USA stays neutral in WWI

Wendell · Sep 28, 2005

Maybe the size and scope of the U.S. government would be smaller today. Might even a German loss here produce a peace more favorable to Germany than Versailles in OTL?

Wozza · Sep 29, 2005

MarkA said:
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?

In peacetime Europe did not particularly need to import its food.
Even Germany only imported 10% of its food.
German food production does not fall due to blockade, but due to mismanagement (men and horses go from the land to war)
I am not sure about the other combatants but Russia was a net exporter, and France could almost certainly feed itself. Austria-Hungary was fed by Hungary, which was never fully mobilized.
The British import food from the US, and much other material, because it is simple and convenient, not because they have to.

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.
Read my previous comments on the Janauary 1918 strikes, they might still have been a spring 1918 offensive
also the German rubber shortage means Germany cannot hold for two years, it will lost in 1919

Well they could trade with Germany if they forced the issue by escorting the ships with the US navy.
An interesting though presumably unlikely scenario. Does anyone know the extent to which this was discussed in the US?
The British might respond by a suprise attack on the US navy, in harbour, the RN's favourite tacti. The only man mad enough to suggest this though is the half-American Churchill.
In fact it could work against Germany, they have limited credit, mismanaged and inflationary finances, they have also just denied themselves the chance to fight the u-boat war.
US war export production was limited for the first couple of years, and the Entente could outbid the Germans.
(In fact I think it will just act as a spur to expand the Entente's own production, rather than paying over the odds in a bidding war for US goods)

Wozza · Sep 29, 2005

MarkA said:
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?

In peacetime Europe did not particularly need to import its food.
Even Germany only imported 10% of its food.
German food production does not fall due to blockade, but due to mismanagement (men and horses go from the land to war)
I am not sure about the other combatants but Russia was a net exporter, and France could almost certainly feed itself. Austria-Hungary was fed by Hungary, which was never fully mobilized.
The British import food from the US, and much other material, because it is simple and convenient, not because they have to.

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.
Read my previous comments on the Janauary 1918 strikes, they might still have been a spring 1918 offensive
also the German rubber shortage means Germany cannot hold for two years, it will lost in 1919

Well they could trade with Germany if they forced the issue by escorting the ships with the US navy.
An interesting though presumably unlikely scenario. Does anyone know the extent to which this was discussed in the US?
The British might respond by a suprise attack on the US navy, in harbour, the RN's favourite tactic. The only man mad enough to suggest this though is the half-American Churchill.
In fact it could work against Germany, they have limited credit, mismanaged and inflationary finances, they have also just denied themselves the chance to fight the u-boat war.
US war export production was limited for the first couple of years, and the Entente could outbid the Germans.
(In fact I think it will just act as a spur to expand the Entente's own production, rather than paying over the odds in a bidding war for US goods)

Wozza · Sep 29, 2005

MarkA said:
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?

In peacetime Europe did not particularly need to import its food.
Even Germany only imported 10% of its food.
German food production does not fall due to blockade, but due to mismanagement (men and horses go from the land to war)
I am not sure about the other combatants but Russia was a net exporter, and France could almost certainly feed itself. Austria-Hungary was fed by Hungary, which was never fully mobilized.
The British import food from the US, and much other material, because it is simple and convenient, not because they have to.

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.
Read my previous comments on the Janauary 1918 strikes, they might still have been a spring 1918 offensive
also the German rubber shortage means Germany cannot hold for two years, it will lost in 1919

Well they could trade with Germany if they forced the issue by escorting the ships with the US navy.
An interesting though presumably unlikely scenario. Does anyone know the extent to which this was discussed in the US?
The British might respond by a suprise attack on the US navy, in harbour, the RN's favourite tactic. The only man mad enough to suggest this though is the half-American Churchill.
In fact it could work against Germany, they have limited credit, mismanaged and inflationary finances, they have also just denied themselves the chance to fight the u-boat war.
US war export production was limited for the first couple of years, and the Entente could outbid the Germans.
(In fact I think it will just act as a spur to expand the Entente's own production, rather than paying over the odds in a bidding war for US goods)

schrammy · Sep 29, 2005

mutual exaustion = peace?!?

I think it kind of depends on how the USA stays neutral.

1. Does the USA make some kind of official announcement that it will stay neutral and do there fore the Germans know that they have a little more time.
And the Entente maybe has less hope of winning.

2. Or does the USA just stay undecided and is one one sure that it might not sooner or later join in any way.

Although I totally agree with the arguments that Germany would have collapsed sooner rather than later due to its supplies situation.

in situations 1 I think that there might be still a winter offensive but more limited and maybe even an spring offensive and eventually peace by mutual exhaustion, because the Germans knew they couldn't win and the Entente probably also had no real hope of winning any time soon with out the USA's help note that is what they might have tought from there point of view that in reality they would do so because Germany would collapse might not be known to them at that point in time.

in situation 2 is alote like our time line only probably only Germany having to agree to much harsher terms, this in term might start of an whole other chain of events leading to ww2 communist Germany any one?

Wozza · Sep 29, 2005

schrammy said:
in situations 1 I think that there might be still a winter offensive but more limited and maybe even an spring offensive and eventually peace by mutual exhaustion, because the Germans knew they couldn't win and the Entente probably also had no real hope of winning any time soon with out the USA's help note that is what they might have tought from there point of view that in reality they would do so because Germany would collapse might not be known to them at that point in time.

in situation 2 is alote like our time line only probably only Germany having to agree to much harsher terms, this in term might start of an whole other chain of events leading to ww2 communist Germany any one?

I think this is a very interesting take, the Entente could win... but doesn't know. an Entente stab in the back myth, interesting
spring 1918 is the most likely time for this, the problem is by the summer they have too much success in the field to go on and Germany's allies are collapsing. That is a very narrow "panic" window.

Neroon · Sep 29, 2005

@Everyone who replied to my comments:
Interesting. You all rise some very good points, some which i was not even aware of, although i'd like to remind you that in 1918 the Entente also has some problems in the home front deparment. Especially France but Britian, too. I think we could argue for centuries whether Germany could hold the Entente and the domestic situation off long enough for a peace by exhaustion.

I'd like to tweak our scenario a little bit more and ask what would happen if:

1. Situation as we discussed. No U.S. involvement on the horizon. What happens is: Wiser heads in Germany decide to cut their losses (loosing A-L and gaining their Eastern sattelites is after all quite a big net gain) and offer peace amongst the lines of status quo ante bellum exept for:
I. The Entente recognizes the treaty of Brest - Litovsk.
II. Germany returns Alsaque - Lorraine.
Would the Entente gouvernements accept? If not would popular pressure in France to accept it be big enough to see their home front crumbling 1st?

2. Situation as we discussed. No U.S. involvement on the horizon. What happens is: The Entente leadership, which does not know the tattering domestic situation in Germany, decides to launch an all or nothing offensive in 1918 of their own. Figuring that they have one last chance to break through in the west before Germany can bring massive reinforcements from Russia and overwhelm them (Just to be clear: I'm not saying that this would be indeed so, I'm saying that without the benefit of hindsight this is what the situation would look like for the Entente leadership). Offensive fails. What happens next?

Wozza · Sep 29, 2005

Brest-litovsk is not signed until March 1918

the Entente are more likely to try and depose the Bolsheviks

The French cannot attack
The British are starved of replacements by Lloyd George so they cannot attack either.
I think there will be another round of fevered ideas about the Balkans and the Near East

schrammy · Sep 29, 2005

3 March, 1918

the treaty of Brest-litovsk was in OTL signed on 3 March, 1918
but the USA would get involved long before that, or in our scenario wouldn't
I would think at least.

here is a short timeline ofthe involvment of the USA in OTL
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww1.html

scenario 1. I think this is plausible and I think that this is the most likely to happen.

there is probably some sort of treaty singed by all likely resembling a lighter version of Brest-litovsk and maybe parts of Alsaque - Lorraine back to France.

scenario 2 I agree with Wozza neither Britain nor France have the power to strike and serious blow to Germany, but as history has proven some times decision are not made on ground of military feasibility but by the politician's idle hope of succes (hanging on to power staying in office)

there for I think that it is possible that The Entente might try this...and fail.
any way this would probably only worsen there position at the negation table.

Wendell · Sep 29, 2005

schrammy said:
the treaty of Brest-litovsk was in OTL signed on 3 March, 1918
but the USA would get involved long before that, or in our scenario wouldn't
I would think at least.

here is a short timeline ofthe involvment of the USA in OTL
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww1.html

scenario 1. I think this is plausible and I think that this is the most likely to happen.

there is probably some sort of treaty singed by all likely resembling a lighter version of Brest-litovsk and maybe parts of Alsaque - Lorraine back to France.

scenario 2 I agree with Wozza neither Britain nor France have the power to strike and serious blow to Germany, but as history has proven some times decision are not made on ground of military feasibility but by the politician's idle hope of succes (hanging on to power staying in office)

there for I think that it is possible that The Entente might try this...and fail.
any way this would probably only worsen there position at the negation table.

I could see a negotiated peace whereby Germany gives up Alsace and Lorraine, but is permitted to annex Poland instead. Also, this peace would require Germany to accept the loss of her colonies. Austria will have to give the mjority Italian districts in Tirol to Italy, as well as parts of Istria or Dalmatia? Also, Bosnia is surrendered to Serbia, and parts of Transylvania might go to Romania. As for the fate of Bulgaria and Turkey, Germany and Austria couldn't care less....

benedict XVII · Sep 30, 2005

One point about French morale in the Spring 1918. One of the reasons why the French soldiers accepted the amazing sacrifices they made to contain the German offensives was the hope that US soldiers were coming. This is really what held their backbone stiff. If you remove that esperance, I'm not sure how well they would have fared, and the feeling of senselessness of the fighting might have prevailed.

Redbeard · Sep 30, 2005

benedict XVII said:
One point about French morale in the Spring 1918. One of the reasons why the French soldiers accepted the amazing sacrifices they made to contain the German offensives was the hope that US soldiers were coming. This is really what held their backbone stiff. If you remove that esperance, I'm not sure how well they would have fared, and the feeling of senselessness of the fighting might have prevailed.

Out in the trench you don't give a damn about great politics, you fight for the comrades you know because you know they do so for you. That is also called good morale and is a primary concern of any leadership (creating trust). The French Army of 1918 simply had good morale, not at least because trust in leadership had been restored after the disastrous Nivelle offensive in 1917. What worked wasn't patriotic speaches or great politics (although I'm sure words were plenty), but better arrangements of leave, rest, food etc. - and no more futile offensives. In short: The French did the job themselves.

But the German high command knew very well that spring of 1918 would be the last chance before countless Americans would reach the front.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Jared · Sep 30, 2005

Redbeard said:
Out in the trench you don't give a damn about great politics, you fight for the comrades you know because you know they do so for you. That is also called good morale and is a primary concern of any leadership (creating trust). The French Army of 1918 simply had good morale, not at least because trust in leadership had been restored after the disastrous Nivelle offensive in 1917. What worked wasn't patriotic speaches or great politics (although I'm sure words were plenty), but better arrangements of leave, rest, food etc. - and no more futile offensives. In short: The French did the job themselves.

Quite. It worked because the French mutinies had never really been to _end_ the war. The French Army were quite willing to keep on fighting to defend France, and likely would have kept on doing so for quite a while. What they objected to doing was dying in pointless badly-planned offensives. There is a question of how well the French soldiers' morale would hold up if they kept on going nowhere, but I don't think that they were in imminent dange of morale collapse if the USA hadn't joined the war.

But the German high command knew very well that spring of 1918 would be the last chance before countless Americans would reach the front.

Yup. Ludendorff panicked because 300,000 American soldiers were arriving every month. He thought that he had to attack _now_, before it was too late. Hence Operation Michel happened in spring.

But here's the odd thing: one of the German generals (I forget which) suggested that rather than using Michael as an offensive, that it should be held back and used as a counter-offensive, where it would be so much more effective. The British were certainly going to attack in 1918, come what may (I think the attack was scheduled for June). So, without the pressure of the US soldiers arriving en masse, Ludendorff may well have taken the suggestion and held Michel back as a counter-offensive. (This is, incidentally, a similar scenario to what I envisioned happening in DoD).

Imagine the effects on Allied morale then... they launch their own offensive, which while it gains some ground, gets nowhere fast. Then the Germans counter-attack, and push them back a very long way. The Germans may or may not get to Paris, but either way it would be one heck of a shock. The Allies have just seen Russia drop out of the war, and now things look even worse. What would be their likely reaction then?

The Sandman · Sep 30, 2005

Especially since, IIRC, American troops did play somewhat of a role in holding the Germans back in the spring of 1918 in the first place.

In my opinion, without American involvement, the Entente could not have won the war; at best, they would get a tactical draw (Germany withdraws from Northern France) and a strategic German victory (France and Russia smashed, Belgium a puppet, a whole host of new territories in the East to exploit...). Not only did the Entente need U.S. manpower, as the U.S. was basically the only major combatant still capable of raising more troops, but they also needed the Americans in order to convince the Germans to surrender. The twin prospects of the American hordes and a more lenient Wilsonian peace were the only things that convinced Germany to surrender rather than simply wait out the collapsing Entente nations.

Scomerger · Sep 30, 2005

It would be hard for the Allies to win the war without the US backing up.

Wendell · Oct 1, 2005

At that point in the world, yes. Also, might the U.S. still be selling goods to the Germans....

benedict XVII · Oct 1, 2005

Redbeard said:
Out in the trench you don't give a damn about great politics, you fight for the comrades you know because you know they do so for you. That is also called good morale and is a primary concern of any leadership (creating trust). The French Army of 1918 simply had good morale, not at least because trust in leadership had been restored after the disastrous Nivelle offensive in 1917. What worked wasn't patriotic speaches or great politics (although I'm sure words were plenty), but better arrangements of leave, rest, food etc. - and no more futile offensives. In short: The French did the job themselves.

But the German high command knew very well that spring of 1918 would be the last chance before countless Americans would reach the front.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

The French had done a lot of the work themselves indeed. I don't think my other posts would show any sort of pattern at dismissing the French, on the contrary! Nevertheless, that turnaround worked because it was based upon an essentially defensive strategy. In turn, a defensive strategy makes sense only if ultimately it is followed by an offensive. If you don't have the hope of the Americans coming, you simply have an open-ended defensive strategy leading nowhere, or yet again a failed offensive. Either of the two would have led to a peace of compromise in the best case, or a collpase of morale in the worst case.

MarkA · Oct 1, 2005

It was Germany who was under pressure to go onto the offensive in 1918 not the Allies. Whether the Americans were there or not the Germans still had to launch their attacks or be defeated in under a year.

There was not enough coal or food at home for the civilan population to continue to make sacrifices. There would soon not be enough supplies reaching the front even though the soldiers had priority. It was the morale of the Home Front that was critical here not the situation in the trenches.

Germany's High Command knew that there was a real risk of revolution at home and mutiny at the front if success was not forthcoming immediately. Not in twelve months or six months but within one to three months. The Germans would not be able to survive another winter.

Allied counterattacks, especially after the failed German Second Battle of the Marne, would not have been as successful without the Americans, but only marginally not crucially. With the Germans falling back the Allies would follow them. Occupation of Berlin and the destruction of the 'stab in the back' myth would fundamentally alter the future German political scene.

No Wilsonian Peace and no Fourteen Points would alter European politics forever. Self determination was not a policy favoured by Britain or France (they actively opposed it). Serbia would have gained some territory as would Italy (maybe). Hungary given independence and perhaps the creation of a new Poland but not much more. No patchwork of states in the Balkans but rather either Allied Mandates or expanded existing states.

Internationally, the League of Nations may still have been created but probably not. Of more importance would be the position of the United States. Since it did not turn around its economic position as a result of war profiteering, it would still be in deep debt and its industrial expansion would not have occured. An earlier depression, but not as severe as OTL 1929, is a probability. An earlier reduction of German reparations because the Allies did not have to repay American war loans would lead to a European recovery and a stable German democracy.

Perhaps by 1925-29 with German reparations reduced or repealled by 1921-3, the Europeans would be in position to loan money to America to reform its economy.

wkwillis · Nov 14, 2005

My family were farmers. The US did not sell food at exhorbitant prices. The shipping to Europe was limited and we lost our German, Belgian, and Netherlands markets. On the other hand we lost our Russian competitors, if not our Argentine, Australian, New Zealand, South African, and Canadian competitors.
We paid off all our foreign debts by 1916 and started loaning money net in 1917. The British stopped exports to us, so we stopped spending our agricultural earnings on British industrial exports. Likewise German industrial exports. That's why we increased our steel production by 50%.
The US troops broke the heart of the Germans, at least that's what they wrote and said. The idea that another few million troops were going to arrive in 1919 made them realise that the war was lost. Most of the German troops were killed by the French, the Russians, the British, the Canadians, the Anzacs, the Italians, the Serbs, etc, but now there was an entire new enemy to fight.
When the Americans offered the Germans a peace without victory, they took it. They were betrayed by Wilson later, but they did not know this at the time they accepted the armistice, surrendered their fleet, their merchant marine, their fishing grounds, large amounts of their railstock and artillary, and the Rhineland.
If I were a German in 1920 I would bless the Bolsheviks for bailing them out and forcing the cancellation of Versailles in fear that Germany would also go Bolshevik.