WWI Without America

[Deleted member 1487]

Where did the Allies get their nitrates from after they ran through their pre-war stockpiles? Was it mostly from South America?

Chile almost exclusively. The Central Powers were lucky to have developed the Haber process and could therefore build up production capacity at home. Interestingly Germany became a major exporter of nitrates post war and wiped out Chile's nitrate markets in Europe, cause massive economic problems there once orders dried up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrate#History

 

[Dave Howery]

you have to wonder just what the USA would be like in a post WW1 world where she had no role in the fighting. WW1 was America's first major foray into global politics; without that, would the USA remain a more parochial isolationist place?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

you have to wonder just what the USA would be like in a post WW1 world where she had no role in the fighting. WW1 was America's first major foray into global politics; without that, would the USA remain a more parochial isolationist place?

Almost certainly. No major military-industrial-congress complex would develop, Germans wouldn't be shamed for being German, no red scare after the war, no prohibition (!), more sustainable farming practices so no dust bowl, more sustainable industrialization, etc.

Much that went wrong in the US would never happen without the US ever getting involved in WW1, plus no clear winner in the war, so no Versailles and then Hitler. Then the British and French would also be heavily indebted to the US, so the US would be the major world financial power, Germany the weaker European version of the US financial and industrial power.
The Entente is too weak to start another war, while Germany finally gets her 'place in the sun', so has no need to start another one. She is also likely tied down militarily maintaining her new position in Central Europe, so cannot start another.

Meanwhile the US can continue exporting its (for the time) liberal values to Europe.

 

[usertron2020]

Almost certainly. No major military-industrial-congress complex would develop, Germans wouldn't be shamed for being German, no red scare after the war (1), no prohibition (!)(2), more sustainable farming practices so no dust bowl, (3) more sustainable industrialization, etc

1) Wasn't that the result of the Bolshevik Revolution? How would that be butterflied?

2) ??? What did WWI have to do with that?

3) Ditto

 

[Deleted member 14881]

1) Wasn't that the result of the Bolshevik Revolution? How would that be butterflied?

2) ??? What did WWI have to do with that?

3) Ditto

On number 2 due high demand in WW1 farmers grew too much and weaken the topsoil and caused the dust bowl

 

[RamscoopRaider]

1) Wasn't that the result of the Bolshevik Revolution? How would that be butterflied?

2) ??? What did WWI have to do with that?

3) Ditto

Part of the argument for prohibition was to protect the nation's grain supply in case of war, most alcohol was made from grain of some sort

 

[Deleted member 1487]

1) Wasn't that the result of the Bolshevik Revolution? How would that be butterflied?

The Bolshevik revolution resulted from the war lasting into late 1917. Without the US in the war, the Allies run out of dollars and loans in April. This is before the failed Kerensky offensive that mortally wounded the provisional government. Here if the US isn't in the war there are no unsecured loans, which IOTL only became available when the US entered the war, as prior the Federal Reserve strongly advised US banks not to offer non-collateralized loans to the Entente (all Entente collateral ran out in March 1917). Without dollars the Entente cannot get US supplies, as they refused to accept anything but dollars; without US supplies the Entente runs out of oil, as the US was the world's major supplier of oil before the 1930s, much more so in 1917 (Mexico was #2 and wouldn't accept orders on credit and Austria-Hungary was #3 in the world. All others were hardly major producers of oil and Russia, #4, was cut off from trade via the Black Sea. Murmansk didn't have the infrastructure to export oil). No oil means the Entente navies are out of gas.
France runs out of steel, oil, and food. Britain runs out of its biggest source of food, coal, and steel. It also cannot prevent the US from trading with Germany. Russia now has no promise of postwar loans to rebuild, so has no reason to stay in the war.
Frankly everything is pretty much forcing the Entente to negotiate by April 1917, which is long before the provisional government in Russia becomes unstable and vulnerable to the Bolshevik coup. So no US=no Russia in the war too long=no Bolshevik support=no Russian civil war=no USSR.

2) ??? What did WWI have to do with that?

What Erich said.

3) Ditto

There was a boom in industry associated with the Entente war effort up to 1917, which then took over into overdrive after the US entered the war, which required an industrial base to build a multi-million man army. This industrialization was then partly then the reason for overproduction postwar that resulted in the Great Depression. It couldn't be dismantled postwar, so ended up fueling the production boom that followed, especially as the US then had pretty much inherited the wealth of Britain, France, and Russia during the war, which really became a problem for the Entente from April 1917-1919, as they picked up all of their unsecured loans then, which were at least 4x more than the 1914-1917 loans.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Part of the argument for prohibition was to protect the nation's grain supply in case of war, most alcohol was made from grain of some sort

It was also to punish Germans too, who owned most of American breweries (German-Americans that is...the hyper anti-Germanism was moronic in its non-logic, but it was a force thanks to the propaganda of the Creel Commission. There were lynchings of German-Americans that were acquitted because the crime was committed for 'patriotic reasons').

 

[usertron2020]

On number 2 due high demand in WW1 farmers grew too much and weaken the topsoil and caused the dust bowl

So, the growing of nitrogen leaching crops, droughts, and planting in regions that never should have had farming in the first place were not factors?

Part of the argument for prohibition was to protect the nation's grain supply in case of war, most alcohol was made from grain of some sort

The Temperance Movement, Carry A. Nation, and women getting the vote for the first time (many as one issue voters) were not factors?

The Bolshevik revolution resulted from the war lasting into late 1917. Without the US in the war, the Allies run out of dollars and loans in April. This is before the failed Kerensky offensive that mortally wounded the provisional government. Here if the US isn't in the war there are no unsecured loans, which IOTL only became available when the US entered the war, as prior the Federal Reserve strongly advised US banks not to offer non-collateralized loans to the Entente (all Entente collateral ran out in March 1917). Without dollars the Entente cannot get US supplies, as they refused to accept anything but dollars; without US supplies the Entente runs out of oil, as the US was the world's major supplier of oil before the 1930s, much more so in 1917 (Mexico was #2 and wouldn't accept orders on credit and Austria-Hungary was #3 in the world. All others were hardly major producers of oil and Russia, #4, was cut off from trade via the Black Sea. Murmansk didn't have the infrastructure to export oil). No oil means the Entente navies are out of gas.
France runs out of steel, oil, and food. Britain runs out of its biggest source of food, coal, and steel. It also cannot prevent the US from trading with Germany. Russia now has no promise of postwar loans to rebuild, so has no reason to stay in the war.
Frankly everything is pretty much forcing the Entente to negotiate by April 1917, which is long before the provisional government in Russia becomes unstable and vulnerable to the Bolshevik coup. So no US=no Russia in the war too long=no Bolshevik support=no Russian civil war=no USSR.

I think you are vastly underestimating the level of rot that existed in Russia at this time. Russia needed revolutionary change, and as a man who (IIRC) initially supported Russia's entry into WWI Kerensky was not the answer.

There was a boom in industry associated with the Entente war effort up to 1917, which then took over into overdrive after the US entered the war, which required an industrial base to build a multi-million man army. This industrialization was then partly then the reason for overproduction postwar that resulted in the Great Depression. It couldn't be dismantled postwar, so ended up fueling the production boom that followed, especially as the US then had pretty much inherited the wealth of Britain, France, and Russia during the war, which really became a problem for the Entente from April 1917-1919, as they picked up all of their unsecured loans then, which were at least 4x more than the 1914-1917 loans.

This analysis is solid if left by itself, but I'm seeing an awful lot of reasoning that is very linear to say the least.

Just because:

A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to the Great Depression,

does not bar the concept that:

1 leads to 2 leads to 3 leads to 4 leads to the Great Depression,

AND

I leads to II leads to III leads to IV leads to the Great Depression.

The Great Depression was the sum of a perfect storm. It had no single line of causative events linked to each other in sequence.

 

[usertron2020]

It was also to punish Germans too, who owned most of American breweries (German-Americans that is...the hyper anti-Germanism was moronic in its non-logic, but it was a force thanks to the propaganda of the Creel Commission. There were lynchings of German-Americans that were acquitted because the crime was committed for 'patriotic reasons').

I BELIEVE YOU, but do you have a link? I've never heard of this previously, but I'm not surprised.

 

[Danth]

I BELIEVE YOU, but do you have a link? I've never heard of this previously, but I'm not surprised.

You've never heard about it because it's made up

 

[usertron2020]

It was also to punish Germans too, who owned most of American breweries (German-Americans that is...the hyper anti-Germanism was moronic in its non-logic, but it was a force thanks to the propaganda of the Creel Commission. There were lynchings of German-Americans that were acquitted because the crime was committed for 'patriotic reasons').

You've never heard about it because it's made up

This could lead to an AH war. One of you should step up.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

So, the growing of nitrogen leaching crops, droughts, and planting in regions that never should have had farming in the first place were not factors?

All factors in the problem, but if you remove one major one, then it helps mitigate or stop the dust bowl.

The Temperance Movement, Carry A. Nation, and women getting the vote for the first time (many as one issue voters) were not factors?

There were many factors that were required for prohibition; removing one would probably stop the movement cold because it was so near run IOTL.

I think you are vastly underestimating the level of rot that existed in Russia at this time. Russia needed revolutionary change, and as a man who (IIRC) initially supported Russia's entry into WWI Kerensky was not the answer.

You are arguing things from hindsight. At the time the provisional government was relatively popular and not discredited until the Kerensky offensive exposed the rot. With the war ending much earlier the Bolsheviks would miss their chanced to take that government down by gaining so much political support so quickly, not to mention the disaffected soldiers that gave up on the regime; without the war on the pressure that let the Bolsheviks rally support to their cause wouldn't be on the provisional government, so they wouldn't be the post-war alternative of last resort. Instead there is far less immediacy to overthrowing the provisional government, as the economy and food situation would get much better immediately without the need to divert so much to the war effort. That alone shores up the provisional government immensely.

Revolutionary change because of the war being on, is not necessary if there is no war on!

This analysis is solid if left by itself, but I'm seeing an awful lot of reasoning that is very linear to say the least.

Just because:

A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to the Great Depression,

does not bar the concept that:

1 leads to 2 leads to 3 leads to 4 leads to the Great Depression,

AND

I leads to II leads to III leads to IV leads to the Great Depression.

The Great Depression was the sum of a perfect storm. It had no single line of causative events linked to each other in sequence.

I didn't say that it was the ONLY reason. Simply that a major facto would be present. I never mentioned that this would prevent the Great Depression, but between the major factors of unsecured loans being given out and the major spending/industrial build up of 1917-1919 among other factors that wouldn't be present without a US entry makes the Great Depression much less likely. Germany not losing WW1 and the Versailles treaty with all of its consequences are critical factors too that would not be present here.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I BELIEVE YOU, but do you have a link? I've never heard of this previously, but I'm not surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creel_Commission

Anti-German sentiments in Wisconsin:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/1

http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_kennedy_02_patriotic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Prager

Robert Prager (Feb 28,1888–Apr. 5,1918) was a German coal miner living in Collinsville, Illinois, who was lynched by a mob on 5 April 1918. Twelve men were tried for his murder but were subsequently acquitted. Prager was killed because of anti-German sentiment during the first World War and because he was accused of holding socialist beliefs.[1]

You've never heard about it because it's made up

Educate yourself before posting nonsense.

On 25 April, the county's grand jury indicted twelve men for murder, and the trial commenced, on 13 May. The judge refused to let the defense try to demonstrate Prager's disloyalty, and the case for the defendants amounted to three claims: no one could say who did what, half the defendants claimed they had not even been there, and the rest claimed they had been bystanders, even Joe Riegel, who had confessed his part to newspaper reporters and a coroner's jury. In its concluding statement, the defense argued that Prager's lynching was justified by "unwritten law." When the defense was finished, the judge declared a recess. After deliberating for 45 min (some accounts say 25), the jury found the defendants innocent. One juryman reportedly shouted, "Well, I guess nobody can say we aren't loyal now".[3]

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

In January 1917, the 65th Congress convened, in which the dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 in the Democratic Party and 138 to 62 among Republicans. With America's declaration of war against Germany in April, German-Americans—a major force against prohibition—were sidelined and their protests subsequently ignored. In addition, a new justification for prohibition arose: prohibiting the production of alcoholic beverages would allow more resources—especially the grain that would otherwise be used to make alcohol—to be devoted to the war effort. While "war prohibition" was a spark for the movement,[29] by the time Prohibition was enacted, the war was over.

 

[Riain]

Everytime I see these threads about blockades I always think of the naval geography and the accidental campaign that almost changed it; the Race to the Sea.

The northern exits to the Atlantic are wide but far away from Germany and gaurded by the world most powerful fleet which can easily engage in a running battle against any attempt to get past it.

The southern exit is also far from Germany, but not far from the toehold the Germans had on the Belgian coast. However it was so narrow, so easily mined and covered by guns that the British only gaurded it with a handful of their oldest and crappiest destroyers.

However if the Germans held the French coast then the narrows would not be so easily mined, and the next chokepoint of Cherbourg-Swanage is almost 100 miles wide and only about 170 miles from (for example) Bolougne which is a hell of a lot easier to negotiate than 21 miles of mine infested Dover narrows with is 95 miles from Oostend or 430+ miles from Wilhelmshaven in Germany. With this much easier task for the Germans and difficult task for the Entente I'd imagine blockade running would be considerably more common that it was IOTL, nothing like normal peacetime trade but perhaps enough to keep the US from swinging so much toward the Entente.

That said a few blockade runners would be the least of the benefits of the Germans holding the French side of the narrows.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Everytime I see these threads about blockades I always think of the naval geography and the accidental campaign that almost changed it; the Race to the Sea.

The northern exits to the Atlantic are wide but far away from Germany and gaurded by the world most powerful fleet which can easily engage in a running battle against any attempt to get past it.

The southern exit is also far from Germany, but not far from the toehold the Germans had on the Belgian coast. However it was so narrow, so easily mined and covered by guns that the British only gaurded it with a handful of their oldest and crappiest destroyers.

However if the Germans held the French coast then the narrows would not be so easily mined, and the next chokepoint of Cherbourg-Swanage is almost 100 miles wide and only about 170 miles from (for example) Bolougne which is a hell of a lot easier to negotiate than 21 miles of mine infested Dover narrows with is 95 miles from Oostend or 430+ miles from Wilhelmshaven in Germany. With this much easier task for the Germans and difficult task for the Entente I'd imagine blockade running would be considerably more common that it was IOTL, nothing like normal peacetime trade but perhaps enough to keep the US from swinging so much toward the Entente.

That said a few blockade runners would be the least of the benefits of the Germans holding the French side of the narrows.

I'll have to keep that in mind when I continue the Marne without Moltke TL.

 

[Riain]

While blockade runners and large ship actions are sexy its the boring shit that's the real benefit/disadvantage of the Germans holding the French coast down to about the Somme mouth.

Things like the amount of mines needed to block the 100 instead of 21 mile wide chokepoints out of the Channel and 6 instead of 2 German held ports. Or the amount of ships needed to supply the BEF across a sea passage of hundreds of miles from ports in the southwest England to northwest France and the escorts to protect these ships from Uboats. Or the trains to get this stuff from Brest/St Malo to the front. Or the 2:1 ratio of fighting ships needed to contain whatever ships the Germans deploy in France, or the coastal guns that will be needed to keep German raiders and minelayers away from British and French coasts.

IOTL the Entente needed little to none of this shit, which equated to guns, shells and divisions on various fronts around the world and eventual victory.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The Temperance Movement, Carry A. Nation, and women getting the vote for the first time (many as one issue voters) were not factors?

Note I said a factor, it was not the only one, but you need 36 states to agree to make it law

Depending on how close the vote was in 11 of them (Rhode Island and Connecticut refused to ratify) the lack of this argument could be decisive

 

[Mikestone8]

Note I said a factor, it was not the only one, but you need 36 states to agree to make it law

Depending on how close the vote was in 11 of them (Rhode Island and Connecticut refused to ratify) the lack of this argument could be decisive

According to Wiki the 18A passed the House by 282-128. So the loss of only nine votes would have defeated it.

The war was a very big factor in facilitating Prohibition. It was forbidden to manufacture liquor from food which could be eaten by humans, so that America was effectively "dried up" well in advance. The whipping up of prejudice against the (disproportionately German-American) brewers also contributed. Take all this away, and the Amendment probably fails.

Also, support for the Amendment was disproportionately Republican. Without the heavy Democratic loss in 1918 (largely due to war-related issues) they probably don't have the votes.

 

[Genmotty]

The fact of the matter is that the Great War, was also the first World War in that sense the outcome was dictated not on the fields of flanders, but rather in the governments of nations across the world.

The OP is rather vague in what it means with 'without America', since that can be taken to mean anything from total isolationism, no trade, some trade, select trade, equal trade, free trade, no political support, some political support, select political support, non involvement, some involvement etc. the list goes on.

The fact that the First World War was so large in scope was partly to blame for why it transended a local conflict and came in its very nature to shape international relations, and why the United States were eventually drawn into the conflict. Americas interests still being myriad in the 'Old World' and the ties that bind are not so easily cut.

Which means which ties could be plausibly cut in the zietguiest of that period?


Let us go back to 1913 before War in Europe was on the cards, there was no federal bank or income tax in America. In 1907 there had been a banking panic, so Americas position before the Great War was less than stable. This in my opinion is the best place to start for looking at a Point of Divergance in American foreign policy and internal affairs.

The question being how much stink could the writting of the 16th Amendment create within the US so that by the type Princip kills of Franz Ferdinand the US is more worried with its own internal problems than that of what is going down across the atlantic.

In such a POD if the American government is delayed forming an opinion on the European war, and the US markets are sufficency cautious due to economic instability in the US and across the atlantic that trade itself is not occuring, then you have a way for butterflying out US involvement in the conflict before the Etentent have had their big faceoff with the Central Powers. In such a case US involvement would come too late, and as such a Great War without American involvement.