Did the Entente Need the United States?

Then again, German submarine warfare made US neutrality impossible.

Actually, no. The Zimmerman Telegram made U.S. neutrality impossible. Submarine warfare was certainly a provocation, but Wilson could easily have (as he did on other occasions during the war) chosen to take the "America is too proud to fight" line and not asked for a declaration of war. He was in his second term of office, he did not plan to run for a third term, he had absolutely nothing to lose politically. What he might have done is what FDR did in the months prior to the US entry into WWII, which is to order US Navy vessels to attack German submarines which are threatening sea lanes used by U.S. merchant ships, without declaring war. This would have addressed the immediate problem of German sinkings of U.S. ships without forcing him to violate his pledge to the American people to "keep them out of war."

The Zimmerman Telegram, however, was a plan for a direct assault on the United States itself. Once that was intercepted and turned over to the U.S. government, and verified to be true, there was no way Wilson could ignore it. He had to ask for a Declaration of War. And he did.
 
One of the big what if's for me is what would have happened with the organization of the British Army. Canadian and ANZAC generals were implementing new tactics at a much faster rate than the top generals of the British Army which has lead to discussions regarding Currie or Malmonth? (head of the ANZAC forces) taking over as top general.

Also alot of potential impacts regarding the overseas colonies as I can see India and Africa being tapped for more divisions to serve in France which could lead to a much different approach for the commonwealth in World War 2.

Without the expected influx of US bodies I can see a greater push for leadership that has proven tactics that are less wastefull of manpower than full frontal assults ala 1914.
 

Deleted member 1487

This assumes that there would be a Battle of the Piave, which didn't occur until June 1918...8 months after Caporetto...in OTL. If the Austro-German forces in Italy had been stronger at Caporetto, it's entirely possible that they could have completely demolished the Italian Army and ended the war in Italy then and there. As it was, they came very close to doing that in OTL.

Eh...not really. The logistic situation was the problem. The Habsburg armies were starving after Caporetto, as they were much farther forward and could not support an army so far beyond their own borders with their rail assets. Adding extra German troops is not going to solve the problem. Really, the OTL Caporreto only got so far as it did was because the Italians panicked and retreated to what they considered was the only defensible group. There is simply no way the victory could have been turned into anything more substantial.

Nor was there a way to replicate it later on. The Italians finally had decent leadership and had advanced their doctrine immensely, having prepared themselves for modern warfare. The Austrians were barely fed and the Italians were readying for the final push. It was just not going to happen on that front. Really, in 1918 the Austrians should have just pulled back scorched-earth style and a lot of their problems would have eased.
 
I think people are seriously under-estimating how bad the situation was in German in 1918. The cities were on the edge of famine, and not many more more months of blockade would essentially result in the collapse of German civil society as the starving workers flee the cities to search for food. The German army will be imploding at this point anyway, as they too will in starving.

In the end, the Entente will be marching into Berlin to take the Reichstag back from the rats.

If the cities were on the edge of famine, then why did the famine not occur when the British blockade was maintained up to June 1919 to force the Germans to accept the Treaty of Versailles?
 

Deleted member 1487

If the cities were on the edge of famine, then why did the famine not occur when the British blockade was maintained up to June 1919 to force the Germans to accept the Treaty of Versailles?


It did, killing an estimated 400,000 over the course of the blockade. Mostly children and the elderly. Though Germany's food situation was not as bleak as many make it out to be, the provision that Germany give up massive numbers of livestock, trains, and other good meant that the blockade could then work suffering on the German populace. Famine on a total scale never happened because in basic food stuffs, Germany was self-sufficient in a minimal way. The poor, those that could not afford the black market, suffered the worst, consequently nearly exclusively making up the starvation butcher's bill.
 
It did, killing an estimated 400,000 over the course of the blockade. Mostly children and the elderly. Though Germany's food situation was not as bleak as many make it out to be, the provision that Germany give up massive numbers of livestock, trains, and other good meant that the blockade could then work suffering on the German populace. Famine on a total scale never happened because in basic food stuffs, Germany was self-sufficient in a minimal way. The poor, those that could not afford the black market, suffered the worst, consequently nearly exclusively making up the starvation butcher's bill.

Just to add, the death toll among infants was horrendous. The mortality rate among newborns in many cities, especially in the Rhineland, exceeded 75% in the Winter-Spring 1919.
 

Deleted member 5719

The statement is seamammal-absurd. US aid was amounting to far, far more than green troops and a moral boost. France and the UK were buying supplies from the USA since the war began and soon ran out of hard currency. By 1917 they were neck deep in debt and still no step closer to victory. If the US had adopted a "cash" instead of "credit" policy the Entente would have been royally screwed.

Changing the economic terms would have weakened the Entente, but I think the OP is referring to fighting troops.
 
It did, killing an estimated 400,000 over the course of the blockade. Mostly children and the elderly.
Though Germany's food situation was not as bleak as many make it out to be, the provision that Germany give up massive numbers of livestock, trains, and other good meant that the blockade could then work suffering on the German populace. Famine on a total scale never happened because in basic food stuffs, Germany was self-sufficient in a minimal way. The poor, those that could not afford the black market, suffered the worst, consequently nearly exclusively making up the starvation butcher's bill.

1) Those numbers are disputed. Some historians put the death toll at as much as 800,000, other more recent studies state that few actually died, but there was a lot of unhappiness and discomfort due to low rations.

2) Also, even if you accept your 400,000 figure, we are talking about everyone who died as a result of the blockade during the entire course of the war...not as a result of a famine striking the cities in months after the end of the war, which is what you claimed was about to happen earlier.

3) Accounts by people who lived through the era claim that 1917 was the worst year for food shortages in Germany. If 1917 was the worst year, then things were improving in 1918, which makes it less likely the blockade would have forced the final surrender of Germany.

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/sea/w1s-block.html

4) The "German Collapse" scenario also depends on continued stalemate in the war. Victory...even on one front...is a tonic which can steel the population to make the sacrifices needed to prevail in the end. And minus American intervention, the Germans may well be able to achieve that...either in Italy, as I have suggested, or on the Western Front itself.

A really good detailing of the contributions of the United States to the Allied Victory, including turning back the German Spring Offensives of 1918, is here.
 

MrP

Banned
One of the big what if's for me is what would have happened with the organization of the British Army. Canadian and ANZAC generals were implementing new tactics at a much faster rate than the top generals of the British Army which has lead to discussions regarding Currie or Malmonth? (head of the ANZAC forces) taking over as top general.

Also alot of potential impacts regarding the overseas colonies as I can see India and Africa being tapped for more divisions to serve in France which could lead to a much different approach for the commonwealth in World War 2.

Without the expected influx of US bodies I can see a greater push for leadership that has proven tactics that are less wastefull of manpower than full frontal assults ala 1914.

One of the strangest aspects to me of the BEF was the lack of a unified training system for most of the war. French and Haig largely left army, corps and divisional commanders to do their own thing, leading to weird disparities in effectiveness, not only with the Dominion forces but also Home troops. IIRC, it's all piecemeal until Maxse becomes Inspector General in June of '18.
 
Regarding the question that started it all, I'd give a qualified "yes".

No so much because of US battlefield contributions, but because of the morale boost it provided to the French and the British. I'm sure some military detail freak will point out how wrong I am, but I believe the morale of France and Britain would have completely collapsed after the fall of Russia if they did not have the promise of active US participation in the very near future. This regardless of whether or not the 1918 Ludendorf offensive succeeded. Also, Germany would probably be less likely to seek an armistice with the allies with the US still neutral.
 
Well you never can say these things with absolute certainty, but I think the US's support was vital to the Allies victory, but they didn't need to join the war for an Allied victory. So, I'm on the middle of the road, and I can be run over by traffic going both ways... not a good place to be. :p
 
Top