WI: American entry into WWI delayed 1 year

So lets say for a POD the Germans are a bit more successful at Jutland and a couple more British BC's and HMS Warspite go down to the bottom. This changes German naval command thinking away from U-boats and unrestricted warfare towards finishing capital ships then under construction and seeking to contest RN primacy in the North Sea. This also butterflies the Zimmerman Telegram.

1917 pretty much goes OTL, but what changes for 1918? The Spring offensive of 1918 was launched to preempt the arrival and deployment of American forces so what do you guys think would be the Geman strategy? Stay on the defensive in the west and knock out Greece an Italy. Could the allies hold on in 1918? Could the allies use new tactics as successfully as OTL and break the Germans or does the absence of American troops led to unsustainable casualties?
 
Russia sues for peace in late 1917 leaving Britain and France fighting alone for 6 months. I think Britain and France's financial problems coupled with their lack of success on the battlefield could lead them to sue for peace early in 1918.
 
With Russia out of the picture and no worries of American reinforcements, Germany is allowed to take its time on the Western Front while consoldating its gains in the east. I don't know this will lead to a German victory but it points that way.
 
1917 pretty much goes OTL,

Unlikely.

Without the massive financial support received from the US after April 1917 (far greater than when the latter was neutral) Britain cannot subsidise France and her other Allies. So France has either to knock Germany out within the next few months (almost certainly impossible) or else seek peace on whatever terms it can get.

Britain may attempt to continue the war alone, but if so it will be in a position even worse than 1940, as the Kaiser's Germany is far stronger at sea than Hitler's. And having remained neutral this long, President Wilson is unlikely to rush to the rescue of a clearly defeated power, though he may warn Germany off any annexation of the British or French West Indies. Postponing US intervention for a year will in reality mean aborting it altogether.
 
danwild6

The Germans never stayed on the defensive if they could avoid it and that was standard philosophy at the time. Not just for Germany, all the major powers still thought of the offensive as 'superior'. As such the spring 1918 offensives will go through probably with a very similar result. The western allies might do a bit better as they should be materially a bit stronger. [No arms transfers to the US and no slaughter of the trade links as Germany not resuming unrestricted U-boat warfare is even better, in the immediate effects, than the allies introducing convoying in reducing losses]. However without US manpower later in 1918 & 1919 it could be a lot more difficult getting the Germans to break as they did OTL. A lot would depend on the exact circumstances. The allies should still have the wipe hand but could be very tight.

The big uncertainty here is if the US doesn't make the OTL loans it did after it joined the conflict. This is not in itself a serious problem in that it denies the allies the simplest way of getting the funds. They can still rely on internal debt, as Britain did to a larger degree for the 1st part of WWII and Germany did throughout WWI, They are still a lot richer than the central powers and have access to large empires and the British dominions. Probably would see a significant drop in imports from the US but by this time both France and Britain had fully tooled up for war so military production is no problem. Foodstuffs and other raw materials are probably most likely to come via loans from the dominions. Will probably cause some concern amongst the more conservative economists and a bit higher war-time inflation but should be manageable.

Steve




So lets say for a POD the Germans are a bit more successful at Jutland and a couple more British BC's and HMS Warspite go down to the bottom. This changes German naval command thinking away from U-boats and unrestricted warfare towards finishing capital ships then under construction and seeking to contest RN primacy in the North Sea. This also butterflies the Zimmerman Telegram.

1917 pretty much goes OTL, but what changes for 1918? The Spring offensive of 1918 was launched to preempt the arrival and deployment of American forces so what do you guys think would be the Geman strategy? Stay on the defensive in the west and knock out Greece an Italy. Could the allies hold on in 1918? Could the allies use new tactics as successfully as OTL and break the Germans or does the absence of American troops led to unsustainable casualties?
 
If America's entry is delayed by a year, this is what happens...


Nothing.

The Germans still make their mad push in order to give them a better bargaining position at the peace table. They are still halted in their tracks just like OTL only they might be a little less screwed since it'll take a little longer. Germany was on the cusp of defeat anyway with 1917 being the major turning point of the war in favour of the Allies.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans probably force France to the peace table. Clemenceau is not a shoe in and without him, France does not have the will to go on without negotiating for real. Basically the US is going to be cutting loans, not wanting to take the risk of the Entente defaulting, which in turn means the British and French are without the means to continue at the same intensity that they have had up until this point. It may also be a ploy to force the players to the negotiating table: no more loans until you seriously consider peace. Wilson, if not prompted to got to war in 1917, is going to be pushing very hard for peace, especially after the disastrous initiative in 1916 that showed the Entente was not willing to negotiate if they had the means to keep fighting for total victory. 1917 is not going to play out the same at all.

Germany, on the other hand, is going to be better off without the American intervention, as the blockade is still porous and the US is interested in that trade. With the fall of Russia and the neutrality of the US, France is going to be under intense internal pressure. Couple that with American banks losing faith in the Entente victory and the situation worsens. The victory against Italy at Caporetto will be yet another nail in the credit coffin, which then will be choked off, or at very least severely diminished. The Brits will be in a better way, but still very lean. All the unlimited arms and munitions will be become very finite, making the offensives like at Passchendaele less financially sustainable. The credit crisis in France is going to prompt a finance scare, which may very well undermine the war effort.

Someone else mention the arms transfer to the Americans, but that won't be a gain for the Entente here, as they are going to have to reduce production anyway because they are running out of money. When the Germans attack, the French are going to panic and start negotiating if they already have not started.
 
The issue to me is how does the Germans in fact know America cannot go to war? Answer that and they will take their time. Even then UK and France have access to US goods, if not troops.
 
wiking

The only problem with your suggestion is that the western powers will not consider peace until the Germans are willing to. They weren't until decisively defeated in 1918 OTL so think that they won't be willing until in a similar position. While their not willing to make peace the allies can't afford to. They will be weakened by the reduced funding but not decisively so and motivation to defend their countries will be the main driver.

They could actually be helped by the problem of funding if it makes them a little more cautious in 1917 in not attacking so recklessly in Britain's case. Equipment is highly unlikely to be a problem as the two powers were highly tooled up by this stage.

France will not make peace will Germany is still attacking unless it is totally defeated militarily. That is highly unlikely, virtually ASB, under those circumstances, with the Germans already running out of steam. Also if really under pressure they can call in forces from the colonies and other, less important fronts.

Steve


The Germans probably force France to the peace table. Clemenceau is not a shoe in and without him, France does not have the will to go on without negotiating for real. Basically the US is going to be cutting loans, not wanting to take the risk of the Entente defaulting, which in turn means the British and French are without the means to continue at the same intensity that they have had up until this point. It may also be a ploy to force the players to the negotiating table: no more loans until you seriously consider peace. Wilson, if not prompted to got to war in 1917, is going to be pushing very hard for peace, especially after the disastrous initiative in 1916 that showed the Entente was not willing to negotiate if they had the means to keep fighting for total victory. 1917 is not going to play out the same at all.

Germany, on the other hand, is going to be better off without the American intervention, as the blockade is still porous and the US is interested in that trade. With the fall of Russia and the neutrality of the US, France is going to be under intense internal pressure. Couple that with American banks losing faith in the Entente victory and the situation worsens. The victory against Italy at Caporetto will be yet another nail in the credit coffin, which then will be choked off, or at very least severely diminished. The Brits will be in a better way, but still very lean. All the unlimited arms and munitions will be become very finite, making the offensives like at Passchendaele less financially sustainable. The credit crisis in France is going to prompt a finance scare, which may very well undermine the war effort.

Someone else mention the arms transfer to the Americans, but that won't be a gain for the Entente here, as they are going to have to reduce production anyway because they are running out of money. When the Germans attack, the French are going to panic and start negotiating if they already have not started.
 

Deleted member 1487

wiking

The only problem with your suggestion is that the western powers will not consider peace until the Germans are willing to. They weren't until decisively defeated in 1918 OTL so think that they won't be willing until in a similar position. While their not willing to make peace the allies can't afford to. They will be weakened by the reduced funding but not decisively so and motivation to defend their countries will be the main driver.

They could actually be helped by the problem of funding if it makes them a little more cautious in 1917 in not attacking so recklessly in Britain's case. Equipment is highly unlikely to be a problem as the two powers were highly tooled up by this stage.

France will not make peace will Germany is still attacking unless it is totally defeated militarily. That is highly unlikely, virtually ASB, under those circumstances, with the Germans already running out of steam. Also if really under pressure they can call in forces from the colonies and other, less important fronts.

Steve

The internal German situation was just as muddled as the Entente. The majority of the Reichstag was for peace, as evidenced by the peace vote in 1917. The Kaiser was also for peace, but was marginalized. However the extreme nationalists of the pan-germanists are for total victory, as is the army high command that has significant power (some would say total) power by 1917. Getting the nation into peace negotiations by 1917 would require a wiling Entente. The rejection of the German offer with no willingness to even negotiate made the German people think that was the Entente mentality. In fact, it was a ploy to justify to the US the Uboot campaign. It did work to a degree, but it also justified the continuation of the war among the German public. If the French come forward willing to negotiate, then the German public at large (not all though) would support the initiative. This would slow down the activities at the front, but would not stop the war. If neither side was willing compromise in the negotiations, for instance the vast majority of France still expected Alsace-Lorraine at a minimum, then it could fall apart and would continue, which I think is likely to happen. That is until the Germans go on the offensive, which will push the process forward again, especially once the Germans realize that they cannot win outright.

However, the credit situation is going to force the Entente to at least come forward and try to negotiate, which will find them a surprisingly willing partner. The Reichstag still has enough power to force Ludendorff to relent, especially if they can call a general strike, which shouldn't be too hard given the mentality at the time.
 
The issue to me is how does the Germans in fact know America cannot go to war? Answer that and they will take their time.


Fenwick,

No, a delayed US entry will have little effect on Germany's spring offensives.

The Germans can't take their time because, just as in the OTL, they're still starving. What's more, in the OTL they weren't worried about US troops for most of 1918 and correctly so.

The possibility of US troops in the OTL had nothing to do with the timing of Germany's spring offensives in 1918. First, the Navy had promised no significant US forces would reach France. Second, discounting the Navy's bombast, the Army knew the US wouldn't be able to train and field formations large enough to make a difference. Third, as CalBear has to repeatedly remind people in threads of this type, the official German daily ration was 1,000 calories which isn't enough for sedentary office workers.

In the OTL, Germany launched her spring offensives when she did more because of her internal condition and less because of the US' entry. In the OTL, the Entente was able to defeat the German offensives with no real help from the US. So, in this ATL, a US entry in April of 1918 instead of April of 1917 will have little effect on the events during the first half of 1918. The Germans will still attack, the Entente will still defeat them, and Germany as a whole will still be starving.


Bill
 
wiking

They could actually be helped by the problem of funding if it makes them a little more cautious in 1917 in not attacking so recklessly in Britain's case.

Steve

Wouldn't the reverse be more likely?

If the Allies believe that they are going to be crippled by lack of money before the year's end, they will be pulling out all the stops to beat Germany before that happens. To paraphrase Balfour's remark about the u-boat crisis, it will be seen as a question of "Can the army win the war before the Bank of England loses it?"

(In this context, of course, it doesn't matter whether the belief is correct or not. If the Allied governments believe it to be the case, that belief will determine their actions.)

I'd expect the British offensives to be stepped up rather than scaled down, and for Petain to come under pressure to get more aggressive - or be removed.

One wild card. Is it conceivable that the perceived "race against time" would lead Britain to extend Conscription to Ireland? Given Irish attitudes, it would seem a desperate gamble, but it was seriously discussed, and Haig favoured it. Could make things interesting.
 
Fenwick,

No, a delayed US entry will have little effect on Germany's spring offensives.

The Germans can't take their time because, just as in the OTL, they're still starving. What's more, in the OTL they weren't worried about US troops for most of 1918 and correctly so.

The possibility of US troops in the OTL had nothing to do with the timing of Germany's spring offensives in 1918. First, the Navy had promised no significant US forces would reach France. Second, discounting the Navy's bombast, the Army knew the US wouldn't be able to train and field formations large enough to make a difference. Third, as CalBear has to repeatedly remind people in threads of this type, the official German daily ration was 1,000 calories which isn't enough for sedentary office workers.

In the OTL, Germany launched her spring offensives when she did more because of her internal condition and less because of the US' entry. In the OTL, the Entente was able to defeat the German offensives with no real help from the US. So, in this ATL, a US entry in April of 1918 instead of April of 1917 will have little effect on the events during the first half of 1918. The Germans will still attack, the Entente will still defeat them, and Germany as a whole will still be starving.


Bill

Oy. Quit using logic and reason and facts. America super-helped us in WWI! That's a fact! :rolleyes: ;):p
 
Oy. Quit using logic and reason and facts. America super-helped us in WWI! That's a fact! :rolleyes: ;):p



Indeed she did. That's factual enough. It's just that the help was more important in the economic and naval spheres than in the purely military.

If I may blow my own trumpet a bit, some years ago I tried to do a summary of the effects of US intervention. The result makes rather a formidable screed to put here, but if anyone is interested it's on Wikianswers at

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_part_did_the_US_play_in_World_War_1

It is of course not necessarily exhaustive and I'll be delighted to be told of anything I've overlooked.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
In early 1918 both sides are near collapse. Negotiated peace. Germany lose colonies, 1914 boders in the West, Germany gain a free hand in Eastern Europe.
 
danwild6


The big uncertainty here is if the US doesn't make the OTL loans it did after it joined the conflict. This is not in itself a serious problem in that it denies the allies the simplest way of getting the funds. They can still rely on internal debt, as Britain did to a larger degree for the 1st part of WWII and Germany did throughout WWI,
Steve

Of course there is one significant difference in WW2. In the critical period that war, Britain had no pensioners (spelt a-l-l-i-e-s) whom she had to subsidise. In WW1, she had a whole flock of them.

(This, incidentally, was a contributary cause of all the postwar strife about loan repayments. The US, in 1917-18, had been careful to stipulate that all monies loaned by her were to be spent in the US. Britain OTOH, had neglected - perhaps because it was impractical - to impose a similar condition on her Continental allies, which caused obvious problems when the war was over.)

Most of the sources that I've seen on this aspect seem to agree that Britain could (just about) keep her own war effort going even without the US loans, but that's of limited value if she couldn't keep France etc afloat.

I've sometimes thought that that famous fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square should be occupied by a statue of General Heinz Guderian, for his services to Britain in elbowing her off the Continent before she could do herself irreparable harm.
 
Top