Chances of a German loss in 1918/1919 if the USA stayed neutral

[Moctezuma1466]

I have heard several times that Germany would have had good chances if the US stayed neutral. But what if they actually stayed neutral? How could Germany have lost if the US didn't join the war? It is a fact that GB and France were broke, Russia was out of the war and Germany had a lot of eastern european territories full of resources (which they had to occupy and exploit but still). I think Italy would have surrendered next, maybe also Greece.

But how could the western allies still have won? If at all?

 

[RedSword12]

If the USA stayed neutral, Germany's best path to winning the war is in preventing the collapse of the Austro-Hungarians, not breaking the Anglo-French in one last offensive.

 

[1962strat]

I think it's pretty well established that American troops had little effect on the Western Front. Parting from that premise, the internal situation in the Central Powers wouldn't get any better, except perhaps a slight morale boost, so it's kinda hard too see how it would've changed the war that much. Maybe at some point they stop lending to the Entente, but I doubt that's enough to cause a collapse before Germany's.

 

[Driftless]

How neutral? Strict neutrality, with no trade going between the US and any warring party? The US manufacturing and financial communities wouldn't have been keen on that, just as they were OTL.