No US entry into World War I, does the Entente still win? And if so, is the peace on Germany harsher than OTL's Treaty of Versailles, the same or milder?
No US entry into WW I, does the Entente still win?
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
I'd say no
US entry provided 1) a huge boost to sagging morale, 2) the knowledge that large reserves were coming
Spring 1918 without either would be literally do or die, backs to the wall stuff, and when the Germans relaunched the offensive in the Summer they might well break the lines
US forces were already there, in places patching the lines, in others in reserve, and those fighting to the death knew they were coming.
Without them the Entente forces would see a sudden huge reinforcement for the enemy set against no hope in reinforcements for their own side, and when the Germans threaten to break through it would be a moment of morale crisis unseen even during the 1917 French mutinies
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
US entry provided 1) a huge boost to sagging morale, 2) the knowledge that large reserves were coming
Spring 1918 without either would be literally do or die, backs to the wall stuff, and when the Germans relaunched the offensive in the Summer they might well break the lines
US forces were already there, in places patching the lines, in others in reserve, and those fighting to the death knew they were coming.
Without them the Entente forces would see a sudden huge reinforcement for the enemy set against no hope in reinforcements for their own side, and when the Germans threaten to break through it would be a moment of morale crisis unseen even during the 1917 French mutinies
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
David S Poepoe
Banned
The Entente has the Central Powers pinned to the floor and the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires are on the ropes. Without the US the war may drag on another year, but Germans are starving.
Deleted member 1487
Probably not due to financial concerns. Negotiated peace deal though it favors Germany because Russia probably exits much sooner, starting the domino effect of Allied nations cutting their losses.
Without the US strengthening the blockade by major degrees Germany won't be as poorly off in 1918, which was a year that the food situation got better...for Germany.
AH will still be SOL. The US turned the leaky blockade into a stranglehold, which cut off any sort of influx of goods, which prior were still flowing in. Now for the Allies the US not entering means no liberty loans and the US turning off the financial spigot, which had turned to a trickle after by early 1917 OTL. Wilson was pissed at the Allies for spurning his negotiation attempts and he wanted to protect American industry from the massive drop off in orders that would come when the war ended.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rogue Shadows
Banned
Oooh...this is quite possible one of the closest wars in history without the US.
I'd say...55-45 favoring the Alliance over the Entante due to the above stated reasons.
Regardless, a harsh Versailles-style treaty would be impossible - both sides would know that neither could sustain the war any longer.
I'd say...55-45 favoring the Alliance over the Entante due to the above stated reasons.
Regardless, a harsh Versailles-style treaty would be impossible - both sides would know that neither could sustain the war any longer.
Well, in OTL the German High Command apparently rushed with the Spring Offensive because they feared that delaying further would lead to more American bodies at the frontlines. Without the Americans, the German Army can prepare more for the 1918 offensive (train more troops in stormtrooper tactics, stockpile more materials, etc.). Plus, even if it doesn't end the war by itself, the Germans have already gained from Brest-Livotsk and so have some more chances for offensives. The Entente, on the other hand, is going to see a grim future. Thus, the situation favors the Central Powers (that is, Germany). Depending on the circumstances, it goes from negotiated peace (Germany keeps Brest-Livotsk, little change in West) to French collapse and a full CP victory. In either case, the Germans have gained dominion over Eastern Europe and it is a loss for the Entente.
Maur
Banned
Yep. Every single central power was about to experience Russian Empire style collapse in fall 1918. The peace saved them, really.
Huh? Are you in the same timeline that I live in? I'm off to bed, maybe I will wake in yours, lol
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
As noted above, they were at the brink. What started as a sailor's mutiny in Kiel turned into a communist revolution in Germany (there's a reason why the Kaiser abdicated). Similarly, by the fall of 1918 the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was assured, and the Ottomans were in dire straits as is.
That being said, these revolutions may very well be butterflied away without the US entry into WWI. It's rather difficult to say.
I'm a bit confused here. After March 1918, there would have been no second front for Germany to deal with, and the Spring Offensive came pretty close in OTL.
I've never heard this before about how the Central Powers were close to losing anyway. Yes there was the allied blockade, but didn't German U-Boats come pretty close to doing the same thing to Britain?
Everything I've read said that the U.S. basically bailed out the allied powers and that the best they could've gotten without them was a stalemate, but more likely a defeat.
Is this one of these weird "historical determinism" things with this board like how Germany was historically determined to lose WWII as well no matter what new scenarios get added?
I've never heard this before about how the Central Powers were close to losing anyway. Yes there was the allied blockade, but didn't German U-Boats come pretty close to doing the same thing to Britain?
Everything I've read said that the U.S. basically bailed out the allied powers and that the best they could've gotten without them was a stalemate, but more likely a defeat.
Is this one of these weird "historical determinism" things with this board like how Germany was historically determined to lose WWII as well no matter what new scenarios get added?
In some ways it did appear that the CP could win after Russia was knocked out and Entente morale did sink a little.
IMO the low Entente morale wasn't that they thought the Germans would win rather that beating Germany after the Nivelle offensive and Paschendaele seemed such an uphill task.
Perhaps, if the US doesn't enter the war there would be pressure throughout 1917 and into 1918 for the Allies to negotiate an armistice but the problem was that the Germans would have treated the Allies like a defeated foe. The terms Germany offered would have been unacceptable, especially after Brest Litovsk.
In the meantime, the Ottomans are being pushed back. Baghdad is lost in March 1917, Jerusalem December 1917. The German colonies have gone with Lettow Voerbeck hiding in the long grass.
The U boat threat had been effectively contained by the RN by the end of 1917. German and Austrian society was weakening faster than the Allies with communism spreading rapidly. The Russian Revolution affected the morale (politically) of the German soldier more than the Allied one.
By early 1918 the Germans may or may not launch their Spring Offensive. They probably would because with extra troops available the Germans would not be able to resist the temptation. They would achieve the same results as OTL and the Entente would be very close to breaking but they won't.
The Germans were stopped OTL without American troops being used in any significant way. The Allies had enough troops to halt the Germans by July 1918. The Allied counter offensives would be less powerful but they would still come. The Germans would probably not collapse in the Autumn without American pressure but they would still be pushed back.
By September the Ottomans are already pushed out of Syria with no way back and the Bulgarians would start to suffer a lot of pressure. The Austrians are on their last legs in Italy. There are no American forces playing a role here (some units were in Italy but noto many).
The Bulgarians would still quit in September and with that the Ottomans fall in October or still November. This opens up the Balkans to attack with the Austrians either collapsing OTL or being propped up by German reinforcements that weaken the West. IF AH falls in November then what does Germany do with all their Allies disappearing in 8 weeks!!
The Entente wins.
Maur
Banned
No it didn't. It may seem so, but that's compared to the fruitless 1915-17 offensives, but in fact it ran off steam pretty fast, and each subsequent one (there were 4 offensives not one) was even less successful. Also the Brest-Litovsk territories needed few years of peace to reap benefits of, and they weren't going to save Germany from starvation in 1918/19
The allied blockade was much more effective than German submarine warfare. US war entry didn't change the outcome, i don't know how could anyone claim that (apart from overly patriotic Americans, that is).
Given in this thread plenty of people think differently about the outcome as late as 1918 (WW I wasn't decided from the beginning, but it was by 1918), i am not sure how did you got that impression. They are still completely wrong, though.
EDIT/ What Devolved said, although i would say that Germans (we're talking the German army) were going to collapse in fall 1918 Americans or not. And really, the fall of whole southern flank means that German military situation is hopeless even if they can hold the west. Which they can't.
Last edited:
Clash of cliche's
So it seem no-one on this forum grew up with the WWI cliche I got in school and from family etc.
That cliche was that WWI would have ended in 1917 with a peace of exhaustion if not for the promise of American intervention. Yes, of course it was possible that they could have struggled on to an eventual victory but everyone was sick to death of it all. What was the point
What was there that was worth the cost to countries where every family seemed to have already lost a member KIA
The French Army - the dominant western army and the most aggressive - had mutinied. The Somme offensive by the British army was to divert attention from it, and yes the French could and did rebuild but the cost of doing so was rapidly coming to be seen as totally out of proportion to what might be gained from "Victory".
No one had been getting enough to eat for years, the 1918 Flu epidemic would not have killed 20 million people without prolonged malnutrition.
That the Central Powers were in just as bad a shape was not obvious to most people in the west, and getting a second or third member of the family killed to drive them to collapse was not a good enough motivation for a tired, hungry, grieving people. A Cease Fire and negotiations looked like the only sane move to a large and growing section of the populations of France and the British Empire. The American declaration of war and the promise of millions of new soldiers gave heart to populations who would have quit otherwise
Whether a 1917 ceasefire would have prevented the second of the two revolutions in Russia that year - the monarchy was gone in the first, the communists took power in the second - and what the implications of that might be was/is a big topic of discussion in some circles.
Funny no one here seems to travel in them. Interesting though.
So it seem no-one on this forum grew up with the WWI cliche I got in school and from family etc.
That cliche was that WWI would have ended in 1917 with a peace of exhaustion if not for the promise of American intervention. Yes, of course it was possible that they could have struggled on to an eventual victory but everyone was sick to death of it all. What was the point
What was there that was worth the cost to countries where every family seemed to have already lost a member KIAThe French Army - the dominant western army and the most aggressive - had mutinied. The Somme offensive by the British army was to divert attention from it, and yes the French could and did rebuild but the cost of doing so was rapidly coming to be seen as totally out of proportion to what might be gained from "Victory".
No one had been getting enough to eat for years, the 1918 Flu epidemic would not have killed 20 million people without prolonged malnutrition.
That the Central Powers were in just as bad a shape was not obvious to most people in the west, and getting a second or third member of the family killed to drive them to collapse was not a good enough motivation for a tired, hungry, grieving people. A Cease Fire and negotiations looked like the only sane move to a large and growing section of the populations of France and the British Empire. The American declaration of war and the promise of millions of new soldiers gave heart to populations who would have quit otherwise
Whether a 1917 ceasefire would have prevented the second of the two revolutions in Russia that year - the monarchy was gone in the first, the communists took power in the second - and what the implications of that might be was/is a big topic of discussion in some circles.
Funny no one here seems to travel in them. Interesting though.
I'd say stalemate is likely with a deal that slightly favor the Entente. 1914 borders in the West, the dissolution of the German Colonial Empire, and Open Hands for Germany in Eastern Europe.
From what i have read here, it looks like the war would end more nuetraly and then there would be no such one-sided treaty and germany would recover from the war quicker and thus germany becomes stronger and the nazis would be almost non exsistent
Almost certainly not.
By the end of 1916 Britain had just about run out of security for new US loans, and unsecured ones are unlikely while America remains neutral. So even if she can scrape up the money for her own war effort, she certainly can't subsidise her continental allies any further.
Also, the food situation is going to get worse on the Allied side, as it already had on the German. America's 1916 harvest was more than 40% down on the previous year's, and that of 1917 was to be even lower. So had neutrality continued, American food exports, of vital importance to the Allies, would have fallen drastically or even dried up altogether. Tht would be especially bad for France and Italy, which both suffered critical food shortages in the winter of 1917/18, and had to be bailed out by the US. [1]
OTL, of course, America was able to continue exporting, due to drastically reduced domestic consumption, achieved by "Hooverisation" - meatless, wheatless etc days, a ban on use of foodstuffs for brewing or distilling, etc - which was introduced as a part of her war effort, and would have been unthinkable while she remained at peace.
In short, it's unlikely that the war continues into 1918. By late 1917, if not earlier, things are looking so bad for the Allies that they either have to -
a) get serious about a compromise peace. Of course, even if the Germans offer reasonable terms (doubtful) this will be a shattering blow to morale on the Allied side, where the populations are still being led to believe that they are winning. So once talks have started, it will be diffcult or impossible for the Allies to break them off - and the Germans have most of the bargaining chips.
b) throw everything into a last "all or nothing" offensive. The British, of course, were doing this anyway at Third Ypres, and the French Army is liable to react very badly to another "big push" so soon after the Nivelle fiasco - especially if it requires the dismissal of Pétain, one of the few commanders they trust. Assuming (a pretty safe bet) that the offensive fails, we come back to (a) but with an even worse start from the Allied pov.
[1] George H Nash, in Herbert Hoover, Master of Emergencies, notes that in April 1917 Hoover was told by a French official (unnamed of course) that France would be unable to carry on unassisted beyond October 1917. On May 4, after his return to America, he repeated this to Interior Secretary Franklin K Lane.
Last edited:
I guess no US entry means no unrestricted submarine warfare. The North Sea blockade still starves the Germans, but the British and French economies are failing too. Russia is still going out after the revolution with Bretsk- Litovsk. But the main issues would still be there, neither side can break through, and both are just getting poorer. At some point a negotiated peace will become a necessity, especially since the Socialists of France and Germany would become more militant and organized. My guess is Germany would have to concede to the 1914 borders, and France will have to give up their claims on Alsace- Lorraine. Germany would have to evacuate Belgium and Luxemburg, so these nations can be restored with their 1914 borders. Germany would have to concede their Colonial Empire to the Entente powers, but would be allowed to have a free hand in the East. A special Commission would be set up to determine the Austrian- Italian border as well as the future of the former Habsburg Empire.
Maur
Banned
Except that Nazis came to power because of depression, so what you read here was useless.