American reaction to a loss in WW1?

So somehow the Western Front is lost after the USA joins up with the Entente (Caporetto goes even more horrifically wrong, earlier Brest-Litovsk, the Spring Offensive steals all of the Nazi's 1940 luck, ect) and the Central Powers ultimately win out in France and Italy. What would be the US domestic reaction to that? Obviously a massive win for the Republicans come 1920, but would we see a turn to revanchism? An even greater isolationist movement following defeat? And what of the Left in America? I could see both a bigger crackdown on them as well as an upswelling of support since they were, after all, saying it was a bad idea from the get-go. Any other thoughts?
 
America would hardly be impacted in the peace, honestly. But a defeat would likely see even greater moralism into the twenties. Unfortunately
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
It is impossible for the US to lose WW1. At worst Germany offers a white peace for the US leaving France. More likely Germany gives the US something to get trade resumed. Most likely the rest of Samoa.
 
Obviously a massive win for the Republicans come 1920, but would we see a turn to revanchism?
Given that revanchism concerns itself with the return of lost territory and there is no plausible outcome to WWI which sees the US losing territory to the Central Powers, no.
An even greater isolationist movement following defeat?
I mean, the isolationists were already pretty dominant postwar IOTL--what more could they ask for ITTL?
And what of the Left in America? I could see both a bigger crackdown on them as well as an upswelling of support since they were, after all, saying it was a bad idea from the get-go.
Depends on what happens in Russia. A successful CP intervention in favor of the whites might put a damper on the Red Scare, for instance.
 

marathag

Kicked
So, how exactly do you get the US to a Peace Treaty, anyway? Pershing gets all his guys captured? Hard to see then not doing a Czech Legion style road trip to a friendly port

Losing divisions in th Philippines didn't get the US to toss in the Towel in 1942, in any case.
US can't be starved out, like theoretically the UK could

So if you have France and Italy go all Vichy like, do the colonies jump away and become 'Free French' 'Free British' and 'Free Italians'

Great Britain doesn't directly control the Dominions, how to you get South Africa to surrender to Lettow-Vorbeck 3000 men? Why would India, Oz/NZ or Canada go for a deal?

Does the US demand that they surrender their fleets to the USA or just away from Europe, or get Mers-el-Kebir'ed?
 
Only way how USA could "lost" war is that Entente makes peace before US troops land to Europe. This would just mean even bigger landslide victory for Republicans in 1920 and returning to isolationism. There is not revanchism whem Germany is not able do anything for USA. They just would return peace time terms and continue their own business. Full relationships probably would be back in 1920's.
 
Unlike the earlier commentators, I think the USA could "lose" World War I if the German Spring and Summer offensives succeed, despite the participation of American soldiers. Keep in mind that American units would have been committed earlier if things got more desperate. If France throws in the towel, its hard for American units, who depend on the French army to train and for the most part to equip them, to remain in France. Well its less likely that Britain is the one to ask for an armistice, if they do so the French will as well, despite American participation.

The Americans will be represented at the peace conference but will be ignored. Wilson will be even more discredited than IOTL as will the Democrats. The Republicans made big gains in 1918 and 1920 IOTL and were the dominant party in the 1920s. ITTL they will be more dominant and Wilson could well be the first President impeached and removed from office, especially if he still has his stroke. The Democrats could also be replaced outside the southern states by a progressive party (IOTL one did contest the 1922 and 1924 elections but didn't have enough success to become the alternative to the Republicans). Also FDR is less likely to be the Democratic vice presidential nominee, his service in the Wilson administration is not a positive, and Thomas Marshall might be the nominee if Wilson is removed and may pick a different running mate.

Basically the Americans would have mobilized a big expeditionary force, contributing to an influenza outbreak, and sent it to Europe only for it to have no effect on the war's outcome. People would come to the opinion that this was done on behalf of the British much more than IOTL and there would be more isolationist sentiment and more anglophobia. It wouldn't help that the Americans also allied briefly with Russia only for it to go communist (incidentally in any "Germany wins World War I" timeline there is probably no Nazi Germany so there is even less reason for the USA to get involved in European matters.

Prohibition was partly sold as supporting the war effort and is less likely with the war discredited. The Great Depression is also different, it probably comes earlier, but it will be different. Another factor that comes into play that the Dominions reduce their ties to Britain much earlier and probably more so than IOTL.
 
Operation Michael takes Amiens and Georgette takes Hazebrouck? The BEF is destroyed, and the loss of the Channel Ports threatens to starve out Southeastern England, including London; the UK would be forced to make peace. The French, meanwhile, lose the Bethune Coal Mines, collapsing 70% of their war production and leaving their left flank exposed, forcing them to concede all of Northern France and likely collapsing their Army through morale reasons. Even if that doesn't occur, very shortly they will be forced to make peace regardless because of the aforementioned collapse of production. Without French War Industry, the AEF is a non-factor until late 1919 at the earliest and even then, if the Anglo-French are out, the United States has absolutely no ability to get at the Germans. Given the Republicans made massive gains in November of 1918 and how rapidly the AEF was drawn down in early 1919, I doubt the U.S. would have any desire to stay in anyway once the Anglo-French are out.

As for reaction, I'd expect the Red Scare of 1919 to be MASSIVELY larger. The U.S. definitely will be going to war with Mexico following the Jenkins affair.

Woodrow Wilson and the Mexican Interventionist Movement of 1919
1919: William Jenkins, Robert Lansing, and the Mexican Interlude
Tempest in a Teapot? The Mexican-United States Intervention Crisis of 1919
 
Last edited:
America's military reputation gets torched for the rest of the century.
But they were just too late to change it? Unless you mean just jokingly, I would disagree.
Edit: I forgot about American inexperience, so you are right about that. The interventions would the be only good US record for a while, so even that won't be nice. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
But they were just too late to change it? Unless you mean just jokingly, I would disagree.
The US military would have mobilized for nothing. The Americans will develop anti military feelings and presumably riots in the streets for mobilizing for a war that they were gonna lose. The US military, unable to make any changes in the situation in the World War, is seen as a joke for the rest of the century.
 
The US military would have mobilized for nothing. The Americans will develop anti military feelings and presumably riots in the streets for mobilizing for a war that they were gonna lose. The US military, unable to make any changes in the situation in the World War, is seen as a joke for the rest of the century.
I agree actually, unless a WW2 somehow breaks out or at least with Japan, that would probably stay.

On another note, what happens to German Americans, their patents, and businesses?
 
I agree actually, unless a WW2 somehow breaks out or at least with Japan, that would probably stay.

On another note, what happens to German Americans, their patents, and businesses?
USA isn't even gonna bother a war with Japan if they have anti military feelings.The Spanish American War lead to the feelings of a powerful USA, which lead to increased trade in China and also increased US military presence in Asia. A loss of World War 1 would have meant the young US military's reputation is effectively destroyed. All the gargantuas spending on the "New Navy" the US has been doing since the 1890s all of a sudden ceases to exist and US naval funding comes to a halt. USA would probably remain in the Philippines and doesn't care about what anyone else is doing. Americans will not want a new war and the US will not care what is going on in Asia to do. As for Japan...

Japan after a loss in World War 1 could result in Japan goes psychopathic and wants revenge on Germany, and becomes a even more brutal version of Japan than we know in OTL, or Japan retreating back from world affairs.
 
Last edited:
America's military reputation would not be torched; the war ended before they could even get into it. If anything, a pop culture meme would be "if only the Americans got here sooner!".
It will indeed be torched since the US was NOT the great power we know as today or even the USA we know during World War 2. It was still an isolationist nation, seen as nobody in world politics. Anti military feelings will prevent the US from increasing it's military from even further. The Spanish American war lead to the idea of a strong USA, World War 1 lead to the idea of USA being a world power. Without the USA being able to prove it's a world power and even unable to change anything in the war, any idea of a world power USA is erased from mind and home politics would even prevent the idea of a militaristic USA.
 
Last edited:
It will indeed be torched since the US was NOT the great power we know as today or even the USA we know during World War 2. It was still an isolationist nation, seen as nobody in world politics. Anti military feelings will prevent the US from increasing it's military from even further. The Spanish American war lead to the idea of a strong USA, World War 1 lead to the idea of USA being a world power. Without the USA being able to prove it's a world power and even unable to change anything in the war, any idea of a world power USA is erased from mind and home politics would even prevent the idea of a militaristic USA.

The rise of the U.S. was never dependent on its military power; as a result of the liquidation of European assets over the course of World War I it had already emerged as the dominant economic superpower at this point. Funny fact though was that this was going to happen regardless sometime in the 1920s, the self-destruction of Europe only moved this forward by about a decade.
 
The rise of the U.S. was never dependent on its military power; as a result of the liquidation of European assets over the course of World War I it had already emerged as the dominant economic superpower at this point. Funny fact though was that this was going to happen regardless sometime in the 1920s, the self-destruction of Europe only moved this forward by about a decade.
You said "economic superpower" but not military power. They are different things.
 
You said "economic superpower" but not military power. They are different things.

They are, but you stated: "It was still an isolationist nation, seen as nobody in world politics."

Likewise, I still don't see the rationale behind dismissing the U.S. as they were, in effect, on undefeated on the field. Even after the war, there was a strong movement to keep a much larger standing army, which I can see having more sway here given the threat of Bolshevism and a newly empowered Germany.
 

DougM

Donor
A few points.
if the wars ends with France and a England surrendering (and I will address that shortly) then the US will not be adversely effected as they were not in it, if the war ends with almost no troop from the USA in France how does that effect the US’s military reputation?

If the US has its “full Army” or at least enough to matter in France then Germany can’t force a win. They don’t have enough troops to fight England France and the Fresh US. It just is not happening.

The only chance to end this favorably after the US gets large numbers of troops in France is for France to just give up. But that won’t happen (I will get to why shortly) but if it did then France will make damn sure the US army gets out of France.
Why?...
Very simple The reason France and or England won’t surrender with huge numbers of US troops in France and the epreason that both England and France would make sure the US troops got out of France if they did surrender is very simple. By that point in the war both France and England owed so much to the US and or US companies that they would be committing economic suicide to screw over the US. And neither side is so bad off that they don’t care what happens to the government/economy, So they are going to do everything they can to protect the US so the US will be less inclined to destroy thier economy.
So the reality is that by the time the US could be hurt it is t late for it to happen.
But even if the whole thing implodes and the troops are captured nothing is going to happen to the US. Germany will sign a treaty that requires the US to recognize whatever they do to England and France and to normalize Economic relations but the US will not lose anything much. No military restrictions no economic sanctions no territory lose or anything else. The US is to strong by the end of the war for Germany to force anything on. And is to important a trade partner if Germany wants to get its economy going. You may see a bit of food supplies being “paid” to Germany in return for sending our captured soldiers back home.
But truly I don’t see how Germany could capture enough troops to really matter as I noted above to get that many troops in France you then would be beyond the point Germany can actually win,
 
Top