WI US stays out of WW1, but Japan sends troops to Europe.

[oca2073]

Suppose a scenario where Woodrow Wilson is more committed to isolationism despite German sinking US merchant ships and/or the Zimmerman Telegraph never gets sent.

Also suppose that in 1917, a desperate Britain makes more concessions to Japan for them to send their army to Europe to bolster France. (Japan gains German New Guinea/Samoa/Nauru.)

Basically, instead of a surge of Americans 1917-1918, we have a somewhat slower and smaller surge of Japanese troops instead due to greater distances involved in transporting men + smaller population. US unsecured loans still arrive due to anger over German u-boat attacks. Is it sufficient to stop the coming German offensive like OTL?

Can WW1 outcome be largely the same without US involvement? And without US influence, how hard does Germany get hit in the Peace Treaty? What else changes in the Treaty of Versailles? Do Eastern Europe nations still become independent? Does Italy get Dalmatia?

 

[David Flin]

Basically, instead of a surge of Americans 1917-1918, we have a somewhat slower and smaller surge of Japanese troops instead due to greater distances involved in transporting men + smaller population. Is it sufficient to stop the coming German offensive?

Given that the OTL Spring Offensive was stopped without any noticeable US input on the ground, it seems likely that a similar Spring Offensive would also be stopped, with or without Japanese involvement.

Can WW1 outcome be largely the same without US involvement? And without US influence, how hard does Germany get hit in the Peace Treaty? What else changes in the Treaty of Versailles? Do Eastern Europe nations still become independent? Does Italy get Dalmatia?

The Turnip Winter and the subsequent starvation of Germany suggests that by 1919, Germany simply wouldn't be able to continue fighting.

 

[oca2073]

The Turnip Winter and the subsequent starvation of Germany suggests that by 1919, Germany simply wouldn't be able to continue fighting.

So what does the treaty look like for Europe? Also, what are the implications for a less isolationist USA in 1920s/30s?

 

[David Flin]

So what does the treaty look like for Europe? Also, what are the implications for a less isolationist USA in 1920s/30s?

1. One can argue for any number of different outcomes. Essentially, you don't have Wilson at the Peace Conference, but you do have Japan. Japan is certainly going to get the recognition it wanted, but other than that, plenty of variations to choose from.

2. Why would an isolationist USA that side-stepped getting involved in WW1 be less isolationist in the aftermath, when it has just demonstrated that it wasn't interested in getting involved in European entanglements?

Your TL/suggestion, your ideas are what is needed at this stage.

 

[raharris1973]

How are Australia and New Zealand, completely jilted of territorial war spoils (all handed over to Japan), feeling by war's end. Have they participated throughout the war at 100% enthusiasm of OTL?

Can WW1 outcome be largely the same without US involvement? And without US influence, how hard does Germany get hit in the Peace Treaty?

Yes. This implies that US involvement in the treaty somehow softened treatment of Germany in it (rescuing it from territorial partition or something). That is a myth.

Do Eastern Europe nations still become independent?

Yes. To argue otherwise suggests that OTL's causation was Wilson says self-determination is good ---> European peoples decide to try national ethnic national states. That is a myth. The Slavic nationalities were or would have thought of setting up their national states without Wilsonian pronouncements as a belligerent.

Does Italy get Dalmatia?

Maybe - especially if any text from the Treaty of London can support it. But potentially France and Serbia/Yugoslavia can work against this.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Slavic nationalities were or would have thought of setting up their national states without Wilsonian pronouncements as a belligerent.

And if peace is made in 1916, ie before the Habsburg Monarchy falls, then it won't come up at the peace conference anyway, save possibly iro Poland.

 

[Catspoke]

This is an interesting POD.

I can see a Japanese naval squadron in the Mediterranean or north sea for sure.
I can see a Japanese 2 division expeditionary force on the western front and/or in Iraq or Palestine/ and/or Salonika replacing the British there.

I think its hard for the Allies to win without USA, no USA loans to Russia, less USA financial support. Downscaling of western front offensive in late 1917, maybe no Kerensky offensive, will put the Allies even more on their heels in 1918, without the ability to launch a counter offensive, Italy may be considerably worse off.

Yes the blockade will hurt, but with America neutral there is still a minimal blockade hole. I don't see why the Germans couldn't be still in Spring 1919. Probably the biggest risk factor for the Germans long term is rubber for gas masks.

 

[pjmidd]

This is an interesting POD.

I can see a Japanese naval squadron in the Mediterranean or north sea for sure.
I can see a Japanese 2 division expeditionary force on the western front and/or in Iraq or Palestine/ and/or Salonika replacing the British there.

I think its hard for the Allies to win without USA, no USA loans to Russia, less USA financial support. Downscaling of western front offensive in late 1917, maybe no Kerensky offensive, will put the Allies even more on their heels in 1918, without the ability to launch a counter offensive, Italy may be considerably worse off.

Yes the blockade will hurt, but with America neutral there is still a minimal blockade hole. I don't see why the Germans couldn't be still in Spring 1919. Probably the biggest risk factor for the Germans long term is rubber for gas masks.

Germany , by the end of 1918 , was facing disaster. Simply put they had robbed Peter to pay Paul and Peter was finally coming round with the heavies for his money. Railways and rolling stock were getting worn past useful life for example and this was leading to logistics starting to collapse ( every horse was already in use, petrol was very scarce etc so no way of compensating ), especially farm to city. So even if somehow the harvest was better than expected , it would rot on the farms and the cities would have starved.

Japan had a small squadron in the Med OTL, they did convoy escort and ASW work.

USA loans to Russia is confusing as it nearly all was guaranteed by Britain or France, its they that got hit by the Soviet default not the USA. Cannot see why the US would cut loans to them as it was being used to buy American goods, so cutting loans would crash the US economy.

 

[oca2073]

How are Australia and New Zealand, completely jilted of territorial war spoils (all handed over to Japan), feeling by war's end. Have they participated throughout the war at 100% enthusiasm of OTL?

Did the average Australian and New Zealander care about New Guinea all that much?

 

[oca2073]

2. Why would an isolationist USA that side-stepped getting involved in WW1 be less isolationist in the aftermath, when it has just demonstrated that it wasn't interested in getting involved in European entanglements?

US public hated the experience of WW1, all that slaughter for nothing. Wilson's promises not kept, ect. Without intervention, they might think they could make things better if they did get involved in the next war earlier.

 

[raharris1973]

Did the average Australian and New Zealander care about New Guinea all that much?

Not in particular - But it's the principle of the thing- it would be seen as a lack of respect by London, a deal made over their heads, taking them and theoor loyalty and sacrifices for granted. And actually, no, they would not relish the prospect of having a land border with the Japanese Empire on the island of New Guinea, where Japanese troops would stand off from Australian ones, and Japanese could try to illegally immigrate - that would be the consequence of Japan inheriting German New Guinea.

US public hated the experience of WW1, all that slaughter for nothing. Wilson's promises not kept, ect. Without intervention, they might think they could make things better if they did get involved in the next war earlier.

That is not a bad point!

 

[Mark E.]

And if peace is made in 1916, ie before the Habsburg Monarchy falls, then it won't come up at the peace conference anyway, save possibly iro Poland.

In such a case, the war is shortened and ends in more of a draw, with no interference from Wilson, if he is president. Earlier settlement should mean no Bolshevik revolution, no Lenin, no Stalin, no Trotsky. No 18th Amendment, even if congress outlaws distilled liquor for a time. You have a re-written century following.

 

[Catspoke]

Germany , by the end of 1918 , was facing disaster. Simply put they had robbed Peter to pay Paul and Peter was finally coming round with the heavies for his money. Railways and rolling stock were getting worn past useful life for example and this was leading to logistics starting to collapse ( every horse was already in use, petrol was very scarce etc so no way of compensating ), especially farm to city. So even if somehow the harvest was better than expected , it would rot on the farms and the cities would have starved.

Japan had a small squadron in the Med OTL, they did convoy escort and ASW work.

USA loans to Russia is confusing as it nearly all was guaranteed by Britain or France, its they that got hit by the Soviet default not the USA. Cannot see why the US would cut loans to them as it was being used to buy American goods, so cutting loans would crash the US economy.

This article about page 31 talks about USA efforts to keep Russia actually fighting by dangling loans in front of them.

https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2289&context=etd

There is also talk on this web site about how Britain and France wouldn't be able to continue the war without USA entry in April 1917 due to financial reasons.
(I think it far more likely the Allies would have to scale back their offensives, and rely on the long term blockade to win it for them, that combined with less USA diplomatic support for the Kerensky offensive, might lead to a decision of the Kerensky government to just hold the line and not attack in 1917, lots of butterflies, on some of these, not all bad for the Allies though, especially if the Kerensky government didn't fall!)

Agree on the general long term issues facing the Central Powers (rolling stock etc.), they may be forced into a peace by Spring/Summer of 1919, Allied pressure would be less, and there would be a limited blockade hole still for strategic supplies, so they might be able to fake it for a while longer.

This biggest risk for Germany is their Bulgarian and Turkish allies would be completely done by 1919, and maybe Austria too.

Smart Germany might make a peace earlier than this, especially if no hundred days is possible in this TL without American support, a more compromise armistice/peace might be reached. They probably won't be that smart.

 

[Post]

Smart Germany might make a peace earlier than this, especially if no hundred days is possible in this TL without American support, a more compromise armistice/peace might be reached. They probably won't be that smart.

I saw an appropriate meme for that today in the AH-memes thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ah-com-memes-ii.469821/page-429#post-23407202

 

[Drizzt]

Unless Japan not only sends troops to Europe in lieu of the USA, but also extends generous unsecured loans to Britain and France the Entente will run out of credit in late 1917 aka around the same time the CP get a big morale boost and clearly look like the winning side from neutral countries PoV, when Russia throws the towel.
The Enteneaboos are correct when they keep on pointing out that US troops didn't make much of a difference, but US money is another matter.

 

[JackLumber]

Japan is an extremely poor substitute for the US.
Likely see a negotiated peace in the west that sees very little actual change but considering Germany has already won in the east they in effect win the war.
Without US funds and resources I don't think the entente has the leverage to force any kind of harsh peace on the germans.

 

[CalBear]

Unless Japan not only sends troops to Europe in lieu of the USA, but also extends generous unsecured loans to Britain and France the Entente will run out of credit in late 1917 aka around the same time the CP get a big morale boost and clearly look like the winning side from neutral countries PoV, when Russia throws the towel.
The Enteneaboos are correct when they keep on pointing out that US troops didn't make much of a difference, but US money is another matter.

Enteneaboos?

Oh, HELL no.

I have a moral responsibility to stop this shit right here!

NEVER post this again

 

[Slime_blob]

More isolationist, Philippine independence when? Better Jones act? Probably I'm hoping immediate independence

 

[oca2073]

Japan is an extremely poor substitute for the US.
Likely see a negotiated peace in the west that sees very little actual change but considering Germany has already won in the east they in effect win the war.
Without US fund ls and resources I don't think the entente has the leverage to force any kind of harsh peace on the germans.

Unless Japan not only sends troops to Europe in lieu of the USA, but also extends generous unsecured loans to Britain and France the Entente will run out of credit in late 1917 aka around the same time the CP get a big morale boost and clearly look like the winning side from neutral countries PoV, when Russia throws the towel.
The Enteneaboos are correct when they keep on pointing out that US troops didn't make much of a difference, but US money is another matter.

The US funds the war effort, including Japan, but Wilson decides that's enough and sits out of WW1. So no US troops in Europe but continued US funding + Japanese troops is the scenario.

 

[Drizzt]

The US funds the war effort, including Japan, but Wilson decides that's enough and sits out of WW1. So no US troops in Europe but continued US funding + Japanese troops is the scenario.

The US funded the war effort, but only with secured loans. It wasn't until some time that they joined the war, they they made unsecured loans. Those wouldn't happen in a neutral US scenario, so once collateral runs out, so do new loans.