America stays out

KGBeast

Banned
What would happen in 1916 if Charles Evans Hughes who lost a very narrow election to Woodrow Wilson 277-254 had won California where he lost by a measly 3,773 votes. With Hughes as president under a platform of neutrality how would the great war have progressed without the millions of fresh soldiers from America that tipped the balance of power? Let us assume that Russia still falls apart in 1917 and the Bolsheviks take power, when Germany shifts it's Eastern Army towards the Western Front in preparation for the Luddendorff Offensive, they had a manpower advantage of 1.5 to 1, with no America let's say it's more likely 1.75 to 1, do they break the stalemate in the West and win the war in 1918? or do they stay on the defensive until 1919-20 until it can take advantage of the baby boomers of early 1900s being drafted into the military?
 
Both major candidates in 1916 ran on platforms of neutrality. The question is whether Hughes could have avoided war any better than Wilson did. This is conceivable, but a very long shot indeed.
 
Last edited:
The main issue is not manpower but money

Without US loans the Entente was out of money by early 1917, unless the US joins the war there will be no more loans, no loans no USD, no USD no buying raw materials from the US, so you have to buy from elsewhere in reduced quality/quantity

If the USA stays out the Entente has 25% less supplies to use, meaning less attrition on the part of the Germans on more on them
 
Top