How early would have ended WW1 if America had joined the Entente after the sinking of the Lusitania and the Ottoman Empire stayed neutral

[Msalatino]

Let's say that The Ottoman Empire stayed Neutral and there was a republican US President during WW1, either Roosevelt was reelected in 1908 and 1912 or Teddy picked Elihu Root to Run in 1912 and any of them pressured the Congress to declare War on Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania.

When WW1 would have ended?

How would this change the Treaty of Versailles?

Could Austria-Hungary survive?

Would the Russian Empire Survived?

Would the Kaiser remain in Power?

Would Germany still lose all its colonies?

Could another World war still happen?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Russia sits at the winners table at the end of the war, there is no Poland and the Ottomans aren't carved up, the rest is relatively the same.

 

[Lalli]

When WW1 would have ended?

Probably in 1916 or early 1917.

How would this change the Treaty of Versailles?

ToV might be bit milder. French would want harsh terms but Britain is probably worried about stronger Russia so it wants keep Germany relatively strong.

Could Austria-Hungary survive?

Probably.

Would the Russian Empire Survived?

Probably but it is not certain. There will be yet lot of problems and Nicholas II would remain still as authotarian and reactionary ruler.

Would the Kaiser remain in Power?

Wilhelm II would be enforced to abdicate but monarchy would survive.

Would Germany still lose all its colonies?

Yes.

Could another World war still happen?

Possible but not likely.

 

[Driftless]

The OTL US Army was tiny by European standards (until late 1917), poorly trained for large scale operations, with a small cadre of leaders. Even with a TR or Elihu Root as President, there would be great popular resistance to creating a large and professional army, until late in the program. The problems faced in the OTL 1917 build up would still be there, but addressed somewhat earlier. Insufficient infrastructure existed at every level: officer and NCO training, bases for training, tents, cots, blankets, uniforms, rifles, modern cannons, etc. Those things were overcome to some extent, but it took time. The OTL AEF was largely equipped with British and French weaponry, and trained by the French. Part of the problem was insufficient shipping for the huge numbers of Doughboys crossing the Atlantic en masse. They could haul soldiers, or gear, but not enough of both.

Maybe with a TR or Root as a 1912 and onward President, a more modern General Staff concept might have gained traction (Root proposed that earlier, but the Bureau fiefdoms in the US Army and Congress thwarted that effort). If that system were in place, it likely would have taken less time to equip and train an AEF than in our history. How much less time though?

 

[raharris1973]

and any of them pressured the Congress to declare War on Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania.

They try to do that and they probably end up with a Congressional declaration of war on the White House.

People were outraged by the Lusitania affair, but hardly anybody, right then and there in America wanted to declare war on Germany and send over an Army to fight Germany about it. Americans wanted apologies, compensations, to vent demands that the Germans stop sinking of this manner, but didn't want to go to war.

Theodore Roosevelt's hawkish suggestion at the time was simply to seize the German merchant ships trapped and interned at American ports, and leave the Germans wondering what *they* would have to do to ever regain control and title back to that property. That way, the US would hold the leverage and could demand what it wanted from them.

The Lusitania wasn't the last straw that broke and brought America into WWI, and it was not likely to be. It was the first straw, it was the event that made people start *thinking* the US could end up in the war with Germany over this submarine issue. *Nobody* thought *America* would get into the war *itself* before the Lusitania incident in spring 1915, even many people thought the Germans in Belgium was a beastly affair.

 

[Msalatino]

Probably in 1916 or early 1917.



ToV might be bit milder. French would want harsh terms but Britain is probably worried about stronger Russia so it wants keep Germany relatively strong.



Probably.



Probably but it is not certain. There will be yet lot of problems and Nicholas II would remain still as authotarian and reactionary ruler.



Wilhelm II would be enforced to abdicate but monarchy would survive.



Yes.



Possible but not likely.

The Baltics(Yugoslavia), Italy, Japan, or a racist expansionist nationalistic industrialized Russia could spark WW2. (But it would be less deadly than WW1, or at worst equally deadly)

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The Baltics(Yugoslavia)

Yugoslavia is in the Balkans.

or a racist expansionist nationalistic industrialized Russia could spark WW2

You mean the Russia who struggled against Germany, faced millions of deaths and countless sufferings would just randomly start another world conflict for no reason?
Also with whom are they starting this conflict?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The OTL US Army was tiny by European standards (until late 1917), poorly trained for large scale operations, with a small cadre of leaders.

If you'd asked a German General in 1915 or 16 if he was worried about the American Army joining the Allies on the Western Front he'd likely have laughed and asked "What American Army"?

 

[Msalatino]

If you'd asked a German General in 1915 or 16 if he was worried about the American Army joining the Allies on the Western Front he'd likely have laughed and asked "What American Army"?

With 4 more years of Roosevelt in 1908 and the presidency of Root, the American Army would be stronger for WW1

 

[Lalli]

The Baltics(Yugoslavia), Italy, Japan, or a racist expansionist nationalistic industrialized Russia could spark WW2. (But it would be less deadly than WW1, or at worst equally deadly)

How Yugoslavia (if existing) even could begin WW2 and for what it would be? And Yugoslavia is in Balkans, not Baltics. Baltics is that what consist modern day Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Same question with Italy. ITTL Italy might not even go as fascist when more probably promises are held and Italy gets what it wants. Japan might begin some war in China but not really sure if it wants go war with great power unless it is even crazier than in OTL. Russia is possible but not really sure. It would be allies for that. And I don't see Russia bothering new disastrous war anyway. Why to start? It just had defeated Germany. Why beat that again? Of course it is possible but not really likely.

With 4 more years of Roosevelt in 1908 and the presidency of Root, the American Army would be stronger for WW1

Depends if Roosevelt is able to speak to Congress how necessary rising of military budget is.

 

[Driftless]

With 4 more years of Roosevelt in 1908 and the presidency of Root, the American Army would be stronger for WW1

I don't think conditions existed, even with a Republican run in the White House for a larger standing Army. Resistance to that idea went back to the 1700's, even predating the existence of the United States as an entity. Any increases in the size of the Army, i.e. the ACW, were viewed as hostilities only.

However, an improved General Staff, on par with its existing US Navy Staff counterpart, should have been possible with TR/Root in the White House. That would have been beneficial at most levels, but particularly for planning and mobilization of a large duration-of-hostilities force. OTL, the creation of what would become the AEF was chaotic at best, and largely half-assed in execution.

 

[Msalatino]

Probably in 1916 or early 1917.

between Nov of 1916 to Jan of 1917?

 

[Lalli]

between Dec of 1916 to Feb of 1917?

Something like that.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Why to start?

IMO this is kind of a silly question given we're talking about an ATL. We can't know exactly how the scenario posited in the OP would actually play out, therefore we can't know what the peace looks like either.

It's entirely possible Russia gets screwed at the peace table (or feels they've been screwed, like OTL Italy), and combined with general dissatisfaction around Tsar Nicholas II I don't see it as unlikely that Russia might swing hard into one political spectrum or the other. Maybe an independent Poland is imposed upon them or something (in exchange for paltry gains elsewhere). Britain wasn't exactly pro-Russia.

It would probably take Russia longer than it took Germany OTL to reach a point where they might become a credible threat, but if some sort of nationalist cult of personality takes over a good catalyst for a second round might be Russia going for Constantinople or something. Britain would certainly support the Ottomans as they have in the past. Let's say Bulgaria and Serbia side with Russia, forcing Greece to side with Britain. Germany eventually takes Britain's side which France sees as a betrayal. Austria-Hungary and Italy are wildcards - I can imagine Italy joining in with Russia to try and get their irridentia against Austria and Greece, especially if they're being backed by France.

My point is that there's a world where OTL's WWII never happened and Germany developed into a liberal democracy in the late 20th Century and people talk about how unlikely it is that in an ATL Germany started WWII so soon after WWI. Certain things only seem likely or unlikely through a retrospective lens.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It's entirely possible Russia gets screwed at the peace table (or feels they've been screwed, like OTL Italy), and combined with general dissatisfaction around Tsar Nicholas II I don't see it as unlikely that Russia might swing hard into one political spectrum or the other.

Pre-war it was very socialist leaning, and one of the main ideas of socialists is anti-imperialism, you might look at the demands the Petrograd Soviet imposed on the Provisional Government to understand that they weren't the kind to start a conflict again. Since the war would only reinforce them I don't see them going on to conquer the world anytime soon.
Nicholas II, no matter how idiotic he may be, would understand Russia's backwardness and wouldn't search conflict either.

Maybe an independent Poland is imposed upon them or something (in exchange for paltry gains elsewhere). Britain wasn't exactly pro-Russia.

How? Poland is recognized as a part of Russia and the Poles have no way to defend themselves from the Russians; you can't have a peace deal where one of your allies loses territory when you won the war. Also the Entente has no way to prevent Russian goals, nor are they very willing to try.

It would probably take Russia longer than it took Germany OTL to reach a point where they might become a credible threat, but if some sort of nationalist cult of personality takes over a good catalyst for a second round might be Russia going for Constantinople or something.

What do you mean by Russia goes for Constantinople? The only thing that Russia could demand post-ww1 is free passage across the straits, a demand that the British have no reason to oppose.

Britain would certainly support the Ottomans as they have in the past. Let's say Bulgaria and Serbia side with Russia, forcing Greece to side with Britain. Germany eventually takes Britain's side which France sees as a betrayal. Austria-Hungary and Italy are wildcards - I can imagine Italy joining in with Russia to try and get their irridentia against Austria and Greece, especially if they're being backed by France.

After WW1, what Austria-Hungary? and do you mean Weimar Germany who has absolutely no influence at all on the geopolitical stage?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Pre-war it was very socialist leaning, and one of the main ideas of socialists is anti-imperialism, you might look at the demands the Petrograd Soviet imposed on the Provisional Government to understand that they weren't the kind to start a conflict again. Since the war would only reinforce them I don't see them going on to conquer the world anytime soon.
Nicholas II, no matter how idiotic he may be, would understand Russia's backwardness and wouldn't search conflict either.

How? Poland is recognized as a part of Russia and the Poles have no way to defend themselves from the Russians; you can't have a peace deal where one of your allies loses territory when you won the war. Also the Entente has no way to prevent Russian goals, nor are they very willing to try.

What do you mean by Russia goes for Constantinople? The only thing that Russia could demand post-ww1 is free passage across the straits, a demand that the British have no reason to oppose.

After WW1, what Austria-Hungary? and do you mean Weimar Germany who has absolutely no influence at all on the geopolitical stage?

You do realise we're discussing a world in which the war ends incredibly early, right? The peace will be entirely different from OTL. All your questions hinge on the assumption that we get the exact same OTL Versailles, Trianon, etc.

 

[Msalatino]

Something like that.

Teddy 4th term or Root 2nd term is guaranteed

 

[Popcorn]

Depends if Roosevelt is able to speak to Congress how necessary rising of military budget is.

I don’t know if he could just convince them. If the problems in Mexico start earlier and get out of hand he might be able to do it, especially if the newspapers are running stories about the army getting embarrassed across the border.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

You do realise we're discussing a world in which the war ends incredibly early, right? The peace will be entirely different from OTL. All your questions hinge on the assumption that we get the exact same OTL Versailles, Trianon, etc.

On the point of going radical, I still consider that socialism will be the main opposition force in Russia (whether communist or not) and that these socialists are the complete opposite of warmongers.
On the point of Poland an earlier peace deal will only strengthen the Russian position, meaning they have absolutely NO chance of getting independence. And an earlier peace deal would mean that the Entente is less distrustful of the Russians. (and there's no points of Wilson ITTL, so no justification to strip away the Poles)
All of the above don't seem to be dependent on the peace deals we get.

As for AH and Germany, explain me why would they want to surrender before the situation is hopeless and why would the Entente want them around?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

As for AH and Germany, explain me why would they want to surrender before the situation is hopeless and why would the Entente want them around?

Don't ask me - I'm discussing the premise as laid out by the OP. In any case you're looking at things through a pretty weird lens. Britain was always distrustful of Russia and leaned more towards Germany until the Germans threatened the balance of power (and threatened to threaten British naval supremacy). With an earlier end to the war the peace will undoubtedly be more lenient on Germany and A-H.