USA Joins WWI Later, Can The Entente Still Win? And What Happens Afterwords?

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Somehow the US enters WWI later. Does the Entente still have a shot at winning? And if they do what happens?

I believe that if the US enters later France would already be close to dropping out and the Germans already made serious progress into the country, and that the British would also be at the point of defeat. I do believe the US will bail the Entente out but I can’t see things ending up the same. For one WWI will drag on for longer, the US will have to give more assistance, and US troops might have to put down anti-war protests in France. It might even intervene in the Middle East to ensure the Ottomans are defeated.

Needless to say with the US having to put even more effort to get a victory and with the war ending a lot later it’s clear that the peace terms will be even harsher. The US will even have to demand something for its benefit. Reparations on Germany will be worse and the US might enforce more demilitarization. The US will also have to make the Entente pay back for some of the assistance. Austria-Hungary will break up like usual, Germany will have to cede territory like usual, and the Ottoman Empire will break up like usual. France, Italy, and Britain won’t get everything they want. And of course the discord within the Entente will be far worse because of unsatisfactory peace terms. I could see the Central Powers getting punished worse.

The US will be quick to leave of course, but I can’t imagine things going smoothly considering that the US has to sacrifice more for victory and that will be the root of even more political turmoil. In Europe I can already imagine things heading south even faster and harder. In the Middle East I could see the Hashemites getting stronger and an even harsher Treaty of Sevres.

This is just a vague idea. Any takers?

EDIT: As for the US's delay I was thinking of a few months to a year

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

If Germany reaches Paris before the US enters, it's over for the Entente.

If the US gets troops on the front lines and stops Germany before Paris, it's over for the Central Powers.

If the US enters the war, but Germany takes Paris before US troops can get in the trenches, it either Central Powers lose or a conditional peace that is 1914 borders in the west and colonies and B-L on the Eastern Front. This depends on whether France is willing to fight on since America is on the continent.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

If Germany reaches Paris before the US enters, it's over for the Entente.

If the US gets troops on the front lines and stops Germany before Paris, it's over for the Central Powers.

If the US enters the war, but Germany takes Paris before US troops can get in the trenches, it either Central Powers lose or a conditional peace that is 1914 borders in the west and colonies and B-L on the Eastern Front. This depends on whether France is willing to fight on since America is on the continent.

I see the US more likely to defeat the CP after Paris falls and France getting back Alsace-Lorraine. But I also see the US extracting a heavy toll from the French in return which will definitely cause a lot of problems for France. It'll be a pyrrhic victory for France and could lead to a civil war.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

I see the US more likely to defeat the CP after Paris falls and France getting back Alsace-Lorraine. But I also see the US extracting a heavy toll from the French in return which will definitely cause a lot of problems for France. It'll be a pyrrhic victory for France and could lead to a civil war.

If Paris falls, it's pretty much game over for France. Paris was actually an important industrial hub, losing Paris is like USA losing Detroit or Germany losing Rhineland

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

If Paris falls, it's pretty much game over for France. Paris was actually an important industrial hub, losing Paris is like USA losing Detroit or Germany losing Rhineland

If the US troops get to France by the time Paris falls there would still be a chance. But the cost would be far greater. And like I said it's going to come back to haunt France.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

If the US troops get to France by the time Paris falls there would still be a chance. But the cost would be far greater. And like I said it's going to come back to haunt France.

The Americans in World War 1 were equipped by the British, French, and Italians. Most of the equipment and logistics were from the French

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

The Americans in World War 1 were equipped by the British, French, and Italians. Most of the equipment and logistics were from the French

The US also sent supplies too. And they still have lots of men.

Like I said it’ll take way longer. It’s not as if this will be a breeze.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

The Americans in World War 1 were equipped by the British, French, and Italians. Most of the equipment and logistics were from the French

At the same time if Germany does take France, they'll be even more exhausted then otl.

Fall 1918 is going to be the final round with both fighters utterly exhausted. My bets on the Entente since GB can still pack a punch and Bulgaria and Austria are both on the verge of collapse.

If the US can't get the job done though, there will be a negotiated peace, but only if Germany gives up it's post 1914 gains in the west (the east is up for debate).

 

[Mikestone8]

Fall 1918 is going to be the final round with both fighters utterly exhausted. My bets on the Entente since GB can still pack a punch and Bulgaria and Austria are both on the verge of collapse.

They will only colllapse if Germany is unable to prop them up - which she can easily spare the troops to do if France has fallen, and esp if as a result the BEF has had to pull back to England. .

 

[Dain]

Paris not only produced a significant purality of the ammunition used on the front, it is also the central lynchpin of the French logistics network. Without it, supplying certain parts of the frontline (everything southeast of Paris) would require long detours. Essentially the Entente would lose the advantage of interior supply lines in France. Even worse, part of that advantage would flip to the Germans.
I'm doubtful that the US would be able to shore up such a situation if it started to mobilize later than OTL. Likely France would ask for an armistice before the US can arrive in strength.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Paris not only produced a significant purality of the ammunition used on the front, it is also the central lynchpin of the French logistics network. Without it, supplying certain parts of the frontline (everything southeast of Paris) would require long detours. Essentially the Entente would lose the advantage of interior supply lines in France. Even worse, part of that advantage would flip to the Germans.
I'm doubtful that the US would be able to shore up such a situation if it started to mobilize later than OTL. Likely France would ask for an armistice before the US can arrive in strength.

Depends on when the US comes I think it can shore up the situation but it’ll take much longer.

 

[ArtosStark]

The Germans could be said to have lost the war in 1914 when the knock out blow of the Schlieffen plan failed. Even prior to the war German military leaders were pessimistic about their ability to defeat two major land forces at the same time. That is why the plan was to knock out France first, then deal with Russia. When that failed the Germans were in exactly the wrong fight. By 1916 the BEF had reached a level of strength and competence that showed that the Germans would now need to defeat 3 major land powers.

The US was the nation with probably the most opportunity to hurt the Entente, with Wilson instructing the Fed to discourage unsecured loans to foreign powers in late 1916, with the intent to force the warring powers to the peace table. We have debated this POD many times on this forum, and I am sure we will again. But IMO both the inability of the Entente to secure their loans going forward and the willingness of Wilson to continue to hurt the Entente war effort one it becomes clear that no negotiated peace is forthcoming are overblown. But assuming that the Entente can continue to get financial capital from the US, the situation in spring of 1918 is actually not much changed.

American entry into the war is not required for victory, though it was certainly a net benefit. It reinvigorated the French Army for the offensive (they were always committed to defending France, even during the Mutinies). And it brought a new source of manpower, which would have been very useful if the war had gone on into 1919. But at a fairly critical moment (the German Spring offensives) it was actually a tactical drain. The American soldiers were not yet ready, and required diversion of trainers and equipment from both the British and the French forces. In spite of that, the Spring Offensives never really had a chance of making it to Paris. They got about as far as the German logistic system could handle. And they only managed to get that far in the wrong direction. The plan for the Spring offensives were to break communication between the French and British forces, isolate the British and role them up. The northern two forces failed almost completely in their task, and only gained ground because Operation Michael (the least important of the operations against the weakest part of the Allied line) gained enough ground to cause the British to pivot their force to keep from being flanked. Yet even the British Fifth Army performed a fighting withdrawal rather than a rout, and slowed the German advance considerably. The last Gamble available to the German army had failed, and, with hindsight, was unlikely to have worked much better than it did.

With the US not joining till later I think the biggest consequence is that the US misses more of it, and plays a smaller role, rather than a larger one.

 

[Post]

If the US joins later, will the Germans do their spring offensive as OTL? A major reason they started it, was because they saw it as their last chance to give a decisive blow in the West, before the US-forces came into play. Without the spring offensive, things could be fairly the same as OTL by the time the US joins.

 

[kham_coc]

If the Americans don't join on schedule karensky makes peace. Then the entente position collapses, because the released troops would end all hope of victory.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Regardless of US entry, the Salonica, Palestinian, and Italian fronts all likely progress well enough. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Turkey are still knocked out, leaving Germany isolated militarily and politically.

Perhaps Germany is still able to scramble together a successful offensive aimed at Paris, but I sincerely doubt that it would be effective enough to actually succeed.

 

[ArtosStark]

If the US joins later, will the Germans do their spring offensive as OTL? A major reason they started it, was because they saw it as their last chance to give a decisive blow in the West, before the US-forces came into play. Without the spring offensive, things could be fairly the same as OTL by the time the US joins.

It was their last chance with or without the US. The American entry made it urgent but they were never going to get a better chance to end the war on their terms than when they could concentrate their eastern forces on the West. Without an American entry the Germans still know that they are materially outmatched, and this has become even more of a problem since Britain hit its production stride in 1916. German victory had basically always depended on being able to knock their opponents out as quickly as possible to avoid or reduce their disadvantage in a long war. So they either need to go on the offensive in 1918 or they need to ask for peace terms. Since there are likely not going to be any terms that both sides can agree too, an offensive is their only hope.

If the Americans don't join on schedule karensky makes peace. Then the entente position collapses, because the released troops would end all hope of victory.

I doubt it. For one thing once they entered the War the US made aid to Russia contingent on their military activity. This was a large part of why the Kerensky offensive happened. If the US is not yet in, Russia probably stays on the defensive or goes for much smaller offensives. This might keep the Kerensky in power, which keeps a lot of German troops facing Russia. Even if Russia does still make peace, The released troops were exactly what was used for the spring offensive IOTL, and that failed.

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

At the same time if Germany does take France, they'll be even more exhausted then otl.

Fall 1918 is going to be the final round with both fighters utterly exhausted. My bets on the Entente since GB can still pack a punch and Bulgaria and Austria are both on the verge of collapse.

If the US can't get the job done though, there will be a negotiated peace, but only if Germany gives up it's post 1914 gains in the west (the east is up for debate).

The US also sent supplies too. And they still have lots of men.

Like I said it’ll take way longer. It’s not as if this will be a breeze.

Regardless of US entry, the Salonica, Palestinian, and Italian fronts all likely progress well enough. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Ottoman Turkey are still knocked out, leaving Germany isolated militarily and politically.

Perhaps Germany is still able to scramble together a successful offensive aimed at Paris, but I sincerely doubt that it would be effective enough to actually succeed.

The British army is much smaller than the French army and if the French can't remain, neither can the British in France. There was a reason why France literally COULDN'T continue in 1940 when it was obvious Paris was going to fall, Paris was like Detroit or Rhineland to France. Without Paris the AEF is ineffective until late 1919 which the war would probably be over by then

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

The Germans could be said to have lost the war in 1914 when the knock out blow of the Schlieffen plan failed. Even prior to the war German military leaders were pessimistic about their ability to defeat two major land forces at the same time. That is why the plan was to knock out France first, then deal with Russia. When that failed the Germans were in exactly the wrong fight. By 1916 the BEF had reached a level of strength and competence that showed that the Germans would now need to defeat 3 major land powers.

The US was the nation with probably the most opportunity to hurt the Entente, with Wilson instructing the Fed to discourage unsecured loans to foreign powers in late 1916, with the intent to force the warring powers to the peace table. We have debated this POD many times on this forum, and I am sure we will again. But IMO both the inability of the Entente to secure their loans going forward and the willingness of Wilson to continue to hurt the Entente war effort one it becomes clear that no negotiated peace is forthcoming are overblown. But assuming that the Entente can continue to get financial capital from the US, the situation in spring of 1918 is actually not much changed.

American entry into the war is not required for victory, though it was certainly a net benefit. It reinvigorated the French Army for the offensive (they were always committed to defending France, even during the Mutinies). And it brought a new source of manpower, which would have been very useful if the war had gone on into 1919. But at a fairly critical moment (the German Spring offensives) it was actually a tactical drain. The American soldiers were not yet ready, and required diversion of trainers and equipment from both the British and the French forces. In spite of that, the Spring Offensives never really had a chance of making it to Paris. They got about as far as the German logistic system could handle. And they only managed to get that far in the wrong direction. The plan for the Spring offensives were to break communication between the French and British forces, isolate the British and role them up. The northern two forces failed almost completely in their task, and only gained ground because Operation Michael (the least important of the operations against the weakest part of the Allied line) gained enough ground to cause the British to pivot their force to keep from being flanked. Yet even the British Fifth Army performed a fighting withdrawal rather than a rout, and slowed the German advance considerably. The last Gamble available to the German army had failed, and, with hindsight, was unlikely to have worked much better than it did.

With the US not joining till later I think the biggest consequence is that the US misses more of it, and plays a smaller role, rather than a larger one.

If the US isn't in war in April 1917 there is no Spring offensive

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

It was their last chance with or without the US. The American entry made it urgent but they were never going to get a better chance to end the war on their terms than when they could concentrate their eastern forces on the West. Without an American entry the Germans still know that they are materially outmatched, and this has become even more of a problem since Britain hit its production stride in 1916. German victory had basically always depended on being able to knock their opponents out as quickly as possible to avoid or reduce their disadvantage in a long war. So they either need to go on the offensive in 1918 or they need to ask for peace terms. Since there are likely not going to be any terms that both sides can agree too, an offensive is their only hope.


I doubt it. For one thing once they entered the War the US made aid to Russia contingent on their military activity. This was a large part of why the Kerensky offensive happened. If the US is not yet in, Russia probably stays on the defensive or goes for much smaller offensives. This might keep the Kerensky in power, which keeps a lot of German troops facing Russia. Even if Russia does still make peace, The released troops were exactly what was used for the spring offensive IOTL, and that failed.

There is no Spring offensive with a late American entry

Britain and France were just as dependent on imports as Germany

Modern Food, Moral Food: Self-Control, Science, and the Rise of Modern American Eating in the Early Twentieth Century on JSTOR

Modern Food, Moral Food

www.jstor.org

The United States had almost 300 million acres under cultivation in the 1910s, more than any other country in the world. And large as that number was, it still represented only a small fraction—15 percent—of the country’s total area. In contrast, France cultivated sixty million acres and Britain eighteen million, and even those comparatively small amounts already consumed almost half of France’s total area and about a quarter of Britain’s. 13 By European standards, the United States’ potential to produce food and to support a booming population was mammoth. Already in 1915, one article had crowed that after the war the United States “need be afraid of no nation” because exhausted Europe would “ ‘eat out of our hands.’ ” 14

By many lights, in fact, it was already doing so. By the middle of the war, the French had become heavily dependent on American food, and they ultimately received more aid than any ally. 15 The British were not far behind, and by 1918 they depended on U.S. and Canadian imports for almost two-thirds of their total food. 16 British dependence on imported food was not new, and even before the war imports had accounted for more than half of their food supply. 17 But the situation was quite different in France, which had been almost self-sufficient in the years before the war broke out, with French farmers producing upwards of 90 percent of the food eaten within their borders. 18 French agricultural production declined precipitously during the war, due both to fighting on French soil and to the fact that millions of French farmers and workers had been sent to the trenches. Importing and doling out adequate food quickly became a priority of the French government. 19 Plummeting French wheat production was an especially keen source of worry because French people in this era relied inordinately on bread, with contemporaries estimating that bread made up a staggering 70 percent of average French diets. 20 The government subsidized bread heavily during the war and set a price above which the cost of bread could not legally rise, because officials believed that a sharp rise in the price of the national staple would corrode morale and physically weaken those least able to afford it. 21 Yet there were problems with this strategy, and some argued that the low price ceiling for farmers’ grain discouraged production. 22 Because of a combination of factors, by 1917 French farmers were producing less than half of the wheat demanded by French consumers. 23

French cultivation Pre-War was 60 million acres, and this had collapsed by half during the war: a net loss of 30 million acres. The British, with 18 million acres under cultivation, could only supply 40% of their needs, thus necessitating the importation of 27 million acres equivalent or 60% of their needs. Combined, that is 57 million acres. At the time, Admiral Sims cabled Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels on April 14, 1917, "Mr Hoover informs me that there is only sufficient grain supply in this country for three weeks. This does not include the supply in retail stores." Basically, if nothing else, the Entente was going to be starved out very quickly if no American intervention occurred.

Next, we turn to finances

Further, The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page by Burton J. Hendrick puts it succinctly:

"It should always be remembered, however, that Great Britain was financing not only herself, but her Allies, and that the difficult condition in which she now found herself was caused by the not too considerate demands of the nations with which she was allied in the war. Thus by April 6, 1917, Great Britain had overdrawn her account with JP Morgan to the extent of $400,000,000 and had no cash available with which to meet this overdraft. This obligation had been incurred in the purchase of supplies, both for Great Britain and for the Allied governments; and securities, largely British-owned stocks and bonds, had been deposited to protect the bankers. The money was now coming due; if the obligations were not met, the credit of Great Britain in this country would reach the vanishing point. Though at first there was a slight misunderstanding about this matter, the American government finally paid this overdraft out of the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan. This act saved the credit of the Allied countries. The first danger that threatened, the isolation and starvation of Great Britain, was therefore overcome."

The American entry basically froze those payments and Britain and France itself was running out of cash to pay for the war

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Oh lovely. We're now back to arguing about the Entente's financial insolvency. It's like History Learner is back.