Do you think French and British would have won the war without USA ?

Yes, but it would have taken longer in all probability. but the blockades were what really took its toll on Germany.

(Don't forget Russia, which fought Germany in WWI also, even through it finally managed to lose to a side that lost in the end).

And yes, the Entente would win, I think.

Yes, it probably would have taken until 1919. And the peace would have been just as harsh, but Germany would probably have had to be more thoroughly defeated, perhaps heading off WWII.

No. Without the need to hurry up, without US help to guard the convoys in the Atlantic both nations would have had a bad time. The French mutineed and were only calmed down by being promised the US would come. If in 1918 the US did not come yet and millions of German soldiers from Russia coming as well as new strategies I doubt France could stop the Germans. And even if they would have asked for peace before a new mutinee happened. Also the German all- or- nothing offensives would not have happened.

Adler

Lundendorf's spring offensive in 1918 might have been succesfull. Without US forces arriving in France, the Allies' chances of stopping the German offensive would have been slimmer which might have lead to France suing for peace.

Wasnt Germany more or less starving by 1918?

No. Without the need to hurry up, without US help to guard the convoys in the Atlantic both nations would have had a bad time.
No US involvement in the convoy-duty could have been a deal-clincher WWI for sure. It's also quite a radical difference in US stance, one not very likley as it somehow requires the US to be OK with losing a bunch of ships and men, and do nothing.
As far as the OP seems to be framed the US non-intervention is restricted to direct military action on land.
Extend it, and had the US for instance refused French contracts with the US arms industry beginning in 1915, the French ability to wage war would have been pretty restricted.
The French mutineed and were only calmed down by being promised the US would come.
That was nice, but in fact not a clinching argument when restoring order in the French army. The life-conserving measure would have gone in, Americans on the way or not. The promise of the US troops was rather one that the situation was not going to be stalemated for long.

The mutinies themselves were due to the fact that the French commanders got their men slaughtered in the 1917 spring offensive. That stopped then and there. After Chemin-des-Dames, the French army only attacked with massive numerical and material superiority, and when the German dispositions were entirely transparent to them. It was the next to non-existant intelligence that got French troopps slaughtered in 1917. The last years of the war saw the lowest French casualties.
If in 1918 the US did not come yet and millions of German soldiers from Russia coming as well as new strategies I doubt France could stop the Germans.
They did.
And provided Germany stayed blockaded, it would be toast sooner or later.
And even if they would have asked for peace before a new mutinee happened.
Not sure I get your point here, but after the French high command adopted their life-preserving tactics after the 1917 spring offensive, the French army was no more mutinous than any other. These weren't tactics able of winning the war rapidly, but they were a recipy for not expending the lives of their men needlessly.
Also the German all- or- nothing offensives would not have happened.
That's true. But if that happens, the French tactics for conserving manpower works even better, making France all that much likelier to last a long time, even outlasting the Germans.

All in all, I don't think you've looked too deeply into the whole French mutiny thing. You play that card as if it were a trump all the time, and it isn't. The German army was as likely to mutiny in 1918 as the French. It's a bit of a vain hope, or a misunderstanding, that the French army in 1918 would start coming apart in the seams they way it had in 1917. That could have happened if it had operated in the exact same way, but as the mutinies changed the MO in key areas, it's a moot point.

Anything that has to do with the supply situation which leaves France and the UK worse off and the Germans better off than it did historically, is a lot likelier to provide a different outcome. :)

To answer the thread title...

Then maybe there would've never been a Hitler.

Which meant that USSR wouold maybe be the bad guy.

Or then the world will be all happy happy and the Victorian Era would extend into the 20th century.

I think Britain and France would probably still have won in the long run, but it would have taken a lot longer and been far more costly. However, there was also the possibility of internal revolution in both those countries- as well as Germany- as took place in Russia. After all, less than three months after the Armistice Britain already found itself coming close to revolution... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Battle_of_George_Square)

As I understand, the German infrastructure even during the army's times of success was in absolute shambles, with not enough grain or services to go around.

Even if the German army had advanced further into France, eventually Germany would collapse upon itself, unable to maintain an army abroad as well as simple domestic necessities.

Britain and France can still win the war. By 1918 the Germans were starving (courtesy of Royal Navy blockade), exthusted and overstretched. Similar situations faced their allies (Bulgaria facing defeat in Greece, Ottoman lost everything except Turkey, Austro-Hungary facing Italy in a hopeless stalemate in the Alps as well as internal collapse). The Allied on the other hands were not in that sort of situation (yet). It might take longer to turn back the German offensive, but in the end the results would be similar.

One thing that might've been different was harsher terms would be imposed on the losing nations. Another possibility is France and Germany both fought each other to a stand-still and both sides agree to a cease-fire, which would mean Germany would be given more lenient terms.

Or then the world will be all happy happy and the Victorian Era would extend into the 20th century.

Except for, of course, the impoverished and exploited European colonies and vassals of Africa and Asia.

This is actually possible, since if the Great War ended inconclusively, and if the USA remained isolationist, that means that the era of European colonialism would likely continue for long into the late 20th century.

Britain and France probably would've won anyway, but it would've taken at least another year.

No. Without the need to hurry up, without US help to guard the convoys in the Atlantic both nations would have had a bad time. The French mutineed and were only calmed down by being promised the US would come. If in 1918 the US did not come yet and millions of German soldiers from Russia coming as well as new strategies I doubt France could stop the Germans. And even if they would have asked for peace before a new mutinee happened. Also the German all- or- nothing offensives would not have happened.

Adler

I believe that heaviest fighting and losses occured in 1918 even before the american arrived the Germans so short of manpower began calling up 16 year old meanwhile the British also sort reduced the age to 17.5. It was by all means a close thing.

I prefer to believe that, absent the foolhardy US intervention, the European powers would by mutual exhaustion have come to a reosonable peace settlement.

They may have lost, but it is still unlikely. As the assaults before the US troops arrivals were supposed to break Allied lines and end the war, but they didn't. So the last ditch effort of the Germans, while fairly successful in pushing back the Allies, still failed.

The last offensive was an all or nothing offensive. Everything was thrown to the front to break through. If the US did not come the type of offensive would be a completely other. Thus a slow repelling of the fronts would be possible. In any ways there would be a tough way for both sides to win. Mot likely the exhaustion rate would be too high to do so and a real peace treaty would have been made and no dictate à la Versailles. Thus no Hitler.

Adler

If the fighting dragged on into 1919, with the Germans conserving their manpower in defensive positions, what the British and the French would attempt, would be to pile their ever increasing amounts of artillery and tanks into efforts to simply blast the German frontline to pieces. It wouldn't necessarily be a quick route to victory, but it might get the job done eventually.

Also, beginning in 1919, the attempts at getting to Germany would no longer be limited to the frontlines. The British were about to start operating new types of heavy bombers capable of flying England-Berlin and back non-stop, and to deliver a payload of a ton of high-explosives in the process. As the experience of WWII indicates, that wouldn't have been a swift way to break enemy morale (as was hoped), but it would have been another factor turning the tide against Germany.

The Germans would have been defeated anyway.

France built almost 4,500 tanks, and planned 300 more

UK had 2400 tanks built, and planned 1500 more of the newest models.

There was plan to have 30,000 tanks on the field in 1919 should the war drag.

In the meantime, Germany had 20 A7V.

The allied in 1918 had more production capabilities to make weapons that made the trench warfare obsolete, end the stalemate in their favour.

Steph, you forgotr the about 100 captured tanks :p. Anyway Britain was already under strategic bombing and another year with less resources would have brought both parties to the negotiation table.

Adler

Steph, you forgotr the about 100 captured tanks :p.
Oh yes, sorry... That makes 120 tanks against 10,000, and 30,000 the eyar after. The allies clearly had better run for the hills. Not a chance to win at at only 300 against 1.

Steph, you forgotr the about 100 captured tanks :p. Anyway Britain was already under strategic bombing and another year with less resources would have brought both parties to the negotiation table.

Adler
In 1918 there were only eleven Zeppelin raids on the UK, the last of these on August 5, and the trend had been steadily dropping ince 1915.

Germany was being relentlessly pushed back in every area, including the air war.

I did not say anything about Zeppelins, but planes. Never heard about Zeppelin Staaken R.VI strategic bomber or the attacks with Gotha G. V bombers?

Adler

I did not say anything about Zeppelins, but planes. Never heard about Zeppelin Staaken R.VI strategic bomber or the attacks with Gotha G. V bombers?

Hmm.. Are they the one from the famous saying "When you Gotha go, you Gotha go?"

Gothas carried out a total of 22 raids on England, dropping 186,830 lb (84,745 kg) of bombs for the loss of 61 aircraft.

On the night of May 19, 1918, the Gothas returned to England for the last and largest raid of the war. Bogohl 3 sortied 38 Gothas against London, but suffered heavy losses in the process. Six Gothas were shot down by interceptors and anti-aircraft fire, while a seventh aircraft was lost in a landing accident. After this raid, Gothas operated as tactical bombers against targets on the Western Front.


So no more strategic bombing from Gotha after May 1918

Yes, but the R. VI were still conducting the attacks with great success.

Adler

Yes, but the R. VI were still conducting the attacks with great success.

Adler
Until July 1918, when raids on the UK ceased entirely.

Paris was targetted with air-raids all the way up to the Armistice though.

I think the point is that whatever way the situation is sliced in 1918, the French and the British were poised to throw even more machinery and hardware at the German armies and Germany proper, with no significant increase in German resources to counter this swell. The opposite rather.

Which is why I maintain that the only way for Germany to come out of WWI winning, even without a million US Doughboys obligingly showing of for the big slaughter this war was, is through a shift in supply and production capacities in its favour.

Without it, the German armies would sooner, or possibly later, be overwhelmed. WWI was largely about artillery. The one with the mostest and the biggest won. And from about mid-1917, that was no longer Germany.

WWI was a war of materiel, as all involved worked out in the end. And towards the end of it all, Britain and France were racing ahead of Germany in production and supply. Eventually the margin would have become great enough to win the conflict outright, even without the US troops, who arrived with little gear of their own and had to be equipped by their allies.

At best there might be room for a negotiated peace at some point, depending on how quickly the material superiority started to tell.

Verbose, true, the Germans had no longer so many heavy guns as they realized for their new shock and awe strategies medium and light guns. This new strategy is another factor why the Germans would have made it the Entente much worse to win it.

Adler

Verbose, true, the Germans had no longer so many heavy guns as they realized for their new shock and awe strategies medium and light guns. This new strategy is another factor why the Germans would have made it the Entente much worse to win it.

Adler
But by "shock and awe strategies" here you are referring to Stormtropper/Hutier tactics, no?

And since I think we started out by observing that with no Americans in their millions on the horizon, Germany had the option of hunkering down to adopt a defensive position, which again negates a lot of the usefulness of medium and light guns designed for offensive operations. This was the exact problem of the French army in the early days of the war; lots of medium and light guns deployed in a form of battle requiring heavy long-range guns.

I assume it would allow the Germans to execute better counter offensives, but there is nothing in that situation allowing Germany to actually break through and win, unless they don't adopt a defensive position at all, but go for the kind of major offensives they did historically. Otherwise that initiative would remain with the Entente, depending on how fast they could churn out enough artillery, tanks and planes.

Which is also why I'm dubious as to any assumption that a later major German offensive would have been more successful. Either the German army gets caught up in events, responding to Entente offensives, or when there is more time to strengthen lines and bring in more gear, the British and French forces are bolstered quicker than their German counterparts, making the task again harder for the Germans.

Best German scenario under the circumstance; the Entente again attacks after underestimating the number of tanks and guns needed, gets bloodied, and comes away contemplating offering terms... Or not, and come back later, better prepared...

In any instance, the German army was from the start of WWI, and remaining so, outgunned by the French army in medium and light artillery alone. The French paid in blood in the early years of the war for not having the heavy arty to match the Germans, and only caught up in mid-1917, but they always had plenty of good medium artillery to be used in their planned offensive operations, the ones that never really materialised as they had conceived, with the exception of the Battle of the Marne, which they won.

This is what I mean with the tide being against the Germans. Whatever statistic we are going to chose, as far as equipment and materiel is concerned, by 1918 Germany was coming up short.

What it had going for it in 1918 was the relative manpower situation (I say "relative" for the German army also found it harder to take large numbers of casualties by 1918, than earlier in the war, just like everyone else). Which is why Stormtroopers made sense in a way, despite leading to rather heavy casualtiues for the attacker. They were still in some respects a matter of making a virtue out of necessity.

By comparison the French and British could stick with churning out guns, tanks and planes until the point where they could dominate the Germans. That this was the way to do it was known since at least 1916. What was consistently underestimated was exactly how huge the numbers to let you do that would actually be. By 1918 they would seem to have been getting there, both in understanding what was required and in the ability to provide it, after some very dearly bought lessons.

All the German Allies were collapsing and that situation wasn't effected by American men finally getting involved. The critical moment was in 1914-1915 when our munitions industries were so primative and in Britain our manpower not in any position to be deployed.

Factor in that the Americans really couldn't afford to let us lose given how much we had borrowed off them.

i think that w/o the americans the french and germans would have drove much further in2 germany or even berlin. w/o the americans tehre probably wouldnt have been a ww2 because germany would be even more destroyed.
the after effects would have been horrible to, 10x larger depressions in GB, France and US and germany