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.
stead.
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.
There was also the mobilization, arming of people, two months training, and then trying to find a way to get everyone over to Europe. Perhaps if the Germans didn't have a third of their subs in the docks they could have quickly started blasting American ships out of the water long enough to keep the Americans from getting on their boats and getting to Europe in time. Might be enough to go with the 'refusal' to send troops to Europe the OP requires.Let's face it, the US didn't do much at all until May/June 1918. All that really happens is different plans being thought up to defeat the Hun. The war will, most likely not finish until late spring 1919, however France and the UK still win and the US will have very little say in any peace process.
Mention has been made of manpower shortages of Britain and France but presumably the same applied to Germany too?
They did studies, at most, like 100K, most of whom were working farms, you know, rather vital apparatus.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.
well the USA would never ever have been able to use the term "Cheese-eating French surrender monkeys" given such a monumental act of pitiful gutlessness. But if the US banks were still willing to put their money to work there would be little significant military problem. The western powers would still win. On the positive side the US would have had rather less influence over the peace settlement and its daft fanning of irredentism. Wilson could have confined his selective idealism to screwing over the black population of the USA, instead.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?
Recruits and are not conscripts. France, like Great Britain, was able to draw upon a certain number of willing volunteers.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.
I used the word "and", separating them out my response into two distinct thoughts, to respond to the claim that colonial manpower was exhausted and that colonial conscription was not imposed. Both are false. The 1918 recruitment drive was a change of policy, they utilized conscription extensively throughout the previous conscription drives in West Africa. 140,000 West Africans had been conscripted throughout the war. This was the voie d'appel, compulsory recruitment which was utilized in the 1914-1916 recruitment drives in West Africa. Conscription had also been utilized in North Africa among the native populations.Recruits and are not conscripts. France, like Great Britain, was able to draw upon a certain number of willing volunteers.
These volunteers usually came from ethnic groups, or in some cases, ethnic subgroups with long traditions of service in their respective Empires. To my knowledge, France, though willing to use some coercion in the hunt for colonial volunteers (ethnic Algerians were arguably territorial French nationals and were probably subjected to more pressure), stopped short of conscription.