WW-I. United States stay out.
- Thread starter lounge60
- Start date
What we need is a TL where the US stay away from supporting (and later joining) the Entente. (T. W. Wilson gone to Lumbago Bay?)
And in this constellation (with Russia at the same time being paralysed by revolution) the Western Allies, i.e. Britain and France, beat the Central Powers nevertheless. AH at its best...
And in this constellation (with Russia at the same time being paralysed by revolution) the Western Allies, i.e. Britain and France, beat the Central Powers nevertheless. AH at its best...
Without the US there is a far better chance of stalemate, if not out of military deficiency from 4 years of destruction across the continent, than from exhaustion at a war where neither side can get their adversary to give up.
The Central Powers were already losing when the US joined. In the war, the US were hardly needed. Even if the USA stayed neutral, we would have won.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
I guess we will assume there were no unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, that should do the job to keep the Yanks out.
Several possibilities
Central Powers win; Probably not a Total Victory, but there is a chance France might crumble after Russia is knocked out of the war. White Peace with Britain possible after defeat of France.
Entente victory; The German economy completely collapse due to the North Sea Blockade, and the fact that Germany is unable to import food forces Germany to surrender. Not a complete Entente victory as OTL though.
Negotiated Peace; The frontlines remained locked. Popular resentment against the war, starvation and Communist uprisings force all powers to the negotiation table and some kind of agreement is hammered out.
Several possibilities
Central Powers win; Probably not a Total Victory, but there is a chance France might crumble after Russia is knocked out of the war. White Peace with Britain possible after defeat of France.
Entente victory; The German economy completely collapse due to the North Sea Blockade, and the fact that Germany is unable to import food forces Germany to surrender. Not a complete Entente victory as OTL though.
Negotiated Peace; The frontlines remained locked. Popular resentment against the war, starvation and Communist uprisings force all powers to the negotiation table and some kind of agreement is hammered out.
terence
Banned
Re: if the US staye out of WW1
I can only concur. Although US sources make a lot of the US entry into the war in April 1917, the truth is that US troops did not engage the enemy in any numbers until the Battle of Catigny in May 1918, previously having been consigned to support and rear roles due to a slow training regime and lack of equipment, except for the odd pride-saving attachment to French and British units.
May 1918 was after the German's spring offensives had failed. While the Germans achieved the greatest advance since 1914, it was these Spring Offensives that broke the German Army. Apart from the best of the specially trained Stormtruppen being ground to mincemeat, those that did overun British and Commonwealth trenches found an abundance of food and equipment that they could hardly dream of. Defeatism spread through the German Army, not least amongst the senior officer caste. The allied stop of the offensive and the counter-offensives of May to August 1914--especially the Canadian-ANZAC spearhead at Amiens did the rest. Hindenberg and Ludendorf essentially cracked.
The US involvement was esentially psychological. The Allied press made much of the 2 million troops that had arrived in France and contemporary photos show young, tall, strong, healthy looking men compared to the worn-out dregs left to the British and French (and Germans).
A lot of criticism has been made of the refusal of the American command to heed British and French advice on tactics and sacrifice their troops as the Allies had done from 1915-1917; but maybe that also influenced the Germans who in August 1918 just wanted it all to end.
I can only concur. Although US sources make a lot of the US entry into the war in April 1917, the truth is that US troops did not engage the enemy in any numbers until the Battle of Catigny in May 1918, previously having been consigned to support and rear roles due to a slow training regime and lack of equipment, except for the odd pride-saving attachment to French and British units.
May 1918 was after the German's spring offensives had failed. While the Germans achieved the greatest advance since 1914, it was these Spring Offensives that broke the German Army. Apart from the best of the specially trained Stormtruppen being ground to mincemeat, those that did overun British and Commonwealth trenches found an abundance of food and equipment that they could hardly dream of. Defeatism spread through the German Army, not least amongst the senior officer caste. The allied stop of the offensive and the counter-offensives of May to August 1914--especially the Canadian-ANZAC spearhead at Amiens did the rest. Hindenberg and Ludendorf essentially cracked.
The US involvement was esentially psychological. The Allied press made much of the 2 million troops that had arrived in France and contemporary photos show young, tall, strong, healthy looking men compared to the worn-out dregs left to the British and French (and Germans).
A lot of criticism has been made of the refusal of the American command to heed British and French advice on tactics and sacrifice their troops as the Allies had done from 1915-1917; but maybe that also influenced the Germans who in August 1918 just wanted it all to end.
A lot depends on how exactly the US is staying out of the war; there's a big difference between the US holding to strict neutrality and OTL's biased neutrality. A lot of people tend to overlook just how much materiel the US provided to their allies in both World Wars, even when the US was still technically neutral; getting rid of or reducing that contribution (or shifting some of that production to the Central Powers) can make a difference in the outcome of the war.
One of the more intriguing possibilities is a US that adopts a position similar to the one it had in the Napoleonic Wars, defending its trade rights against both German submarines and British blockades.
One of the more intriguing possibilities is a US that adopts a position similar to the one it had in the Napoleonic Wars, defending its trade rights against both German submarines and British blockades.
terence
Banned
WW1: US Stays out
An Entente victory in any case.
No USA= No Wilson 14 points=No 'self determination'= no break up of Europe into little statelets.
No little statelets, no Sudetan, Czech, Polish causi belli twenty years on, maybe.
Greater US investment in post war Germany, greater US influence with post-war German political parties. (Hitler only got $1000 from Houseman).
A restraining hand on German Nationalism, the US could be friends to a friendless Nation. (In OTL a lot of US investment went to Soviet Russia)
No 1922 Washington Naval treaty. The US remains a second class Naval power.
A softer 1930s recession and a more rapid recovery.
Earlier re-armament of a democratic Germany against the Bolshevik threat.
Looser Anglo-US co-operation.
A higher degree of European Great-power economic co-operation.
WW2 replaced by the European War against Bolshevism.
An Entente victory in any case.
No USA= No Wilson 14 points=No 'self determination'= no break up of Europe into little statelets.
No little statelets, no Sudetan, Czech, Polish causi belli twenty years on, maybe.
Greater US investment in post war Germany, greater US influence with post-war German political parties. (Hitler only got $1000 from Houseman).
A restraining hand on German Nationalism, the US could be friends to a friendless Nation. (In OTL a lot of US investment went to Soviet Russia)
No 1922 Washington Naval treaty. The US remains a second class Naval power.
A softer 1930s recession and a more rapid recovery.
Earlier re-armament of a democratic Germany against the Bolshevik threat.
Looser Anglo-US co-operation.
A higher degree of European Great-power economic co-operation.
WW2 replaced by the European War against Bolshevism.
Empee
Banned
By the time of entry of USA into the war, Entente already supported indepedence of opressed nations in Central Powers territories. Central Powers in Russian Empire did the same, although their idea of "independence" meant serving Germany. There was no way to stop that, once 1915 passed.
By 1918 the attempt to stop Central and Eastern Europe from freeing itself would require a military intervention on large scale, none of the sides would be able to field due to internal considerations at home.
Without USA's idea of self-determination the Germans might be denied the referendums they had, or if the war goes longer, Germany itself might be divided.
However CP victory is not possible, they were starving. Read "All quite on the Western Front"-German troops were hunting rats, French troops were eating cheese and drinking wine in trenches.
Could happen. I don't think Germany's going to hang on to her colonies in any scenario. A white peace on the Western Front, including Belgium and Italy(maybe ceding Trentino to Italy), coupled with Allied ratification of Brest-Livorsk, would make for an interesting postwar Europe to say the least.
Germany can certainly negotiate to get its colonies back in exchange for pulling out of the territory they occupy in Belgium and France; IMO they would at least try to hold onto their East Africa colony as a point of pride.
The Italians are also hardly in a position to make any demads for territory in a negotiated peace, especially if the peace occurs after Caporetto.
There's no way that situation would remain stable. The US navy would end up coming to blows with one side or the other.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I don't believe that that is a given or not. The same economic conditions exist in an Entente victory ATL as they do in OTL.
Empee
Banned
Economic reasons why the CP can't win:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/papers/ww1toronto2.pdf
Especially the data on pages following 25th are interesting.
Even if due to military luck or genius they would cripple France, Germany and other CP powers would be in dire economical situation, which determines their ability to continue conquests or stabilise the revolting European territories unlikely.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/papers/ww1toronto2.pdf
Especially the data on pages following 25th are interesting.
Even if due to military luck or genius they would cripple France, Germany and other CP powers would be in dire economical situation, which determines their ability to continue conquests or stabilise the revolting European territories unlikely.
Depends on how Germany and Britain respond to US pressure to allow free trade rights. IMO Germany would be fairly open to such an idea since they stand to benefit much more from unrestricted trade with neutrals, and Britain probably remembers 1812 well enough to at least attempt a diplomatic solution.