WI: US doesn't enter WW1?

ferdi254

Banned
AJE two historical facts.

1. Germany continued the war until October 1918.

Meaning if the USA does not enter, leaving aside that the blockade would be less watertight, leaving aside that without further US support the Entente would have to at least seriously curtail their war effort which should relieve Germany... the Entente has to hold out till at least October 1918.

2. The UK and French leadership had the clear opinion that without further USA backing they would have to make an unfavorable peace with the CP in summer 1917.

Do you have any arguments why Germany should stop fighting earlier or how the Entente could fight on after Summer 1917?
 
I know this question has probably been asked an innumerous amount of times on this site but it seems to be the most popular POD for a Central Powers victory in WW1 or a stalemate. What if the United States didn't join WW1 on the side of the Entente? How could this be avoided? Was American involvement inevitable? And even if America doesn't join the war, do the Central Powers even have a chance at victory? What would that victory look like?
Last chance the CP realistically has of winning is 1st Ypres in late 1914 - after that the Entente becomes too strong for a decisive decision by the Germans on the Western Front.

Now could the Entente win without US involvement?

I don't think as convincingly - but while both the British and French Empires where suffering shortages by 1917 - Germany was done and the A-H more than done

The UK and France never suffered a Turnip winter and were unlikely to as they controlled the 7 seas and their military's are mature and industry's are now capable of supporting them.

More likely the War splutters on till 1919 with no desperate throw of the dice in 1918 or USW by Germany and Germany fearing a total collapse of its ally, no realistic way of breaking the blockade and its own severe problems seeks terms (which a more weaker Entente accept).
 
Honestly the war could go either way without the US in the war. On paper the Entente material advantage should allow them to outlast the Germans and win the war. However there is the question of morale, I don't think the arrival of US troops hurt Entente morale and in fact did the opposite. Lower morale means that troops are more likely to just give up and get captured rather than run, and run rather than fight. If a few Italian troops did not valiantly stand and fight against the odds in a few cases Caporetto and its follow ups could have outright knocked the Italians out of the war. Without US entry Italian morale will be lower, and AFAIK Italy was going to get cut off from US supplies first and by the end of summer '17 so they are worse in a material sense, *Caporetto certainly won't go better for them, and if it goes enoguh worse then Italy is out. With Italy out and the US not in Anglo-French morale will be even shittier, if the Germans do see that they can't continue indefinitely and decide on a throw of a dice offensive ala OTL, which may just be more successful enough to capture the right logistics nodes to force a collapse of the Western Front, which is basically a German victory

The issue is this all runs on unquantifiables. We can't know how many troops will run rather than fight and surrender rather than run and fight another day, and where in particular that may happen, whether in consequential or inconsequential places. Italy may fall by the end of '17 and a Spring offensive collapses the Entente lines in France in '18, or the Italians may only do slightly worse than OTL and maintain a semblance of a line and the Anglo-French may again hold and their greater resources tell in the end. But we cannot quantify this so it can be argued either way
 
AJE two historical facts.

1. Germany continued the war until October 1918.

Meaning if the USA does not enter, leaving aside that the blockade would be less watertight, leaving aside that without further US support the Entente would have to at least seriously curtail their war effort which should relieve Germany... the Entente has to hold out till at least October 1918.

2. The UK and French leadership had the clear opinion that without further USA backing they would have to make an unfavorable peace with the CP in summer 1917.

Do you have any arguments why Germany should stop fighting earlier or how the Entente could fight on after Summer 1917?
I fully agree, people act as if this was Paradox Interactive and politics has nothing to do with war. This isn’t Victoria 2 or Hearts of Iron 4, you do not increase political support with a click of a button and use focus trees.
 

ferdi254

Banned
And those who argue the CP would lose please tell the readers how would you quell the mutinies of the French army without the promise of US troops coming?
And also please explain how you get your planes up when 85% of your avgas is gone?
How you keep up the war at all with 70% of your oil gone?
 

ferdi254

Banned
And just to be clear: A peace status quo ante in the west, CP keep what they have in the east and colonies stay with the Entente would be a clear CP victory.
 
And just to be clear: A peace status quo ante in the west, CP keep what they have in the east and colonies stay with the Entente would be a clear CP victory.
Would Germany agree to losing her colonies in exchange for the allied recognition of German control over Eastern Europe?
 
By 1917 the Hindenburg Program had been implemented and mismanaged Germany's resource/food situation to ensure hunger winters and collapse. They made economic mistakes earlier, but IMO the Hindenburg Program was what finally destroyed Germany's economy and food supply and made a CP victory impossible. Germany's defeat was already certain when the US entered the war.

Yet as late as Oct 1918 the German government and High Command (at least if Max of Baden's Memoirs are any guide) scarcely mentioned such problems. Their main concerns seem to have been tanks and Americans.

If a German economic collapse was imminent, neither the Germans themselves nor the Entente (who anticipated the war continuing well into 1919 and even possibly 1920) showed the slightest awareness of it. The hopes and fears of both sides were almost entirely military and to a lesser extent naval.
 
Last edited:
Yet as late as Oct 1918 the German government and High Command (at least if max of Baden's Memoirs are any guide) scarcely mentioned such problems. Their main concerns seem to have been tanks and Americans.

If a German economic collapse was imminent, neither the Germans themselves nor the Entente (who anticipated the war continuing well into 1919 and even possibly 1920) showed the slightest awareness of it. The hopes and fears of both sides were almost entirely military and to a lesser extent naval.
Really in 1918 it was going to be “who breaks first”. IOTL it was Germany. ITTL, without US involvement, it might be France.
 

marktaha

Banned
And those who argue the CP would lose please tell the readers how would you quell the mutinies of the French army without the promise of US troops coming?
And also please explain how you get your planes up when 85% of your avgas is gone?
How you keep up the war at all with 70% of your oil gone?
Surely US still.selling arms and like even if not in war.
 
Surely US still.selling arms and like even if not in war.
Selling yes, but for cash/gold/silver or with loans backed by collateral that can be seized and sold in the event of non-payment, not with loans backed only by promises. OTL they made $2 billion of secured loans from 1914-early 1917, from mid 1917 to 1918 they made $8 billion of unsecured loans. As such the Entente was able to heavily increase their purchases from the US, rather than curtail them as the loans started to dry up from lack of collateral to put up as security
 
Best way to avoid it (or at least delay it is to have a staunch isolationist as POTUS. Bryan is the obvious one but Champ Clark would do. Not sure about Vice President Marshall. He supported war when it came, but that could just have been loyalty to the Administration.

The thing is, though, that Bryan would be very unlikely to be *first* elected president in 1916. He would have presumably been elected in 1912 (maybe the only year he was electable, due to the Taft-TR split--and while his *nomination* in 1912 was unlikely, in the event of a prolonged Wilson-Clark deadlock, anything could happen). So it isn't just a matter of how he would have reacted to the OTL situation of 1917--he made it clear that he opposed the declaration of war [1]--but what the situation would have been if Bryan (or Clark) had been president in 1914-16. Is it even possible that the Central Powers would already have won? (True, Bryan did oppose the proposed arms embargo supported by German-Americans, but otherwise, e.g., on loans, he he favored a neutrality that would have ben significantly more favorable to the Central Powers--or less favorable to the Entente--than Wilson's.)

[1] Shortly before war was declared, he wrote that "If I were a representative and convinced that my constituents desired war, I would resign and leave them to speak through someone in harmony with their views. I would not share responsibility for this Nation entering the War."
http://books.google.com/books?id=tt67UmTL8MwC&pg=PA89 This did not prevent him from supporting the war effort once war was declared, and even volunteering at the age of 57 to join the Army, saying "Gladly would I have given my life to save my country from war, but now that my country has gone to war, gladly will I give my life to aid it." This drew a bitter response from Max Eastman: "This Christian gentleman, whose morality was perhaps the most rigid thing we had in the country, thus boasts that he will devote his declining years to a cause which he considers wicked. Like Abraham who would slaughter his son at the bidding of God, Bryan is ready to do murder--he has called it murder-- for the sake of his country. And this seems entirely right and noble to his countrymen. To me it seems utterly ignoble."
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/eastman/works/1910s/patriot.htm
 
Last edited:
It's important to note that if the United States is obviously committed to neutrality unless forced into the war, such as having a popular isolationist President, the ripples will include the British being much more interested in stretching their financial reserves. IOTL they were willing to count on some level of support from the United States and so fought a "rich war", but ITTL if that's not an option, they'll save up.

That both allows the Entente to avoid running out of money in 1916/early 1917, but also means the Entente war effort is slightly weaker. It's not going to be felt much in the main fronts, but the Ottomans are under less pressure, and the Italians are going to have a worse time holding the line against Austria.
 
It's important to note that if the United States is obviously committed to neutrality unless forced into the war, such as having a popular isolationist President, the ripples will include the British being much more interested in stretching their financial reserves. IOTL they were willing to count on some level of support from the United States and so fought a "rich war", but ITTL if that's not an option, they'll save up.

That both allows the Entente to avoid running out of money in 1916/early 1917, but also means the Entente war effort is slightly weaker. It's not going to be felt much in the main fronts, but the Ottomans are under less pressure, and the Italians are going to have a worse time holding the line against Austria.
Any weaker Entente effort is likely to see Austria breakthrough at Caporetto and result in Italy peacing out unless a new defensive line is established. Even so, if Venice (or Verona?) flies an Austrian flag, Italy is likely to start looking for a way out.
 
It could go both ways. The material advantage the entente had even when Russia dropped out of the war was massive. And the UK treasury was running out of dollar reserves (not pound dollar there is a massive difference) so Britain could still buy weapons from the USA, but at a slower pace. Iotl they burned up 14 percent of their assets in ww1 and it was estimated that the UK could tolerate burning through 20 percent of their assets, so there is room to move.
 
While the USA entered the war in April 1917 there where not troops in Europe until late July and the didn't go to the front until the start of October. This means there was little or no effect on the revolution in Russia also in the Middle East Baghdad had fallen in March and the Sinai/Palestine campaign was under way which lead to the fall of Beersheba at the end of October with out any US assistance. This lead to the capture of Jerusalem by the end of the year opening the way into Syria the Ottoman empire was well on its way to collapse be the US made an impact on the war effort. While Britain and France were hungry and resources were stretch by late 1917 they had overseas empires to assist with supplies & troops, German did not and starvation had started to set in.

Germany use the supplies and men from the western front with Russia out of the war in the 1918 Spring offensive but only gain strategically useless territory. Without US troops and supplies the Entente could still hold their ground and perhaps after the winter of 1918 build up for their own offensive and slow march to Berlin by 1920.
 
Without US troops and supplies the Entente could still hold their ground and perhaps after the winter of 1918 build up for their own offensive and slow march to Berlin by 1920.

Iirc someone suggested this to Haig and he responded "What nonsense! Who is going to last until 1920? Only America?

Haig may not have been a genius, but even he could see that much
The thing is, though, that Bryan would be very unlikely to be *first* elected president in 1916. He would have presumably been elected in 1912 (maybe the only year he was electable, due to the Taft-TR split--and while his *nomination* in 1912 was unlikely, in the event of a prolonged Wilson-Clark deadlock, anything could happen). So it isn't just a matter of how he would have reacted to the OTL situation of 1917--he made it clear that he opposed the declaration of war [1]--but what the situation would have been if Bryan (or Clark) had been president in 1914-16. Is it even possible that the Central Powers would already have won? (True, Bryan did oppose the proposed arms embargo supported by German-Americans, but otherwise, e.g., on loans, he he favored a neutrality that would have ben significantly more favorable to the Central Powers--or less favorable to the Entente--than Wilson's.)
Agreed.
[1] Shortly before war was declared, he wrote that "If I were a representative and convinced that my constituents desired war, I would resign and leave them to speak through someone in harmony with their views. I would not share responsibility for this Nation entering the War."
http://books.google.com/books?id=tt67UmTL8MwC&pg=PA89 This did not prevent him from supporting the war effort once war was declared, and even volunteering at the age of 57 to join the Army, saying "Gladly would I have given my life to save my country from war, but now that my country has gone to war, gladly will I give my life to aid it." This drew a bitter response from Max Eastman: "This Christian gentleman, whose morality was perhaps the most rigid thing we had in the country, thus boasts that he will devote his declining years to a cause which he considers wicked. Like Abraham who would slaughter his son at the bidding of God, Bryan is ready to do murder--he has called it murder-- for the sake of his country. And this seems entirely right and noble to his countrymen. To me it seems utterly ignoble."

In principle, and with a century's hindsight, I take Eastman's point. But he was way ahead of his time.

In 1917, "My country, right or wrong" was a concept which many (most?) entirely honourable men still took perfectly seriously. It has been greatly devalued since, not least by the experience of WW1 itself, but that was still in the future.

And anyway, if Bryan believed that those Americans who had been persuaded (or forced by conscription) to fight in Europe, were risking their lives unnecessarily, hence liable to be killed for nothing, was he not justified in doing anything he could to support them? The war was under way, irreversibly, and undermining the war effort might well result in *more* American deaths rather than fewer. Why should Bryan wish for that? Iirc Clark's attitude was similar.
.
 
Top