Does the Entente win if the USA doesn't enter WW1?

Who wins the war?


  • Total voters
    128
It's uncertain, but the Central Powers would have a morale advantage after Russia's withdrawal, and the French would have a hard time going on the offensive again post-Nivelle if that still happens.
 
If WW1 played out the same until US entry, except the Zimmerman Telegram is never sent and the Americans stay out of the war, who would end up winning in the end?

The thing is that Unlimited Submarine Warfare being in itself a direct threat to US commerce and thus US interests was enough by itself to bring the US into the war. The key POD is thus more likely to be the 9 January 1917 conference that decided the US was irrelevant instead deciding not to go to USW perhaps in recognition the US is rather relevant?

However the key fly in the Central Powers ointment was the ailing state of Austria-Hungary and it is hard to see them going much beyond the OTL December 1918 deadline they communicated to Germany. Thus the odds are that a Germany that has not sought terms before when it has something of a reasonable negotiating strength seeks terms in 1919 at the latest.
 
Last edited:
However the key fly in the Central Powers ointment was the ailing state of Austria-Hungary and it is hard to see them going much beyond the OTL December 1918 deadline they communicated to Germany. Thus the odds are that a Germany that has not sought terms before when it has something of a reasonable negotiating strength seeks terms in 1919 at the latest.

Austria-Hungary didn't fold until a week before Germany did, and the main reason for this was the collapse of the Balkan front, which opened up her entire southern frontier. This in turn was caused by the commitment of all German forces to the 1918 offensives in the west, leaving Germany with nothing to spare to shore up either that front or the Italian one. Its failure also broke the morale of the German soldiers themselves, even in the West, which was what really brought the war to an end.

So the real question is whether, with no AEF on the horizon, Germany still gambles everything on those offensives. If not, she can hold out more or less indefinitely , and shore up her allies as required, and so at worst get a highly favourable negotiated peace, and maybe (at least on the Continent) an outright victory.
 
So the real question is whether, with no AEF on the horizon, Germany still gambles everything on those offensives. If not, she can hold out more or less indefinitely , and shore up her allies as required, and so at worst get a highly favourable negotiated peace, and maybe (at least on the Continent) an outright victory.

The other question is what the Entente's 1917 and 1918 plans look like without the prospect of American entry into the war. If they expend the rest of their strength in a futile effort to get a decision in the West, then Germany's really sitting pretty at the end of that, and can probably walk into Paris by the end of 1918, and you'd probably see the OTL morale collapse in reverse on the Italian and Macedonian fronts, too. It's the Turks who are likely still screwed, given how badly they were doing by the end of 1916.
 
It's the Turks who are likely still screwed, given how badly they were doing by the end of 1916.

Screwing is relative. They may well lose Baghdad and Jerusalem (and of course the Hejaz) but have a chance of getting compensation at Russia's expense. Even if not, they are likely to keep Damascus and Mosul, which is better than OTL.
 
the most important part is british credit.
around the pint that otl the usa came into the war the uk would be running out of things to use as security for secured loans.
No usa in the war means no unsecured loans as they got in otl, complicating things hugely
 
The Entente is going to exhaust their collateral in the US in Spring of 1917, unless they decide to increase what they are offering up as collateral. This means no more secured loans and absent a US war declaration no wave of unsecured loans. So the Entente can no longer buy from the US in the quantity that they had done previously, let alone the vastly expanded quantity of OTL 1917-18. There is a small benefit in that they do not need to give the US all the equipment it needed, but this is outweighed by what the US sold to the Entente

The US produced half of the Entente total of smokeless powder in this period, as well as lots of cartridges and shells. AFAIK 80% of Entente oil came from the US, plus lots of other raw materials. Not to mention other things like draft animals, preserved food, cloth, vehicles etc.

Not to mention Russia only stayed in the war as long as it did due to the promise of rebuilding loans. Absent the US that is unlikely and Russia exits the war earlier, giving Austria-Hungary a much better outlook
 
The Entente is going to exhaust their collateral in the US in Spring of 1917, unless they decide to increase what they are offering up as collateral. This means no more secured loans and absent a US war declaration no wave of unsecured loans. So the Entente can no longer buy from the US in the quantity that they had done previously, let alone the vastly expanded quantity of OTL 1917-18. There is a small benefit in that they do not need to give the US all the equipment it needed, but this is outweighed by what the US sold to the Entente

The US produced half of the Entente total of smokeless powder in this period, as well as lots of cartridges and shells. AFAIK 80% of Entente oil came from the US, plus lots of other raw materials. Not to mention other things like draft animals, preserved food, cloth, vehicles etc.

Not to mention Russia only stayed in the war as long as it did due to the promise of rebuilding loans. Absent the US that is unlikely and Russia exits the war earlier, giving Austria-Hungary a much better outlook


Evidence that the US have someone else to sell to please...remember the people spending that Entente credit were US farmers and factory workers? Of course you might also want to look into how much credit the Entente actually needed as the French for example preferred to pay for American goods in gold. Then again there is the fact that this brings a worse case scenario of the Entente being forced on the defensive in the west but then they still have the blockade and absent USW the Central Powers have not and USW means US entry into the war. Yet far more likely is that the Entente do start to grind down the Germans on the Western Front albeit more slowly however since the blockade is still biting at the same rate German resistance is time limited in a way that the Entente's who remember control actual gold mines as well as other colonial goods the US was importing, is not.

The Central Power need a minimum of 3 PODS:

The US must screw over the US to the benefit of the Central Powers.

Unlimited Submarine Warfare must go ahead and go ahead more successfully than OTL but still with the POD above applying

The Germans must then fight better on the Western Front than their best.

I have not numbered the PODS because all must apply equally for a late war Central Powers victory...if you want the CP to do better you need to look earlier in the war.
 
Last edited:
If WW1 played out the same until US entry, except the Zimmerman Telegram is never sent and the Americans stay out of the war, who would end up winning in the end?

Unknown.

Mikestone8
Austria-Hungary didn't fold until a week before Germany did, and the main reason for this was the collapse of the Balkan front

Austria folded because it's economy was in free fall and the German army had been defeated on the western front. If the US doesn't enter the war, will both of those things happen?
 
How's that again?

The US need to sell to someone, they do not since the 1890s at the latest have a sufficient large internal market to buy all the goods US industry can produce. If the Entente stop buying then the US stop selling, if the US stop selling workers are laid off, investments are delayed or abandoned, mortgages defaulted on and so on. This is a bit like the 1931 portion of the Great Depression being brought forwards but easier to spot as this time the US know the Entente will stop buying.
 
The US need to sell to someone, they do not since the 1890s at the latest have a sufficient large internal market to by all the goods US industry can produce. If the Entente stop buying then the US stop selling, if the US stop selling workers are laid off, investments are delayed or abandoned, mortgages defaulted on and so on. This is a bit like the 1931 portion of the Great Depression being brought forwards but easier to spot as this time the US know the Entente will stop buying.

That being the case, a lack of Entente purchasing power would lead to more attempts by Wilson to get them to relax their blockade, and open up some of those markets. The alternative of unsecured loans makes less and less sense the less well the Entente happens to be doing. They'd probably dry up completely if and when Russia throws in the towel.
 
I've always thought that the countries involved would come to terms some time late in 1918 or early 1919 due to mutual exhaustion. By 1918 in OTL, all parties involved were regularly putting down mutinies, riots, and desertions, and that's with the US. At some point, the countries are either going to run out of soldiers and money or their armies are just going to leave the trenches, and without the US (despite its limited real contribution) joining to relieve the beleaguered French and British troops, they won't have the manpower to launch many more attacks.

Another likely result would be revolutions in France and Germany. The Third Republic was never very stable, and the socialists were angry about the war (to say the least). Without a convincing victory in the war to pacify them, the socialists would likely try to launch a revolution, and whether or not it is successful, a lot of Frenchmen are going to die. In Germany, Wilhelm is going to be universally hated by his people (both by the anti-war socialists and the veterans). He will likely be forced to abdicate, and if he doesn't, he won't live long.

No matter what the political result, it's going to be an absolute blood bath. The biggest contribution the US made was taking over quiet portions of the front, allowing the French and British to concentrate their remaining forces. Without this, the Entente wont be able to make most of the advances (real and percieved) they did in 1917-1918.
 
Not to mention other things like draft animals, preserved food, cloth, vehicles etc.
how was the Entente set for food in general? I've read in a couple of places that when the US entered the war and first sat down to talk to the other Allied leaders, they were told that the Entente needed a lot of food rather badly, which caught Wilson by surprise, and the US had to drastically increase it's spring planting to get there. Any truth to this?
 
Evidence that the US have someone else to sell to please...remember the people spending that Entente credit were US farmers and factory workers? Of course you might also want to look into how much credit the Entente actually needed as the French for example preferred to pay for American goods in gold. Then again there is the fact that this brings a worse case scenario of the Entente being forced on the defensive in the west but then they still have the blockade and absent USW the Central Powers have not and USW means US entry into the war. Yet far more likely is that the Entente do start to grind down the Germans on the Western Front albeit more slowly however since the blockade is still biting at the same rate German resistance is time limited in a way that the Entente's who remember control actual gold mines as well as other colonial goods the US was importing, is not.

The Central Power need a minimum of 3 PODS:

The US must screw over the US to the benefit of the Central Powers.

Unlimited Submarine Warfare must go ahead and go ahead more successfully than OTL but still with the POD above applying

The Germans must then fight better on the Western Front than their best.

I have not numbered the PODS because all must apply equally for a late war Central Powers victory...if you want the CP to do better you need to look earlier in the war.
US has no one else to sell to, save replacing peacetime Entente and CP exports to South America and Asia. It isn't screwing itself over, it is making sure it gets paid, by not loaning money to the Entente without assurances it will get paid back (OTL some were not in fact paid back), plus the wartime bubble would be over sooner or later, better for the democrats in power if it is now then say 1919 (when it happened OTL). The Treasury Department had already warned US investors against unsecured loans. Few banks are going to offer loans without a surety of being paid back. Entente got a total of $8 Billion in unsecured loans in 1917-18, (compared to $2 Billion of secured loans before then)

The Germans are going to perform better simply because the Entente has fewer resources compared to OTL and they have marginally more (as the blockade got tighter when the US joined in), assuming nothing happens like Russia leaving earlier results in Germany being able to launch a follow up to Caporetto and Italy being forced out of the war. Germany does not need to perform that much better than OTL to win in an *Spring Offensive
 
That being the case, a lack of Entente purchasing power would lead to more attempts by Wilson to get them to relax their blockade, and open up some of those markets. The alternative of unsecured loans makes less and less sense the less well the Entente happens to be doing. They'd probably dry up completely if and when Russia throws in the towel.

But the pain hits straight away and the less the US does for the Entente the less leverage it has. Then again there is the fact that German manufactured goods unlike British manufactured goods competed directly for the same low cost markets...in other words you are again asking the US to screw itself over to help Germany rather than help the US manufacturers who actually benefit from the blockade.

So once again we are back to the US helping the CP for the sake of the CP and to the detriment of the US.
 
But the pain hits straight away and the less the US does for the Entente the less leverage it has. Then again there is the fact that German manufactured goods unlike British manufactured goods competed directly for the same low cost markets...in other words you are again asking the US to screw itself over to help Germany rather than help the US manufacturers who actually benefit from the blockade.

So once again we are back to the US helping the CP for the sake of the CP and to the detriment of the US.

That...weirdly ascribes way too much agency to the US in this situation, actually. Because you know what else is to the detriment of the US? Giving away goods for free, or handing out loans that won't be repaid. And yet you're framing a failure to do either of those as a choice to help out the Central Powers. I mean, I don't think you accept the premise that Entente foreign exchange was in that bad shape, but because you don't even discuss that assumption in your argument and just speed ahead to talk about other things, that's what it sounds like you're saying, which makes your posts seem rather silly.
 
The Treasury Department had already warned US investors against unsecured loans. Few banks are going to offer loans without a surety of being paid back. Entente got a total of $8 Billion in unsecured loans in 1917-18, (compared to $2 Billion of secured loans before then)




What the Fed actually said:

From statements which have been published from time to time, both in the American
and foreign press, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of the Federal
Reserve Board with respect to investments in foreign loans in the United States. On more
than one occasion the Board has endeavored to remove this misunderstanding. So far from
objecting to the placing of foreign loans in the American market, it regards them as a very
important, natural, and proper means of settling the balances created in our favor by our
large export trade. There are times when such loans should be encouraged as an essential
means of maintaining and protecting our foreign trade.



Source Federal Reserve Bulletin April 1917 p239 Foreign Loans

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/1910s/frb_041917.pdf


Now I get you were confused, so were a lot of people so they felt they needed to set the record straight because they needed to loans to be made so people would go on buying US.

You might also want to look at the disparity in exports to South America versus those to the Entente.
 
That...weirdly ascribes way too much agency to the US in this situation, actually. Because you know what else is to the detriment of the US? Giving away goods for free, or handing out loans that won't be repaid. And yet you're framing a failure to do either of those as a choice to help out the Central Powers. I mean, I don't think you accept the premise that Entente foreign exchange was in that bad shape, but because you don't even discuss that assumption in your argument and just speed ahead to talk about other things, that's what it sounds like you're saying, which makes your posts seem rather silly.

This weirdly ignores the actual Federal Reserve document I have kindly posted a link to above but further it is perhaps worth noting that most of the principal, depending on the date of the bond up to 70%, of the loans made by private organisations and persons was repaid prior to Chamberlain changing the bonds to 3.5% bonds (which is I agree a technical default) however once again the thirties were low inflation times and finding returns of 3.5% tricky and so by and large the creditors did get paid....more importantly on the macro scale the US economy got paid more than once...it had hoped of course to be paid several times but overall the US rather than individual investors did not lose out and individual investors did not take a complete haircut.
 
Top