WI: US doesn't enter WW1?

Bougnas that still assumes that without the financial backup of the USA the war would go on as in OTL which it would not.

Cryhavoc care to give any sources that Wilson was planning to go to war in Dec 1916? And no I meant Congress, sources see other thread. Otherwise your answer contradicts the premise of the OT. If the USA was to go to war against Germany anyway then the question becomes moot. The question here is what if the USA stais out of the war. Meaning no more trade after 1917, April. Meaning... see above again. And no answer from you on the economical question.

And I see you fail to answer the question how to quell the mutinies without the promise of the USA coming, instead you play it down. The May 1915 mutinies and them getting put down was after the entry of the USA.
 
Bougnas that still assumes that without the financial backup of the USA the war would go on as in OTL which it would not.

Cryhavoc care to give any sources that Wilson was planning to go to war in Dec 1916? And no I meant Congress, sources see other thread. Otherwise your answer contradicts the premise of the OT. If the USA was to go to war against Germany anyway then the question becomes moot. The question here is what if the USA stais out of the war. Meaning no more trade after 1917, April. Meaning... see above again. And no answer from you on the economical question.

And I see you fail to answer the question how to quell the mutinies without the promise of the USA coming, instead you play it down. The May 1915 mutinies and them getting put down was after the entry of the USA.
You are asking me to explain and prove why something that did not happen wont happen

Without great changes to OTL I don't see it happening as you have suggested.

You are not wrong in that the USA totally cutting all trade wont cause major issues - I am simply saying that it could not happen like that because of the way in which international finances worked in 1914-18 and the attitudes of the largely pro -Entente US Elite at that point.

The USA would not go from providing loans and lots of trade to absolutely nothing

Again you are over egging the mutinies.
 
To be clear, I’m looking for a POD for a Central Powers victory. Would the lack of American troops hurt the Entente? They already were supporting the Entente financially, but without military involvement would the Entente collapse? Or was Germany doomed?
 
To be clear, I’m looking for a POD for a Central Powers victory. Would the lack of American troops hurt the Entente? They already were supporting the Entente financially, but without military involvement would the Entente collapse? Or was Germany doomed?
Without the American intervention or the prospects of American intervention, Germany has more troops to defend and fewer troops will to attack German lines.
It buys the Germans more time to exploit the Ukraine to increase the food supply to Germany.
Food from the Ukraine might mean more stable home front for Germany.
American troops not arriving in large numbers might postpone or nix the Spanish flu.
So Germany is in a stronger position, but I am not sure they are in a position to win in France.
A long war where a peace deal is done in 1919 or 1920 when it appears there is no prospect of either side winning.
if you want a Central Powers victory. I think you need America to go cash and carry from the start of the war and no credit or sale of war bonds for ether side.
 
To be clear, I’m looking for a POD for a Central Powers victory. Would the lack of American troops hurt the Entente? They already were supporting the Entente financially, but without military involvement would the Entente collapse? Or was Germany doomed?

Certainly not doomed (or if they were, neither side ever noticed, which I find kinda doubtful) but not a cert either. Ludendorff could still blow it if he tried hard enough. :evilsmile:
 
To be clear, I’m looking for a POD for a Central Powers victory. Would the lack of American troops hurt the Entente? They already were supporting the Entente financially, but without military involvement would the Entente collapse? Or was Germany doomed?
Keep Britian out of it?

No Battleship race, a worse détente cordiale and no invasion of Belgium

Germany goes East first?

Knock out the Russians early?

No invasion of Belgium - halves the Western Front - WW1 ends with the Russian Empire defeated in 1916, Italy not joining and France alone - its reserves exhausted agreeing to terms.

Its nebulous but I think l it could be fleshed out.
 
Keep Britian out of it?

No Battleship race, a worse détente cordiale and no invasion of Belgium

Germany goes East first?

Knock out the Russians early?

No invasion of Belgium - halves the Western Front - WW1 ends with the Russian Empire defeated in 1916, Italy not joining and France alone - its reserves exhausted agreeing to terms.

Its nebulous but I think l it could be fleshed out.
Or you could have food and medical supplies excluded from the Brtish blockade. Traditional only stuff like weapons etc were the subject of Blockades.
 
Or you could have food and medical supplies excluded from the Brtish blockade. Traditional only stuff like weapons etc were the subject of Blockades.
Well.

The only nation that was in a position to really demand that foodstuffs and medicines be allowed through was the USA

However it was not lost on them or the British that the Union had famously within living memory blockaded the CSA during the US Civil war - and quite successfully stopped trade getting into and out of the Southern states and this included food and medicine.

Given the success of this strategy and the impact it had on the CSA any such a demand for the British not to use their powerful Navy to do the same thing to their enemy would be viewed as massively hypocritical.
 
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.
Depending on when the reductions kick in this can have impacts on the political calculus of other nations. Such as if this is felt before Romania joins then Romania may stay neutral, reliving pressure on AH and keeping Hindenburg from power which changes 1917 onwards in a positive direction for the CP. And once Russia starts cracking you have to imagine a Neutral Romania will want to jump in to gather up some rewards.


These were the battles in which America took part in and only the bolded are any significant contribution,
That discounts the effect of freeing up troops from the sections of the line they did occupy to allow more reserves or thickening of lines elsewhere by France and UK.
 
I haven't refuted any to the economic point you have bought up up because non of those points is in any way refuting my point and are quite frankly much more of a opinion then objective fact, or gust strat up not saying anything.
Ah sorry for the misunderstanding then!
 
I found Table 4 interesting in that regard. From 1916 on, the Russian and French economies seem to be following similar downward paths, but with France a year behind. Thus her GDP (relative to prewar) in 1916 is virtually identical with Russia's in 1915, while that for 1917 is within about a percentage point of Russia's in 1916, and that for 1918 is actually several points *less* than Russia's in 1917, despite the latter's troubles that year.
.
Is this mere coincidence, or does it imply that France, if not propped up by the US (either directly or via GB), is headed for a similar crack-up?
Comparing the two tables with Russia does make it seem like so, bit when you factor in France's population and PCI, France's economic situation X3 times better than Russia. Per capita cost is a better indicator of fiscal resources being drawn up.
 
To be clear, I’m looking for a POD for a Central Powers victory. Would the lack of American troops hurt the Entente? They already were supporting the Entente financially, but without military involvement would the Entente collapse? Or was Germany doomed?
America's economy crashing in 1914 this rendering them unable to trade with the entente could be one huge pod. It's n underused pod anyway.
 
That discounts the effect of freeing up troops from the sections of the line they did occupy to allow more reserves or thickening of lines elsewhere by France and UK.
That discounts the fact that Vietnamese and Indian troops being brought to Europe were turned back when American troops (which were closer to bring to the front) brought to the front
 
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.
The Spring Offensives could only feasibly take strategically useless territory? When in OTL during Operation Michael the Germans reached just 9 miles from the most important place on the entire Western front, Amiens? And the hastily thrown together Operation Georgette was just 5 miles from the vital rail center of Hazebrouck, and less than 5 kilometers from the last significant coal deposits in France at Bethune?

With both of these taken (which was definitely within German capabilities, the BEF is forced to retire south of the Somme, surrendering all of the Channel Ports and also being forced to abandon all of their heavy equipment, effectively preventing them from launching offensive actions for the foreseeable future. And that’s if everything goes exactly with the British expected timeline, which accounted for an unapposed withdrawal. In short this would be a political and military disaster. Without the Channel ports, the Dover Barrage is rendered useless and the Germans can interdict British shipping in the channel (which was at the time vital for importing food). Furthermore the Germans are free to focus solely on the French, and the British are forced to keep more troops on the home isles due to inevitable invasion fears among the populace.

As for making it to 1920, there is no way in hell that the French could make it, without the United States joining the war I doubt they would have lasted beyond December 1918 at best.

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.
Unlikely without PoD during Caporetto itself. The German/Austro-Hungarians advanced as far as they possibly could in OTL, with the exception of the possible capture of Monte Grappa. It was the Italians who stopped them in the end, not the divisions sent by the British/French as commonly quoted. You need a specific PoD during the planning phase of the Caporetto Offnesive itself to have a better result than OTL (but that’s a different thread entirely).

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.
A very bold statement.
 
No it is much easier. Even if (and that if should be in bold and font size 200) the absolute wish dream of the Entente wins fraction becomes true against all available sources of OTL and the USA would allow unsecured loans to the UK...

then there are the following points.

1. How would the mutinies go without the USA in and without the promise of US troops coming? How to quell them? And that goes for the moral of all Entente troops.
2. The UK was running out of ships and fast. Even without USW the sinkings were far higher than the buildings. And without the help of the USN and the merchant shipping from the USA a convoy system is not possible.
3. Even the Germans would notice that suddenly unsecured loans were given meaning they know that the Entente is in the ropes. So no hastily and badly prepared offensive in March.
4. Even though the impact of the US troops was not that big until Jan 18 it was much more felt in March. Even if the missing troops in March made only 10 divisions it would have been enough for the Germans to break through. Haig actually stated 6 would have been enough,

One and two being the most important ones as they would have a direct short term impact. Latest Oct 17 the Entente would have to curtail operations massively due to the lack of imports due to the lack of shipping. And with that and the low moral of the troops it is the Entente asking for terms.

But again even this scenario is a pipe dream due to the fact that in April 17 the UK is broke and the USA has made it clear twice that no unsecured loans are going out. Anybody assuming otherwise so far has not brought up a shred of evidence it will change its mind.

Cryhavoc, waiting for sources that Wilson wanted to go to war Dec 16 or do you want to retract that statement?
 
Last edited:
Top