America stays out of WWI
- Thread starter luakel
- Start date
luakel said:
Yes, probably. They may take a few more causualties, but they'd still win. It may take a little longer as well.
This topic has come up before. Someone posted the idea that without the US troops, the war in Europe would have come to a negotiated peace, and there would have been no Depression, WW2, Nazis, or Holocaust, all because us nasty Yanks came barging uninvited into the war. Right. My own opinion is that there was bound to be a WW2 no matter who won WW1; the losing side would be like Germany, poor, shattered, and aching for revenge. If there had been a negotiated settlement (basically, a tie), then none of the problems that started the war would be solved, and a couple of generations later would see the conflict again....
Max Sinister
Banned
And after the fall of Russia, the Germans may have the idea to attack the smaller partners first, i.e. Italy and Greece.
EvolvedSaurian said:
To the first...yeah and possibly loose India to a revolt because of drafting.
Indonesia was a Dutch territory and the Dutch were neutral.
Africa...maybe but then risk your white African citizens refusing to fight alongside the africans.
Really it would have come down to how Germany would have planned their offensives given that they would not feel the need to rush into anything if the US wasn't going to be deploying millions of troops in France anytime soon.
They might decide to do more targetted and tactical offensives to give them a better position during the winter and for the spring offensives.
Shadow Knight said:
Possible, but who said anything about drafting?
Whoops, my mistake.
A possibility, but there are ways around that.
Naturally one gets two quite different answers to this question depending upon whether the US is still "the arsenal of democracy" but never properly enters the war, or if they well and truly neutral in the conflict.
As I recall US entry was a major factor in the Germany's Spring Offensive being executed in the time and manner that it was; the Germans wanted to end the war as soon as possible, before the US could fully mobilize its resources. Max Sinister's suggestion that weaker members of the Entente such as Italy would be targetted in this alternate 1918 campaign has merit; If Germany can inflict another Caporetto on the Italians that might well be enough to knock them out of the war, and given how effective the first battles of the Spring Offensive were for Germany there is no reason to suspect that the German Hutier/Infiltration tactics will not deliver a victory of some sort. Presumably with less time pressure on them Germany will be able to train more stormtroopers, and will thus not have to revert to less effective methods as they did in the later battles of the Spring Offensive. If Italy and Russia are both knocked out of the war I would think that the French and British might at least make an unofficial inquiry as to what Germany's terms would be; it would only be prudent after having two major members of the Entente knocked out of the war. Victory against Russia and Italy probably also helps maintain some stability in Austria-Hungary.
I might be wrong, but I also recall hearing that the blockade on Germany was not fully effective until US entry into the war. US entry provided their navy to fill in gaps in any remaining gaps in the blockade, as a fair amount of the British Navy had to be kept in a position to counter any German sortie rather than being on blockade duty. As I recall a fair number of the blockade runners were US ships , and US entry into the war removed those as well.
As I recall US entry was a major factor in the Germany's Spring Offensive being executed in the time and manner that it was; the Germans wanted to end the war as soon as possible, before the US could fully mobilize its resources. Max Sinister's suggestion that weaker members of the Entente such as Italy would be targetted in this alternate 1918 campaign has merit; If Germany can inflict another Caporetto on the Italians that might well be enough to knock them out of the war, and given how effective the first battles of the Spring Offensive were for Germany there is no reason to suspect that the German Hutier/Infiltration tactics will not deliver a victory of some sort. Presumably with less time pressure on them Germany will be able to train more stormtroopers, and will thus not have to revert to less effective methods as they did in the later battles of the Spring Offensive. If Italy and Russia are both knocked out of the war I would think that the French and British might at least make an unofficial inquiry as to what Germany's terms would be; it would only be prudent after having two major members of the Entente knocked out of the war. Victory against Russia and Italy probably also helps maintain some stability in Austria-Hungary.
I might be wrong, but I also recall hearing that the blockade on Germany was not fully effective until US entry into the war. US entry provided their navy to fill in gaps in any remaining gaps in the blockade, as a fair amount of the British Navy had to be kept in a position to counter any German sortie rather than being on blockade duty. As I recall a fair number of the blockade runners were US ships , and US entry into the war removed those as well.
How would it be defeated? They needed more men to stop it and then the men to drive the Germans out of France. That they got from America.luakel said:
MrP
Banned
Inflicting a second Caporetto would be tricky. The first one happened because a) the troops were all pushed forward - good idea for an attack, bad when defending, b) there were problems with gas masks, c) supply dumps were quickly overrun by the Austro-German offensive, preventing any effective resistance, d) environmental conditions, e) other stuff that I'm too tired/hot to think of now like General Cadorna.
Post-Caporetto the Italians very wisely sat on the defensive till almost the end, IIRC.
I think a German victory is possible since both sides were pretty damned tired by this point, but I think the Central Powers were more tired (Russia excepted, of course).
The Americans were certainly good for providing new vigorous troops and for taking on a whole mess of casualties that the Anglo-French would otherwise have had to absorb. IIRC, one of the things the AEF chaps comment on is how tired the Brits and French all are - drained by four years of war.
Post-Caporetto the Italians very wisely sat on the defensive till almost the end, IIRC.
I think a German victory is possible since both sides were pretty damned tired by this point, but I think the Central Powers were more tired (Russia excepted, of course).
The Americans were certainly good for providing new vigorous troops and for taking on a whole mess of casualties that the Anglo-French would otherwise have had to absorb. IIRC, one of the things the AEF chaps comment on is how tired the Brits and French all are - drained by four years of war.
Kaiser James I said:
Not to mention the morale boost given to British and French troops about the prospect of hundreds of thousands of fresh american soldiers soon coming to their aid.
luakel said:
Two things that Wilson could have done to stay out of the War are policies that we have today and also went into the Neutrality Laws of the 1930s. He could have banned the sale of munitions to both sides, thus eliminating the reason for the sinkings, and he could have restricted or banned American passenger travel overseas into a potentially dangerous war zone.
Instead he did neither of these and chose to plunge into the War against Germany thus sentencing 126,200 young men to death. 
With America completely out of the War, Germany would have been victorious, though it would have been a costly victory.
Would the world have been at a loss for a German victory? I doubt that it would have come to an end. What would the aftermath and following peace have been like?
Would the world have been at a loss for a German victory? I doubt that it would have come to an end. What would the aftermath and following peace have been like?
Well, I think that Germany would have to give up their colonies, at least the Pacific ones and probably SW Africa to the Brits (who wouldn't want the Germans near their Afrikaner pals). Quite possibly all of them. In Western Europe, depending just where the frontline was at war's end, we would most likely see Germany gaining Luxemburg and a bit more land in Alsace-Lorraine, while Belgium is released and made neutral. No matter what, France will be bitter anf hungry for vengance...Kaiser James I said:With America completely out of the War, Germany would have been victorious, though it would have been a costly victory.
Would the world have been at a loss for a German victory? I doubt that it would have come to an end. What would the aftermath and following peace have been like?
Maybe there would be some losses and gains exchanged, but the terms would have been negotiated and not dictated. Thus, the 20th century would have turned out very very different.
I maintain that American entry into the war impacted significantly the morale of both sides. Germany could easily escape with direct gains to the east, even if they are limited.
As for potential losses in Africa, I think that the British would want Tanganyika the most. Furthermore, Germany could lose their Pacific possessions permanently due partly to their pointlessness, and to the Japanese occupation of the insular and Chinese portions of said possessions.
As for potential losses in Africa, I think that the British would want Tanganyika the most. Furthermore, Germany could lose their Pacific possessions permanently due partly to their pointlessness, and to the Japanese occupation of the insular and Chinese portions of said possessions.