The U.S. enters WWI but refuses to send troops to Europe

CaliGuy

Banned
What if, in response to the German declaration of USW, the U.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?

Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by President Wilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war on Germany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.

What would the consequences of this have been? For instance, would the Entente powers be more receptive to seeking a compromise peace with Germany if they knew that U.S. troops were not forthcoming? Or, with their financial problems being solved (after all, the U.S. would still fund the Entente in this TL), would the Entente powers keep trying to get the U.S. to send over troops to Europe?

Also, would the U.S. public have supported such a compromise (a U.S. declaration of war on Germany, but no U.S. troops being sent to Europe) on Wilson's part? If so, could this have resulted in a much better Democratic performance in the 1918 and 1920 elections?

In addition to this, how would Germany have reacted to such a U.S. move?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 
Well France may come out of the war financially better off.

They had to borrow money from USA to buy arms to gift to the Americans in otl. It will be different here.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well France may come out of the war financially better off.

They had to borrow money from USA to buy arms to gift to the Americans in otl. It will be different here.
OK. However, France also presumably wouldn't be getting reparations from Germany in this TL--which will balance this out at least to some extent.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Central Power may win. You need to go through reserve forces for the Entente in late 1918, and see if they get low on men.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Can't the Entente import more men from their colonies, though?

Interesting point. Considering how Green the USA soldiers were, I guess if the USA made the weapons and the UK imported Indians, it might work just as well. Interesting idea.
 
The Entente will still win the war. The biggest problem they had is that the factories hadn't been tooled up by 1917, the production of war material was reaching astronomical levels. The Germans are still blockaded and the noose is getting tighter with America cutting off its shipments to Germany.

The Americans will have even less say at the peace table. They will get some token gestures and nothing more
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Interesting point. Considering how Green the USA soldiers were, I guess if the USA made the weapons and the UK imported Indians, it might work just as well. Interesting idea.
OK; good.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "Green"? Unprepared?

The Entente will still win the war. The biggest problem they had is that the factories hadn't been tooled up by 1917, the production of war material was reaching astronomical levels. The Germans are still blockaded and the noose is getting tighter with America cutting off its shipments to Germany.

The Americans will have even less say at the peace table. They will get some token gestures and nothing more
Couldn't the lack of U.S. troops in Europe have a psychological effect on German troops, though? Specifically, I am thinking of German troops still believing that they could bleed the Entente to exhaustion and thus refusing to rebel. (In contrast, in our TL, German troops rebelled once they figured out that the war was a lost cause due to the massive numbers of U.S. troops flowing into Europe.)
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Could a more successful Spring Offensive cause the Entente to go for a status quo ante bellum peace because they know there will be no American reinforcements?
 
Also, what exactly do you mean by "Green"? Unprepared?

US troops in 1917 were about as raw as you could possibly imagine, and about as useless in the trenches. Worse still, the overloaded troop ships massively amplified the killing power of the Spanish flu by the time it reached Europe. It still would have been a pandemic without the way, but those troopships made it so much worse.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
US troops in 1917 were about as raw as you could possibly imagine, and about as useless in the trenches. Worse still, the overloaded troop ships massively amplified the killing power of the Spanish flu by the time it reached Europe.
OK; indeed, that's what I thought.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
OK; good.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "Green"? Unprepared?


Couldn't the lack of U.S. troops in Europe have a psychological effect on German troops, though? Specifically, I am thinking of German troops still believing that they could bleed the Entente to exhaustion and thus refusing to rebel. (In contrast, in our TL, German troops rebelled once they figured out that the war was a lost cause due to the massive numbers of U.S. troops flowing into Europe.)

Lack of experience officers and NCO's. Conceptually, think about this model. The USA ships weapons to Nova Scotia. By mid 1917, the UK starts rotating back experienced divisions to Canada to be combined with new Indian recruits. Or Nigerian. You do the 3:1 expansion so each division becomes a Corp. About 6 months later, you return the division to France to fight in the front lines. Would these troops be better or worse than OTL American units?

Now since this is not the ASB forum, I struggle with the PoD. I guess Wilson has been talking about a naval war only. So when we go to war, the USA builds a lot more ships than OTL. I struggle with the rest of the policy. Would the USA keep extending loans to the UK? Is the USA building a large army, but not employing it? Or maybe wanted to train up some full army that fights in 1919? Since I can't get my mind around the POD, I have trouble thinking about what the impact on Germany would be besides the point of the checking the reserves of Germany. We know Germany was running out of men about November 1918, and it combat is at roughly OTL intensity, this will happen ITTL. The question I wonder is that once we remove the American troops, does the Entente have enough men to make it to late 1918, and sustain any type of operational pace. I am just to lazy to do the research and math.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Possibly, but how exactly do you make a more successful Spring Offensive?

Quite easy. I am going from memory, so there is some risk. In the Spring offensive time frame, the USA had about 1 million troops in France, with half holding quit sections of the front. By the time of the 100 day offensive, these numbers had doubled. At a minimum, the Entente will need to replace the Americans holding quite areas of the line. So roughly speaking, the French will have 500K fewer men in reserve. So just to give an example, it seems like the Germans came real close to taking Amiens and some key RR junctions but Entente reserves counter attacked. ITTL, this attack might not happen. You really just have to imagine getting one of the old board games, and gaming it out.

Or it might be better to imagine a successful broad attack where there are extra troops. So let's go the the Eastern Front in WW2. Imagine skipping the ASB gives the Germans 500K more fully equipped and supplied men in March 1944, and this numbers grows to 1 million by October. It is pretty clear the Soviets do a lot worse here, and maybe the Germans even hold in the east in 1944. Same idea in France in 1918, but we are subtracting troops.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Lack of experience officers and NCO's. Conceptually, think about this model. The USA ships weapons to Nova Scotia. By mid 1917, the UK starts rotating back experienced divisions to Canada to be combined with new Indian recruits. Or Nigerian. You do the 3:1 expansion so each division becomes a Corp. About 6 months later, you return the division to France to fight in the front lines. Would these troops be better or worse than OTL American units?

If Canadians are a part of these new units, then I am presuming that these units would be better than our TL's American units.

Now since this is not the ASB forum, I struggle with the PoD. I guess Wilson has been talking about a naval war only.

Yes; correct!

So when we go to war, the USA builds a lot more ships than OTL.

Yes, I am presuming that this is correct.

I struggle with the rest of the policy. Would the USA keep extending loans to the UK?

Yes, of course; basically, this doesn't put U.S. troops in harm's way and thus Wilson has no problem doing this.

Is the USA building a large army, but not employing it?

It builds enough of an army to protect itself from any threats by Mexico as well as from a hypothetical amphibious invasion of the U.S. by Germany. However, it doesn't build up its army any more than it deems necessary.

Or maybe wanted to train up some full army that fights in 1919?

Actually, Wilson would have no desire to ever send the U.S. army to combat in Europe in this TL. Basically, he doesn't think that USW is a sufficient reason to cause tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to lose their lives.

Since I can't get my mind around the POD, I have trouble thinking about what the impact on Germany would be besides the point of the checking the reserves of Germany. We know Germany was running out of men about November 1918, and it combat is at roughly OTL intensity, this will happen ITTL. The question I wonder is that once we remove the American troops, does the Entente have enough men to make it to late 1918, and sustain any type of operational pace. I am just to lazy to do the research and math.

For the record, I think that your analysis here is correct. However, what I am also curious about is this--would there be the political will in Britain and France for continuing the war up to the point of final victory? Or would the politicians and people in Britain and/or France be more willing to seek a compromise peace in this TL?

Also, if there is more willingness on the British and/or French side to seek a compromise peace in this TL, do Hindenburg and Ludendorff offer a peace which Britain and/or France are willing to accept? Or are H & L too greedy and thus demand more than Britain and/or France can accept?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Quite easy. I am going from memory, so there is some risk. In the Spring offensive time frame, the USA had about 1 million troops in France, with half holding quit sections of the front. By the time of the 100 day offensive, these numbers had doubled. At a minimum, the Entente will need to replace the Americans holding quite areas of the line. So roughly speaking, the French will have 500K fewer men in reserve. So just to give an example, it seems like the Germans came real close to taking Amiens and some key RR junctions but Entente reserves counter attacked. ITTL, this attack might not happen. You really just have to imagine getting one of the old board games, and gaming it out.

Or it might be better to imagine a successful broad attack where there are extra troops. So let's go the the Eastern Front in WW2. Imagine skipping the ASB gives the Germans 500K more fully equipped and supplied men in March 1944, and this numbers grows to 1 million by October. It is pretty clear the Soviets do a lot worse here, and maybe the Germans even hold in the east in 1944. Same idea in France in 1918, but we are subtracting troops.
Very interesting!

Also, just how important was Amiens strategically in 1918? (Indeed, I have heard that Ludendorff didn't have clearly defined strategic goals for the Michael Offensive before deciding on capturing Amiens!)
 
Top