How do you think the world would look like if the Americans never got involved in the first world war? I know the Germans had France at the brink of defeat and with all the forces cleared up in the East after the defeat of Russia they could've forced France and Britain to peace. How much differently would the world look today had the Americans never got involved in the WW1?
Germany and WW1
- Thread starter The Farow
- Start date
Nobody
Gangster
Not much different
~Corsair#01~
Deity
Wildly different. 
-France surrenders quickly (big surprise
)
-Britain signs peace treay, since it can't exactly do anything else. This would recognise German control of Eastern Europe, and a new German border a good deal West of where it was. France continues to exist, in a slightly diminshed form.
-Austria-Hungary would collapse and split into different states and that Austria would join Germany.
-Ottoman Empire collapses, resulting in Lawrence of Arabia successfully forming independent Arab states.
Those are the short-term consequences I see.
-France surrenders quickly (big surprise
)-Britain signs peace treay, since it can't exactly do anything else. This would recognise German control of Eastern Europe, and a new German border a good deal West of where it was. France continues to exist, in a slightly diminshed form.
-Austria-Hungary would collapse and split into different states and that Austria would join Germany.
-Ottoman Empire collapses, resulting in Lawrence of Arabia successfully forming independent Arab states.
Those are the short-term consequences I see.
Verbose
Deity
Most likely Germany would just get peace at better terms than Versailles. It would still loose.
pacesplace
Prince
If they received better terms at Versailles then, there might not have been a Hitler, which would change everything...
pacesplace
Prince
I don't know, but thinking about it, I'm not so sure France and Britain would've taken it easy on the Germans if America hadn't arrived in 1917. Despite the fact that the war almost seemed in German favor, France and Britain still heavily penalized Germany. If the Allies won the war, I'm sure they would've heavily penalized the Germans...
The Germans had France on the brink of defeat in 1917? I'm not convinced by that. As I understand it, the American involvement was certainly a factor in Germany's defeat, but only one among many and hardly the most important - they just arrived so late. Perhaps Germany would have taken longer to defeat had the US not been drawn in, but surely there's no reason to suppose that one difference would have led to their victory.
sydhe
King of Kongs
Let's assume the Zimmerman telegram never happened and Germany either doesn't resume unrestricted submarine warfare or America doesn't go to war over it.
Then
(1) America remains officially neutral while continuing to aid the Entente.
(2) Russia still falls
(3) Germany still launches the Western Offensive.
(4) France and England still weather the Western Offensive. (This failed for more reasons than the Americans. The Germans were attacking across land that had been devastated by nearly four years of warfare, which created logistical problems. The territory Germany took was actually pretty useless and left them in an awkward defensive position.)
(5) Germany retreats to shorten their lines, but, since the Americans aren't there to reenforce the Western powers, the stalemate resumes.
(6) If Germany was the only Central Power, this would mean a continuation of the war for several more years. I think it would come down to whether Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire hold out. I don't think Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire would, since their surrender had a lot to do with the failure of the German Western offensive. This leaves Austria-Hungary vulnerable from the south, but it's not clear to me that it would collapse in 1918 since Germany was holding out in the west.
(7) The blockade was really hurting Germany, but I would think they would eventually get enough food from the occupied territories in the east to offset that somewhat.
So I think Germany and Austria-Hungary hold out for another year or so, and Germany gets more favorable terms. The Kaiser may get to stay in power. Austria-Hungary gives up first, and Germany is forced to come to terms.
Then
(1) America remains officially neutral while continuing to aid the Entente.
(2) Russia still falls
(3) Germany still launches the Western Offensive.
(4) France and England still weather the Western Offensive. (This failed for more reasons than the Americans. The Germans were attacking across land that had been devastated by nearly four years of warfare, which created logistical problems. The territory Germany took was actually pretty useless and left them in an awkward defensive position.)
(5) Germany retreats to shorten their lines, but, since the Americans aren't there to reenforce the Western powers, the stalemate resumes.
(6) If Germany was the only Central Power, this would mean a continuation of the war for several more years. I think it would come down to whether Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire hold out. I don't think Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire would, since their surrender had a lot to do with the failure of the German Western offensive. This leaves Austria-Hungary vulnerable from the south, but it's not clear to me that it would collapse in 1918 since Germany was holding out in the west.
(7) The blockade was really hurting Germany, but I would think they would eventually get enough food from the occupied territories in the east to offset that somewhat.
So I think Germany and Austria-Hungary hold out for another year or so, and Germany gets more favorable terms. The Kaiser may get to stay in power. Austria-Hungary gives up first, and Germany is forced to come to terms.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Not all that different. While the Germans were able to launch a hugely succesfull offensive in 1918, it was that same offensive that finally crushed thier armies after over extension. They likely would have gotten better terms out of the Treaty, and the Weimar Republic might have survived the Fascist rise of the 30's and 40's.
Riesstiu IV
Deity
The last German offensive of 1918 was a response to American declaration of war. It was an attempt to end the war before US troops could be stationed at the front lines. It is conceivable that had the US not joined, the Germans would not have wasted troops on such a bloody offensive.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
When the US declared war on Germany, the situation for the Entente was everything else than good:
1. France had already a mutinity of the troops. They were only calmed down as it was promised the US would enter the war soon. It is very likely another mutinity would have followed.
2. The Uboats had destroyed many ships. It was considered that under the losing rates of the beginning of 1917 at the end of the year the situation would be desperate. Even if we say it would last longer I doubt severely Britain could last longer than end of 1918.
3. The Germans had due to the peace with Russia several millions soldiers free, even more as used in the Michael offensive in 1918. So even more troops could have used in the west to a later but much stronger and better planed offensive. Considering the difficulties the Entente had by stopping the German advance in 1918, I doubt they would be able to stop it this time.
4. Most likely one side would have asked for peace before such a situation would have happened. The Entente could have tried to make peace on the base of the German peace proposal of 1916, which was rejected.
But the question was how the world would have seen now. This depends on the kind of ending.
1. A German victory when Paris fell:
a) France would have lost a few colonies, perhaps the remaining parts of Alsace- Lorraine they still had, and some fortresses like Verdun. Also paying reparations.
b) Britain would have made peace with Germany with much milder consequences. Germany would have been not able to invade Britain and Britain not able to lead a war any more. So it owuld be likely a kind of status quo ante, but with the solution of colonial and naval disputes, like a kind of Washington treaty.
c) Belgium would have lost Belgish Congo and would have accepted a kind of right of passage for German troops in the case of war with France. For Belgish Congo this consequence would have been much better than the reality.
d) Russia was likely not becoming bolshevistic as the Germans would have helped the White forces. However Ukraine, Belorus, Georgia, the Baltic Republics, Poland and Finland would have been independent now, most likely allied with Germany.
e) Austria- Hungary would have got a chance to survive. Perhaps also they would disintegrate like in 1919 but perhaps they would have used the chance. Here you can speculate. However if they were dissolving the empire Austria would have rejoined Germany. Austria would have also had South Tyrol and perhaps Triest.
f) The Ottoman empire would have become Turkey losing all of non Turkish parts.
g) Bulgaria would have got perhaps a bit land, but not lost some to Greece.
h) Serbia would have to pay a sum as reparation but would have kept their independence.
i) Germany and the ex Russian states as well as Austria, the Balcan states, France and Belgium, perhaps also Denmark and the Netherlands would have formed a kind of German lead EU. This was aimed to keep France under control but over short or long it could have evolved into a true EU.
j) Italy would have lost the Dodecanese islands to Greece and perhaps Libya and Italian Somaliland.
In the case of a draw or a small German defeat:
Versailles would have been a fair treaty solving the disputes. It would have been much more a status quo ante, but with some disputes solved.
In any case Hitler would have had no chance to become Chancellor and "Führer".
Adler
1. France had already a mutinity of the troops. They were only calmed down as it was promised the US would enter the war soon. It is very likely another mutinity would have followed.
2. The Uboats had destroyed many ships. It was considered that under the losing rates of the beginning of 1917 at the end of the year the situation would be desperate. Even if we say it would last longer I doubt severely Britain could last longer than end of 1918.
3. The Germans had due to the peace with Russia several millions soldiers free, even more as used in the Michael offensive in 1918. So even more troops could have used in the west to a later but much stronger and better planed offensive. Considering the difficulties the Entente had by stopping the German advance in 1918, I doubt they would be able to stop it this time.
4. Most likely one side would have asked for peace before such a situation would have happened. The Entente could have tried to make peace on the base of the German peace proposal of 1916, which was rejected.
But the question was how the world would have seen now. This depends on the kind of ending.
1. A German victory when Paris fell:
a) France would have lost a few colonies, perhaps the remaining parts of Alsace- Lorraine they still had, and some fortresses like Verdun. Also paying reparations.
b) Britain would have made peace with Germany with much milder consequences. Germany would have been not able to invade Britain and Britain not able to lead a war any more. So it owuld be likely a kind of status quo ante, but with the solution of colonial and naval disputes, like a kind of Washington treaty.
c) Belgium would have lost Belgish Congo and would have accepted a kind of right of passage for German troops in the case of war with France. For Belgish Congo this consequence would have been much better than the reality.
d) Russia was likely not becoming bolshevistic as the Germans would have helped the White forces. However Ukraine, Belorus, Georgia, the Baltic Republics, Poland and Finland would have been independent now, most likely allied with Germany.
e) Austria- Hungary would have got a chance to survive. Perhaps also they would disintegrate like in 1919 but perhaps they would have used the chance. Here you can speculate. However if they were dissolving the empire Austria would have rejoined Germany. Austria would have also had South Tyrol and perhaps Triest.
f) The Ottoman empire would have become Turkey losing all of non Turkish parts.
g) Bulgaria would have got perhaps a bit land, but not lost some to Greece.
h) Serbia would have to pay a sum as reparation but would have kept their independence.
i) Germany and the ex Russian states as well as Austria, the Balcan states, France and Belgium, perhaps also Denmark and the Netherlands would have formed a kind of German lead EU. This was aimed to keep France under control but over short or long it could have evolved into a true EU.
j) Italy would have lost the Dodecanese islands to Greece and perhaps Libya and Italian Somaliland.
In the case of a draw or a small German defeat:
Versailles would have been a fair treaty solving the disputes. It would have been much more a status quo ante, but with some disputes solved.
In any case Hitler would have had no chance to become Chancellor and "Führer".
Adler
Dreadnought
Deity
Well said Alder, well said. I admire your knowledge on these topics
I agree with the French soldiers revolting. The entire French army was about to mutiny.....you can guess the rest.
I agree with the French soldiers revolting. The entire French army was about to mutiny.....you can guess the rest.
Verbose
Deity
Not more so than they could still launch hugely successful offensives in 1918.Dreadnought said:Well said Alder, well said. I admire your knowledge on these topics
I agree with the French soldiers revolting. The entire French army was about to mutiny.....you can guess the rest.
The French army almost went to pieces in 1917, only it didn't. And it failed to fall apart under the preassure if the German 1918 offensives. And it again spectacularily failed to fail when launching an offensive of its own in 1918, instead messing up the Germans badly and breaking through.
I know it flies in the face of conventional US/UK wisdom (received ideas), but that's about the size of it.
And German historians have recently pointed out that after four years of carnage the German armies were displaying the same signs of fatigue as the French army was.
Nivelle's 1917 spring offensive started with high hopes. When these were dashed you the reaction was dramatic, with entire units refusing to go back into the trenches. These had to be rotated out of combat and replaced with dependable troops. But there were still dependable troops around to take their place.
And with much less hoopla Ludendorff on the German side by 1917 also had to contend with problems of German troops no longer dependable in battle. The big difference was that Ludendorff was the virtual generalissimo of a not-quite-as-democratic Germany compared to France, which meant he could put a lid on things while the French generals had to deal with this stuff in the open. (Check out the relevant article in the anthology "Facing Armageddon" if you like.)
And turning to the German 1918 offensives, their failure produced reactions extremely similar to those of the French army in 1917.
So I'll certainly admit that the French army had a breaking point, and one more easily reached than either the German armies of the British by 1918. The up-side was of course that the French commanders were very much aware of how far they could push things.
Which is where one can bring up the major factor in favour of the French army by wars end French military industry was outproducing everyone else. France hade more guns, tanks and aircraft than anyone else. The French army in WWI had perhaps the steepest learning curve, starting with "offensive à outrance", to "war of attrition" to "war of materiel".
So even if French troops in general had to be handled with more care than German or British ones, France in the end was going to win not from "moral factors" by through firepower and mechanisation.
With a US out of the war and a Germany not pressured to force a decison the war would have dragged on, but the German material handicap would just have increased. The Royal Flying Corps by 1919 would have been sending fleets of bombers to Berlin in WWII-style strategic bombing raids increasing German trouble for instance.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Heh. The idea of Germany winning World War One is frankly kind of laughable. There's no reason to suspect any of their offensives would have been any more successful then their last great one (whose name escapes me), which floundered after logistics halted it. The front was more fluid then it had been. But not that fluid.
The Allies still held the material and technological advantages. And for all the vaunted U Boats could do, Germany was on the worse side in their supply situation. The cities were nearly up in arms for food, the soldiers were on the point of rioting, because they were getting so little. Indeed, on that same offensive we mentioned, the Germans were slowed down because they were too busy looting British supply depots: they were amazed that the Allies still had their rum ration!
Far from bringing England to its knees, the U-Boats really weren't doing any significant damage. There weren't enough of them, and their technological edge had been obliterated by the use of the convoy system.
The Germans had tanks, but they were far outclassed by Allied tanks. Their soldiers, man for man, had better training, and they had the best non tank offensive tactics, but it wasn't enough to counter the Allies' material advantage.
What would have happened is a slightly prolonged war, maybe as much as half a year, the German troops would have mutinied, and pretty much the same effects would have occurred.
The Allies still held the material and technological advantages. And for all the vaunted U Boats could do, Germany was on the worse side in their supply situation. The cities were nearly up in arms for food, the soldiers were on the point of rioting, because they were getting so little. Indeed, on that same offensive we mentioned, the Germans were slowed down because they were too busy looting British supply depots: they were amazed that the Allies still had their rum ration!
Far from bringing England to its knees, the U-Boats really weren't doing any significant damage. There weren't enough of them, and their technological edge had been obliterated by the use of the convoy system.
The Germans had tanks, but they were far outclassed by Allied tanks. Their soldiers, man for man, had better training, and they had the best non tank offensive tactics, but it wasn't enough to counter the Allies' material advantage.
What would have happened is a slightly prolonged war, maybe as much as half a year, the German troops would have mutinied, and pretty much the same effects would have occurred.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Indeed, the U's weren't nearly as big a threat in '18 as people make them out to be. If the Germans had embarked on a full scale sub program in '15, then Britain would've been in for some trouble. But not that late in the war.
Yeah I guess. I am just thinking of a situation in which the Second Reich could've been perserved through the war. Although, Germany would be facing severe economic problems even if they won after the war most likely bringing an end to the Monarch through revolution.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
The best bet for having them remain a Reich is having a stalemate so total ensue that peace is signed on relatively equal terms. Of course, like you said, there would be revolutions involved, but they might be able to keep them down, given their unitedness ethnically speaking.
Lord Chambers
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,004
My understanding is that US entry was relatively unimportant to the war outcome. Thus, not much would change in Europe.
However, in the US, without entry into a war over economics as it was later decried to be by America Firsters, the US may not have been so isolationist leading up to WW2. As a result, we may have gotten involved prior to Dec. 1941, and things would have probably gone more smoothly for the Allies. Instead of dicking around in Africa and Italy, a cross channel invasion could have been a more feasable option, ending the war more quickly. A quicker end means the Soviets get less, and a different 50-year follow up.
However, in the US, without entry into a war over economics as it was later decried to be by America Firsters, the US may not have been so isolationist leading up to WW2. As a result, we may have gotten involved prior to Dec. 1941, and things would have probably gone more smoothly for the Allies. Instead of dicking around in Africa and Italy, a cross channel invasion could have been a more feasable option, ending the war more quickly. A quicker end means the Soviets get less, and a different 50-year follow up.
7ronin
海軍少佐
Adding to Adler17's excellent analysis, Germany would have retained and possbily added to it's holdings in the Pacific Ocean thereby blunting Japanese expansionism in the south and southeast to a certain extent.
Similar threads
