No American involvement in the First world War
- Thread starter EmperorOfTheNorthSea
- Start date
- Status
To whom?
The populace of America had a fuss over the Alaska Purchase and the Americans might not see any value in it.
The only thing I can see them selling is maybe the Malvinas Islands back to Argentina
Although on second thought; The Americans could buy Caribbean or Pacific Islands for the Economic crop potential, the British would have no problem importing Sugar from American territories as they imported (literal)Tons of stuff from America already.
If this became the case and America was the main sugar supplier for Europe I wonder how a TL like that would go. I also know post ww1 Europe was buying American Grain due to much of the land being under restoration from the war.
To be fair, France was considering a plan akin to this where American aid in the form of fighter planes would be traded in return for French Guiana and its colonies in the Caribbean. However that deal fell through when the French unexpectedly collapsed in the Summer of 1940. Similar deals I believe were on the table in regards to the United Kingdom before then.
Therefore, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to think that something similar might have occurred during the Great War.
Therefore, I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to think that something similar might have occurred during the Great War.
What can the Germans hope for in a 1918 offensive on the Western Front? Keeping America out of the war dials back the urgency quite a bit, so presumably they'll take more time to plan and organize it. A better executed Kaiserschlact against weaker Entente would definitely put the hurt on them, but OTL, it's was a Phyrric victory, since concentrating their best troops into stormtrooper battalions had calamitous effects on their army when they suffered atrocious casualties. If they didn't have to rush to beat the Americans to Paris, would they have been more deliberate in training the whole army in the new tactics?
The options in 1918 are but two, attack in France or attack in Italy.
France Pros: Could end the war all together if France collapses. Big 700+ mile front line to allow attack(s) at location of choosing to better make use of those freedup divisions from the east.
France Cons: Germany is going strength vs. strength here.
Italy Pros: One of the bigger breakthroughs occurred vs Italy. Italian army is weakest of those remaining. Helps Austria-Hungary.
Italy Cons: Limited scope for attacks and best case it doesn't end the war just removes another enemy.
Problem here isn't just the knock France out before USA arrives consideration. There is also the Prussian-German military tradition which highly favored trying to achieve a decisions NOW even if you run risk. Prussia-Germany was at times aggressive to a fault. If given a chose they really would rather attack if at all possible.
So yah some type of offensive in France in 1918 is all but inevitable but without the pressure of US entry would it be pushed as hard as it was?
Michael
I believe that France would still be pushed quite hard if the U.S. wasn't involved. If they knocked out France, then that would be a major force out of the picture. While attacking Italy may help, I believe that they would leave A-H to their own devices.
Once started it has to be pushed. Failure will be too damaging to morale.
It may however be somewhat later and better thought out. OTL, Ludendorff seems to have been incredibly slow to see that Amiens and Hazebrouck were the points to go for [1]. TTL he might have come to it sooner.
[1] Initially this was perhaps excusable as far as Amiens was concerned. I don't think either side really anticipated how far Michael was going to get. It was mainly intended to draw British troops south and so weaken the Northern sector which was seen as the decisive one. However, when it became clear that Amiens was attainable it should surely have been gone for, and Hazebrouck should have been the obvious target from the beginning.
LordKalvert
Banned
You miss the obvious- Italy was the enemy of Austria and not of Germany. What does Germany gain by knocking out Italy? Nothing but Austria may see no need to continue to back Germany with Italy, Serbia, Romania and the Russians beaten, the Austrians are more likely to fear Germany than support her. After all, if France is beaten, who will protect the Austrians from the Germans?
On the other hand, if the Germans knock out France, then Italy can be brought back into the Triple Alliance- and the Italian Fleet would be useful against the British
Germany gains from knocking out Italy is one less enemy and securing A-H. This can be done at lower cost than going all in vs. France. If A-H collapse the war is lost unless France collapses at same time. Germany was worried about the possibility of a A-H collapse and what it means. A-H is helping hold down the east and if A-H goes away Germany faces a threat up towards Bavaria.
There is a reason the Germans thought about doing a 1918 offensive in Italy. Problem is USA dominated the considerations.
Michael
I can't see Italy as the main objective for 1918. It's just not a decisive theatre.
One possibility though. Might the Germans decide they can spare troops for Italy a bit sooner than OTL, so that Caporetto is fought sometime in August?
At that time the river levels were quite a bit lower, so the Piave might not have been a defensible line. So the Austrians get to the Adige, and perhaps even rest their left flank on the Po, so their position is stronger. With Austria now reasonably secure, the Germans can concentrate everything in Flanders and Picardy for the big push.
One possibility though. Might the Germans decide they can spare troops for Italy a bit sooner than OTL, so that Caporetto is fought sometime in August?
At that time the river levels were quite a bit lower, so the Piave might not have been a defensible line. So the Austrians get to the Adige, and perhaps even rest their left flank on the Po, so their position is stronger. With Austria now reasonably secure, the Germans can concentrate everything in Flanders and Picardy for the big push.
Italy is weaker than France and could generate decisive results in terms of getting a knockout result vs them at least.
At same time France WAS the critical front. The question is do the Germans believe that they can win it all in 1918? Vs. we HAVE to win now or never? If the Germans have reservations about winning in 1918 then more limited attacks would appear to be in order. A limited campaign would suggest Italy.
As sooner Caporetto is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Battle_of_the_Isonzo
Any 1918 German involvement would be something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Piave_River
If the Germans are involved they are going to demand and get overall command. So the BS of split command and no coordination isn't going to happen. Problem is the KuK was in sorry shape by this point but the Italian army was still recovering so I doubt them doing well if faced by a couple of corps of German troops.
Michael
I am not even sure the Germans should launch a 1918 offensive.
Russia's out and has been knocked flat, but the Ottomans and Austrians are still hurting. Perfect time to call a general peace conference rather than hammering out a crushing defeat of Russia and uncertain gains in the west.
Force the French and British to pay for Russian reduced losses, and you win by default. Might even secure a greater-Turkey of Turkey+Kurdistan+parts of Syria/Iraq with an Arabic buffer rather than actual British-French territories. Kinda depends what the Germans focus on (writing off the Mid-East and Africa are surely the better prospects in the long and medium run, if it nets gains in Europe). A-H will likely totter along as a German semi-puppet too, the double monarchy having been hurt way too much to ditch Germany (lest they face another Königgratz whenever the Germans work up enough anger about the 'stab in the back').
Of course, this being 1917-18 Germany, there's a real chance they'll painfully try for a knockout blow and fail, resulting in a much lesser victory in the peace.
Russia's out and has been knocked flat, but the Ottomans and Austrians are still hurting. Perfect time to call a general peace conference rather than hammering out a crushing defeat of Russia and uncertain gains in the west.
Force the French and British to pay for Russian reduced losses, and you win by default. Might even secure a greater-Turkey of Turkey+Kurdistan+parts of Syria/Iraq with an Arabic buffer rather than actual British-French territories. Kinda depends what the Germans focus on (writing off the Mid-East and Africa are surely the better prospects in the long and medium run, if it nets gains in Europe). A-H will likely totter along as a German semi-puppet too, the double monarchy having been hurt way too much to ditch Germany (lest they face another Königgratz whenever the Germans work up enough anger about the 'stab in the back').
Of course, this being 1917-18 Germany, there's a real chance they'll painfully try for a knockout blow and fail, resulting in a much lesser victory in the peace.
Summer 1917 Reichstag passed a resolution calling for no annexations and no indemnities and for the powers to meet to end the war. Everyone ignored it and then Germany did the peace of Brest-Litovsk which many pointed at showing that the Reichstag offer was a lie or the like. It just showed that the Reichstag had ZERO power on foreign policy.
If US doesn't enter the war its possible peace feelers might go out from Paris and or London.
Michael
I suspect they will, though, given their psychology.
Every year of the war they tried some kind of offensive - 1914 Schlieffen Plan, 1915 Gorlice, 1916 Verdun (and Jutland), 1917 USW, 1918 Kaiserschlacht. So that's the way to bet.
Again possible, but given what a close call the 1918 campaign was (esp Michael and Georgette) I think I'd bet on it succeeding.
Warning
I don't think Americans entering ww1 has something to do with some ship as wall street basically kidnapped gov due to large british war bonds.
It wasn't just "some ship" / It was a declaration of "open season" on *all* US ships (in March 1917 three were sunk n as many days)not to mentin offering three US Staqtees to the Mexicans.
I'm not sure what you mean about war bonds. Certainly large sums had been loaned tot he Entente, but as of April 1917 all such loans were secured on investments *in* the US, so that investors would not lose their money whatever the war's outcome. Only *after* war was declared were any unsecured loans made, and these of course were promptly defaulted on once the war was over. The Entente victory (which was in any case the outcome most people expeected) did *not* save the investors'money.
.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Welcome to the board. You've posted twice here, and each time you bumped long-dead discussion threads. That is discouraged here unless you're significantly contributing to the discussion.
- Status