And given how close run the battles of early 1918 were, I should guess that the absence of $7.5 billion worth of goods purchased with US loans would be quite enough to tip the balance.
No American involvement in the First world War
- Thread starter EmperorOfTheNorthSea
- Start date
- Status
And given how close run the battles of early 1918 were, I should guess that the absence of $7.5 billion worth of goods purchased with US loans would be quite enough to tip the balance.
TFSmith121
Banned
Volunteers - or even levies for colonial service - are not
Volunteers - or even levies for colonial service or even rear-area services of supply tasks - are not the same as conscripts for combat service in the trenches in 1917-19, as presumably should be clear from the context.
If not, of course, it raises the obvious question of why the Indian Army corps that went to France in 1914 was withdrawn, much less not reinforced and supplemented to the point where the British high command would not have needed to institute conscription in the UK, much consider it in Ireland, Canada, etc despite the rather obvious historical opposition to such ideas.
Much less the issues of conscription for overseas service in the white Dominions; you may also consider how (for example) the (white) South Africans reacted to the ideas of British recruiting of volunteers for combat units in the then-British territories in Southern Africa.
The realities of early Twentieth Century racism and the color bar/color line/etc are hardly unknown historically, across the West, including the US, UK, the empire(s) etc. No Western nation mobilized its non-white population in the way described above at this time.
Finally, the reasons why are quite clear - as a fairly well known Briton and observer of the British Empire once wrote "how long can we keep kidding these people?"...
Best,
Volunteers - or even levies for colonial service or even rear-area services of supply tasks - are not the same as conscripts for combat service in the trenches in 1917-19, as presumably should be clear from the context.
If not, of course, it raises the obvious question of why the Indian Army corps that went to France in 1914 was withdrawn, much less not reinforced and supplemented to the point where the British high command would not have needed to institute conscription in the UK, much consider it in Ireland, Canada, etc despite the rather obvious historical opposition to such ideas.
Much less the issues of conscription for overseas service in the white Dominions; you may also consider how (for example) the (white) South Africans reacted to the ideas of British recruiting of volunteers for combat units in the then-British territories in Southern Africa.
The realities of early Twentieth Century racism and the color bar/color line/etc are hardly unknown historically, across the West, including the US, UK, the empire(s) etc. No Western nation mobilized its non-white population in the way described above at this time.
Finally, the reasons why are quite clear - as a fairly well known Briton and observer of the British Empire once wrote "how long can we keep kidding these people?"...
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
There was deep-seated political opposition to conscription
There was deep-seated political opposition to conscription in Ireland, Australia, and Canada, to the extent the political leaders in the UK and the dominions could not force the issue.
Why and how do you think that would have changed by 1917-19 in a world where the US maintains strict neutrality and the Russians have collapsed?
Best,
There was deep-seated political opposition to conscription in Ireland, Australia, and Canada, to the extent the political leaders in the UK and the dominions could not force the issue.
Why and how do you think that would have changed by 1917-19 in a world where the US maintains strict neutrality and the Russians have collapsed?
Best,
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
A peace of mutual exhaustion hammered out at the
A peace of mutual exhaustion hammered out at the negotiating table in 1917-19 seems much more likely in a world where the US is strictly neutral and the Russians have collapsed in 1917 then either remaining alliance managing something along the lines of Versailles or Brest-Litovsk.
Best,
A peace of mutual exhaustion hammered out at the negotiating table in 1917-19 seems much more likely in a world where the US is strictly neutral and the Russians have collapsed in 1917 then either remaining alliance managing something along the lines of Versailles or Brest-Litovsk.
Best,
Trouble is, the governments on both sides have committed themselves (and psyched up their populations) that admitting defeat is likely to finish them politically.
Neither will consider compromise until they are clearly losing, and then it will be too late.
I think France at least would surrender by 1919 and the Germans are still in French territory simply because the war is just not worth it for them. Not sure how to British would react, maybe they accept the French treaty and just leave everything where it is or do they try and take a few colonies?
The deep seated opposition in Canada came from Quebec which is why, despite a promise to the contrary, the federal government was able have a plebiscite on conscription and win it. Take away numbers from Quebec and people in the rest of canada was in majority in favour of conscription so that everyone would "do their bit". As to the impact of a greater number of french-canadian units, they would probably not be too happy to be there but would fight just as they did here.
As for Australia, the main opposition was from within the Labor camp and even then it was divided. the problem dated back to the 1930s when Jack Lang (premier of NSW) had tried to default on debt owed to british banks and was sacked by the governor for it. Some felt that paying those debts at the same time as sending cannon fodder was a bit too much hence why they voted against conscription. If the UK is desperate enough and debts are deferred or interested lessen, you might get the polies on board who in turn would convince their constituents to vote in favour.
My problem with this kind of approach is that it seems to imply "X makes Iron for Y. If X stops making iron, Y runs out of iron" but as a matter of fact if X drops out, Z and a few others will probably line up to take its place.
Does that mean that every single items can be replaced and quickly ? Probably not but war tends to make people inventive.
TFSmith121
Banned
Are you speaking of the first or second world wars?
Are you speaking of the first or second world wars?
Best,
Are you speaking of the first or second world wars?
Best,
Last edited:
You can reduce civilian consumption of X, say tool steel, to allow the military to make use of the supply. This assumes there is excess production going to the civilian economy. The problem is when the X, Y and Z are small arms, munitions and aircraft engines then finding another source is much more difficult. Military supplies like this are very specialty items and you have to physically build new plants to produce the item in question which takes time, train the work force, which takes time, all of this takes money. By 1917 the UK and France had mostly reached the saturation point in terms of production, the numbers still went up in 1918 but not as much as 1917 did over 1916. The big surge in war material production was the USA.
So NO its not going to be possible to replace lost US production of small arms and munitions its just GONE. Which will translate to reduce combat efficiency for allies in Western Europe. Combined with even more problems in the second half of the year as there are no US armies to take over sections of the front or take part in offensive operations.
Germany for example made heavy use of replacement materials for all sorts of war and civilian production. Yet when you need more factory space see above, there is no way to side step this issue.
Michael
I think we've been here before. See the following from Kathleen Burk Britain, America and the Sinews of War, Ch 5.
"- - the [British] Foreign Office called together an interdepartmental committee on 30 September [1916] to consider how far Britain was dependent on the United States; the statements of the various departments were printed for the Cabinet on 6 November, and the conclusions were alarming. The Ministry of Munitions procured a large percentage of its guns, shells, metals explosives and machine tools from the United States; The Army Department considered that there was no substitute for American supplies of oils and petroleum, nor for that of preserved meat; The Board of trade stated that for cotton, for foodstuffs, for military necessities and for raw materials for industry, the United States was "an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply"; the Board of Agriculture emphasise the dependence of Britain on the United States for grains; and finally the Treasury stated baldly 'Of the £5,000,000 which the Treasury have to find daily for the prosecution of the war, about £2,000,000 has to be found in North America', and added that there was no prospect of any diminution without a radical change in the policies of the Allied War Departments. The Treasury expressed, in its conclusion, the only action possible for the government; 'The policy of this country toward the USA should be so directed as to not only avoid any form of reprisal or irritation, but also to conciliate and to please' "
Were all these departments misinforming their government?
In addition, switching to alternative sources would in most cases have necessitated far longer voyages. Frex, South America is twice as far away as the US, so only half as many voyages could be made in any given time. The effect would be the same as if half the ships had been sunk - a vastly bigger difference than the U-boats could ever have made, and more than offsetting any difference made by no USW. India and Australia are of course even further away, so the problem there would be even greater.
Last edited:
first. I probably shouldn't have used Jack Lang to illustrate my point about Labor but he's probably the best example of the "we're anti-british cause they keep demanding their money".
no but the wording appear to to the effect of "how much we depend on them"
not "is it possible to get the stuff elsewhere ?" I'm not denying a large of resources came from the US, I just doubt they were the only source.
Also, we have to make a distinction between the US not joining the fight and not continuing trading as a neutral party. If the later, all we really have to consider is troops.
Much more important than manpower is the issue of finances. Without American involvement, and financial backing, the Entente war effort would have collapsed by the end of 1917.
Troops on the western front were already mutinying, and discontent is rising on the home front in OTL 1917, but TTL things would surely be worse. Britain can't bankroll France after 1916, and can barely support itself, though it could probably eek through for a few months. Of course, Germany can't really advance very far, they don't really have the logistics, so I don't think there would be much advancing.
I think the war might last to the winter of 1917/18, whereupon the Entente are forced to bow out due to deep internal unrest, inspired by Russia.
Troops on the western front were already mutinying, and discontent is rising on the home front in OTL 1917, but TTL things would surely be worse. Britain can't bankroll France after 1916, and can barely support itself, though it could probably eek through for a few months. Of course, Germany can't really advance very far, they don't really have the logistics, so I don't think there would be much advancing.
I think the war might last to the winter of 1917/18, whereupon the Entente are forced to bow out due to deep internal unrest, inspired by Russia.
trajen777
Banned
Flat out the Allies lose.
1. USA credit was used up -- Britain and France would not be able to continue to buy overseas
2. You would have a Normal Euro peace of limited changes i think Brest Litvosk would stay in effect (Germany happy) - Alsace Lorraine with have a plebiscite or transferred to France (France Happy) -- German Sea Power reduced / Loses empire (Britain Happy) -- Russia screwed --- AH breaks up into multi parts - perhaps German Austria and Check go to Germany
1. USA credit was used up -- Britain and France would not be able to continue to buy overseas
2. You would have a Normal Euro peace of limited changes i think Brest Litvosk would stay in effect (Germany happy) - Alsace Lorraine with have a plebiscite or transferred to France (France Happy) -- German Sea Power reduced / Loses empire (Britain Happy) -- Russia screwed --- AH breaks up into multi parts - perhaps German Austria and Check go to Germany
If America stays neutral that means no unsecured loans. And the collateral needed for secured ones had pretty much run out. So trade is at best going to be drastically curtailed, and Allied imports reduced a lot more than the U-boats alone could have done.
Aircraft 11,950 out of 75,243, GONE
Artillery 4,341 out of 25,929, GONE
Rifles 2,095,000 out of 5,509,000, GONE
Machine Guns 221,372 out of 487,016 GONE
Shells 20 million out of 235 million, GONE
This ignores things like in June AEF holding 10% of the front and by armistice holding 20% of the front.
Your can't replace the finished products, you can't replace the cash or the trained troops.
Michael
TFSmith121
Banned
Shipping, both warships and cargo/passenger as well
Shipping, both warships (Taussig's destroyers in Ireland, for example) and passenger/cargo as well - as an example, half of the shipping that sustained the AEF was US-flag, including more than a few German ships that had been interned in the US since 1914. No US entry means none of that is added to the Allied shipping pool, for the obvious knock-on effects.
Some sort of German offensive in the west in 1918 is presumably going to happen, and about the best the French and British can hope for is not allowing a breakthrough ... They will, presumably, lose territory.
And despite the manpower of French Africa or British India, it remains rather doubtful - based on multiple historical precedents - that they or conscripted Irishmen, Canadians, South Africans etc are going to show up in the trenches.
So some sort of mutual exhaustion where the Germans lose the colonies to the British and French, there are adjustments in the French, Belgian, and German borders, the French and British lift the blockade, and the Central and Southeastern European borders are up for grabs (and every power gains at the expense of the Turks) is presumably something that gets hammered out akin to Amiens in 1803...
Then they all glower at each other.
Best,
Shipping, both warships (Taussig's destroyers in Ireland, for example) and passenger/cargo as well - as an example, half of the shipping that sustained the AEF was US-flag, including more than a few German ships that had been interned in the US since 1914. No US entry means none of that is added to the Allied shipping pool, for the obvious knock-on effects.
Some sort of German offensive in the west in 1918 is presumably going to happen, and about the best the French and British can hope for is not allowing a breakthrough ... They will, presumably, lose territory.
And despite the manpower of French Africa or British India, it remains rather doubtful - based on multiple historical precedents - that they or conscripted Irishmen, Canadians, South Africans etc are going to show up in the trenches.
So some sort of mutual exhaustion where the Germans lose the colonies to the British and French, there are adjustments in the French, Belgian, and German borders, the French and British lift the blockade, and the Central and Southeastern European borders are up for grabs (and every power gains at the expense of the Turks) is presumably something that gets hammered out akin to Amiens in 1803...
Then they all glower at each other.
Best,
Simple. Germany needs to do the opposite of its OTL America policy from 1915 on. Especially no unrestricted submarine warfare or stupid, half thought out attempt to scheme with Mexico.
They may have been right that American involvement was inevitable at some point, but they could have forced the military collapse of France long before that came.
They may have been right that American involvement was inevitable at some point, but they could have forced the military collapse of France long before that came.
Woudn't fully agree on the 1st sentence. Due to expectations of the people (to a now quick ending of the war) they would rather start some "preparing" actions for later in the summer or autumn or even a big offensive in spring 1919 after fully exploiting their gains in the east.
Until that more kind a "hold the line" on all fronts until really ALL available troops (also from the east) would be available for a real crushing the french.
Even without this "unrestricted subwarfare" the sinking numbers were already peaking up before it was declared - just because the number of subs had aknomledgable increased early in 1917 due to (at last) start of proper building measurements on the shipyards. That would have - even with "normal" sub warfare heavily hampered the british.
- Status