Did the Entente Need the United States?

Sachyriel · Sep 30, 2009

Without the Americans Communism would have risen like the Sun! From the East, an unstoppable force, casting a shadow on a continent seeing a light of hope in peace, only to find that those who play with fire get burned. Eventually the Red Star would make its way 'round the globe and come to the Americas, bringing about the dawn of a new era!

Insted, in our time the American interlopers brought a quick end to something that would have bled Europe so much that our world's hibernating bear-like Soviet States would have had little trouble devouring it. Instead the bear woke to Hunters Heiling Hitler, with not enough strength to take him alone. Yet it polarized the world, and we all know where polar bears are found in great number...

Dave Howery · Sep 30, 2009

the one book I have that discusses the Americans in WW1 made it sound as if the greatest contribution of the USA was material... it claimed that the allies were short on food, steel, etc, and the USA supplied all this in great amounts. Yet, I've found this author to be a bit unreliable in the past, and I'm not sure if this was true or not...

Spitfiremk1 · Sep 30, 2009

My Prediction: Without Ameircan Aid during 1917, we might have an interesting situation. No one can deny the morale boost that America entering the war gave to the Entente, so no America means that thier will to fight will probably dissapear before 1918. However, the CP were also on the verge of collapse aswell. AH could not survive for long, and the Ottomans were being overun by the British. Aswell as this, the Germans were in a bad position also. Despite thier victory over Russia, the High Seas Fleet was rusting in port, the population was starving and communist influence was spreading through the factories and the ranks. Aswell as this, the Entente had a techincal advantage over the Germans in terms of Armor, with more and better tanks.

What i see is a German Tactical victory on the western front during 1918. However, it is only realy tactical, becuase overall, the Germans have virtualy lost. Britian has all her colonies and the Royal Navy has the North sea to itself, so the best it can probably hope for is a continental victory in thier favour, maybe keepign Alsace Loraine, but thats about it.

Anaxagoras · Sep 30, 2009

If the United States had not entered the war, I believe the British and the French would have eventually gone on to defeat the Central Powers, because they still would have been able to stop the Spring Offensive in 1918, and that really was Germany's last throw of the dice. The French weren't going to quit even if Paris fell, and the British wouldn't quite under any circumstances. Both sides were exhausted, but the Germans were considerably worse off than the British and the French.

The war would have lasted into 1919, and the losses would have been much heavier, but Germany still would have lost.

loz · Sep 30, 2009

I remember reading some interesting articles for British offensives on the western front for 1919(plan 1919 by JFC Fuller) using tanks and aircraft and kind of “early blitzkrieg”. If this was so would the Germans have fallen apart? German tank technology was quite far behind the allies

Blizrun · Sep 30, 2009

I recently read a short study on the evolution of combined arms and it mentions German advances in that area towards the end of WWI. Without an American intervention, it might be plausible that these experiments bear fruit and the Germans are able to restore mobility to their forces on the Western Front.

robertp6165 · Oct 1, 2009

Anaxagoras said:
If the United States had not entered the war, I believe the British and the French would have eventually gone on to defeat the Central Powers, because they still would have been able to stop the Spring Offensive in 1918, and that really was Germany's last throw of the dice. The French weren't going to quit even if Paris fell, and the British wouldn't quite under any circumstances. Both sides were exhausted, but the Germans were considerably worse off than the British and the French.

The war would have lasted into 1919, and the losses would have been much heavier, but Germany still would have lost.

Another poster has already pointed out that without the American entry, the German Spring offensive of 1918 might not have occurred, as this was largely an attempt to end the war before the Americans could intervene effectively. Also, the French mutinies might have been a lot worse, and not been suppressed, without Petain being able to point at the imminent arrival of the Americans as a reason to hang on a while longer.

Assuming that the 1918 Spring Offensive in France doesn't happen because of no American intervention, an alternate strategy for using all the manpower released from the Eastern Front might be for the Germans to heavily reinforce the Austrians and attempt to take Italy completely out of the war, while shifting enough men and equipment to the Western Front to hold out against any potential Allied offensive. Once Italy is gone, the Germans could shift all their force there, and most likely Austro-Hungarian troops as well, to the Western Front, enabling a counter-offensive in late 1918 or early 1919 against Allied lines weakened by massive casualties incurred in futile attempts to breach the reinforced Hindenburg Line.

Anaxagoras · Oct 1, 2009

robertp6165 said:
Another poster has already pointed out that without the American entry, the German Spring offensive of 1918 might not have occurred, as this was largely an attempt to end the war before the Americans could intervene effectively. Also, the French mutinies might have been a lot worse, and not been suppressed, without Petain being able to point at the imminent arrival of the Americans as a reason to hang on a while longer.

Assuming that the 1918 Spring Offensive in France doesn't happen because of no American intervention, an alternate strategy for using all the manpower released from the Eastern Front might be for the Germans to heavily reinforce the Austrians and attempt to take Italy completely out of the war, while shifting enough men and equipment to the Western Front to hold out against any potential Allied offensive. Once Italy is gone, the Germans could shift all their force there, and most likely Austro-Hungarian troops as well, to the Western Front, enabling a counter-offensive in late 1918 or early 1919 against Allied lines weakened by massive casualties incurred in futile attempts to breach the reinforced Hindenburg Line.

The Germans couldn't have lasted that long. Look at how bad things were on the home front in Germany because of the British blockade. People were deprived of almost every commodity and were beginning to literally starve. And those who say that the newly-defeated Russia could have magically met all the Germans needs in terms of food and natural resources are absolutely kidding themselves- Russia was in total chaos and falling into civil war, and there was not going to be much left over to be plundered by the Germans.

And the suggestion that Austro-Hungarian troops, reinforced with Germans, could have defeated Italy and then transferred to the Western Front is ASB. Austria-Hungary was falling apart by the end of 1917, with nearly all of its ethnic minorities up in arms and supported by Allied money and propaganda.

Wolfpaw · Oct 1, 2009

A rather valid point has been continually made regarding the myriad ethnicities of Austria-Hungary, their disdain for the Habsburgs, and the various uprisings that took place as the war wound down.

Should we not take into consideration, though, the fact that Wilson, upon America's entry into the war, made well known his pledged to carve up A-H into various nation-states after the war? Surely this had some effect of galvanizing Austria-Hungary's more restless minorities into open revolt, therefore destabilizing the empire.

Also, no American entry in the war could very likely mean no Greek entry into the war, a noteworthy occurence since that relieves Bulgaria, Turkey, and Austria-Hungary (a whole 3/4 of the Central Powers!) of a good deal of pressure. In fact, it might even push Greece into the CP's camp as the Greeks and their largely pro-German were (rightly) pissed about the French and the British browbeating them into allowing the Entente to open the Macedonian Front, not to mention forcing the Greeks to demobilize their army. With the idea of no American support coming to back up the Entente, Greece may actually find her spine and stand up to the Entente!

robertp6165 · Oct 1, 2009

Anaxagoras said:
And the suggestion that Austro-Hungarian troops, reinforced with Germans, could have defeated Italy and then transferred to the Western Front is ASB. Austria-Hungary was falling apart by the end of 1917, with nearly all of its ethnic minorities up in arms and supported by Allied money and propaganda.

And yet, in cooperation with the Germans, they managed to hand Italy a crushing defeat at the Battle of Caporetto (October-November 1917) at the very time you say they were falling apart. Austria-Hungary was not in as bad shape as you make out in late 1917, and without the American entry to encourage the ethnic minorities, might be in much better shape in 1918.

Fiji · Oct 1, 2009

people seem to think the Michael offencivewas undertaken because of US entry into the war, now, I've always heared/read that Michael was only moved forward due to the US-ians.
So, without the US, Michael happens later, better planned and prepared (slightly better as Germany didn't have much of anything left to throw at the Entente)

Also, someone mentioned France fighting on after Paris falls ... maybe the French govenment might, but how much of non-occupied France would they still govern at this point? How much would be (in the best case) refusing to fight on?
Also, If Paris falls, it's fair to assume the last bit of Belgium is also occupied. Would Belgium call it quits after that? make a separate non too bad peace with Germany? Ok, Belgium didn't have millions of soldiers, but still, it hurts the Entente to have them leave.

Without the US, Germany still has a good chance of winning.

Slowpoke · Oct 1, 2009

Fiji said:
Without the US, Germany still has a good chance of winning.

If by win you mean "having Germany proper collapse while its army is traipsing through France", then yes, it will win.

And A-H was in pretty crap condition by early 1918, not because of minorities, but rather Bolsheviks. Bolsheviks had infiltrated many parts of the A-H army and created (secret) Soviets. Remember that Hungary became a full-on Soviet Republic in 1919. That wouldn't have happened had the seeds of Leninism not been already present. A Bolshevik rebellion (eventually followed by a rebellion of the various minorities) would have completely eradicated the A-HE as a credible entity in the war.

Farfromhome · Oct 1, 2009

In my opinion the war continue to the end of 1918 or early 1919 where upon both sides would be seeking peace feelers with France in collapse. Britain barely hanging on, same for Germany, And AH completely dismembering with the German Austrian parts being incorporated into Germany. And a Hapsburg on the Hungarian Throne. Who knows what happens to Bohemia. But Eventually with France morally defeated but still fighting, peace is sought. This where it could go either way. But a US intervention at the Peace Table could see interesting consequences. Since they held all the chips to rebuild the broken countries.

rast · Oct 1, 2009

The year to look at is 1917 mainly. No unristricted U-Boat campaign, no US entry.
Russia is staggering out of the war. After the Nivelle Offensive the French Army is in very bad shape. Germany doesn't show any signs of weakness, no do her allies yet.
I do not think that France would have stood without the prospect of the Americans coming to the rescue.
At latest after Caporetto France would have asked for terms. Clemenceau would not have become Prime Minister, but Joseph Caillaux.

Commissar · Oct 1, 2009

Anaxagoras said:
The Germans couldn't have lasted that long. Look at how bad things were on the home front in Germany because of the British blockade. People were deprived of almost every commodity and were beginning to literally starve. And those who say that the newly-defeated Russia could have magically met all the Germans needs in terms of food and natural resources are absolutely kidding themselves- Russia was in total chaos and falling into civil war, and there was not going to be much left over to be plundered by the Germans.

And the suggestion that Austro-Hungarian troops, reinforced with Germans, could have defeated Italy and then transferred to the Western Front is ASB. Austria-Hungary was falling apart by the end of 1917, with nearly all of its ethnic minorities up in arms and supported by Allied money and propaganda.

The Germans controlled the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics. The food was beginning to flow into Germany.

The Allies on the other hand are a beaten force. The French are at rock bottom and the Germans are finally beating the blockade with Cargo Subs.

They had one successful sortie and were planning more when America declared war and cut off all trade.

Notions that the Allies could win when the Germans had wrecked all the other Allied Nations is fanciful in the extreme.

Earling · Oct 1, 2009

Short answer: no.
Long answer: Probably not, but I can see why some people might say yes. On the whole I think a successful spring offensive is highly doubtful, and when it fails Germany will have shot her bolt as per OTL. Any other gambit (hold steady/Italy) ultimately see's Germany collapse on the home front long before Britain and France, who if memory recalls, for political reasons had no real plans to take major offensives in 1918 and so will not bleed themselves to collapse. German homefront collapses or atleast has major problems come the winter of 1918-19, and will certainly go come the winter of 1919-20.

France's problems all revolve about offensives. They were much less significant on the defensive. The reorganisation undertaken in OTL had the French army become an effective offensive tool again come late 1918, so there seems little reason to believe it won't do in this timeline. Britain in OTL had plans to continue the war into 1919 and even 1920, after the losses of 1918, so the premise they were in any respect at the bottom of the barrel in late 1917 is clearly a push.

For Italy to be knocked out you require the battle of Piave to be a second Caporetto, something which is ofcourse imaginable but I think unlikely.

An addition. The bonanza of resources from the east did not exist. The fact they did not exist was one of the reasons Germany felt they had to commit to winning the war in 1918. If food and so on was flowing in would the German home front have been in such a dire situation as per OTL? I think the answer is clearly no. Could Germany have got these resources? Perhaps, but the vast amount of fertilizers, horses and administration simply could not be made available given the demands of the war. As such these resources would not be made available in the critical amounts needed.

Citizen · Oct 1, 2009

rast said:
The year to look at is 1917 mainly. No unristricted U-Boat campaign, no US entry.

A lot can happen in a year. That's a little like saying VE Day couldn't happen because of the situation in early 1944.

yourworstnightmare · Oct 1, 2009

Did the Entente need the US to win??? No. The blockade would have forced the Germans to surrender eventually.
But if the US wouldn't have arrived the Germans wouldn't have been beaten that badly, and there would have been very different peace settlement. A interresting scenario would be a peace out of necessity when France and Germany both are threatened with proletarian revolutions.

Then again, German submarine warfare made US neutrality impossible.

Alratan · Oct 1, 2009

If you keep American economic support, and just remove it's military contribution, I think an Entente victory is pretty inevitable. The Entente are simply capable of outlasting the German home front - they don't need to be able to launch any attacks, only holding the Germans back, which they demonstrtaed they were in OTL.

I think people are seriously under-estimating how bad the situation was in German in 1918. The cities were on the edge of famine, and not many more more months of blockade would essentially result in the collapse of German civil society as the starving workers flee the cities to search for food. The German army will be imploding at this point anyway, as they too will in starving.

In the end, the Entente will be marching into Berlin to take the Reichstag back from the rats.

robertp6165 · Oct 1, 2009

Earling said:
For Italy to be knocked out you require the battle of Piave to be a second Caporetto, something which is ofcourse imaginable but I think unlikely.

This assumes that there would be a Battle of the Piave, which didn't occur until June 1918...8 months after Caporetto...in OTL. If the Austro-German forces in Italy had been stronger at Caporetto, it's entirely possible that they could have completely demolished the Italian Army and ended the war in Italy then and there. As it was, they came very close to doing that in OTL.