Two years earlier

Germany starts the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1915. Later that month German Foreign Minister Gottlieb Von Jaglow fires off a telegram to the Ambassador in Mexico City asking to propose an alliance if the US goes to war against Germany and offering territory lost in 1848 as compensation. In April 1915, Wilson goes before Congress and asks the world be made safe for democracy and declaration of war against Germany passes both houses. In May of 1916, the AEF assembles in France. Germany fighting a two front war collapses in September 1916. The victory ensures Wilson's reelection. There is no Russian Revolution, at least not in 1917. There are Czarist Russian diplomats at Versailles. I think they want the treaty even harsher. So what happens?
 

Japhy

Banned
Its hard to imagine that things would all go exactly the same two years earlier. For one thing, it would be much harder to convince the American People the War is a good idea when it means allying with the Czar.
 

Japhy

Banned
Also worth asking, considering that 4 months is barely time to even get US troops experienced with fighting in the trenches, how is the AEF's deployment so dramatically effective in causing the German Army collapse?

An earlier war means an even less well-equipped US army that is still as green as it was IOTL so their effectiveness on one front while Italy is grinding itself down to nothing on another front and the Russians are proving completely unable to hold a line doesn't make sense.
 
Its hard to imagine that things would all go exactly the same two years earlier. For one thing, it would be much harder to convince the American People the War is a good idea when it means allying with the Czar.

What do you mean? Relations between the U.S. and Russia where for the most part very amicable from the American Revolution up until the Russia one
 
Also worth asking, considering that 4 months is barely time to even get US troops experienced with fighting in the trenches, how is the AEF's deployment so dramatically effective in causing the German Army collapse?

Because Germany is fighting a two front war.
 

Japhy

Banned
What do you mean? Relations between the U.S. and Russia where for the most part very amicable from the American Revolution up until the Russia one

Not really the case after the American Civil War / Assassination of Alexander II.

The Russian Government was generally viewed in the later part of the 19th and into the 20th Century as hideous. Pogroms of course left a large distaste even in gentiles oppinions, and there were quite a few problems in the 1890's and 1900's as the US Congress would vote to condemn Pogroms, which enraged the Russians, who refused to accept passports of American Jews, which led to more diplomatic spats, which accelerated and accelerated.

Russia was recognized for what it was by World War I, a disgustingly outdated autocracy built on brutality and torture. Its not a coincidence that the American Declaration of War only came After Russia began its short and flawed movement into Republicanism, as its doing such removed a massive roadblock for Wilson.
 

Japhy

Banned
Because Germany is fighting a two front war.

I understand that you're probably not versed in such things, but even then it doesn't make sense. At the very least it will take considerable time to get US troops acquainted with then nuances of Trench Warfare, and Germany needed the forces it did in Russia to Keep Advancing on that front, they don't need that many to just hold a line on the defensive.

They are easily capable of transferring plenty of troops out of Russia, directly to the Western Front. And they can do it because (1) Romania is not in the war yet, and a US entry does nothing to provoke it to join in (2) Italy is not in a position to push the line back in the Alps and thus cannot serve to divert redeployment (3) The Macedonian Front is not a thing yet and probably wont be as Germany and Austria-Hungary will probably remain on the defensive there with an early US War entry.
 
The OP should also be reminded that Germany in the autumn of 1916 is a fuck of a lot stronger than the Germany of late 1918.
 

Japhy

Banned
The OP should also be reminded that Germany in the autumn of 1916 is a fuck of a lot stronger than the Germany of late 1918.

Indeed.

I would actually argue that the most likely early result of this is that the United States loses a hell of a lot more men in combat with very little direct result for it.

A question worth asking though: Is it possible that in the event that the US does go into the war early, that US troops could be sent to the Russian Front to try and help stiffen up the Russian Army, either before or after the ousting of the Czar?
 
A question worth asking though: Is it possible that in the event that the US does go into the war early, that US troops could be sent to the Russian Front to try and help stiffen up the Russian Army, either before or after the ousting of the Czar?

I can't see the Americans deploying in any great strength in Russia, as much for logistical reasons as anything else.

Let's look in more detail at the situation in which the AEF arrives. It's safe to assume that the AEF doesn't arrive any earlier or in any greater number, so the first divisions become combat ready in, say, May 1916, with army-sized formations combat ready by the fall. In the summer of 1916, the Entente would most likely want the Americans as part of the rotation strategy through Verdun, if anything. That would give the Americans one hell of an introduction (literally) to combat on the Western Front. By the late fall, you might see the Americans contributing to the last phases of the Somme, if Haig can be convinced to let some inexperienced Americans on his battle, or the Americans help push the Germans a bit further back at Verdun, but definitely nothing decisive (considering the state of tactics & technology on the Western in 1916, an extra million soldiers wouldn't make much of a difference).

So when Wilson goes up for re-election, he has practically nothing to show for the war but a long and growing casualty list, without any real indication that American intervention is actually contributing to victory. Would Wilson win re-election? Perhaps, though I would imagine there would be even more anti-war sentiment in the US ITTL than IOTL.

The first point at which I could see the Americans making a major difference might be if the addition of an American component to Nivelle's offensive makes him alter his plans sufficiently to not make them disastrous. More likely, the Americans just get slaughtered alongside the French at the Chemin des Dames - one of the great lessons of combat in 1915-17 was that adding more numbers to an attack just added to the death toll.

After the heavy losses of 1916, I could see the Americans trying to redeploy more on other Fronts, trying to find an easier way to defeat the Central Powers without the heavy casualties of the Western Front. Still, the Brits won't want them in the Middle East (they want the territory for themselves, after all), and the logistics were abysmal at Salonika at this time.

In the long run, I still think the Russians collapse in 1917. The end of the war might be accelerated by about six months or so - Germany would likely already be outnumbered in the spring of 1918, instead of having the window of opportunity they had IOTL, so the Entente might be attacking right from early 1918, with the benefit now of better tactics and technology.
 
Top