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

Eh, it depends on how the spring offensive goes if the Germans get lucky they take the objectives and ''win'' by not losing any land in Europe. If the Entente Get lucky the handle the defense better the Germans are worn out sooner and they blunt their advance and use up the last of Germanies reserves they'll probably win through peace by starving Germany eventually or a final offensive operation
 
Well, they would rebuild. Seem like the UK built a couple of railroads at the pace of a mile or two per day. But, the cutting of the line causes massive logistical issues, and seems like there was a major depot of supplies near by. Spring offensive goes a lot better. I guess a lot depends on how well the British and French commanders handle the emergency.


According to Zabecki they were hastily drawing up plans to fall back behind the estuary of the Somme if Amiens went. It was assumed that over four-fifths of the BEF's equipment would have to be abandoned or destroyed.
 
Once the offensive peters out the Germans have, whether they realise it or not lost the war.


Their troops certainly realised it.

During the first four years of war, Germans taken prisoner on the Western Front averaged a little over 200 per day. From the beginning of August 1918 this soared to nearly 4,000 per day and that average continued right through to November. After the failure of their grand offensive, they had started to give up on winning the war and concentrate on just surviving it.

Field Marshall Haig had noticed this by September. He observed that had German soldiers been fighting as stubbornly as a year ago, he would never have dared to attack the Hindenburg Line.

The whole "stab in the back" malarkey was just a load of scuttlebutt for the benefit of civilians. Anyone who had been at the front in 1918 knew perfectly well that it wasn't true.
 
Eh, it depends on how the spring offensive goes if the Germans get lucky they take the objectives and ''win'' by not losing any land in Europe. If the Entente Get lucky the handle the defense better the Germans are worn out sooner and they blunt their advance and use up the last of Germanies reserves they'll probably win through peace by starving Germany eventually or a final offensive operation
The tricky thing is that, if the Spring Offensive dislodges the Western Front, there can't be a status quo peace in Europe until the Germans have a serious loss.

After 4 years of war, Germany will have annihilated Russia and trashed the Italians, French and British - the latter three have strength left to fight, but it's as clear as day that they've lost. British positions throughout the near east would be denuded of troops and still be sufficiently strong to hold in place, and a new front line in the west would undoubtedly be formed, but lost they have. Germany will want a real win in the west, too.

More importantly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Italians would throw in the towel if the British forces start falling back to the Seine. The Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians and Ottomans certainly will not for a few months more.
 

Deleted member 94680

Even if the Michael Offensive is more successful, unless the Germans end up in Paris and Calais, it won’t end the war.

My thought for this scenario is a war that ends pretty much as OTL but in 1920 instead.

Perhaps eighty or so years later a few internet wags thank the Americans for Indian independence in the thirties but other than that it’s pretty much forgotten the effect no American troops had on the course of WWI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan

BlondieBC

Banned
According to Zabecki they were hastily drawing up plans to fall back behind the estuary of the Somme if Amiens went. It was assumed that over four-fifths of the BEF's equipment would have to be abandoned or destroyed.

Been a while since I read up on this, but that sounds correct. French fall back to Somme. At least part of BEF falls back to Calais. It would have really made the 100 day offensive a lot harder.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Even if the Michael Offensive is more successful, unless the Germans end up in Paris and Calais, it won’t end the war.

My thought for this scenario is a war that ends pretty much as OTL but in 1920 instead.

Perhaps eighty or so years later a few internet wags thank the Americans for Indian independence in the thirties but other than that it’s pretty much forgotten the effect no American troops had on the course of WWI.

I have trouble getting the war to 1919 in the scenario listed here. Nothing here fixes German or A-H food issues. A-H probably still falls apart in late 1918. It still looks like 1918, or maybe early 1919 is decisive ITTL. We know roughly when the Germans fall apart. The question becomes, can the French and British stay in the war this long? And that is a much harder question.
 
Can't the Entente import more men from their colonies, though?

In theory, yes, but in practice, probably only in relatively limited numbers.

Both Britain and France quietly concluded that that while their empires could supply a number of high quality, long standing volunteer units, using colonial conscripts would present very serious reliability problems. France, more desperate than the UK both geographically and demographicaly, may have resorted to some coerced enlistments with say ethnic Algerians but stopped short of conscription.

By late 1917 most men from the empires inclined to volunteer had already done so and recruitment campaigns by France and Great Britain were falling well short of the number of desired enlistees.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In theory, yes, but in practice, probably only in relatively limited numbers.

Both Britain and France quietly concluded that that while their empires could supply a number of high quality, long standing volunteer units, using colonial conscripts would present very serious reliability problems. France, more desperate than the UK both geographically and demographicaly, may have resorted to some coerced enlistments with say ethnic Algerians but stopped short of conscription.

By late 1917 most men from the empires inclined to volunteer had already done so and recruitment campaigns by France and Great Britain were falling well short of the number of desired enlistees.

There was also the issue of trained combat soldiers returning to the colonies. Since we are discussing the USA contribution, imagine that in 1919 that 2 million additional Indian troops returned to India to be stood down. The higher the esprit de corps and the higher the skill level of these troops, the higher the risk of the UK losing India. To a large extend, the Aussie national identity was formed at Gallipoli.
 

BooNZ

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.
In late 1916 the recommendation to mitigate the manpower crisis in Britain was to extend the age of conscription up to the age of 50 - comedy gold!
 
There was also the issue of trained combat soldiers returning to the colonies. Since we are discussing the USA contribution, imagine that in 1919 that 2 million additional Indian troops returned to India to be stood down. The higher the esprit de corps and the higher the skill level of these troops, the higher the risk of the UK losing India.
Good point. Not only would these men have received military training, but they would be from the general Indian population and not from select ethnicities (Sikhs, Rajputs etc) who possessed, at least in the general sense, a sense of loyalty to the greater British empire.

Yikes, I wonder if empowered demobilized Indian conscripts would effectively collapse British rule over India by say, 1925? The chaos could lead to the creation of Punjab as an independent British protecterate to protect a loyal population (Northern Ireland). I don't know if the other traditionally pro British ethnic groups were sufficiently concentrated to create protecterate states.
 
Last edited:
Been a while since I read up on this, but that sounds correct. French fall back to Somme. At least part of BEF falls back to Calais. It would have really made the 100 day offensive a lot harder.

Of course if the Germans go on to take the other rail junction at Hazebrouck they are closer to Calais than are the British forces around Ypres. It might have to be Dunkirk instead.
 
In theory, yes, but in practice, probably only in relatively limited numbers.

Both Britain and France quietly concluded that that while their empires could supply a number of high quality, long standing volunteer units, using colonial conscripts would present very serious reliability problems. France, more desperate than the UK both geographically and demographicaly, may have resorted to some coerced enlistments with say ethnic Algerians but stopped short of conscription.

By late 1917 most men from the empires inclined to volunteer had already done so and recruitment campaigns by France and Great Britain were falling well short of the number of desired enlistees.


Not to mention the limited number of junior officers and NCOs familiar with native languages.

The most accessible "colony" would probably be Ireland.But introducing conscription there would bring a lot of soft brown stuff into intimate contact with rotating fan blades.
 
In late 1916 the recommendation to mitigate the manpower crisis in Britain was to extend the age of conscription up to the age of 50 - comedy gold!

This step had already been taken in France, Austria and Germany.

The idea that the Entente running out of manpower is simply wrong. Finding 500,000 men to replace the Americans could be found by:

1. Extending the draft age in Britain to 50 110,000 men

2. Reducing the troops in Britain and Ireland 210,000 men

3. Culling the Navy, Mines and factories 270,000 men

(figures taken from Winston Churchill's memo of December 18, 1917


Colonial manpower did not have to be used in a combat role. They can be used in many rear functions and factories without any risk of future problems in the colonies. Even if there were real fear that increased colonial troops might cause problems in the future, they would still be used. After all, if the war is lost, India is lost
 
This step had already been taken in France, Austria and Germany.

The idea that the Entente running out of manpower is simply wrong. Finding 500,000 men to replace the Americans could be found by:

1. Extending the draft age in Britain to 50 110,000 men

2. Reducing the troops in Britain and Ireland 210,000 men

3. Culling the Navy, Mines and factories 270,000 men

(figures taken from Winston Churchill's memo of December 18, 1917


Colonial manpower did not have to be used in a combat role. They can be used in many rear functions and factories without any risk of future problems in the colonies. Even if there were real fear that increased colonial troops might cause problems in the future, they would still be used. After all, if the war is lost, India is lost
I agree the British can do all of those, but they're all stretch-activities only undertaken when you have a problem that needs fixing; meanwhile the Americans were more or less an army looking for a purpose.

So it's possible the British will reduce their strategic reserve first and only take one of your 3 actions, then when they get the wakeup call of the first preliminary German offensives, try to implement the other two. Culling the troops in the Isles is the easy one that gives trained manpower, but the other two will have retraining time to go with it - so the actions might be implemented too late to work at blunting Michael. And if you're too late for that, there are plenty of other options that would also solve the problem (reduce commitments to Italy, Salonika or the Mid-East fronts, say) which might be taken as over-compensation for the earlier sluggishness.

And those would, of course, give a breath of life to the German allies while worrying the Entente allies.
 
Not enough to throw in the towel. By the time it becomes absolutely clear that no US Army is coming the French Army will have sorted itself out after the mutinies, Passchendaele will be winding down and the plans for Cambrai in place. That battle proves the German line can be broken. The Germans can't sustain their 1918 Spring offensive and overrunning the allied supply dumps seriously damaged their troops morale. Once the offensive peters out the Germans have, whether they realise it or not lost the war. The war may last a little longer but by Spring 1919 it's over. The blockade will have starved the Germans out, and the Germans can't break the blockade. Wilson will have no influence at Versailles.

so how does this alt Versailles and alt Trianon look?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Good point. Not only would these men have received military training, but they would be from the general Indian population and not from select ethnicities (Sikhs, Rajputs etc) who possessed, at least in the general sense, a sense of loyalty to the greater British empire.

Yikes, I wonder if empowered demobilized Indian conscripts would effectively collapse British rule over India by say, 1925? The chaos could lead to the creation of Punjab as an independent British protecterate to protect a loyal population (Northern Ireland). I don't know if the other traditionally pro British ethnic groups were sufficiently concentrated to create protecterate states.

Let me put it this way. If you are writing this ATL, you will have to deal with this postwar butterfly.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Of course if the Germans go on to take the other rail junction at Hazebrouck they are closer to Calais than are the British forces around Ypres. It might have to be Dunkirk instead.

YIKES. I did not realize that one.

Makes a nice ATL. Focused/Lucky Spring Offensive. Much of BEF lost. Americans and French fall back to Somme. Roll into 1919. Lots of writing options.

Also, an important side note. The unconquered Flanders region is one of the most productive agricultural areas, so there is a food boost to Germany as they get the food bonus from the fall harvest.
 
Top