess is that the war grinds to a halt at the existing trench line, and the Germans negotiate a withdrawal from northern France in exchange for recognition of German control over Luxemburg, recognition of Brest-Litovsk, and dismantling of the Belgian fortifications. The colonies (except possibly for German East Africa) are gone; the Ottomans are still reduced to Anatolia (although they probably get some Caucasian land), and Austria probably still falls apart.
The CP win part of this comes from the recognition of Brest Litovsk; while Germany gains nothing in the West and loses their overseas possessions, they now have what amounts to an enormous and resource-rich colony in the East.
Without a major need to knock out the Allies before the Yanks get there, Germany decides to send alot of the troops to the Italian front instead, and there's a major breakthrough there. The Italians throw in the towel and alot of the pressure on Austria is lifted. The Hundred Days Offensive still goes through but is much bloodier than OTL due to the Germans who would be expecting such an offensive. The CP are also pushed back in the Balkans but thanks to reinforcements Bulgaria will stay in 'till 1919. Not so for the Ottomans, it is too late to save them and they surrender as in OTL. At this point you could either have a.)Bloody Allied offensive which succeeds in forcing a German surrender but at horrible cost, or b.)Peace of exhaustion by tired Allies and CPs on the verge of breakdown. Personally I see b.) as more likely.
I'd say...
I'd say the Germans would likely have won. The reason? They had a bunch of troops freed up from their victories in the Eastern Front after Brest-Litovsk, which was good, they had developed good tactics (proto-Blitzkrieg, etc.) and then, one must consider the successes of the Michael's Offensive. They were pushing forward, forcing the French and English back... and then the Americans showed up.
Not to denegrate the French, but when it came to the fighting spirit of their soldiers, they were pretty much tapped out. There had already been mutinies, they were at the breaking point. Perhaps the thing to consider is not only the blow to German morale that the American entry into the war came as, but also the boost it gave to sagging French morale. Without that, it might have collapsed.
I'd say the Germans would likely have won. The reason? They had a bunch of troops freed up from their victories in the Eastern Front after Brest-Litovsk, which was good, they had developed good tactics (proto-Blitzkrieg, etc.) and then, one must consider the successes of the Michael's Offensive. They were pushing forward, forcing the French and English back... and then the Americans showed up.
Not to denegrate the French, but when it came to the fighting spirit of their soldiers, they were pretty much tapped out. There had already been mutinies, they were at the breaking point. Perhaps the thing to consider is not only the blow to German morale that the American entry into the war came as, but also the boost it gave to sagging French morale. Without that, it might have collapsed.
A point, but...
You have a point, but you also seem to be missing something - these guys had fought not just the mobile warfare you cite, but also at the huge set-piece battles, like Tannenburg. So, they had some ability. Plus, with trench warfare, for the poor bloody infantry at any rate, it really was more a matter of quantity than quality. Beyond the ability to effectively endure in the face of machinegun fire, not much else seems to matter.
Considering the level of discipline the German army was famous for, I think you will grant me that the experienced (even if not in positional warfare)troops from the east would be able to fight as effectively, if not more so, than the raw 16 year old conscripts both sides were sending into the fighting out of desperation by that point.
You have a point, but you also seem to be missing something - these guys had fought not just the mobile warfare you cite, but also at the huge set-piece battles, like Tannenburg. So, they had some ability. Plus, with trench warfare, for the poor bloody infantry at any rate, it really was more a matter of quantity than quality. Beyond the ability to effectively endure in the face of machinegun fire, not much else seems to matter.
Considering the level of discipline the German army was famous for, I think you will grant me that the experienced (even if not in positional warfare)troops from the east would be able to fight as effectively, if not more so, than the raw 16 year old conscripts both sides were sending into the fighting out of desperation by that point.
Seems you beat me to it, after I posted that i deleted it for I reread what you wrote. While there was a few circumstances of Eastern transfered troops getting sppoked at the front lines, it was during the High Command deciding to force a victory before the Americans arrived.
So with America out you are allowed more time for the Germans to get used to everything.
Deleted member 1487
The Germans would take time to properly prepare of the Kaiserschlacht offensives, because the threat of the Americans coming wouldn't rush the attacks. The 'improved' attacks could have shattered the moral of the allies who wouldn't have the will to keep fighting beyond a certain point. Paris would never fall though. The war would exhaust everyone to the point that further fighting would topple both sides. So a negotiated peace could be possible.
1) French morale was in the toilet in 1917 before the US jumped in, a general mutiny was a definite concern regardless of their ability to fight. Defeat in this case is not due to inability but more to lack of resolve and/or a total meltdown in the chain of command
2) Giving Germany time to reorganize the forces she leaves in occupied Russia might let her set up a puppet government and rudimentary occupation force in the Ukraine, freeing up troops kept there in OTL and perhaps drawing more manpower for the Germans
3) Americans filled in key gaps in manpower for the Allies after March 28, take these away and the outcome of even the desperate Spring 1918 gamble becomes more favorable to Germany
4) The Allies are still likely to win the First Battle of the Somme (assuming a Spring 1918 offensive like OTL) but are likely not to have the manpower to fully exploit it. I think the front will slowly stabilize at a point where Germany can consolidate gains and set up massive artillery barrages into Paris and the surrounding area if they can't press into the city itself.
5) Germany is likely to take Reims this time as there aren't American reinforcements to help with the counterattack, see number 4 for proposed result.
All in all, this will allow German forces to invade Flanders and likely secure the whole of Belgium along with much of the nearby French coast, up to Calais or Bolougne. I doubt they get all the way to the Somme but a front line from Ferte Sous Jouairre to Barcy to Chantilly or a few miles back is certainly plausible, giving Germany ample space to bombard Paris. From Calais they can also hit Dover and farther inland with their larger artillery pieces. France suffers severe morale problems as historical buildings are hit and civilians killed in large numbers, largely abandoning the city. Eventually the government is forced to relocate, contributing to plummeting French morale and causing a breakdown in C3I. Paris is taken in a bloody offensive and France is KOed around late 1918/early 1919. They are given harsh terms, again I say loss of remainder of Lorraine and whole of Franche-Comte though specifics are debatable.
UK is now getting hit directly with shells as coal fields near Dover can cause industrial mishap. It might be possible to move Kriegsmarine forces to Calais and try to lure the RN into some sort of trap with land-based artillery or at least move sub bases/air forces into the area, either way the BEF won't be able to retake the area easily and without French supplies their position is precarious. UK has its army and navy intact, they negotiate a peace recognizing German occupations in West and Brest-Litovsk with UK perhaps taking a few German colonies they already occupy as everyone wants the war over.
Italy loses much of Venezia and Venice itself is basically a border city.
Serbia and Moldavia fall to A-H.
Bulgaria picks up historical Macedonia, Wallachia, and Dubrovjna.
Ottomans gain all Aegean islands, Crete, Corfu, and Cyprus.
Ukraine, Baltic state/s, and Finland are German satellites while Poland and Luxembourg are now wholly German along w/ eastern 1/3 of Belgium.
Darkest
Banned
Without the Americans, the war would last quite longer. Would the blockade of Germany and ethnic warfare in AH and the Sublime Porte be enough to take them down? Or would incredibly low morale and mutinies on the Western Front cause the Allies to capitulate? I would think that with supplies from the United States, and at least naval involvement against the Germans with the US, the Allies would win, but much later, and at a much higher cost.
Furthermore, think of what might happen in the United States without the World War. Might be more internationalist without the sour taste of WWI, far more conservative without exposure to the liberal elements of Europe, and people would smoke far less.
Furthermore, think of what might happen in the United States without the World War. Might be more internationalist without the sour taste of WWI, far more conservative without exposure to the liberal elements of Europe, and people would smoke far less.