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

Could this actually lead to something like a white peace? Britain and France are suffering desperate defeats, though they aren't out of the war. And AH and the Ottomans are falling apart, Germany is starving . . .

The downside is that everyone has suffered enormously, no one feels like they won anything for it, so regimes everywhere are discredited. Fascist-Socialist Wank?
 
Looking past the Great War. The US Army gains less experience in mobilization of a mass army, it does not much experience the deficiencies in staff training/skills, it has less experience with a wide variety of European weapons, and does not gain six months of broad combat experience. This drastically affects the development of doctrine, weapons, and training through he next two decades. A US Army mobilized for a overseas war in the next few decades is liable to be a very different thing than what we see in the OTL WWII.
 

Deleted member 94680

I have trouble getting the war to 1919 in the scenario listed here.

I know, but it was back-of-a-fag packet reckoning. Basically, I see a successful Michael gaining more territory and most of 1919 being spent by the WAllies regaining that territory. Once back to ‘square one’, the WAllies go on the offensive and push the Germans to surrender. This runs into the 1920 ‘campaign season’. That’s what I was working on.

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.

Oh, totally agreed. That’s why Michael will fail and why the Germans can never push the WAllies to surrender by the time the OP suggests.
 
Interesting question.
Even if Antante could find people, equipment and money to pay for them (the biggest problem), I believe that peace proposals of 1917 would have a lot stronger support. Offer by Central Powers included status qou ante bellum, with open seas and free trade. Offer included indipendence of
Finland, Poland and baltic states.
Without american forces ariving in France, not only Nivelle, chief of Army staff, would be replaced by Phillipe Petain on 25.04.1917., but even coalition cabinet would collapse. In our timeline there were 4 prime ministers (Briand, Ribot, Painleve, Clemenceau. This timeline would be worse.
Joint Franco-russian support for peace talks would be the best bet for their success.
Without german and turkish territories and without war compensations, UK and France would go bankrupt after the war.

So, there is no way that British accept that peace. Sooner or later, USA would have to chose between going into war full throtle or dumping UK under the bus.
 
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.

No, A-H army is over as a fighting force, the second battle of the Piave or as it called here the 'Battaglia del Solstizio' (Battle of Solstice) was Austrian-Hungary 'hail-mary/throw' everything at attempt to knock out the italians...but not was totally unsucessull and caused much more harm to the Austrian in general than to the Italians.
If the German Spring offensive is more succesfull, Diaz will be forced by the goverment to launch an earlier offensive, to both relieve pressure on France but also, in the worst case scenario, take back the great part of occupied territory possible before the Germans can reinforce the Austrian. While it will be an harder battle than OTL, by this stage the K.u.K is not in the shape to resist it...and this bring the entire south front of Germany open to an attack.

Even if they not send men, the USA in the war mean that supply and money will continue to flow to the Entente...while Germany and co. population are starving, the Spring Offensive objective was to bring at the negotiation table the entente and having some good cards than to really win the war
 
Would this scenario have the US be worried about the Mexicans and thus keep troops at home? Though I doubt they would do so, as the Mexicans weren't that antagonistic to them and the raiders were against the government. Hell, maybe some spin can be done to have the US help out there, though it would be a confusing mess. Still, if Germany declares war on the United States then there is going to be... let's say a hundreds thousand across the cuontry volunteering. What do Congressmen tell their constituents when a foreign power declares war, sinks ships, nearly blows the arm off the Statue of Liberty, and funnels funds and advice to anti-American interests in the Caribbean for the previous decade? More or less. Anyways, I see Wilson being in huge trouble if he doesn't at least train the soldiers and start making plans for Europe. Most of the German possessions elsewhere were already occupied.
 
This range from a German Victory without the Americans coming to save the day, to a white peace...which still will be in the CP's favor.

Austria-Hungary is done for, so are the Ottomans, but Russia is in flames, the Entente lines will collapses, and the War ends with the German Empire surviving, Freach losing two wars in a row, and the United Kingdom won't look great.

Oh, and the United States will be the most hated state by the former Entente for not sending men.
 
No, A-H army is over as a fighting force, the second battle of the Piave or as it called here the 'Battaglia del Solstizio' (Battle of Solstice) was Austrian-Hungary 'hail-mary/throw' everything at attempt to knock out the italians...but not was totally unsucessull and caused much more harm to the Austrian in general than to the Italians.
If the German Spring offensive is more succesfull, Diaz will be forced by the goverment to launch an earlier offensive, to both relieve pressure on France but also, in the worst case scenario, take back the great part of occupied territory possible before the Germans can reinforce the Austrian. While it will be an harder battle than OTL, by this stage the K.u.K is not in the shape to resist it...and this bring the entire south front of Germany open to an attack.

Even if they not send men, the USA in the war mean that supply and money will continue to flow to the Entente...while Germany and co. population are starving, the Spring Offensive objective was to bring at the negotiation table the entente and having some good cards than to really win the war
But there's the annoying fact that Michael was launched before the second battle of the Piave. If Italy launches a half-assembled offensive to relieve pressure on the collapsing Brits and French, rather than an Austrian offensive being blunted by good Italian defensive tactics and some pre-knowledge, you'd expect the net result to be significantly worse.

Mind, winning Michael isn't a given, but if, then it will undoubtedly affect morale as well in A-H (its soldiers will also see Russia crushed and France and Britain reeling - as will the separatists in Czechia, Croatia, and Hungary). Probably not enough to resurrect a dieing empire, but certainly enough to give it a lease on life; and that's all you need, an army still wishing to fight because they smell victory despite the shortages. Have that, and Austria-Hungary doesn't peace out even if all hope of its own victory is lost (it took Vittorio Veneto to convince them of actual defeat, after all). And if it does result in a half-planned Italian offensive on the Piave being slaughtered, it could well bring down the Italian war effort instead.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Looking past the Great War. The US Army gains less experience in mobilization of a mass army, it does not much experience the deficiencies in staff training/skills, it has less experience with a wide variety of European weapons, and does not gain six months of broad combat experience. This drastically affects the development of doctrine, weapons, and training through he next two decades. A US Army mobilized for a overseas war in the next few decades is liable to be a very different thing than what we see in the OTL WWII.
Would there have even been a WWII in this TL, though? After all, if Britain and France still win the war without U.S. help in this TL, they might pursue a harsher peace towards Germany and thus perhaps prevent World War II from ever breaking out.
 
But there's the annoying fact that Michael was launched before the second battle of the Piave. If Italy launches a half-assembled offensive to relieve pressure on the collapsing Brits and French, rather than an Austrian offensive being blunted by good Italian defensive tactics and some pre-knowledge, you'd expect the net result to be significantly worse.

Started in March but the operation lasted till July; second Piave lasted less than 10 days in June and was seen as a mean to knock out Italy, capture or obtain the most war material possible (and food) and use the free troops to help the German army on the French front, basically an appendage of Micheal...so i doubt that things will be much different, a more succesfull Spring Offensive can even force the Austrian to accelerate the operation pace (even worsening their chances). Regarding the A-H, no, not even a victory can give it a lease of life at this stage...Vittorio Veneto was just the last straw, the italian soldiers found their counterpart starving, lacking equipment and with low morale, there is nothing to save here it's too late and a more succesfull German operation will not change a lot as the Empire had basically become an appendage of Germany and everyone knows it.
 
Not to mention the limited number of junior officers and NCOs familiar with native languages.
Good point, part of the strength of the colonial battalions and regiments from the British and French empires were selected junior and mid level officers who were familiar with the language and customs of the colonial volunteers. With large scale conscription, this was going to go out the window.

Rather, the junior and mid level officers would either be completely unfamiliar with their men, or would be locals who were given an officer crash course. Some of this could be mitigated by cannibalising existing units as cadre, but then this would diminish the effectiveness of these units and there was still no guarantee of language and cultural familiarity.

Then even more bad news.... the softer target of Ottoman Turkey had already collapsed. Rather, these new divisions of reluctant conscripts would be used against the Germany, the hardest target. At the end of the day, neither France nor Great Britain were going to get much more out of either their domestic populations or colonial empires. The would still batter Germany down though.
 
Last edited:
Would there have even been a WWII in this TL, though? After all, if Britain and France still win the war without U.S. help in this TL, they might pursue a harsher peace towards Germany and thus perhaps prevent World War II from ever breaking out.

Impossible to say. Next likely is a US Japanese war in the Pacific. War Plan Orange never contemplated much of a Army component. Perhaps 100,000 men for expeditionary ground forces, necessitating hardly 400,000 on active service to enable that. Wars over Mexico, Cananda, or wherever were hardly plausible & would not require the 4,000,000+ goal that WP Black aimed for. So, nothing like the US Army we saw in WWII might ever exist in the 20th Century.

Then again a second European war could occur drawing in the US years earlier or years later than OTL.
 
With the USA in the war but not raising an army might Americans who want to fight head north and volunteer to join the Canadian Army?
Also if the US Navy is in the fight but not the US Army then this could free up man power from the Royal Navy, and the French Navy for service on land. The British had already raised the Royal Naval Division using Marines, and surplus naval personal
 
Interesting PoD.
And Imo one point that has significance has not yet been raised. Namely the French reaction of an USA DoW without troops in Europe. And that amidst the troubles that they had in 1917...

So how will France shore up its flagging morale to keep on fighting for longer then Germany when Imo they faced a serious crisis in OTL and were helped out by the prospect of American Meat for the Grinder.
 
Started in March but the operation lasted till July; second Piave lasted less than 10 days in June and was seen as a mean to knock out Italy, capture or obtain the most war material possible (and food) and use the free troops to help the German army on the French front, basically an appendage of Micheal...so i doubt that things will be much different, a more succesfull Spring Offensive can even force the Austrian to accelerate the operation pace (even worsening their chances). Regarding the A-H, no, not even a victory can give it a lease of life at this stage...Vittorio Veneto was just the last straw, the italian soldiers found their counterpart starving, lacking equipment and with low morale, there is nothing to save here it's too late and a more succesfull German operation will not change a lot as the Empire had basically become an appendage of Germany and everyone knows it.
I'm now not sure which it was, according to you.

According to your first post, it was a 'hail Mary' attempt from the Austrians. Wouldn't be quite consistent with 'Michael is going perfectly well, let's see if we can get Italy out too'. It is much more consistent with 'Michael is flagging, we need something to resurrect its chances. How about if we knocked Italy out?'
 
According to your first post, it was a 'hail Mary' attempt from the Austrians. Wouldn't be quite consistent with 'Michael is going perfectly well, let's see if we can get Italy out too'. It is much more consistent with 'Michael is flagging, we need something to resurrect its chances. How about if we knocked Italy out?'

It was an hail mary for A-H due to her military situation and capacity, it basically used up everything they had in the (vain) hope to knock out Italy even to resurrect a little the Austrian military enstablishment credibility; after that they were so spent that Vittorio Veneto was a 'relative' formality as they had no capacity for a prolonged resistance to determinated offensive
 
It was an hail mary for A-H due to her military situation and capacity, it basically used up everything they had in the (vain) hope to knock out Italy even to resurrect a little the Austrian military enstablishment credibility; after that they were so spent that Vittorio Veneto was a 'relative' formality as they had no capacity for a prolonged resistance to determinated offensive
Yes okay, but why would A-H need such a boost at the risk of utter disaster, if they can comfortably await the collapse of Italy after the Brits and French bow out (because Michael succeeds)?
 
Yes okay, but why would A-H need such a boost at the risk of utter disaster, if they can comfortably await the collapse of Italy after the Brits and French bow out (because Michael succeeds)?

Because a success of Micheal doesn't mean an automatic collapse of the French and the British (better remember that while they not sent troops, the USA in the war mean that supply, equipment and credit will continue to flow towards the entente)...and because part of the reason for the offensive was to free troops for help Germany in France for Micheal, as said the offensive lasted months
 
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.
France did conscript large numbers of people from their colonies, most famously West Africa, and the 1918 recruitment campaign in West Africa alone not only fulfilled its objective of 50,000 recruits, but it exceeded it at 63,000, without any resistance in the territory. A lot of troops, and materials from the colonies couldn't be put to use because there was insufficient shipping available because it was needed to ship the Americans over, so if the Americans weren't participating in sending land troops to Europe, even if colonial recruitment campaigns didn't increase at all, there would be more troops available. And since surely the Americans must be supplying something to the war effort, be it money or arms (in contrast to OTL when the French were producing arms for the Americans on loan). Colonial soldiers not being able to be shipped due to insufficient shipping weren't the only ones either, the Portuguese for example were prepared to send additional troops to France, but insufficient shipping was available.

Perhaps these soldiers would have been less effective than the Americans (which I'm not sure of, but I presume it would be the case or otherwise they would have been shipped instead of the Americans), but they would still enable quiet sectors of the front to be garrisoned, just as the Americans did.

Interesting PoD.
And Imo one point that has significance has not yet been raised. Namely the French reaction of an USA DoW without troops in Europe. And that amidst the troubles that they had in 1917...

So how will France shore up its flagging morale to keep on fighting for longer then Germany when Imo they faced a serious crisis in OTL and were helped out by the prospect of American Meat for the Grinder.
Tell them they aren't planning to attack any time soon (as OTL), improve conditions (as OTL), and give them some sort of lie that the Germans will be broken by a blockade and that they don't need to attack. Historically Petain said they were waiting on the tanks and the Americans, so emphasize tanks even more to soldiers. The soldiers were historically willing to continue in defensive operations, but objected to further offensive operations. Perhaps morale is shakier than originally, but if need be the French can go without the spoiling offensives they launched after the Nivelle Offensive.
 
Because a success of Micheal doesn't mean an automatic collapse of the French and the British (better remember that while they not sent troops, the USA in the war mean that supply, equipment and credit will continue to flow towards the entente)...and because part of the reason for the offensive was to free troops for help Germany in France for Micheal, as said the offensive lasted months
Fair enough, the British and French bowing out was a bad way to put it; reduce commitments to the Italian front to reconstitute the frontline in the west, instead.

Again, you provide half a reason not to plan the Piave offensive, though - the need to free up troops to aid the Germans isn't so apparent if they have already broken the frontlines. Instead, it would seem more likely that the Germans either continue their own way, or halt Michael (for logistic reasons, say) and divert their own troops to aid the Austrian offensive.
 
Top