Effects of the USA entering WW1 with only volunteers

[DTF955Baseballfan]

When the United States entered World War I, President Wilson quickly called for a draft. However, Champ Clark argued for a totally volunteer army to go over to Europe.

Of course, it's possible that his response would have been different where he president. This isn't quite like William Jennings Bryan who would have probably not wanted any kind of War unless there was something like Pearl Harbor. The Clark opposed the war because of the use of the draft but might have been more willing to accept the draft - or at least accept the declaration of war- if he were more familiar with the situation in europe.

Then again, I'm not sure if he was on a House Foreign Relations Committee or anything. Maybe he was already more up on the situation in Europe than I think.

Still, it is possible that he would push for a volunteer unit first.

I wonder if part would be how he became the nominee and thus president in 1912 also. If William Jennings Bryan supports him because Clark never gets the Tammany Hall nod, there might be a bit more of a peace strategy. And, as long as Brian remains Secretary of State maybe he would be convinced not to go to war. However, given Bryan's extreme positions on a number of issues, it is quite likely that there would be some sort of hassle which would call Bryan to resign anyway.

If, however, Clark becomes the nominee because Wilson drops out early, someone like William Randolph Hearst puts his force behind him, or something else then that might be different.

Either way, I'm getting conflicting reports on the number of soldiers who were drafted by the United states. Just doing a quick Google search one thing is saying 2.8 million out of 4.8 million were drafted (a radio under 60%) and another is saying 72%. Even taking the higher of those numbers, that's still over 1 million Americans who volunteered. (I was shocked myself, I'd have guessed half that.)

Would that have made enough of a difference? Psychologically at first I think it would have, the French mutinies really hurt but at least knowing that someone was coming to the rescue would help. You also would have the United States Navy able to start attacking German ships. Past that, I'm not sure.

 

[Catspoke]

If I were president, committing the navy and a volunteer army seems an appropriate level of commitment vs drafting people to die in a far away place in a situation where the threats to the country are vague.

The Allies can win if 1918 plays out like OTL with a volunteer American army, but if the Germans don't attack as big in the west in 1918, maybe do an Eastern or Southern strategy, 1919 may not be as easy without a huge American army in the field.

The Germans had to attack west OTL because a big American army was coming.

 

[ehbowen]

You might try reading what Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) had to say in Expanded Universe about the decline of patriotism (pg 536 Ace Books soft cover edition). His hometown had a National Guard regiment which ran 96% authorized strength. There were 53 applicants competing with him for the Annapolis slot which he eventually won. Before the Crash of '29 (emphasis Heinlein) Navy recruiting offices were turning down 19 out of 20 volunteers; the Army was turning down 5 out of 6. "The reenlistment rate was high; the desertion rate almost too small to count." And my understanding of the Spanish-American war is that volunteers were being turned away. I really don't think that manning up an all-volunteer army [Edit To Add: In that time frame] would be that big of a hurdle.

 

[Mikestone8]

Of course, it's possible that his response would have been different where he president. This isn't quite like William Jennings Bryan who would have probably not wanted any kind of War unless there was something like Pearl Harbor. The Clark opposed the war because of the use of the draft but might have been more willing to accept the draft - or at least accept the declaration of war- if he were more familiar with the situation in europe.

What "situation in Europe" exactly?

The German offensive did not start until March 1918. Before that there was no particular sign that the Entente faced military defeat. It looked for a time as if they might face naval defeat by the u-boats, but having or not having a draft would make no difference there, since by the time US draftees reached Europe in any numbers, the u-boat campaign would already have either succeeded or failed.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

You might try reading what Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) had to say in Expanded Universe about the decline of patriotism (pg 536 Ace Books soft cover edition). His hometown had a National Guard regiment which ran 96% authorized strength. There were 53 applicants competing with him for the Annapolis slot which he eventually won. Before the Crash of '29 (emphasis Heinlein) Navy recruiting offices were turning down 19 out of 20 volunteers; the Army was turning down 5 out of 6. "The reenlistment rate was high; the desertion rate almost too small to count." And my understanding of the Spanish-American war is that volunteers were being turned away. I really don't think that manning up an all-volunteer army [Edit To Add: In that time frame] would be that big of a hurdle.

Fascinating! Obviously my idea of how many would volunteer is colored by my having lived in the the last quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st.

It continues to amaze me how static the lines were in World War I.

 

[naraic]

I think a volunteer army would be more likely to create a society that stays involved internationally and is willing to help enforce Versailles.

 

[marathag]

Alvin York stays an unknown Hillbilly.

 

[marathag]

I think a volunteer army would be more likely to create a society that stays involved internationally and is willing to help enforce Versailles.

Or even less, given how WWI was soon seen as a vehicle for Big Business to make money on War along with Empire building for the French and British on the bones of the German Colonial holdings.
Idealism of making the World safe for Democracy goes sour with the rise of Fascism and Communism

 

[Post]

If I were president, committing the navy and a volunteer army seems an appropriate level of commitment vs drafting people to die in a far away place in a situation where the threats to the country are vague.

The Allies can win if 1918 plays out like OTL with a volunteer American army, but if the Germans don't attack as big in the west in 1918, maybe do an Eastern or Southern strategy, 1919 may not be as easy without a huge American army in the field.

The Germans had to attack west OTL because a big American army was coming.

Once the US enters the war, the Germans have to attack if they want to win the war (or find another way to win quickly), because they're not going to win a war of attrition, even if less US soldiers come to Europe.

 

[raharris1973]

This is a very interesting question, thanks for asking!

 

[Riain]

I read into the pre WW1 US Army a while ago its a fascinating topic. IIRC the legislation stated that the Federal Government couldn't call for volunteers until after it had 'Federalised' (mobilised) the National Guard.

At the rime the US Army/NG had a peacetime establishment and wartime establishment, in peacetime CONUS infantry companies had a strength of 65 men from a wartime establishment of 150, O-CONUS inf coys usually had a few more but less than 80. Cavalry, Artillery and Engineers were the more or less the same. Until the 1916 Defence Act the US Army had 4 Regular and 12 National Guard divisions and was very light on for Artillery, in particular heavy field artillery because State found infantry and cavalry units more useful to them underfunded artillery.

There was a pretty good response to the Plattsburg Camps from 1915 and IIUC there were some 300,000 volunteers for the Spanish-American War of 1898, so I suspect the US would have little difficulty in filling out it's existing units to full wartime establishment by absorbing up to 500,000 volunteers, which is all they had rifles for anyway. Beyond that they might struggle, but in any case going beyond that would involve a lot of legislative changes and a full-on commitment to the war, leading to the same problems as OTL in creating an army of millions from a cadre of 170,000.

Bear in mind too that while the US had a suite of 'modern' artillery that it used in the 'Border War' of 1915-16 when it came to equipping an army of millions with artillery for fighting the Germans in the trenches of France this artillery was considered no good and the US equipped the AEF with British and French made artillery and retooled US artillery factories to build British and French designs.

 

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Bear in mind too that while the US had a suite of 'modern' artillery that it used in the 'Border War' of 1915-16 when it came to equipping an army of millions with artillery for fighting the Germans in the trenches of France this artillery was considered no good and the US equipped the AEF with British and French made artillery and retooled US artillery factories to build British and French designs.

Fascinating, why did they feel such artillery would not work in the trenches? Was it the weather, with much colder weather in the winter in France than they would have in Mexico?

 

[Riain]

Fascinating, why did they feel such artillery would not work in the trenches? Was it the weather, with much colder weather in the winter in France than they would have in Mexico?

What I've heard is the US 3" field gun was more akin to the British 15 pounder that was superseded and equipped the Territorial Force rather than the 18 pounder which equipped the Regulars in the BEF. My guess is that fighting the Germans is a much more serious business than fighting Pancho Vila and guns equivalent to a fully replaced British weapon is not good enough.

In 1915 the US Regular Army had 4 regiments of 3" field guns, 1 regiment of mountain/cavalry guns and a heavy regiment of a battalion of 4.7" heavy field guns and battalion of 4.7" howitzers, these howitzers were sent to Texas in 1915 due to the troubles in Mexico. In 1916 the Defence Act lead to a regiment of 6" howitzers being stood up in Hawaii and the New York National Guard getting a regiment of 4.7" howitzers. Only the 4.7" field gun was produced in decent numbers once WW1 started and very few of these guns went to France.

EDIT according to Wiki the US M1908 6" howitzer had a range of 6,700 yards compared to the German 15 cm sFH 02 range of 8,150 yards. By 1916 when the US stood up it's first 6" howitzer regiment the British had replaced their equivalent 6" 30cwt gun of 7000yd range with the 6" 26cwt of 11,400yd range and the French and Germans had done similar with their earlier howitzers. The US howitzer was well and truly outclassed by 1917.

 

[Driftless]

I believe Pershing's first estimate of troops needed was one million men for the Army, later upped to something in the two million range. The mobilization was a fiasco, as there were neither camps, tents, blankets, uniforms, or weapons for even the starting group of recruits. Many of the camps were literally built by the recruits on arrival. The pre-war cadre of Regular Army veterans were spread exceedingly thin, to cover the huge manpower need, and there was a dearth of good trained junior officers and NCOs. Because of Wilson's recalcitrance to antagonize the Germans pre-DoW, formal war planning was also at a bare minimum, nor was there sufficient trained staff (in the beginning) to plan. All very ad hoc. Even into early 1918, some of the AEF troops were arriving in France as green-as-grass. French troopers were doing basic training for many of the AEF.

Perhaps a smaller force of better prepared, better trained, better equipped AEF soldiers would have served everyone better, regardless of how the ranks were filled. They could have provided earlier line help than OTL. (That's also not altering the adamant Pershing (with Wilson's tacit support) demand that the AEF fight as a separate entity. Those "discussions" with the Allied War Council could be accurately described as acrimonious and not helpful at all to coalition warfare)

 

[Riain]

The pre-war cadre of Regular Army veterans were spread exceedingly thin, to cover the huge manpower need, and there was a dearth of good trained junior officers and NCOs.

And that was after mobilising the entire National Guard, deploying it to the Mexican border in 1916 and keeping it mobilised and training until about February 1917. This gave many senior officers their first opportunity to handle a large body of men, IIUC the only other chance officers got was to command a Brigade in the Philippines.

I shudder to think what would happen to the AEF without this mobilisation.

 

[Pesterfield]

Would volunteers know they'd be heading into the trenches?

Maybe deployment to Africa or against the Ottomans would be better so it'd free up British troops.

 

[raharris1973]

Would volunteers know they'd be heading into the trenches?

Maybe deployment to Africa or against the Ottomans would be better so it'd free up British troops.

But that doesn't have the same sentimentality as "Lafayette, we are here".

Believe it or not, helping the French in France was more evocative for American men of that generation than replaying the Crusades.

 

[raharris1973]

Allied win, US never drafts anyone in WW1

This is winning the poll choice so far, at 37%

I think it would be interesting to speculate on the differences this would make post-war. The change in overall size and demographics of the AEF. Volunteer forces would still face great casualties, KIA, physical maiming, and shell-shock. The draft would not be a focus and lightning rod of anti-war dissent, although there would still be people who would vocally say that the war is not the nation's proper business, and self-appointed and government appointed vigilantes to shut them up.

But an all-volunteer force should ease domestic tensions about the war a nontrivial amount compared to OTL.

There will be veterans trauma and those who volunteered will feel more *apart* from society in some ways without conscription.

But perhaps, popular attitudes by the non-serving portion of the public will be more worshipful and obsequious toward the volunteers, almost as a form of survivor's guilt, which has been the tendency of American civilians' reactions toward the all-voluntary military personnel in recent decades since 1990 or 2001.

Remains to be seen whether this type of attitude towards volunteers and all-volunteer force works either with or against a "we were conned" ex post facto after the war anti-war backlash and later isolationism

I think a volunteer army would be more likely to create a society that stays involved internationally and is willing to help enforce Versailles.

Or even less, given how WWI was soon seen as a vehicle for Big Business to make money on War along with Empire building for the French and British on the bones of the German Colonial holdings.

"We were conned" versus "Nobody made you go" and "They knew what they signed up for" and all that.

 

[raharris1973]

Once the US enters the war, the Germans have to attack if they want to win the war (or find another way to win quickly), because they're not going to win a war of attrition, even if less US soldiers come to Europe.

I agree

 

[raharris1973]

Would American be restricted to volunteering to a developing, American-officered, all-American, volunteer force, perhaps with mobilized deployed National Guard? Or could American volunteers select service in a British Commonwealth or French Army?

The Germans had to attack west OTL because a big American army was coming.

...and because of the pressures of the blockade.

Which will be just as harsh as OTL, because time cumulative impact, US commercial participation in the economic war, and the US Navy's participation.

I think a volunteer army would be more likely to create a society that stays involved internationally and is willing to help enforce Versailles.

Why so, in your opinion? Just by making it easier for shades of public opinion to 'sort' themselves? Those who favor involvement or adventure volunteer. Those who don't want to get involved and don't think we should don't have to do anything but pay taxes as usual?

Or even less, given how WWI was soon seen as a vehicle for Big Business to make money on War along with Empire building for the French and British on the bones of the German Colonial holdings.
Idealism of making the World safe for Democracy goes sour with the rise of Fascism and Communism

Why so, in your opinion? Volunteers might be a group experiencing a bitter, concentrated feeling of betrayal, that they "were sold a bill of goods" with veteran volunteers being the backbone of political isolationism. The emergence of non-democratic ideologies just confirms the failure/futility of the sacrifice?

Could a shift in volunteer opinions or contact with battlefield reallty create a sudden drop-off of volunteers and cause a late in the war manpower crisis for the American Volunteer Force? Perhaps provoking policies like "stop-loss" and major boosts of material incentives? Or a prison-to-Army pipeline?