PC: Is an Entente Victory in WWI still possible without an US entry?

GauchoBadger

GauchoBadger

Self-explanatory title.
How much does the plausibility swing around between having a neutral but pro-entente US and having a completely uninterested US?
 

HunterX

It's possible, but not likely with a result anything like Versailles and Trianon. In fact it's likely you get a more mild set of peace treaties with the Entente "winning" but actually left in a situation where Germany has a pretty favorable geopolitical situation in the future.
 

Lalli

Entente could probably win still WW1 without USA. Germany was already badly exhausted. It had lost much men and people was starving due embargo. It had too lost all of its colonies. Austro-Hungary hardly needs explanation. About Bulgaria I can't say but it was minor power. Ottomans had too many problems.
 

rommel12

I do not know if France can continue as they were stopped by the army mutinies, I'm not sure but the French morale was very low until America entered the war and they knew that sooner or later would come American soldiers to replace their losses. else also that by the end of 1917 incios 1918 and would have no money because after the United States entered the war approved loans easier for etante. Maybe a peace blank for 1918 because Germany has no food but they know that they will not have etente American reinforcements.
 

Riain

American entry into the war precipitated many things such as the extension of credit to the Entente, the introduction of a fresh army into the Western Front (small at first but growing quickly), the French having the choice to wait during the mutinies, the Germans launching the Spring offensive. All of these things are bad for Germany and good for the entente so without the Americans the balance would tip in favour of Germany, wether it would be enough I don't know. Perhaps the Spring offensive would be different, perhaps mounted in the north to take the Channel coast and force Britain back on the defensive.

IIRC Germany wasn't starving in 1917, it wasn't until later 1918 that the blockade really began to cause major problems.
 
Will Marshall

Will Marshall

From what I understand it, by the time the Americans well and truly committed themselves to the war (as opposed to just sending troops as "just in case" reinforcements), Germany was pretty well stuffed. That's not to say the Americans didn't contribute - people who say that the Americans did nothing in the First World War are usually wrong - but it's not like the Americans single-handedly came in and won a lost war. Austria-Hungary by this point was falling apart, German activities in the east were drawing them away from the western front, and Germany itself was basically on the brink of revolution by this point.
 

Riain

The Turnip Winter is not mass starvation enough to cause a collapse of the war effort, obviously the war continued for almost 2 years after the Turnip winter.

The British had 'war indigestion' because of potato flour used in bread, that isn't mass starvation either.
 

Mikestone8

Will Marshall said:
From what I understand it, by the time the Americans well and truly committed themselves to the war (as opposed to just sending troops as "just in case" reinforcements), Germany was pretty well stuffed.
Click to expand...

But why was she stuffed? Mainly because Ludendorff chose to gamble on that series of offensives in 1918, whose failure broke the morale of the German Army, and indirectly of the civilian population as well.

And why did Ludendorff do this? Because he knew that "the Yanks were coming" and that within another three months or so there would be enough US troops reinforcing the Entente to make Germany's position hopeless. He still had a window of opportunity but it was closing fast.

No American intervention means that he doesn't have to gamble Of course I suppose there's always the possibility that a personality like that might do it anyway, but he doesn't need to. He need only "hang in" until French and even British soldiers start to despair of ever being able to break through. After the Nivelle Offensive, Passchendaele and much else, that goal is certainly achievable.
 

Mikestone8

Riain said:
The Turnip Winter is not mass starvation enough to cause a collapse of the war effort, obviously the war continued for almost 2 years after the Turnip winter.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Incidentally, one small point crosses my mind.

The German Army of WW2 must in large part have been drawn from men who had been babies or small children during WW1. Is there any evidence that large numbers of them were rendered physically unfit due to starvation in their early years? I can't str ever hearing of such a thing, and in all events there were clearly plenty of fit ones left for Hitler to draw on. I've no doubt that food shortages made life wretched for a lot of German civilians, but is there the slightest evidence that they were anywhere near being starved into surrender (or revolution until they knew they had been defeated on the battlefield)?
 

rast

The Turnip Winter was felt as grave, because it abruptly ended a time of plenty. - You can see this written in letters and postcards: until the end of the second third of 1916, soldiers in the field were showered with goodies from home. Then, at the start of the third third, everybody could tell that the harvest was going to be very poor. The shops suddenly went empty and the farmers were squirrelling away their produce. - Subsequently, the families at home were now begging the soldiers to send what they could spare. This wasn't starvation, but it was hunger. And going hungry for a long time - and having no fuel for heating - can wear you down considerably without that you die from it. It were the urban poor who were hit hardest.
 

King Augeas

GauchoBadger said:
Self-explanatory title.
How much does the plausibility swing around between having a neutral but pro-entente US and having a completely uninterested US?
Click to expand...

A neutral but pro-Entente US might provide industrial and financial support comparable to OTL, in which case ATL would probably be quite like OTL, as I don't think that US troops played a decisive role on the battlefield.

Or the US might not provide that support, such as if it was a true neutral. In this case the Entente has a financial and industrial crisis in 1917 and is forced on to the defensive. Germany probably goes ahead with a spring offensive in 1918, that might be enough to win the war on the battlefield because of lesser Entente fighting power, or it might peter out as OTL, because of logistics and the lack of an actual plan. If the latter, then the Entente isn't in a position to win to mount offensives like The Hundred Days, but it also doesn't need to agree to any terms that Germany is likely to offer (or vice versa!), even with American mediation. In which case the war just drags on horribly until both sides are fed up enough to agree a peace, which would certainly represent an overall German victory based on her conquests in the East. Or until someone does something stupid that brings the US in after all, such as believing that the U-boats can win the war in six months at minimal cost.

My opinion is actually that it's actually quite hard to keep the US out, because of this strategy for U-boat victory. It's particularly tempting if the hope for victory on land is fading.
 

Mikestone8

King Augeas said:
A neutral but pro-Entente US might provide industrial and financial support comparable to OTL, in which case ATL would probably be quite like OTL,
Click to expand...

Loans after the Declaration of War were far greater than those made before. And if we can believe Wiki, the First Liberty Loan was poorly subscribed until the government started up a full-blown propaganda campaign telling people that it was a patriotic duty to buy the bonds. That would hardly be possible if the US was still neutral.


My opinion is actually that it's actually quite hard to keep the US out, because of this strategy for U-boat victory. It's particularly tempting if the hope for victory on land is fading.
Click to expand...

Hard but not impossible. According to Kitchen's The Silent Dictatorship, Hindenburg called on Chancellor Bethmann in late December demanding USW against armed ships. Bethmann continued to oppose, and when he was overruled at Pless, the decision was made for USW against all vessels.

Had Bethmann yielded to Hindenburg's earlier demand, they would have come to Pless with a "done deal" in their pockets. The Navy, no doubt, would have argued for "the full Monte" but H&L might have considered that what was good enough for them was good enough for these interfering sailors. And President Wilson seems already to have tacitly conceded that armed ships were fair game.
 
Last edited:

tenthring

Banned
Without US support the Entente can no longer launch offensives. I suppose, in theory, they could sit on the defensive but to what end? Germany occupies the best parts of France. Germany would, given enough time, eventually be able to get more food/resources from the East. Italy was hanging by a thread.

With no prospect to gain back conquered lands by force of arms the Ententes only hope is to negotiate. Staring at each other across no mans land a couple more years won't accomplish a thing.
 
GauchoBadger

GauchoBadger

In case the US, who in this scenario is neutral but still pro-entente, stays out of the treaty of versailles, how differently will the treaty play out? Is it going to be more of a bilateral sue-for-peace or is the window of opportunity for Germany to be defeated still there? Will there be a mass crippling of the german economy and army as OTL?
 
thezerech

thezerech

Assuming the Germans don't muck up U.S relations they could see much less support for the Entente. By 1918, the Germans will start getting more food in from the Ukrainian State under Skoropadsky, if the war drags on, they'll gradually begin improving their food situation albeit with far more reliance on Ukrainian and other east European imports. I don't see the French Army not mutinying without U.S support, of course if we want a German victory we can time the possible larger scale mutinies to coincide with German offensives to really brake French morale. If the French really collapse we could see something similar to OTL fall of France in 1940. Paris falling, or being surrounded before the French accept a truce. If the Germans are smart, they'll give very lenient terms to the French, to encourage the British to negotiate a peace with likely U.S mediation. Once France falls of course, Italy is done for. German troops can reinforce the K.u.K very heavily. Reading Rommel's account of his time on the Italian front I very much doubt the Italians will even try to resist. I seem to recall Germans being carried by the Italians because they were so happy to be captured. Germany and Britain might continue to duke it out at sea and in the Middle East, however no way either side can continue past 1921, Japan will likely settle for a status quo ante bellum, with Britain accepting reparations and returning German colonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top