No US entry into WW I, does the Entente still win?

[Uriel]

Without the AEF the Germans would have been able to stop the Entente offensive in 1918 like they stoped all previous offensives (with a sizeable part of their army occupied in the east). The Entente will reconquer some territory but then grind to a halt.

This in turn would have enabled them to reenforce other fronts.
The Mazedonian front would have never been in trouble in the first place, if the Germans hadn't withdrawn most of their forces for the western front.
The Italians would be fighting with less Entente support (5 divisons and a lot of supplies OTL) and would reconquer Venetia but be stoped at the Alps.

The Sailors mutiny was a result of Germany striving for peace not the cause (read it up yourself).

So only Turkey is likely to collapse in 1918.
But forces employed there were relativly limited and the Entente would still have to garnison the area so this is unlikely to completly tip the balance.

Germany would be still in an very critical food crisis. If it survives 1919 would largely depend on if they would be able to squeze enough food out of their eastern puppets.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

No US means peace terms are favorable towards the Centrals.

With Russia out of battle and the others locked up in a stalemate in the West, you know what I mean.

No, North Sea blockade still gives the Entente an edge.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

With or without US, Germany and its allies are doomed to fail because of the blockade. Even if we extend the war by 1 or 2 years, the CP will still be defeated by the Entente due to starvation as a result of blockade by Britain.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

With or without US, Germany and its allies are doomed to fail because of the blockade. Even if we extend the war by 1 or 2 years, the CP will still be defeated by the Entente due to starvation as a result of blockade by Britain.

Nah, stalemate more likely.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

Nah, stalemate more likely.

Stalemate more likely but the edge will go to the Entente. Extending the war will collapse Germany more.

 

[RMcD94]

So even if she can scrape up the money for her own war effort, she certainly can't subsidise her continental allies any further.

Never understood this. Edit: No, I'm ignorant of the reason would be better. Never was taught economics.

With Britain still trading ~fairly well with the entire world, and Germany completely surrounded, how was it that it was the UK that ran out of money? How did Germany afford it exactly?

 

[Mikestone8]

I guess no US entry means no unrestricted submarine warfare. The North Sea blockade still starves the Germans,

Though less than OTL.

US intervention was what made made the blockade watertight, since the neutrals adjoining Germany drew most of their imports from America, and these could now be controlled and "rationed" at source, with no need for a physical blockade.

 

[Mikestone8]

Never understood this. Edit: No, I'm ignorant of the reason would be better. Never was taught economics.

With Britain still trading ~fairly well with the entire world, and Germany completely surrounded, how was it that it was the UK that ran out of money? How did Germany afford it exactly?

It was less of an issue for Germany. Being cut off by the blockade, she was importing only bery modest amounts, Swedish iron ore being the most important thing. So foreign exchange wasn't a big deal. The Alies, OTOH, relied far more heavily on imports, so the money situation was serious.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There seems to be two dominant positions on this issue: German-wank and Entente-wank. The former doesn't take into account issues with the various Central Powers' home fronts and the collapse of the Ottomans, while the latter doesn't understand that the US played a role far more important than military: the US sustained everything for the Entente- raw materials (metals, coal, oil, food), which had to be imported from the US, money (loans, which stopped OTL before the US declaration of war, panicking the Entente, that is until the liberty loans rolled in preventing an economic collapse in France and Russia) which was necessary to buy all the raw materials, and the blockade, which the US finally turned into a war winning weapon. Without the US cutting off imports at the source, neutrals, like the Netherlands, could still bring in food and other supplies for Germany (also the Netherlands were loaning Germany major amounts of money, as Germany was providing her will large amounts of cheap coal).
For more details check out Hew Strachan's "To Arms" and Devlin's "Too Proud to Fight"

Nevertheless the balance favors Germany even if it means they give up the Uboat campaign; it makes little difference that the British can import things unmolested if they cannot afford to. The French would be crippled, as they had to import everything; without money, they cannot continue to fight. The there is the issue of Russia; without war loans to bribe the Provisional government with, its very likely they will cut their losses and try for peace with Germany independent of her allies. Especially with France going broke, Russia doesn't want to be left in the cold when the peace deals start getting negotiated. We could well see Russia leave the war sooner, especially as she cannot fund the war and without the US entry, the Russian people have no reason to stick it out as long as they did OTL.

Then there is the sticky issue of the Wilson administration finally being willing to confront the Entente over the blockade issue in 1917; after cutting of loans to the Entente, US businesses wanted trade with the continent again and Germany had amassed a large gold stockpile during the war. Without the declaration of war glossing over this problem, by mid-to-late 1917 the US will be pressing the Entente on the issue, which they will have to back down on or face the prospect of USN escorted convoys of merchantmen seeking to dock in German ports.

 

[Ascendant Warrior]

There seems to be two dominant positions on this issue: German-wank and Entente-wank. The former doesn't take into account issues with the various Central Powers' home fronts and the collapse of the Ottomans, while the latter doesn't understand that the US played a role far more important than military: the US sustained everything for the Entente- raw materials (metals, coal, oil, food), which had to be imported from the US, money (loans, which stopped OTL before the US declaration of war, panicking the Entente, that is until the liberty loans rolled in preventing an economic collapse in France and Russia) which was necessary to buy all the raw materials, and the blockade, which the US finally turned into a war winning weapon. Without the US cutting off imports at the source, neutrals, like the Netherlands, could still bring in food and other supplies for Germany (also the Netherlands were loaning Germany major amounts of money, as Germany was providing her will large amounts of cheap coal).
For more details check out Hew Strachan's "To Arms" and Devlin's "Too Proud to Fight"

Nevertheless the balance favors Germany even if it means they give up the Uboat campaign; it makes little difference that the British can import things unmolested if they cannot afford to. The French would be crippled, as they had to import everything; without money, they cannot continue to fight. The there is the issue of Russia; without war loans to bribe the Provisional government with, its very likely they will cut their losses and try for peace with Germany independent of her allies. Especially with France going broke, Russia doesn't want to be left in the cold when the peace deals start getting negotiated. We could well see Russia leave the war sooner, especially as she cannot fund the war and without the US entry, the Russian people have no reason to stick it out as long as they did OTL.

Then there is the sticky issue of the Wilson administration finally being willing to confront the Entente over the blockade issue in 1917; after cutting of loans to the Entente, US businesses wanted trade with the continent again and Germany had amassed a large gold stockpile during the war. Without the declaration of war glossing over this problem, by mid-to-late 1917 the US will be pressing the Entente on the issue, which they will have to back down on or face the prospect of USN escorted convoys of merchantmen seeking to dock in German ports.

and let's not forget that if the Entente Attack those Convoys, it may lead to the US declairing war on the Entente...

 

[Maur]

Nah, stalemate more likely.

Yeah, because Central Powers were totally not disintegrating internally by late 1918.

 

[von kressenstein]

If the US stays neutral.. and by neutral i mean at least a somewhat even playing field 70/30 then i say Germany wins. Fine food was short, but not impossible and if the blockade is not complete and Germany can still trade with the US for goods then well.. they have the edge.

Now massive forces leaving the eastern front for the Western Front, supplies trickling in from the newly conquered territories, Germany wouldn't need to rush its 1918 offensive and when the did attack would demorilze the french even further and cause probable collapse of the french military by late 1918.

England would be then forced to the table to negotiate a face saving peace

 

[Maur]

There seems to be two dominant positions on this issue: German-wank and Entente-wank. The former doesn't take into account issues with the various Central Powers' home fronts and the collapse of the Ottomans, while the latter doesn't understand that the US played a role far more important than military

Oh on the contrary. It was crucial. But the OP premise is about war entry, so i take it is about US military contribution.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Oh on the contrary. It was crucial. But the OP premise is about war entry, so i take it is about US military contribution.

War entry reopened war loans to the Entente, which OTL were cut off in early 1917, before the US war entry. With the declaration of war collateral-free loans opened up to the Entente in the form of Liberty Loans. Without those the Entente would have gone broke and had to ask for peace because they couldn't afford to fight it anymore, and in the case of France, they wouldn't have enough to import enough food for their people.

 

[Maur]

War entry reopened war loans to the Entente, which OTL were cut off in early 1917, before the US war entry. With the declaration of war collateral-free loans opened up to the Entente in the form of Liberty Loans. Without those the Entente would have gone broke and had to ask for peace because they couldn't afford to fight it anymore, and in the case of France, they wouldn't have enough to import enough food for their people.

You seem to assume there wouldn't be some sort of negotiated deal between Entente and USA. People react to situations, so we can't expect them to sit and do nothing.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You seem to assume there wouldn't be some sort of negotiated deal between Entente and USA. People react to situations, so we can't expect them to sit and do nothing.

There was nothing to negotiate about. The US specifically tried to divest themselves from the War Economy so that they didn't experience a economic crash when the war ended. Beyond that the Entente wasn't willing to play ball when Wilson tried to get them to negotiate to end the war; they rebuffed him outright while the Germans at least made an offer. As it was the US was paying the Entente to continue the war, while Wilson was interested in getting them to negotiate before civilization collapsed in Europe (Wilson was thinking of communist revolution); this meant that they had to cut the Entente off to force them to the peace conference, one that he (Wilson) wanted to lead.

Negotiating with the Entente to give them free money (they had run out of collateral) would contradict Wilson's primary goal of ending the war by negotiation; he no longer felt the the Entente was a force of good, so wasn't interested in seeing them beat Germany outright. Read up on Devlin's Too Proud to Fight, he talks about Wilson's goals and the loan issues. The British were literally on their knees begging for the US to give them money; were it not for the US declaring war on Germany, they wouldn't have gotten any. Hew Strachan backs this up. He, a man far more educated on WW1 than anyone on this board, declared in his book To Arms, that had Germany not declared unrestricted submarine warfare again, that the Entente would have run out of money and been forced to start negotiations.
(BTW Thanks Mikestone8 for that recommendation).

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Actually it was unrestricted submarine warfare combined with the Zimmerman telegram topped with Germany using a means of communication provided by Wilson in violation of international law and the protests of Secretary of State Robert Lansing to send the telegram which brought the US in to the war.

Unrestricted submarine warfare alone might not have done the trick.


Whether Germany's offer to negotiate was credible is highly doubtful. If nothing else Germany by 1917 had reached the point where a peace among equals guaranteed an economic crash.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Actually it was unrestricted submarine warfare combined with the Zimmerman telegram topped with Germany using a means of communication provided by Wilson in violation of international law and the protests of Secretary of State Robert Lansing to send the telegram which brought the US in to the war.

Unrestricted submarine warfare alone might not have done the trick.


Whether Germany's offer to negotiate was credible is highly doubtful. If nothing else Germany by 1917 had reached the point where a peace among equals guaranteed an economic crash.

The Zimmerman note was sent because unrestricted sub warfare was anticipated to bring the US into the war. The note was sent because there was a need to delay the US from getting geared up to march into Europe; without the declaration of sub warfare there would be no need to send the note to Mexico.

German negotiation offers (ie their ridiculous high-ball offer) were to embarrass the Entente and provide an excuse to launch a new round of subwarfare (ie the Entente won't negotiate, so we need to do something to force them to the table). At least they played ball with Wilson, something the Entente did not even try to do. Wilson saw it as the Entente wanting all the marbles, not justice, though he still saw German offers as ridiculous. The difference is that they made the attempt. Here, as a POD, perhaps Germany makes a serious offer if them don't intend to launch subwarfare again.

 

[Urban fox]

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.

Indeed, however bad thing are for the Anglo-Freanch forces. The Germans are in much worse shape. I'm shocked how people can bring up Entente weakness. Then neatly forget that both in terms of the home front and front-line army. German morale was even more brittle, than the British or French. Both of whom were free to import food, reinforcements and vital war-suppies. While the Germans were near-starving and their war-industry couldnt keep up production anymore. Fighting though 1916-18 had pretty much buggered the German economy. The fact that junta ruling Germany wasnt very good at running a war-effort, didnt help either.

The Germans by 1918 simply cannot win, their offensives would run out of steam as their troops, artillery and industry were utterly worn out with no hope for replacements or improvement. The Kaiser's men didnt have proper supplies of food & ammo and their morale was shot.

Actually it was unrestricted submarine warfare combined with the Zimmerman telegram topped with Germany using a means of communication provided by Wilson in violation of international law and the protests of Secretary of State Robert Lansing to send the telegram which brought the US in to the war.

Unrestricted submarine warfare alone might not have done the trick.


Whether Germany's offer to negotiate was credible is highly doubtful. If nothing else Germany by 1917 had reached the point where a peace among equals guaranteed an economic crash.

Yeah, people talk about troop, numbers blockades and imports. And forget more insubstantial factors like morale, or state & diplomatic competence. Lets face it from 1916-1918 the staggering cack-handed incompetence of the German junta is almost unbelievable. People talk about how no US DOW eases the blockade on Germany. Which is all fine and dandy but the small matter, that the German high-command had already pliedrived the German economy/industry right into the ground. Simply to fulfil short-term (late 1916 to 1917) needs.

 

[stjernkjempe]

I don't understand how hard it is... 1918 Germanys industrial base is untouched while a majority of France industrial base is ravage by the war or in German hands. The manpower supply for France is down to nothing 1918 while Germany still drafts reserves from its industry. It's up to UK to depopulate their industrial base to fill the trenches if USA don't bail them out, and that is even if UK gets the loans so they can continue to buy all the needed resources and foodstuff they and their allies desperately need 1918. If you read some of the newspaper articles or letters from 1918 you fast get a picture of how monumental important the American eatery to the war were for the moral and hope for the British and French people and how devastating it were for the German population to have their hope for a stalemate peace on the west front smashed after Russia folded. The mutiny and German revolution were not a communist revolution (to begin whit) it were a democratic revolution to get peace and order restored. The communist uprising (more the proclamation that Bavaria were a soviet April 6 1919) began first after the cease fire agreement (November 11 1918) and as a response to that the agreement didn't stop the blockade (don't know when it ended). A uprising worth to know that the Entant let bloom out to a full fledge revolt to further weaken a Germany they feared would take up weapons again and continue the war instead of accepting harsh peace.

Is 20th century history not a mandatory subject in Schools outside Scandinavia? How would people understand WW2 and the cold war in Europe if they don't know WW1? Is Wikipedia broken?