Immediate Effects of US Neutrality

[Kaiserboi]

Generally when we imagine a CP victory involving no US involvement/no USW, we assume things proceed largely as in OTL except without the US and with the Central Powers winning the Spring Offensive. However, I want to consider whether the lack of US support might impact the morale of the already bloodied Entente powers (especially Russia, France and Italy) and cause them to make peace earlier. All three had very stubbornly pro-war governments but would the loss of morale due to no hope of reinforcements push them to accept defeat earlier? Or would they continue the struggle, possibly fall to revolution (as Russia did OTL), or survive in battered form until 1918, when their defeat would come?

Britain of course is in a better position but would they sue for peace if their allies surrendered? Or would they fight on and hope the blockade would starve Germany to the breaking point? Remember, no USW means Germany is not starving Britain, so the blockade effect is one-sided; could Britain manage to win through attrition?

Also, would smaller powers like Greece, Brazil, Thailand, and China join the war without the US? I assume Liberia and the Caribbean allies of the US would not, of course, but how much did the US entry impact their decisions?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

If France is out, that means Britain would have to expand its blockade to cover both France and Spain if they want to starve the Germans into submission. It's not enough to blockade German ports, they had to extend it to ports with a land connection to Germany (namely Denmark and the Netherlands).

 

[raharris1973]

This is an excellent question that needs better hypothetical answers than we have seen on the board to date.

I thank posters in advance for their bolder and more confident predictions.

 

[Pesterfield]

The U.S. is officially neutral, can it do anything to stop private individuals or groups from supporting one side or the other?
Could they get dragged into the war from Americans flying for France or some rich guy buying stuff for Germany?

 

[anotherlurker]

Immediately? No effect. Until mid 1917 or so Entente buy form the US with money while CP are unable to due to the blockade which the US can not do anything against. But then past 1917, when the Entente cash and collateral runs out and they need massive unsecured loans that the US government has to greenlight the effect will be a massive shortfall of war supplies in all categories for the Entente nations to the point where even the upholding of the blockade would be questionable. Others have written more on it, with lists of what has been imported, iirc most of the propellant for the artillery shells came from the US, if you just remove that the war is effectively over.

 

[Kaiserboi]

Immediately? No effect. Until mid 1917 or so Entente buy form the US with money while CP are unable to due to the blockade which the US can not do anything against. But then past 1917, when the Entente cash and collateral runs out and they need massive unsecured loans that the US government has to greenlight the effect will be a massive shortfall of war supplies in all categories for the Entente nations to the point where even the upholding of the blockade would be questionable. Others have written more on it, with lists of what has been imported, iirc most of the propellant for the artillery shells came from the US, if you just remove that the war is effectively over.

What about Russia? They needed cash sooner just to survive. OTL Kerensky asked Wilson for a loan to stay in the war and got it. I saw an article (from CATO, I believe) that argued that without the US involvement, there would be no loan, and Russia would've made peace; the Bolshevik revolution wouldn't have happened. IDK, that seems like a stretch to me, but I think a lack of US funds could have an impact sooner in Russia.

 

[Riain]

My second favourite quote about WW1 is 'hope was as persistent as a weed', and the US DoW gave every Entente member hope, while conversely signalling to Germany that they had one chance to win on the battlefield before the Americans arrived in force.

I don't think a lack of a DoW in April 1917 will have any effect on the day because for everyone it would be situation normal, it is in future planning. I think France was insolvent in late 1916 and was being financed partly by Britain and partly by serious contraction of the civilian economy, and Britain was on the verge of insolvency in April 1917 so would have to start contracting its civilian economy too.

Russia had its first revolution in March and the Provisional Government decided to stay in the war and I suspect the US DoW in April would have reinforced this decision. When Britain stopped financing other Russia will be in trouble.

One thing of note is that OTLs series of events that got the US DoW didn't just fall from the sky, you can't just 'turn off' USW as it was a decision reached logically by Germany in the circumstances she found herself in. To avoid USW and therefore the US DoW something else would have to go right for Germany to reduce the drive for USW in Feb 1917.

 

[anotherlurker]

What about Russia? They needed cash sooner just to survive. OTL Kerensky asked Wilson for a loan to stay in the war and got it. I saw an article (from CATO, I believe) that argued that without the US involvement, there would be no loan, and Russia would've made peace; the Bolshevik revolution wouldn't have happened. IDK, that seems like a stretch to me, but I think a lack of US funds could have an impact sooner in Russia.

Russia got support through the French and British who in turn got their stuff from the Americans. If no new supplies can be bought on credit they will throw Russia (and Italy) under the bus without a second thought. Russia would have to sue for peace, which is for them a rather good thing, it's not Brest-Litovsk, they'll have to hand over some small and not quite Russian portions and save themselves months of destabilizing war participation and can get around to provide the "bread" part to take some wind out of the Bolsheviks sails.

 

[Kaiserboi]

Russia got support through the French and British who in turn got their stuff from the Americans. If no new supplies can be bought on credit they will throw Russia (and Italy) under the bus without a second thought. Russia would have to sue for peace, which is for them a rather good thing, it's not Brest-Litovsk, they'll have to hand over some small and not quite Russian portions and save themselves months of destabilizing war participation and can get around to provide the "bread" part to take some wind out of the Bolsheviks sails.

I guess my ultimate question is, would no US entry be enough to get Kerensky (or anyone else) to agree to peace? If so, what are the terms? I think we can safely say Poland is getting "independence," Lithuania and Courland are to be occupied, annexed or puppeted by Germany, but would Germany go any further (Ukraine, the Baltics, etc.)?

 

[Pesterfield]

To avoid USW and therefore the US DoW something else would have to go right for Germany

If the U.S. is neutral no war supplies are leaving U.S. ports for Europe, so Germany doesn't need to put submarines along the coast.

Unless it's the neutrality of supplying both sides, then USW is risky because the Germans might be sinking supplies meant for them.

 

[xsampa]

What if China doesn’t get into WW1?

 

[NoMommsen]

... Remember, no USW means Germany is not starving Britain, so the blockade effect is one-sided; could Britain manage to win through attrition? ...

Hmm, only if you might look at this chart you could see that the sinking by U-boats already steadyly surgep up PRIOR to even the declaration of USW and how much of the up-surge in Feb. 1917 has to be accounted to "unrestricted" might also be debatable.

However, without US entry there would also be lesser ships available for lesser stuff to transport due to (much) lesser credit available in the US for the Entente-members.
In that case the about 350.000 to maybe achievable 400.000 (due to the increase in U-boat numbers available) tons of then sunk tonnage might be enough for still a "reasonable" blockade effect on the British Isles.
Not to forget the likely feeling of ... well ... kinda hopelessness instead the OTL boost of morale.

... One thing of note is that OTLs series of events that got the US DoW didn't just fall from the sky, you can't just 'turn off' USW as it was a decision reached logically by Germany in the circumstances she found herself in. To avoid USW and therefore the US DoW something else would have to go right for Germany to reduce the drive for USW in Feb 1917.

Despite the kinda "logic" there was in the arguing for USW in der german leadership community there was also a strong opposition to it. ... strong enough that the ultimate decision for USW standing on a knife's edge at a patt situation for quite some time had once again to made by the "last decider" : the Kaiser.
The topic of USW was in constant discussion since the Kaiser Bill decided against USW in summer 1915 after it had been implemented a first time in early 1915.

IMHO it wouldn't have needed too much to let the Kaiser (perhaps letting him distribute some medals to U-boat sailors telling their supreme commander "how fine" they are doing already, not to forget that Tirpitz already got the boot nat at least for too much propagandizing USW) to decide at least for the next 6 month different what IMHO would already be enough for letting the increasing U-boat numbers have a considerable and especially "feelable" effect on the british economy and populace.



And as an additional note :
IMHO likely the "french mutinies" of 1917 - if Nivell would still had started is catastrophic offensive - would have taken a different course without the silverstreak on the horizon of US help.

• They could have started earlier, already during any attempt of an offensive letting it break down completly.
• Their suppression might have been much more ... troublesome if possible at all and not causimg almost a overall military revolution leading to an overall revolution of the whole french populace.
• Well, ... the french leadership might also decide to stop all offensive actions, sit tight and look - very discrete - for some sort of ending hiostilities . ... aka an armistice (???) ... Clemenceau is in Feb 1917 still 9 month away IOTL and the french goverment is lead by Aristide Briand who rather opposed Nivelles Offensive

 

[Starforce]

I would hope for a CP victory. Without the US the entente never receives a boost in manpower and morale.

 

[Georgepatton]

The U.S. is officially neutral, can it do anything to stop private individuals or groups from supporting one side or the other?
Could they get dragged into the war from Americans flying for France or some rich guy buying stuff for Germany?

There were hundreds or maybe thousands of Americans who volunteered to fight for France before 1917, including a famous flier, Norman Pierce, who was killed in 1916.

The US has had in some version or another since 1794 a Neutrality Act that forbids an American citizen to wage war on any country that is at peace with the United States, but that was held in the 1890s to only apply to actually recruiting people within the jurisdiction of the United States, or creating an armed group or arming a vessel in the US with the intention of going overseas to make war on someone. If an American leaves the US and joins a foreign army somewhere else, that was not a crime at that time.

The Neutrality Acts of the 1930s restricted the export of arms and ammunition, as well as loans and credit agreements, to belligerent powers, but I don't believe they made it unlawful for an American to leave the country and enlist in a foreign army. It would, in any case, be relatively difficult to actually prevent it, but either way Americans fighting in any foreign army wouldn't see the US dragged into the war on their behalf either way.

 

[suul'ken]

I have A Kaiserreich question:
Assuming that the US did support the Entente financially as in OTL, but it didn't join the war in any major capacity,
What effect would a CP victory and a defeat of Entente have on US Economy?

The Primary PODs are:
1.No successful naval blockade of German ports by the Entente
2. A German naval victory in the North Sea
3.US doesn't join the war ( a precondition for any imaginable CP victory)

The PODs are almost universal and have nothing to do with the Kaisereich setting itself.

 

[Kaiserboi]

What if China doesn’t get into WW1?

That could be an interesting discussion in itself. From what I've heard China's entry into the war was controversial and played a major role in fragmenting it; Sun Yat-Sen opposed it and I believe this was a factor in his setting up a rival government in the south. Also, I could imagine a neutral China making a grab for Guangzhou after France falls.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

I guess my ultimate question is, would no US entry be enough to get Kerensky (or anyone else) to agree to peace? If so, what are the terms? I think we can safely say Poland is getting "independence," Lithuania and Courland are to be occupied, annexed or puppeted by Germany, but would Germany go any further (Ukraine, the Baltics, etc.)?

I imagine the frontline following the failed Kerensky Offensive would have provided for a fine enough western boundary. It more or less lines up with the OTL Polish-Soviet border, but includes a German Courland and a Russian Bessarabia. At the very least I would expect Germany to demand a detachment of Ober Ost and Congress Poland from Russia.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

That could be an interesting discussion in itself. From what I've heard China's entry into the war was controversial and played a major role in fragmenting it; Sun Yat-Sen opposed it and I believe this was a factor in his setting up a rival government in the south. Also, I could imagine a neutral China making a grab for Guangzhou after France falls.

Do you mean Guangzhouwan? Or do you mean the French concession in Guangzhou (Shamian Island)?

No China in WWI would mean Japan's claim to Shandong is much stronger. There'd be interesting knock-on effects there if Japan is not forced to return their WWI gains to China like OTL, with all the embarrassment that brought them.




Britain probably negotiates with Germany for a German withdrawal from Belgium in exchange for recognition of certain continental and colonial gains. Britain isn't returning Namibia, Samoa, or New Guinea though as that'd really piss off the Dominions.



The knock-on for the US is that we don't see...

1. The Palmer Raids cracking down on the American Left
2. WWI-induced inflation
3. Massive Civil Liberties violations (which prompted something of a civil libertarian backlash in the 1920s)
4. Mass nationalization of industry
5. Increased tax rates caused by WWI
6. The misery the agriculture industry endured from overinvesting/overleveraging due to WWI increasing food prices (and then being underwater when prices dropped)
7. The same European debt cycle as OTL (there'll still be a debt cycle, but not as bad as OTL)
8. The short-term discrediting of progressivism in the 1920s caused by Wilson backlash

The US looks pretty different. It ironically has a stronger left movement but the size and scope of government is smaller than OTL. Even the reduced tax rates of the 1920s were well above what they were before WWI.

Absent a European War, the US might involve itself more in Mexican affairs in the late 1920s though.

 

[xsampa]

Do you mean Guangzhouwan? Or do you mean the French concession in Guangzhou (Shamian Island)?

No China in WWI would mean Japan's claim to Shandong is much stronger. There'd be interesting knock-on effects there if Japan is not forced to return their WWI gains to China like OTL, with all the embarrassment that brought them.

Just Kaiotschou or the province as a whole?

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Just Kaiotschou or the province as a whole?

The German concession was directly annexed, but IIRC Germany had a bunch of other rights over the province that Japan was entitled to as well (control over some mining operations, a railroad, etc.).