The POD is that Germany doesn't resume USW and they never send the Zimmerman Telegram to Mexico. As a result, the US does not enter WWI. Would the Entente still have won? What impact does this have on the Treaty of Versailles and American influence on the world stage? How does this effect US politics?
WI: The US Does Not Enter WWI
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Yes.
It would have been more bloody, and perhaps would have enabled the spring offensive to be slightly more effective, maybe the German High Command even decides to fight until Spring or early summer 1919 instead of surrendering in November. Germany is still going to lose, and all sides involved are going to be worse off with the only beneficiary to all of this being the various Socialist and Communist movements within the belligerent nations.
The Reds will wrap up the Civil War more quickly as a result of the continued fighting abroad.
Not necessarily.
There may be some kind of negotiated settlement that avoids just how awful the Theory of Versailles was.
And with the U.S. keeping its powder dry, so to speak, we don’t delay entering a future war such as WWII which we really need to enter sooner.
Pretty much this, I guess the ToV will be harsher.
as for the US, so Ok it won't have the boost to economic super power status that it policies in WW1 and post WW1 brought it, but Europe is going to be even more economically fucked than it was OTL hard not to see the US cemented itself as an economic superpower in that context.
I'd guess US military isolationism would be be politically strengthened, as it would seem to be vindicated in this ATL
Last edited:
I wonder if it is possible that the Spring Offensive might have worked in a slightly altered Timeline and with no Americans coming in.
This brings back the dozens of pages that were debated on whether the Entente could even survive 1917 due to their inability to procure loans after a certain point. While I disagree with the premise, no US entry might lead to a Britain forced to sell off more assets to pay for munitions etc.
I'm sure it's possible it could have done but OTL the Americans weren't that relevant to it failing (there weren't that many there, they're much more in evidence in the 100 days offensive that comes next).
The thing is the spring offensive is a strategic success, they advance, they kill more entente troops than they lose. But frankly they can't afford their losses, and they are running out of men.
If the war goes on much longer the German food shortage are going to really kick in. But without the US the 100 day will be less decisive
Last edited:
Beyond the Germans running out of men, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire are both on their last legs. US forces didn't have any major involvement there.
Did you seriously not think to use the search function? This topic comes up practically monthly and at this point is outstripping operation Sealion for repetitive threads.
And their accompanying dozens of pages on British currency reserves and French mutinies.
Nor is opening a thread to rehash a topic that was discussed to death a month ago, and a month before that, etc. All in subtlety different flavours but covering the same ground.
Depends on a number of conditions.
- Why does the US not enter? Does Germany not pursue unrestricted submarine warfare? In that case, the Entente has an edge compared to OTL.
- If the US is not entering, does that mean they will not offer unsecured loans to the Entente? If so, the Entente will struggle to maintain its war effort past even 1917 as it runs out of resources. Although the above will affect that.
- Are there other factors related to the US not entering. If so, what?
There's always that hope.
However, (and this may be my cynicism seeping in) I think that a longer war w/o the United States would affect each side in very specific ways but which will ultimately cause them to double down. For the Hapsburgs they might be able to last a little longer than OTL especially with a Germany that is willing to prop them up even more than OTL thanks to a lack of American pressure exerting itself on them. Furthermore, as much as I detest Wilson, his wild idealistic ramblings probably caused the war to end sooner because the Germans believed they would only have to give up Alsace-Lorraine and keep the rest of their Germany Majority lands in Europe, maybe they could even join together with Austria and come off the war a stronger nation than they did coming in!
But with the way things are w/o the US as a belligerent, the allies will be even harsher (yes harsher) than they were IOTL. Because they'll know that their victory came very narrowly and at great cost, the allies will be even more hungry for German blood than they were IOTL, and without the US to be a partner to the British in terms of meting out a lenient peace based on national borders to the defeated powers you might see a breakup of the German Empire in Europe. Possibly splitting off Bavaria and adding it to German Austria.
Regardless of which form it takes, the victorious Entente is not going to be more lenient than it was IOTL, every factor present in this scenario goes against such a thing and the Germans will know this and because the Ludendorff-Hindenburg dictatorship's plans for victory usually depended on doubling down and gambling, they might stupidly decide to continue to hold out, believing that if they can keep forcing the allies into more and more costly (but successful) offensives that they will eventually moderate their peace terms and come to a reasonable settlement.
Uhhh no. The German Spring Offensives were a semi-directionless mess that ran on little more than fumes and Ludendorff's mania. Even if Amiens fell, again a big if, Germany has likely lost the crème de la crème of its armies for not enough gain.
Last edited:
Look Garrison, I am not on this forum 24/7 and I wanted to start a new discussion on the topic. It wasn't my first instinct to rummage through ancient posts to see if it has been discussed a month ago, two months ago, etc. If you do not like my thread, don't comment on it and move on with your life.
Oh, I did just use the search function and the most recent thread specifically focusing on US neutrality in the war was started on Nov. 29, 2020: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/no-us-no-kerensky-offensive-how-will-wwi-end.500624/
And in poker terms, by 1917 each side was already “all in.” In one of his videos, the historian Eugen Weber basically said that because public education was new and most persons’ world views not tempered by any kind of experience of how governments actually behave, this was the most patriotic, gung-ho generation who ever marched off to war (the lower patriotism of obedience, not the higher patriotism that a person sometimes needs to dissent).
This is a big claim, but I think he may have a point.
I’ve long thought the Treaty of Versailles was in the tragic middle of being harsh enough to cause serious resentment but not harsh enough to prevent rearmament. Now I rather think that, this tragic middle is probably easier to get to than any of us would like.
Last edited: