USA stays neutral in WWI

[DMA]

What if the infamous Zimmermann Telegram was proven to be a fake, was never discovered, or was never sent in the first place? Either way, it would make it hard for Wilson to declare war on Germany in 1917.

And if it was discovered to be a fake, maybe a deliberate one forged by the British, what would that do to American-Anglo/French relations? Would the USA remain neutral or maybe even shift their position somewhat towards the Germans?

Furthermore, if the USA stayed out of WWI, what ramifications does that hold for WWI in general?

Discuss.

 

[Straha]

Either a stalemate peace or german victory

 

[Superdude]

What if both sides just collapse as huge numbers of soldiers on BOTH sides start revolting?

 

[Straha]

Red europe under Trotsky?

 

[MarkA]

Probably a German defeat, but one costing more lives. At least it would probably be a victory that could not give rise to the 'stab in the back' nonsense.

German attacks in the west were designed to try and achieve a final victory before large numbers of American troops arrived. They failed before those troops were deployed. In effect the German Army lost the initiative before the American forces proved decisive in launching the later Allied attacks.

As a result of the German offensives, Haig placed the command of the Imperial Forces under direct French control. Therefore, even though the Australians and Americans each had their own national command, they were under the overall strategic direction of the combined Allied command. This would have happened anyway whether the Yanks were there or not.

Would the Allies have the strength to launch an offensive without the American forces? Probably not at the time they did in OTL. But with German morale at home collapsing and the German Army's failure to breakthrough, the German forces would probably disintegrate or more likely they would sue for peace before revolution and mutiny set in.

With no Fourteen Points, the Allies would press for an occupation of some sort. Germans would be in no doubt that their Prussian warlords were to blame for the defeat and this would have profound effects on later German political development.

Of more importance would be the absense of American war loans. Although I think it likely that the American business community would find it hard to resist dabbling in war profiteering just as they did in OTL. Perhaps the Allied economies would be in worse shape but then again the German reparations maybe reduced because there is no pressing need to pay the Americans back. A restructing of reparations would result in stronger German, French and British economies in the long run. Maybe they would be even better placed to resist the Great Depression than they were in OTL.

Of more importance would be the absense of American loan money (or war profiteering to be more accurate) so the economies of both Britain and France would be close to collapse.

 

[Superdude]

Maybe we then see the rise in ultranationalist sentiment, or a rise in Communist power.

 

[MarkA]

Maybe we then see the rise in ultranationalist sentiment, or a rise in Communist power.

How would the absense of American involvement give rise to this?

 

[Superdude]

Well, with the allies having to put up a much greater military effort to defeat Germany, and their economies far more damaged, then whos to say we don't experience a European Depression sooner?

 

[MarkA]

Maybe they do not have to put in too much of a greater effort.

Germany was essentially defeated after their 1918 offensives failed as Ludendorff realised. American participation in the Second Battle of the Marne confirmed his belief that all was lost. Even with the absence of American forces, the Marne offensive would have failed as the Americans were used only in the counterattack.

With no American loan money (or at least much less of it) the pressure on Britain and France to continue German reparation payments would be very much less because they would not need to repay it. Britain had wanted to forgive, or lessen considerably, the German reparation payments. France was reluctent but willing to go along if the US would do the same for Allied war loan payments. The US refused.

With no loan payments to be made, the reparation payments from Germany would be reduced substantially and the result would be stronger European economies that may have been better placed to weather the American caused Great Depression.

 

[Neroon]

What some of you here forget is that without American involvement, the Germans would not have to launch their "all or nothing" last big offensive to begin with and could just stay on the defensive.
Reinforcing the front in France and sending some troops from Russia to the Balkans, while staying on the strategic defense would most likely have resulted in a negotiated peace by way of mutual exhaustion IMHO.

 

[Wozza]

It is not just about US involvement, but also the extension of US credit.
If the US does not extend credit then its own economy is in deep trouble as well as the Allied economies. So let us assume the US extends credit but does not send troops.

Neroon: Maybe, maybe not, another argument is that the January 1918 strikes in Austria and Germany convinced them of the need to win soon or not at all, there is also the food situation (incidentally the food shortage is caused by mismanagement not the British blockade.

The Germans will definitely lose any fighting in 1919 because they had run out of rubber, they will quite simply be gassed into defeat if necessary.

A more interesting counterfactual is a different economic relationship between Britain and the US before 1914, but that is more complex with more variables.

 

[Wozza]

It is not just about US involvement, but also the extension of US credit.
If the US does not extend credit then its own economy is in deep trouble as well as the Allied economies. So let us assume the US extends credit but does not send troops.

Neroon: Maybe, maybe not, another argument is that the January 1918 strikes in Austria and Germany convinced them of the need to win soon or not at all, there is also the food situation (incidentally the food shortage is caused by mismanagement not the British blockade.

The Germans will definitely lose any fighting in 1919 because they had run out of rubber, they will quite simply be gassed into defeat if necessary.

A more interesting counterfactual is a different economic relationship between Britain and the US before 1914, but that is more complex with more variables.

 

[Dave Howery]

one of my books on American history notes that the biggest contribution of the US to the war was food. The book might be exaggerating, but it makes it sound as if it was only the US shipments to its allies that prevented large scale starvation. If this is true, would food be a severe problem the last two years of the war?

 

[Wozza]

one of my books on American history notes that the biggest contribution of the US to the war was food. The book might be exaggerating, but it makes it sound as if it was only the US shipments to its allies that prevented large scale starvation. If this is true, would food be a severe problem the last two years of the war?

It is not really a case of either/or when supplying or not supplying war goods, it is really about the terms and conditions, in which there is a vast middle ground. Realistically the US has a huge vested interest in supplying credit,and consequently in an Entente victory

 

[Arch-Angel]

Basically it comes down to needing a definition of "neutral". Neutral like they were OTL where they were favoring the allies or actually neutral and not trading with anyone or trading with both equally.

 

[Wozza]

Basically it comes down to needing a definition of "neutral". Neutral like they were OTL where they were favoring the allies or actually neutral and not trading with anyone or trading with both equally.

1 they cannot trade with Germany
2 so they trade with the Allies
3 and then they trade some more
4 and the the whole US economy is hooked on trade with the Allies

2 not happening is not actually the end of the world for the Allies, in fact it would be highly favourable for Britain in the medium to long-term

 

[Arch-Angel]

Well they could trade with Germany if they forced the issue by escorting the ships with the US navy.

Say the Kaiser agrees to respect shipping early on, the US is more friendly to them and tells Britain to respect the independence of the seas. They don't once, the next time a flotilla comes with. The Brits either let it through or risk a war with the US.

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

What some of you here forget is that without American involvement, the Germans would not have to launch their "all or nothing" last big offensive to begin with and could just stay on the defensive.
Reinforcing the front in France and sending some troops from Russia to the Balkans, while staying on the strategic defense would most likely have resulted in a negotiated peace by way of mutual exhaustion IMHO.

Damn, I never thought about that. If the Germans squeeze the Ukraine of every last kernal of grain, hold the fort against the Entente, and keep what's left of German society tottering on for another two years, they just might have a shot. A small shot, yes, but a shot.

 

[MarkA]

What some of you here forget is that without American involvement, the Germans would not have to launch their "all or nothing" last big offensive to begin with and could just stay on the defensive.
Reinforcing the front in France and sending some troops from Russia to the Balkans, while staying on the strategic defense would most likely have resulted in a negotiated peace by way of mutual exhaustion IMHO.

A possibility yes.

But where would the reinforcments come from for the Western Front? The troops they had in Russia were the absolute minimum they needed in OTL. I do not think the German high Command would have spare divisions just sitting on their backsides in Russia while they were needed elsewhere.

You are right that Germany's western offensives were made more urgent because of the near certainty that the new American divisions being deployed against the German Army would make defeat inevitable. But the offensives would have been inevitable anyway.

Germany was desperately short of food, fuel for the approaching winter, munitions and hope. The Home Front was on the verge of collapse. What the High Command was worried about was the effect this would have on the soldiers. When the front line troops were sick with worry about their loved ones back home their willingness to fight on and prolong their agony would be close to zero.

No Autumn offensives in 1918 then a probable Winter mutiny in December or early 1919. The worst nightmare of the German officers would then become a reality and the allied army would follow the retreating Germans all the way to Berlin and beyond.

 

[MarkA]

one of my books on American history notes that the biggest contribution of the US to the war was food. The book might be exaggerating, but it makes it sound as if it was only the US shipments to its allies that prevented large scale starvation. If this is true, would food be a severe problem the last two years of the war?

True the US sold food at exorbitant prices to the Allies, but I think they could have gotten along even without it. It may mean severe rationing but not starvation. The Empire was a nett exporter of food and countries like Australia, South Africa, Canada and New Zealand would have been required to sell their products to the UK at reduced prices (ie below market prices) as part of the war effort. As for France- I do not know what their reliance on food imports from the US was and if it was critical. Anyone have any information?