No US Intervention in WW1

[Nicole]

How would World War 1 have gone about without United States Intervention? Well, first, we'd have to stop the US from getting into the War... No Zimmerman Telegram, and perhaps Germany reluctantly agrees not to sink US civilian ships. Could the Central Powers defeat the allies? If so, what kind of concessions would the Allies be forced to make? Bulgaria would likely get Macedonia, and Austria's hold on Bosnia-Herzegovnia would be recognized by Serbia.

Even if the Central Powers still lose, would they be broken up if Wilson never has a chance to announce his "Fourteen Points"? Bosnia-Herzegovnia would likely go to Serbia if A-H loses, but would A-H be able to keep the rest of itself together? In OTL, it broke up after suffering severe losses, and a lack of confidence in it's government, so, depending on how quick the Central Powers lose (And it would take even longer without the US), Austria-Hungary would likely fall apart, though without the US wanting republics, the Hapsburgs might end up Emperors of a rump Austrian State.

I'm thinking of making a timeline or something with the above POD, though I'm not sure which outcome is more likely.

 

[jasonm8000]

With no US in WW1 No Nazi Germany in WW2

In my opinion it was pretty much a stale mate neither would have won or lost but, there wouldn't have been as many restictions on the Germans causing such a bad economy, and Hitler woudln't have had a platform and he woudl have just been another great speaking loon that no one listens to

 

[Valamyr]

Even Churchill himself spoke against the US entry into WW1 in his memoirs.

I think the world would have been better off without US entry really. Yes, it would have been a bloody stalemate, or a (limited) German victory, but it would have saved the world the second world war, IMO.

A likely scenario would be: After grinding Russia into dust, Germany resumes the stalemate on the western front, makes some progress, but faces troubles from the blockade, and all sides eventually (1919?) agree to a return of status quo in the West (or close; Germany could keep maybe Luxemburg), with Germany keeping most of her gains in the East, in exchange for which she must crush the upstart soviets and empower the Whites. Germany loses some oversea colonies in the process however and her focus returns to continental matters.

All belligerants realize that their limited gains cannot be worth the enormous human and material costs.

 

[Dave Howery]

Hmm.. you have more faith in human nature than I do. I think a long bloody stalemate in WW1 would have led to dissatisfaction among the populations of all involved, a long period of political instability, and a common thought among all sides that they could have won, if only they'd done something a little different. All sides will rest, regain their strength, and go at it some odd years down the road. A problem with with a stalemate is that none of the problems are resolved. Germany and France still have quarrels over border territory, as do Romania and Hungary, Turkey and Greece, etc. etc. I find it hard to imagine that a stalemated war would make all these quarrels go away....

 

[Chrispi]

If WWI ended in a stalemate, I would venture that Britain and France too would turn into fascist states...

 

[jasonm8000]

true

Hmm.. you have more faith in human nature than I do. I think a long bloody stalemate in WW1 would have led to dissatisfaction among the populations of all involved, a long period of political instability, and a common thought among all sides that they could have won, if only they'd done something a little different. All sides will rest, regain their strength, and go at it some odd years down the road. A problem with with a stalemate is that none of the problems are resolved. Germany and France still have quarrels over border territory, as do Romania and Hungary, Turkey and Greece, etc. etc. I find it hard to imagine that a stalemated war would make all these quarrels go away....

It would have caused great many numerous border conflicts, but my point earlier was that it would have basicaly stoped the Nazi's becuase the government woudln't be in disaray from the lose of WW1. Plus, after awhile they would give up I mean war doesn't last forever at some point a goverment and it's people would give up and swallow their pride none of the nations at this time are crazy. Many factors too would have come along such as communism in Russia and Japans grad for land, which would have almost put a halt to the bickering of the western european nations. It would have been a better world, with the U.S not in WW1.

 

[jasonm8000]

hmm

If WWI ended in a stalemate, I would venture that Britain and France too would turn into fascist states...

I Doubt that, they would turn into facist states, I mean the British government had worked for so long on the system it has, but France yes they could have, I mean how many governments have they had in the last 200 years.

 

[Chrispi]

I Doubt that, they would turn into facist states, I mean the British government had worked for so long on the system it has, but France yes they could have, I mean how many governments have they had in the last 200 years.

Oh I disagree. With Britain's economy in the gutter and the empire collapsing, there is a perfect opportunity for a fascist like Sir Oswald Mosley to become prime minister. You take it from there!

 

[jasonm8000]

hmm

actually they were in some economic term oil durning the great depression i mean not as bad as the U.S but they were still effected, and I mean it makes sense, and it is possible but I just don't see it happening, i mean they are a socialistic democracy now, but i think they could have weathered the storm after the english civil war, and expressing how important the parliment was, they had progressed so much that i mean there were always yahoo's but i still think they would have stayed the course and not been as well off but stayed as democratic as they always were, sorry for the grammer just went off and didn't think

 

[B_Munro]

Even Churchill himself spoke against the US entry into WW1 in his memoirs.

I think the world would have been better off without US entry really. Yes, it would have been a bloody stalemate, or a (limited) German victory, but it would have saved the world the second world war, IMO.
.

Well, _our_ WWII, true, but...

...after the Hungarians revolt in 1942 when they feel the Austrian government is interfering with their right to oppress their minorities, and the Germans are forced to intervene to prevent their ally from disintegrating....

...and the Fascist Axis of France, Italy, and Russia [1] decide that The Day has come, and begin mobilizing their forces...

...while the Japanese continue to struggle to convince the Chinese the desireability of becoming a Japanese puppet, and the Chinese remain obdurate, and the US becomes increasingly grouchy...

...with the British, who aren't being very cooperative on the subject of Japan - unsurprisingly, since the British have no desire to alienate their allies. The Brits aren't fascist - not quite - but they have no interest in giving up their empire to gain a "special relationship" with a bunch of censurious, finger-wagging Americans who grew fat while Europe bled and who are _still_ trying to collect wartime debts from the battered imperial turnip...

...and the Russian dictator begins to discuss with his subordinates certain notions of what to do with all the dammn Yids that infest the areas to be reconquered, not to mention those already in Russia..

...and both British and German scientists have begun to work on certain interesting aspects of nuclear radiation...


[1] The White Russian puppet regime that the Germans put in place after crushing the Reds did not remain grateful for long, if at all: had the oddest notion it had some sort of claim to the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland, Finland...got downright loony after the Global Slump and that Grobov guy [2] came into power there. The Germans haven't been too worried, though: Russians are pretty incompetent militarily, right?

[2] Apologies to Aedh Rua

 

[Valamyr]

Some good points.

Perhaps a crushing German victory would be necessary to truly avoid WW2.

 

[Norman]

Maybe a Communist Europe??

You know with more bleeding in the fields, the chance of incredible disaffection with the governments of Europe might happen, allowing Lenin and crew to export their revolution to other places such as France and England.

Thoughts?

 

[Redbeard]

Unless the psycological effect of no US entry in april 17 has the French and British go politically in panic in 17 (mutinees) or 18 (spring offensive) it will be too late for the Germans to win. But I doubt the Entente will have the motivation to make another classical offensive crushing the Germans (Fuller plan 1919 could work though).

The Germans knew that after spring 18 they had no chance of winning, and if combining that with less Entente prospect of crushing the Germans, I could see an armistice/peace agreement still being seen as a German defeat, but not in the humiliating way of Versailles.

All in all this will have the political turmoil be less in Germany, but bigger in France and UK (all that bloodshead and we only get a draw or at best a marginal victory). At first the biggest threat will be from communists seeing this as "exactly as predicted in the works of Marx and Lenin". France will probably be most in danger and have a civil war like in OTL Germany, but UK could very well have her trouble too. I don't think the communists will have big chances of consolidating, but could provide troubles for many decades to come. A common enemy in the communists could provide the old antagonists of WWI with a common platform.

I'm not sure if extreme nationalists/Fascists will emerge, but France and Italy will be best bids.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Dave Howery]

Jason> I didn't mean that there would be unending war. IMO, a negotiated stalemate would only leave all sides dissatisfied, and after 10-20 years of peace, they'd be back for round 2....

 

[jasonm8000]

lol this would be settled if America joined the Centeral Powers

Here let me pitch this idea, say that the Germans aren't sinking the American ships and don't give the Zimmerman telegraph to mexico, and the Germans become quite nice to the Americans, and most of the people side with the germans. The U.S says it will send suplies to Germany and AusHun, and then the British start taking and sinking our ships, so then we finally join the Centeral powers, and I'm sure the Central powers then would have one for sure no if's and's, or maybe's.

 

[Alayta]

normans thought

I think, are much more communist europe in case of a longer, bloodier and completly disillusianary war is a possibility!!
Germany was not far from becoming communist in 1919/20!!!

 

[Dave Howery]

Jason> that's pretty unlikely, unless you can come up with a POD for it going back to the last century (maybe the Brits and French sided with the CSA in the ACW, but the CSA still lost anyway). In OTL, even well before the USA got into the war, American sympathy was strongly with the Allies.....

 

[Flakktrooper]

There's been a lot of talk about how no US in WW1 will effect Europe, but what about the States? There would be a longer span of time for the US to be recognized as a world power I believe no matter who wins.


Would there have been any League of Nations at all?

 

[jasonm8000]

Jason> that's pretty unlikely, unless you can come up with a POD for it going back to the last century (maybe the Brits and French sided with the CSA in the ACW, but the CSA still lost anyway). In OTL, even well before the USA got into the war, American sympathy was strongly with the Allies.....

POD late 18th centruy they except german as the american language and the turkey as our national symbol like Benjamin Franklin perposed.

 

[unsunghero]

If there is no US presence in France in 1918, then maybe Ludendorff's offensives have a real chance to break the French and the British once and for all. I haven't read too much about the Beleau Wood battle where the Germans were attacked by Yanks for the first time, but it seems to me it was a psychological defeat more than material/personnel. The reason seems to me that the Germans realized they were very well armed, well fed, prepared - just like Germans in 1914. Not only that, but that there were potentially millions that could come across the ocean. So if no Americans, let's say the British fall back to Channel ports (which happened in 1915), opening further breaches in the Allied lines. French forces also fall back, and Paris is eventually encircled; Germans sow discontent by distributing leaflets urging the French to stop fighting because the Germans are trying to negotiate with Poincare. Austria knocks Italy out of the war, and Paris falls to the Germans in late July. The French gov't flees to Bordeaux and asks for peace terms. With their only continental ally asking for peace, the British are forced to do the same.

General peace treaty between the two alliances are signed in Vienna: Germany gains Belgium, the rest of Lorraine, Briewy - Longwy, Belgian Congo, French Congo and Central Africa, Uganda, Portugese colonies of Angola and Mozambique. Austria gets Venezia and Lombardy as well as Milan, Serbia, and border rectifications in Austria's favor from Romania (all the Carpathian passes, etc.) Entente signatories forced to recognize Brest - Litovsk treaty in Eastern Europe. Large indemnities against France and Italy, but none from Britain. Thus the Germans are free to have their Economic Union in Europe, and Central Powers enjoy 20 - 25 years of prosperity and peace before the next round...