"What if no USA involvement in the Great War?" Topic

What if that blowhard hypocrite Wilson (nope, no prejudices here…) had actually followed his campaign promises and kept us out of the war?
What if we had stayed neutral?
No desperate German 1918 offensive. No hanging on because the Yanks were coming.
What if the war ended with mutual exhaustion on both sides and no blame assigned to Germany?

I crossposted to World War Two Discussion because one war naturally followed the other. Some have said both wars were a second Thirty Years War.

Honestly? I think it would have ended in mutual exhaustion or an allied win. The Germans, Brits, and French were all on the ropes. The Germans just recouped their forces from the east and were in position to strike a knock out blow, which the allies absorbed. The British were fighting each other over replacements with the PM holding reinforcements from the BEF. But… the BEF had a lot of tanks being churned out. I think the Brits could have still launched their counteroffensive during the late summer into the fall, but it would have run out steam.

But one question, no US forces means that the French would have had to stop the Second Marne on their own with no corps sized 3rd ID to earn its nickname (Rock of the Marne). That would leave a large hole in the French line that they would have had to plug, plus you had other US formations in reserve. That is an interesting question.

I'd say a German win. They were not as much on the ropes as the allies were by the end of 1917

Eurpoean wars usually end at a peace table, so Armistice in early 1919 I reckon. Germans exhausted, Allies similarly shattered, but with Anglo-French tank tech demonstrating a clear advantage, the Germans could have sought an honourable withdrawl to 1914 boundaries.

Overall the only major effect would be a communist Russia and maybe a German-Russian war in the late 20's or early 30's.

Not much change from history IMHO. Germans were a busted flush in 1917 and even with the peace on the Eastern front they could only manage one last offensive in the west. Once that was spent and even without the US it was only a matter of time before they overstretched their logistics capacity. Once held they were done, the naval blockade would have finished off their will to fight on. Main difference (maybe) a less draconian peace treaty. OTOH without US influence it might have been even harsher…

Moot point. link

War may well have been called off with labor rebellions at home in one or more countries. Big dice roll to see which citizenry revolts first, or if they tie.

I am with the majority here: mutual exhaustion, shattered economies and radical ideologies on the rise. Instead a peace treaty would have been just an armistice, but the structural problems caused by the war wouldn't have gone out of the window just because nobody could have claimed victory. Probably, with a stronger army Germany would have gone the way of Italy in the 20s, with some short of Fascist coup rather than a Nazi takeover. I can imagine Hitler as a locally strong politician, but he would have never got to be Reich's chancellor.

The US history wouldn't have changed significatively. Still, It would have been the strongest economy. Britain would have been as exhausted as historically was; and France even more. Maybe France would have gone the same path than Italy, with a Fascist government under Petain.

As potential what-if I can imagine a Continental Block of Fascist states (France, Italy, Germany, Hungary and Poland) pit against Great Britain for Europe's hegemony. Maybe, in that scenario, the Spanish Civil War would have acted as the spark that ignited a new World War.

If we had stayed completely neutral. No arms shipments to the allies ect. I think Germany would have won. Germany's submarine warfare was doing great damage to Britain. Without US aid not sure the allies could have won.

Being left as a strong economy with the rest of the developed world unable to trade due to their monetary systems being in chaos and debt wouldn't do the USA much good. Having failed to respond to the sinking of its shipping by the Germans wouldn't put its political credit high with the allies either.

I don't think the answers are as simple as some posters make out, the western front wasn't the only area of conflict and the allies were actually doing OK in most of the others and would have continued to do so without US troops.

It may have forced the Allies to find ways to bring Russia back into the war, though the stupid and clumsy attempts just after the war don't bode particularly well for that.

By mid 1917 the Allies had the technological advantage and by the end of the year were out-producing Germany by a large margin – that had to get worse for Germany as time went on.

A negotiated peace in 1918-19 with slightly favorable terms to Germany in the west.

Without the US, the odds do not favor Britain and France. Blockade would be as crippling to them as to the Germans. Without the hope of US support, the mutinies of '17 would have resulted in a French Army entrenched on the defensive. Without France, Britain cannot carry the offensive burden.

Without the US, the Germans (and Austro-Hungarians) are not forced to launch the 1918 offensive and can actually get some of the manpower back in the agriculture sector.

The war grinds on. Wilson still has a role, as he pushes all parties to seek a negotiated settlement.

The major winner would have still been the Avian flu or the Spanish flu as it was called in 1918-19. It would have decimated any fresh German troops from the east and weakened the Allied resolve. So as stated earlier a negotiated peace rather than an armistice.

Impact on future events…! More democratic opposition to the Communists in Russia. The French having had a sour taste for communist due to the revolt of Russian troops on French soil would have been more vigorous in their opposition in Russia and Spain. The depression could have lead to worker revolts as well as nationalist revolts around the world.

Hilarious.

Come on chaps, are you serious? Germany had shot its bolt with the spring offensive/operation Michael and the breakthrough made at the Battle of Amiens effectively sealed its fate. Whatever you may have read, the Argonne offensive was a mere sideshow and Pershing's insistence on doing it his way meant that Germany was all but finished by the time the AEF attacked.

I make no claims to a major battlefield impact by the US. Where I imagine that it made a difference is morale. At that point the fact that help was coming and you have enthusiastic allies flowing in – it had to make a morale effect both on the citizenry and the armies. The Germans would have turned a blind eye to US shipping – kind of a wink and nod that the arms and supplies were not worth getting the US directly involved.
In general I would have to say that the Germans absolutely blew it with the US diplomatically. There was no "special relationship," in fact there was a large Germanic population and the most recent wars against European powers had been against the British. The British and US economies were linked, but I could easily see a path where the US stays neutral

IIRC, about half of all the artillery ammunition and explosives consumed by the Entente was provided by the USA.

B

Allies still win, but interesting point about morale.

Can't see it would have made any difference at all.

Regardless of what you think the AEF accomplished on the battlefield…

…WWI was not won or lost on the battlefield.

The German state collapsed from within, just like the other Central Powers.
This resulted in regime change, and (Surprise, surprise!) the new regime didn't want to inherit the old regime's war, and sued for peace.
Again – exactly like the rest of the Central Powers.

None of that had much to do with the front-line situation on the Western front.
It had much more to do with the wave of revolutionary movements sweeping Europe at the time, and with Germany's catastrophic food and material shortages (caused primarily by the Royal Navy's blockade).

Germany's allies had collapsed, the German people were literally starving, and there were rival armed militant groups fighting in the streets.
And those points would still have been true even if not a single Doughboy had set foot in Europe.

As to the efficacy of the respective naval campaigns:

In Britain:
1916: it becomes punishable – by a modest fine – to eat more than three courses at dinner, in a public place. (War is Hell.)
1917: voluntary rationing.
1918: limited compulsory rationing of certain foods, leading to generally increased dietary health due to the lower proportions of sugar and bread in the diet and increased proportion of vegetables – a phenomena which would be seen again during WWII.

In Germany: Three-quarters of a million dead of starvation.

Of course, you all know that despite it's name, The Spanish Flu was brought to Europe by U.S. troops. Possibly from converting former chicken farms to army camps.

So, the collapse of Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire; would they have happened the same way?

Without the US the Allies still win but it takes a little longer – and Germany has the chance to negotiate a peace that leaves them with their original frontiers in the West and maybe keep a little bit in the East – plus maybe, just maybe, the Ottomans and AustrioHungarians keep at least a little bit together, which was what the original goal of Versailles was

FYI, latest evidence and studies of 1918 Spanish Flue source is China.

link

Raylev

Not actually. What those studies claim is that there are some circumstancial evidences that could point to China as the potential primary source of the epidemic. Some of those evidences are a bit weak, though. For instance, the author claims that the lower mortality in China would suggest a certain kind of immunity due to a previous exposure to the virus. China in 1917 was in turmoil; the State had collapsed and warlords roamed the fields. Any statistical evidence would be flimsy, at best. Furthermore, another evidence is a report from a British diplomatic official. The actual epidemic mistified highly trained doctors; their symptoms were not consistent accross the victims; some of them developed symptoms characteristic of pneumonia; others suffered what we know call "cytokine storm"; finally, many developed mild cases. That a diplomatic official, even if he had medical training, called what he witnessed in China a flu epidemic is nothing but a weak circumstancial evidence.

I wouldn't discard China as the source, but the evidence is not strong enough yet. On the other hand, the organic relation between the spread of the epidemic and movement of troops accross the Atlantic seems strong. It could be argued that without US intervention in Europe, the epidemic would have hit the US later, perhaps -although this is just a guess- in a milder form.

….. I'm very interested to understand how the Entente still wins on the Western Front without half its supply of artillery ammunition and explosives from 1916 onward and the intervention of 2 million fresh US troops in 1918.

B

I think there was a better chance for a negotiated peace. Germany could not win the war, but Britain and France were weary.

On a side note, if there had been a negotiated peace, then possibly Hitler may not have come to power and therefore WWII would not have happened.

So, therefore, the US getting involved caused WWII!

Of course there are a lot of other what if scenarios too…

I'm very interested to understand how the Entente still wins on the Western Front without half its supply of artillery ammunition and explosives from 1916 onward and the intervention of 2 million fresh US troops in 1918.

The USA was selling munitions to Britain while it was still neutral. Ergo, the USA could have stayed out of the war and still supplied munitions, at least as long as the Entente (in reality Britain) was able to pay for them. On the other hand, when the AEF became involved, it utilised British and French heavy equipment (aircraft, tanks and artillery) so it was not a one way bargain.

I am not sure about 2 million men; you may be right but it seems too high from what I have read. In any event, the AEF's first large scale offensive involvement wasn't until September 1918, by which time the German army's morale was on the point of collapsing and starvation and threats of revolution were taking their toll on the home front.

All in all it seems that America's participation gave a boost to the Allied cause but was did not determine the outcome.

But that is the point, by selling all that equipment to the allies and refusing to sell to Germany the US was NOT neutral but working with the allies. Remove that help and all that equipment and that changes the war. Also, the US forced Germany to backoff unrestricted submarine warfare with the Sussex Pledge just as that warfare was crushing the British economy. if that hadn't of happened the war would have changed as well. You can't just look at the US role after declaring war in April 1917. The US support for the allies was key to the allied victory.

Two words.

Naval Blockade.

Germany was collapsing because people were starving (what usually sparks revolution.) Ditto Austria-Hungary. Can't speak to Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire but honestly if German and A-H collapse, they are irrelevant.

True,

But one could make the case that that blockade was illegal yet it was honored by the US, a neutral country. Yet, the US refused to recognize the Germany blockade of Great Britain with submarines. That the US found to be an outrage and unfair as it stopped them from trading with anyone they wanted because, after all, "We are neutral." Again, by honoring the Allied blockade and not honoring the Germany blockade, the US influenced the war for the allies.

Without the million doughboys the German offensive in 1918 would have won the day. Not to neglect too the ASW help of the USN…

Well, if the question is about if the US does not declare war there does seem to still be a logical chain of events of 'Germany still starves, Germany still loses.'

For those people that have widened the issue to 'if the US did not give its tacit support to the allies then there was a good chance that Germany would have won'. Well would broadly agree with you. However, despite all the hot air from the US and the British Empire about how unalike they were, the basic world view and international policy aims of these two polities were basically the same and supportive of each other. So asking 'what if the US did not give its tacit support to the British Empire?' is the same as asking 'what if the US was not the nation it was?'. Yes, if things were different, then things would have been different. But US policy was as it was for very deep seated reasons, so the British government knew that it could probably count on US support, so things panned out as they did.

Without the million doughboys the German offensive in 1918 would have won the day.

Not sure about that. I think the AEF commitment in the German Spring offensive was little more than a division.

"Without the million doughboys the German offensive in 1918 would have won the day"

Well they certainly supported the counter attacks after the British and French had taken the steam out of the offensives.Four months after they were stopped that is. Lets be honest the main German effort and gamble of an offensive was Operation Michael- that was almost exclusively aimed at the British sector and that is where the Germans were stuffed like a turkey. The Belgian's helped there too but nobody blows their trumpet much.

US soldiers fought honourably and with distinction in the Great war but their efforts were very minor when compared to Britain and France on the western front. Of course if the western Europeans hadn't beaten the Germans by the end of 1918 than these 1-2 million troops would have been instrumental in the eventual allied victory. The major contribution I guess wasn't that the American army helped to win the war but by it's contribution it ensured that the allies wouldn't lose the war.

"Operation Michael- that was almost exclusively aimed at the British sector and that is where the Germans were stuffed like a turkey."

….. Really? What an interesting interpretation of events.

B

I did not mean 1 million Us actively fought, but they changed the game, huge reserves, freeing troops, and had to be taken inti account by the Germans.+ the morale help.

US intervention meant more than mere numbers. It gave the Entente Powers a moral boost and, at the same time, hurt the morale in the Central Powers. After the Russian Revolution and the French Army 1917 mutinies, Western allies felt like they were on the last throes. US declaration of war stiffened their resolve to continue in the fight.

German offensives in March 1918 can be argued as the last throw of dice before US intervention would made impossible further offensives. For Ludendorff it was a all or nothing bid. He knew that he needed to break the Western allies before the US could mobilize her huge reserves of manpower and her industrial might.

In my opinion, US intervention was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

By early 1918, even after the release of 600,000 men by Lloyd George in response to the Michael Offensive, Great Britain was no longer able to sustain BEF manpower levels in France and was in a slow but steady decline. After the transfer of troops from the East, German forces on the Western Front slightly outnumbered the combined Entente forces. Germany was by no means the only nation that had reached the limits of its manpower reserves.

Slightly over 2 million US combat troops reached the Western Front in 1918. Of those, about 1.4 million saw active combat. By late 1918, US forces occupied about 50 pct greater fighting frontage than the BEF and were in large part responsible for the great success of the great final October Meuse-Argonne offensives that broke the German strategic center and severed their essential lateral communications.

US production of propellant and explosives by was only very slightly less than the combined total output of both Britain and France over the course of the entire war. I do not see how the Entente could have possibly defeated Germany on the Western Front with its artillery capability effectively halved.

B

It is only Wikipedia and I can't check the numbers from work, but the article on Operation Michael gives AEF casualties in Operation Michael as 77 compared to 170,000 British and Empire and 77,000 French.

The British Army had actually reached the peak of its fighting efficiency by 1918, having adopted infiltration tactics and developed combined arms techniques with aircraft, artillery and tanks available in huge numbers. The Battle of Amiens provided the springboard for eventual victory on the western front, forcing Germany to abandon the ground won in Michael and causing what Ludendorff called "the black day of the German army" as its morale began to collapse. Although not conclusive, the momentum gained at Amiens was maintained and followed up by further operations, culminating in a British breakthrough on the Hindenberg line in early October which effectively spelled the end for Germany. Although the Meuse-Argonne offensive undoubtedly contributed to Germany's defeat, it would not be fair to characterise it as the main event or decisive in terms of the outcome. The heavy lifting was done on the British sector, much of it by Australian and Canadian troops.

The promise of the AEF led the BEF to push harder in late 1917, sustaining higher casualties than might otherwise have been the case.

The AEF presence enabled Foch to keep a big French reserve for the Battle of Soissons. Foch would have been able to plug the 'gap' on the Marne without difficulty.

The USA produced ammunition but France bore the brunt of manufacturing the equipment, including artillery, for the AEF.

Robert

If the US didn't join WW1 they wouldn't have had the 50 DD's to trade to the UK when they were desperate for escorts. Not sure what percentage of the total that was though.

American military intervention was indeed massive, am just not sure it was needed. It is akin to smashing a bar stool over the head of someone who is about to go down anyhow – a gentle push on the chest would have put the man down just as well.

Also, the assumption that because France and Great Britain chose to buy large amounts of ammunition in the US would mean that if they did not buy US made ammunition then it would have cut their artillery capability in half is a bit of a leap.

They were producing massive amounts of war material in 1918, even technologically advanced equipment like aircraft. So much so that the US were dependent on the French for aircraft. If they could not have chosen to by explosives in the US then they would have found a way to produce enough for their needs themselves (same for the British). Germany had far greater problems in producing explosives and they always had more or less enough for their needs throughout the war. France and Britain would have been able to cope as well.

The morale effect is interesting – it would make sense that it would have given a boost to the British and French and made them more confident. Again though, not sure that it really changed anything. Find it difficult to believe that without the US declaration the French or the British would have given up. There were to invested and would have hung on to the bitter end. And Germany was going to collapse before its enemies – with a starving population and incipient revolution Germany was done.

Again though, not sure that it really changed anything. Find it difficult to believe that without the US declaration the French or the British would have given up. There were to invested and would have hung on to the bitter end.

Maybe, but mind that without the threat of a US build-up most of the motivation to launch the 1918 offensives wouldn't have existed. It is possible that Ludendorff would have decided to launch them anyway, but it is equally plausible that he would have chosen for a defensive option. With trained reserves in the rear, Germany would have had a good chance to stop the Amiens offensive. In case of a failure at Amiens, would have had Britain and France continued with the same spirit? Or would have their morale being as exhausted as that of Germany?

The threat of revolution wasn't that far in France and Britain, either. Another failed offensive and…

As for the rest of your post, I am mostly in agreement with you.

Amiens was decisive in one sense, because British army morale soared when it became apparent that Germany would be defeated, while German morale went the other way. Meanwhile, on the home front, German citizens were starving……

The timing of Operation Michael was determined by American intervention, rather than the motivation to launch the Spring offensives. The plans to launch an offensive/s once the Eastern Front was negated predated Ludendorff. There was never any serious thought of going over to the defensive once the German army had achieved numerical superiority, in number of divisions at least, on the Western Front.

During the planning phase for the offensives, Ludendorff decided that they had to be launched earlier that would have normally been appropriate, i.e. before the ground had dried thoroughly after the Winter. As it happened, the weather was drier than normal in the area covered by Operation Michael. The Lys river valley was still problematic by the time Operation Georgette was launched in April, nullifying the German use of tanks in this battle for example. Ludendorff directly linked his decision on the start date with the build-up of American forces, which were not yet engaged on the Western Front in operations at that time – a pre-emptive strike if you will.

There was no comparison between the morale issues facing Germany versus the British and Dominion forces for example. For the French, Clemenceau's rise to power had a major effect on national morale, both civilian and military. His diary is full of accounts of trips to the front line, which les Poilus picked up on and drew energy from. The fighting during the various German offensives never once saw a repeat of the mass 'mutinies' under General Nivelle and his abortive Chemin des Dames campaign.

The military 'success' of Operation Michael was outweighed in the minds of German soldiers by the discovery of the huge stores of munitions and supplies that were captured. These were in stark contrast to the meagre supplies, by comparison, that the German soldiers were used to.

The real turning point in German army morale was not the Battle of Amiens but Operation Friedenstürm – the abortive last Spring offensive that attempted to capture Reims. For once the mighty, seemingly unstoppable 'Durchmüller' ('breakthrough' Bruckmüller as the artillery mastermind came to be nicknamed) came completely unstuck. The French finally stopped manning the front lines in strength and defended in depth. General Pétain finally got his Army commanders to understand and enforce this principle.

The Second Battle of Soissons then destroyed the German gains on the Marne, further eroding German morale. The Battle of Amiens was significant because Ludendorff finally realised what had been happening already. Amiens did not cause the drop in morale; it was just a further manifestation. Following on Reims and the subsequent battles, British and French morale continued to climb – this despite the highest level of casualties (at least for the British) in any period of the war in the last 100 days.

Robert