WWI allies have to beat germany without the U.S.

it will be interesting when all the french files about the mutiny get unsealed. the true scope of it is still conjecture because the republic sealed the records for 150 years
 
it will be interesting when all the french files about the mutiny get unsealed. the true scope of it is still conjecture because the republic sealed the records for 150 years
France seals its records for 150 years? That's a lot longer than usual, and I'm surprised there aren't a lot of historians making a big fuss over it.
 
France seals its records for 150 years? That's a lot longer than usual, and I'm surprised there aren't a lot of historians making a big fuss over it.

I don't believe its standard procedure (Hendryk might be able to confirm the normal policy)... but with the mutiny it was sealed for 150 years so there is conjecture on everything from how many divisions where involved (most historians guess in the mid 60's) to how many executions where carried out against the ringleaders by the government (the total varies widely based on who is doing the guessing)
 

Deleted member 1487

According to "France and the Great War 1917-1918" there was only a 100 year lock on the files, so they should open in 2017. Also, there have been historians let into the archives, but they were only allowed to request certain files, and had to know exactly what they were looking for. So there might be a gold mine of information that we don't even know exists. But I thought there was uniformity of opinion that only about 43 or so soldiers were actually executed, though I have heard stories that there might have been an entire division in mutiny and it was "escorted" into an open field behind the line and shelled into oblivion. Now these are just rumors, and something like that was bound to be much more well known, but nevertheless, there has to be a reason for the hundred year lock on the files. Just like why there are locks on British and American files from WW2....
 
According to "France and the Great War 1917-1918" there was only a 100 year lock on the files, so they should open in 2017. Also, there have been historians let into the archives, but they were only allowed to request certain files, and had to know exactly what they were looking for. So there might be a gold mine of information that we don't even know exists. But I thought there was uniformity of opinion that only about 43 or so soldiers were actually executed, though I have heard stories that there might have been an entire division in mutiny and it was "escorted" into an open field behind the line and shelled into oblivion. Now these are just rumors, and something like that was bound to be much more well known, but nevertheless, there has to be a reason for the hundred year lock on the files. Just like why there are locks on British and American files from WW2....

Is it possible that they mixed lock times... 100 for the mutiny's and 150 for the executions?... I can't recall my source on the 150 I am still at work and don't have access to all my books... the 150 sticks in my mind though as being attached to some part of the mutiny
 
According to "France and the Great War 1917-1918" there was only a 100 year lock on the files, so they should open in 2017. Also, there have been historians let into the archives, but they were only allowed to request certain files, and had to know exactly what they were looking for. So there might be a gold mine of information that we don't even know exists. But I thought there was uniformity of opinion that only about 43 or so soldiers were actually executed, though I have heard stories that there might have been an entire division in mutiny and it was "escorted" into an open field behind the line and shelled into oblivion. Now these are just rumors, and something like that was bound to be much more well known, but nevertheless, there has to be a reason for the hundred year lock on the files. Just like why there are locks on British and American files from WW2....

I have seen estimates for the number of executions range from 43 to 110. They where weird trials... conducted by their own divisional officers in a lot of cases with the implied consent of the rank and file... very strange for a mutiny. Rast's characterization of the event as a general strike is probably more fitting
 
It depends on how much "without" America the allies are

if america is completely and utterly neutral and doesn't supply materials and war credits in huge amounts to the entente you might see the war end after the Somme if not somewhat earlier (the American's where supplying a huge portion of British artillery pieces, ammo, rifles and a number of other vital commodities not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that financed the war

if it stays as otl where America is just waging economic war against Germany by financing and arming the entente but not actually shooting you could see perhaps a status quo pro ante peace in 1918... the British and French where exausted and the Germans at least in the initial stages of the spring offensive looked dominent


The point was that things could not continue, financially, as they had done.

As of Winter 1916/17, all US loans had been secured on Allied (mostly British) property in America or Canada, which would be out of reach even of a victorious Germany. So American lenders would not lose their money, whatever happened in Europe.

By 1917, however, all such collateral was in use, so that any future loans would have to be unsecured. The House of Morgan attempted to raise such a loan in Nov 1916, but this triggered a sharp warning from the Federal reserve Board that such loans were risky and inadvisable. This effectively scuppered the project, and also caused a run on Sterling. So it looked very much as if the flow of US money was drying up.

The US government changed its position on this matter only on March 8, a week after the publication of the Zimmermann Note (and five days after Zimmermann had admitted its authenticity) ie when war was pretty clerarly imminent. And in fact no unsecured loan was actually made until May, after the US Ambassador in London had sent a frantic letter revealing the crisis in Britain's finances, and Arthur Balfour had been sent over with, in effect, a begging bowl.

There is some debate about just how severe the effect on Britain's war effort would have been, absent US intervention. However, it seems pretty clear that she could not have continued to subsidise her continental allies (a French request for a new loan was turned down in late 1916) which implies that France and Italy would probably have been forced out of the war by the end of 1917. Given the impending collapse of Russia, this would mean Britain entering 1918 in a situation akin to 1940 - but much more exhausted.

(See Devlin "Too Proud to Fight" and Horn "Britain, France and the Financing of the First World War" for some discussion of the matter).

In this situation, arguing over how much the AEF did or didn't contribute to the 1918 battles is pretty much irrelevant. 1918 isn't going to happen in anything like the form we remember.
 
Basically, there would be not much difference, appart from a lower inflow of weapons and goods from the USA to the UK and France.


Which would be more than enough.

Minus the Liberty Loan, Britain is liable to find herself unable to subsidise France, so the latter's imports, in particular, are going to take a nosedive.

This leaves no option (unless she's willing to make peace on German terms) save to go for all-out victory before shortage of supplies cripples her. So Petain is either overruled or removed, a bit like Joseph E Johnston in 1864, and a "fighting general", like some French version of John B Hood, is installed in his place. So the second half of 1917 is a bit like OTL's 1918 "in reverse", with the Allies, rather than the Germans, throwing in all they've got in the hope of winning before the sands run out.

Assuming this gambler's throw fails, as frontal attacks generally did in WW1, expect another and bigger "Nivelle mutiny", just as French supplies are running down, Russia is finally dropping out, and the Germans readying a counter-attack. Wilhelm II and Hindenburg celebrate Christmas in Paris.

With France and Russia out, all that remains on the continent are a few mopping-up operations to polish off Italy and other minor Allies, followed by heavy pressure on the European neutrals - now left completely at Germany's mercy - to cut off trade with Britain. Britain herself, of course, is now in a situation akin to OTL's 1940, but exhausted by three years of trench warfare, facing a Germany far stronger at sea than Hitler's was, and with no prospect of gaining any fresh allies. Sometime in early 1918, expect her to make peace on whatever terms she can get.
 

burmafrd

Banned
http://ww1history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_battle_of_seicheprey_1918

2 US ARMY regiments appear to have been the first good sized units to see combat late April. And of course the marines at Bellaue Wood a month later.

US financial,and food and other material aid were vital for the allies.

Napoleon said the morale vs material is 3-1. I think that might be a little overstated but who am I to argue with Napoleon?

It is hard to figure just how much the US entry into the war figured into the allied side of things by any subjective account. BUT it seems a safe bet to say that as regards morale and maybe most of all hope for victory that it was substantial.

It is interesting to hypothesize what happens without the US supporting the allies so substantially before the Declaration of War in April 1917. Clearly financially it was very critical for Britain since they had been propping up France for the last year.

Most of all you wonder that if the Allies see no real hope and the Germans are feeling more hopeful with the defeat of Russia, maybe a negotiated peace happens late in 1917?

Butterflying all the grievances the Germans nurse after WW1. Leaving a Germany strong enough to keep from collapsing and opening the door for Hitler.

Maybe only fighting in WW2 is in the Pacific? Of course you still have Stalin to worry about- unless the Germans do not ship Lenin into Russia. Maybe no Communist takeover? Have to wonder what happens to Kerrensky if war ends in 1917- I am trying to remember when Lenin overthrew him.
 
I'd say that military intervention by the Americans is unnecessary. The Entente doesn't even need to attack. All they require is that they don't loose, and the blockade will destroy Germany before they can extract enough from the ruins of the Russian Empire to feed themselves.

Of course, by that point in late 1919 they are going to be looking at there not being a functional state to surrender to them, but the French and British probably just leave the Germans to starve and anarchy to engulf Central Europe thanks to their mutual exhaustion.

Remember, the Spanish Flu pandemic had reached Germany by October 1918, and the long term severe malnutrition sufferred by the civilan population, IOTL caused Germany to suffer 3.5 times as badly as the UK, and that's with the blockade being relaxed in March 1919.

If the Entente simply sit in their trenches until well into 1919, I can't see how German civil society is going to survive. If the disintegration of the transport system continues we could be looking at literally a million+ deaths.
 
Last edited:
I'd say that military intervention by the Americans is unnecessary. The Entente doesn't even need to attack. All they require is that they don't loose, and the blockade will destroy Germany before they can extract enough from the ruins of the Russian Empire to feed themselves.

Except, of course, that the blockade got a lot tighter following US intervention. Her abandonment of neutrality meant that the few remaining neutrals had virtually no one left to trade with except the Entente. So they had to toe the line. Also, of course, quite a large slice of the neutral goods getting into Germany had come directly or indirectly from the US, hence were now cut off at source.

Yet even so, Germany carried on for nearly two more years. Keep the US neutral, and the blockade is a good deal weaker. It will still make life in Germany thoroughly unpleasant for a lot of people, but there's no reason why it should come anywhere near destroying her.


If the Entente simply sit in their trenches until well into 1919,

Forget it.

Without the massive American financial support which she received after April 1917 (far greater than before that date) Britain can no longer subsidise her allies, so by the end of 1917 is likely to be fighting alone. To "just sit in their trenches" is unlikely to be practical even into 1918, never mind 1919.
 
Top