How? And for what end, exactly? What is the likely peace/aims the USA would be going for?
American reaction to a loss in WW1?
- Thread starter Soup
- Start date
-
- Tags
- america cp victory ww1
How? And for what end, exactly? What is the likely peace/aims the USA would be going for?
marathag
Banned
In 1890, the US GDP was twice that of Germany
By 1914, GDP per capita of Germany was 64% of the USA, 1918, it was down to 52%.
Germany in 1918 had 38% of the budget set for the Military, US was 8%, and rapidly expanding.
Germany had 13% of manpower in the Military, and had trouble bring in the crops, while the US was at 2.8%
The USA was just getting up to speed, while Germany was tapped out.
If France surrenders and the British are ejected from the continent, where are the Americans going to land and would they be willing to pay the much higher price in blood necessary to push into Germany and on to Berlin with much less support from Britain and especially France?
marathag
Banned
The German were about to face a real steamroller the size of what the Russians started with, but this one has all the latest tools like Lewisite Gas, and a Contract for Ford Motors to make 15,000 tankettes.
You’re suggesting that they would fight on, with few if any Allies. I don’t think that Germany could have forced a surrender of the Entente on a Western Front, but in a scenario where France surrenders... I think that the Germans would get a peace settlement (although the terms would be far more generous than Brest Litovsk). The Russians suffered around 1.7 million deaths, the French suffered around 1.4 million deaths and another 100,000 from the Empire, the British suffered around 910,000 deaths and another 200,000 from the Empire and the Italians suffered 650,000 deaths. Keep that this leaves out all of the other kinds of losses suffered by the countries that had been fighting the war for years and the civilian deaths (especially notable for the continental powers). Even a smaller country like Romania lost over 300,000 soldiers. Serbia lost almost 30% of its population and 60% of its male population. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a handful of examples of countries suffering such a high mortality rate (Paraguay and a few of the Mongolian conquests). That’s ignoring all of their other losses. Would the Americans be willing to fight such a war on their own? I’m not sure. If the Germans try to drag the war into 1919 and fight it out to Berlin for better peace terms, than I can see the Americans continuing the fight with their allies and their contribution would grow the longer the war went on.
Last edited:
There is no way on Earth the USA, alone, in 1918 is going to commit to unconditional German surrender. It is insane. This is isn't 1941.
well beyond we've lost huge number of people and resource and frankly there is limit to what can be done. Thinking the US will just do all the fighting for us is naive. teh problem is yes the US can in theory mobilise huge number of men and resources getting it in place is harder than just moving figures in spreadsheet
the bar for being to able to mass, support and operate in territory several thousand miles against a top tier dug in army is somewhat higher than not being actively evicted by your erstwhile allies.
will it? Is that baked in, Will Free France (what ever that is) be any position to help or even just support the US to the extent it would need to launch a continental invasion of this scale.
With a much larger resource advantage, several years build up, naval and air superiority, the UK acting as a long term staging ground. Several smaller campaigns to cut their teeth on while fighting with allies, plus the Russians beating their way to Berlin as a somewhat large diversion splitting German attention
And now look at the comparatives in 1944, as well as all the other (hard won) advantages in play then, but that wouldn't be here.
Honestly in comparison to the Japanese a generation later or themselves two generations earlier not very. Civil wars are different anyway in a civil war you win or die/cease to exist in your chosen form, the US's choice is no where near that stark or high here
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
So the French, who were on the verge of Mutiny over pointless attacks(but still defended with enough vigor the Germans didn'tnotice), will fight the Americans harder than the hated Bosche?
Hmm. It would start like Napoleon at the start of the Hundred Days, men flocking to the one who would fight rather than the new regime.
No?
My point was you seem to think all you need to land and mobilise and conduct operations solo in the same way as the US were gearing up to do with allies OTL is just have the French not actively attack you.
Just try to imagine it, if the French and British surrender, these american troops aren't meeting the German army pinned in place nicely ready to be concentrated on in the trenches of the Western front . They're trying to force a seaborne invasion from thousands of miles away with 1918 technology and a rapidly assembled and largely untested army.
Again look at at the situation we enjoyed in 1944 when we tried to do this in D-day.
Last edited:
That was WWII. The US wanted no such thing in WWI and the idea that they would press for significantly harsher terms than IOTL if France and the UK dropped out of the war is ridiculous.
A lot of comments here are getting borderline insane so I will refer people to the Wikipedia article on the American Expeditionary Force so readers will at least get a sense of the timeline and the numbers involved:
en.wikipedia.org
Also the US Army Center for Military history (official government site) section on the World War I campaigns:
Here are the key points as to the timeline:
1. American declaration of war on Germany was on April 4th, 1917.
2. American forces were first engaged in combat when three engineering regiments were sent to the front in the Battle of Cambrai on November 30th, 1917.
3. A few American engineer regiments and air units were also engaged in the defense against the German offensives against the British held sector in the Spring of 1918.
4. First major use of American troops was in the Aisne-Marne between May 27th and June 5th in which several divisions (27,500 troops) participated and launched a successful counter-attack.
5. According to Wikipedia, in June 1918 the number of Allied troops on the Western Front exceeded the number of German troops, for the first time that year. For the Spring offensives, the Germans had numerical superiority.
6. First American directed offensive was St. Mihiel , involving an overstrength American army and a French army, starting September 12th, 1918.
OK, to make things clearer, American troops and airmen (not counting the volunteers in the French air force, which would be a much bigger deal in popular history ITTL) were in combat against the Germans on November 30th 1917, so if you want a German victory before Americans even get into combat it has to come some time in 1917 between April 4th and November 30th. But there are PODs that would produce this, like the u-boat campaign, Paschedaele, and/ or the French mutinies going much worse for the British and French. Once the Spring 1918 offensives start its too late for this scenario, since admittedly small numbers of Americans defended against those from the start, and if the situation had gotten more desperate more would have been fed into the defense.
The last chance of German victory was probably the Aisne-Marne battle that also saw the first large scale participation of American forces. Now you could have a POD where the American divisions are committed to the Aisne-Marne battle and turn out to be a total bust. The Germans not only win the battle decisively, but France throws in the towel despite the greater number of Americans arriving because American units performed horribly at Aisne-Marne and the French (and British and German) don't think using even more crappy units would help matters. The French pretty much trained, equipped, and provided logistical support for the AEF so if the American units were completely unprepared the French high command and politicians would no that.
So we can get two somewhat plausible PODs. The first is that the American DOW happens but the Germans for some reason win the u-boat war anyway and force Britain from the war before the Americans can be committed. Note that the victory here would be as much against the US Navy as against the Royal Navy so the USA is not going to get out of this one with a pristine military record.
The second is that the American army is just an Italians-against-Albania/ Mexicans in Mexican War dumpster fire and wind up costing the French the Aisne-Marne battle and everyone know it. You may have to change the history of the American Army as far back as the Spanish-American War (so not technically a post-1900 POD) to get this. The Allies throw in the towel.
Either way the war is Wilson's folly but I agree the effects on the USA domestically and its international reputation are going to be different.
American Expeditionary Forces - Wikipedia
Also the US Army Center for Military history (official government site) section on the World War I campaigns:
Here are the key points as to the timeline:
1. American declaration of war on Germany was on April 4th, 1917.
2. American forces were first engaged in combat when three engineering regiments were sent to the front in the Battle of Cambrai on November 30th, 1917.
3. A few American engineer regiments and air units were also engaged in the defense against the German offensives against the British held sector in the Spring of 1918.
4. First major use of American troops was in the Aisne-Marne between May 27th and June 5th in which several divisions (27,500 troops) participated and launched a successful counter-attack.
5. According to Wikipedia, in June 1918 the number of Allied troops on the Western Front exceeded the number of German troops, for the first time that year. For the Spring offensives, the Germans had numerical superiority.
6. First American directed offensive was St. Mihiel , involving an overstrength American army and a French army, starting September 12th, 1918.
OK, to make things clearer, American troops and airmen (not counting the volunteers in the French air force, which would be a much bigger deal in popular history ITTL) were in combat against the Germans on November 30th 1917, so if you want a German victory before Americans even get into combat it has to come some time in 1917 between April 4th and November 30th. But there are PODs that would produce this, like the u-boat campaign, Paschedaele, and/ or the French mutinies going much worse for the British and French. Once the Spring 1918 offensives start its too late for this scenario, since admittedly small numbers of Americans defended against those from the start, and if the situation had gotten more desperate more would have been fed into the defense.
The last chance of German victory was probably the Aisne-Marne battle that also saw the first large scale participation of American forces. Now you could have a POD where the American divisions are committed to the Aisne-Marne battle and turn out to be a total bust. The Germans not only win the battle decisively, but France throws in the towel despite the greater number of Americans arriving because American units performed horribly at Aisne-Marne and the French (and British and German) don't think using even more crappy units would help matters. The French pretty much trained, equipped, and provided logistical support for the AEF so if the American units were completely unprepared the French high command and politicians would no that.
So we can get two somewhat plausible PODs. The first is that the American DOW happens but the Germans for some reason win the u-boat war anyway and force Britain from the war before the Americans can be committed. Note that the victory here would be as much against the US Navy as against the Royal Navy so the USA is not going to get out of this one with a pristine military record.
The second is that the American army is just an Italians-against-Albania/ Mexicans in Mexican War dumpster fire and wind up costing the French the Aisne-Marne battle and everyone know it. You may have to change the history of the American Army as far back as the Spanish-American War (so not technically a post-1900 POD) to get this. The Allies throw in the towel.
Either way the war is Wilson's folly but I agree the effects on the USA domestically and its international reputation are going to be different.
Marc
Donor
The challenge really began, or should of, based on these specific parameters:A lot of comments here are getting borderline insane so I will refer people to the Wikipedia article on the American Expeditionary Force so readers will at least get a sense of the timeline and the numbers involved:
American Expeditionary Forces - Wikipedia
Also the US Army Center for Military history (official government site) section on the World War I campaigns:
Here are the key points as to the timeline:
1. American declaration of war on Germany was on April 4th, 1917.
2. American forces were first engaged in combat when three engineering regiments were sent to the front in the Battle of Cambrai on November 30th, 1917.
3. A few American engineer regiments and air units were also engaged in the defense against the German offensives against the British held sector in the Spring of 1918.
4. First major use of American troops was in the Aisne-Marne between May 27th and June 5th in which several divisions (27,500 troops) participated and launched a successful counter-attack.
5. According to Wikipedia, in June 1918 the number of Allied troops on the Western Front exceeded the number of German troops, for the first time that year. For the Spring offensives, the Germans had numerical superiority.
6. First American directed offensive was St. Mihiel , involving an overstrength American army and a French army, starting September 12th, 1918.
OK, to make things clearer, American troops and airmen (not counting the volunteers in the French air force, which would be a much bigger deal in popular history ITTL) were in combat against the Germans on November 30th 1917, so if you want a German victory before Americans even get into combat it has to come some time in 1917 between April 4th and November 30th. But there are PODs that would produce this, like the u-boat campaign, Paschedaele, and/ or the French mutinies going much worse for the British and French. Once the Spring 1918 offensives start its too late for this scenario, since admittedly small numbers of Americans defended against those from the start, and if the situation had gotten more desperate more would have been fed into the defense.
The last chance of German victory was probably the Aisne-Marne battle that also saw the first large scale participation of American forces. Now you could have a POD where the American divisions are committed to the Aisne-Marne battle and turn out to be a total bust. The Germans not only win the battle decisively, but France throws in the towel despite the greater number of Americans arriving because American units performed horribly at Aisne-Marne and the French (and British and German) don't think using even more crappy units would help matters. The French pretty much trained, equipped, and provided logistical support for the AEF so if the American units were completely unprepared the French high command and politicians would no that.
So we can get two somewhat plausible PODs. The first is that the American DOW happens but the Germans for some reason win the u-boat war anyway and force Britain from the war before the Americans can be committed. Note that the victory here would be as much against the US Navy as against the Royal Navy so the USA is not going to get out of this one with a pristine military record.
The second is that the American army is just an Italians-against-Albania/ Mexicans in Mexican War dumpster fire and wind up costing the French the Aisne-Marne battle and everyone know it. You may have to change the history of the American Army as far back as the Spanish-American War (so not technically a post-1900 POD) to get this. The Allies throw in the towel.
Either way the war is Wilson's folly but I agree the effects on the USA domestically and its international reputation are going to be different.
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, etc) and the Central Powers ultimately win out in France and Italy.
The countering proposition was that this supposing is extremely unlikely - it would take multiple rolls of the dice, and then a quick switcheroo.
All right, given that, the eventuality that the United States would succeed the British Empire as the world's dominant power would still be on track. - a continent spanning state with immense resources and population (and the principal real rival, Russia out of the picture).
The best part of this is that the Holocaust doesn't occur.
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
That I am not sure about; when they defaulted in 1934 they still had $4 Billion left in balances....which they didn't finish paying until 2015.
History Learner
Banned
It also ignores the fact the U.S. would have no ability to get at the Germans with the Anglo-French out; you're not launching an invasion of Germany from Boston or New York City. Likewise, there's no reason for the U.S. to stay in once the Anglo-French collapse, despite all the talk of the "Horrible Hun" that's being thrown around. Case in point is the victory of the GOP in November of 1918 and how by the time of the Versailles the Anglo-French-Americans only had 34 divisions still in operation combined.
I had a chance to interview a few people who had a very long-lived WWI veteran at home for over 20 years. In his late 70s he had flashbacks powerful enough to lift a fairly built guy over 30 years his junior off the ground to with one hand while trying to stab him with a broom. These guys had been through almost half a decade of industrial war at its worst, from chemical attacks and man-eating rats in trench warfare in the West to near-collapse of society and a totally redrawn map in the East. Germany was on the ropes but still had the Rhine River and a largely intact army, had she been able to rally agricultural production and industrial production in the new Eastern satellites for 1919 the war would have been very bloody for everyone. Then you get the people now defending their homes and worried about what these soldiers would do to home and hearth. There would likely be no good outcome, the Allies still win but Europe is in even worse shape especially in the paranoia of the Spanish Flu and the greater lack of resources that would result.
Marc
Donor
Read up on the war we fought just before the first World War: the Philippine–American War