What if the USA hadn't got involved in WW1?

[chancellor_dan]

Most 'What If' scenarios seem to revolve around the Second World War so i thought this might be an interesting one to ponder. With it's allies in dissaray and the British naval blockade, was Germany doomed anyway, or with Russia out of the war and Germany able to concentrate additional forces to the West, would the historical outcome been different?

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Germany would've been starved to death. Certainly wouldn't have lasted past 1920.
And many of Germany's troops were needed to garrison the conquests in the East, albeit not as many as were previously needed to fight Russia.

Germany was losing the war by a very long way, the US was just the final push.

 

[luiz]

I think the american involvment was more needed in WW1 then WW2(although it was quite helpful in WW2 as well).

Russia was out of the war, and the western front was tied. The americans were a decisive factor.

 

[Chieftess]

Maybe WWII might not have happened. (i.e., the 'key people' might've been killed in battle) The war certainly would've lasted longer, probably until 1919 or 1920. It's hard to say who would've won, however... consider this:

Most European nations saw the tanks as slow and cumbersome, thus they were discontinued after WWI. Germany continued to improve on the tanks. Whether or not that would've happened if WWI were prolonged, I don't know. Maybe Russia would've gotten back into the war (being Communist now), and holding onto their territorial gains -- perhaps even pushing through all of Europe.

 

[luiz]

Maybe Russia would've gotten back into the war (being Communist now), and holding onto their territorial gains -- perhaps even pushing through all of Europe.

Russia was bankrupt, starving, and fighting a bloody civil war. They would never return to the war, much less push through all Europe.

 

[greekguy]

I think the american involvment was more needed in WW1 then WW2

i disagree, if USA didn't enter WW2, then britian and russia would be speaking German and the nazis and america would just be fighting a longer drawn out war. russia was getting destroyed, when we entered we took some heat off them. if we didn't enter, russia would've fallen and britian would have been all be themselves in the fight against facism. we won the war for the allies. though for WW1, i think both sides had a shot had winning the war without our help. the western front wouldn't have moved for years without the USA.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Russia was bankrupt, starving, and fighting a bloody civil war. They would never return to the war, much less push through all Europe.

Agreed, it took great strategy on Trotksy's part and great efforst in all to win the civil war/wars of intervention......they were in no shape to go conquering Europe.

I think the american involvment was more needed in WW1 then WW2(although it was quite helpful in WW2 as well).

Disagreed.

You are forgetting the whole Pacific theater! Without the US, Japan would have swept over the whole area, (probably) conquering even Australia!

Plus without American airpower, German war production would have kept up, allowing them to keep fighting the Russians, with D-day never happening.
Eventually without America the Nazi's could even have defteated Russia, presuming that their war production could have kept up and their research not halted by American bombs.

 

[ComradeDavo]

As for the USA not entering world war 1.....I think it would have continued as a stalemate, intill German starvation and communist rebellion (remember, there were failed attempts by communists such as Rosa Luxembourg to overthrow the German government) eventually eroded their ability to fight so that they sued for peace, abiet with much better conditions than the Versailles treaty produced.

 

[Chieftess]

i disagree, if USA didn't enter WW2, then britian and russia would be speaking German and the nazis and america would just be fighting a longer drawn out war. russia was getting destroyed, when we entered we took some heat off them. if we didn't enter, russia would've fallen and britian would have been all be themselves in the fight against facism. we won the war for the allies. though for WW1, i think both sides had a shot had winning the war without our help. the western front wouldn't have moved for years without the USA.

That German government only grew out of 2 things -

1 - German humiliation (humiliation can breed ultra-nationalism -- not a good mixture).
2 - Counter government to Communism.

If Germany won WWI, there would be no fascism, since there wouldn't be a need for it.

BTW, this thread is about WWI, not WWII.

Russia was bankrupt, starving, and fighting a bloody civil war. They would never return to the war, much less push through all Europe.

If my history lessons were correct, Russia became communist in 1917, and re-entered the war.

 

[ComradeDavo]

If my history lessons were correct, Russia became communist in 1917, and re-entered the war.

That is incorrect.

In febuary 1917 the Tzar was overthrown and replaced by a provisonal government, who continued the war against popular opinion and suffered much for it.

In october 1917 the Bolsheviks (the communist faction led by Lenin) overthrew the provisional government, and sought peace with the Germans, signing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk ending the war and giving alot of Land to Germany.

 

[Chieftess]

Ok, I'm officially disbelieving anything my 10th and 11th grade Social Studies teacher (same person) ever taught me.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

In WW1, the American involvement was slight. It was the prospect of American involvement and the limitless arms combined with the fact that the United States couldn't be beaten that played a moral factor. In terms of military involvement, the USA were equipped largely by Allied arms such as French artillery and did not engage in many battles. Those it did engage in, it operated tactics that had been used by Britain in 1916 (The 1st day of the Somme) and the French in the battle of the Frontier - disasterous.

WW1 was won by Britain and her Commonwealth, which at that time was inexhaustable, the resistance the French had shown, the diversion Russia presented and a German loss of faith that victory was atttainable. The contrast to WW2 couldn't be greater.

No American involvement would not have changed the result, except that Germany would have faced harsher terms as the 14 points wouldn't have been used and as a result Germany may not have been able to start WW2.


I'm not demeaning the power of the USA at this time, simply that Pershing and Co did not apply it effectively and that Britain and her Empire at that time were far more capable of supporting a vast army, one that never broke.

 

[luiz]

Agreed, it took great strategy on Trotksy's part and great efforst in all to win the civil war/wars of intervention......they were in no shape to go conquering Europe.

Indeed, Lenin and Trotsky proved to be quite capable military leaders.

Disagreed.

You are forgetting the whole Pacific theater! Without the US, Japan would have swept over the whole area, (probably) conquering even Australia!

Plus without American airpower, German war production would have kept up, allowing them to keep fighting the Russians, with D-day never happening.
Eventually without America the Nazi's could even have defteated Russia, presuming that their war production could have kept up and their research not halted by American bombs.

Yep, I meant the european theater. The Pacific Theater was won almost single-handedly by the americans(and of course chinese resitence in China).

 

[stormbind]

The USA had almost no influence on WW1, because soldiers had almost no influence on WW1.

It was a war won by massive machines such as battleships and tanks. The USA had no noticeable influence on the deployment of such decisive weapons.

 

[onejayhawk]

The idea that the US had little impact on WW I is silly. THere was substantial impact through material support, long before the troops arrived.

J

 

[Ebitdadada]

The USA had almost no influence on WW1, because soldiers had almost no influence on WW1.

It was a war won by massive machines such as battleships and tanks. The USA had no noticeable influence on the deployment of such decisive weapons.

Um, what about in the area supplying the basic matterials to build those massive machines and the area of financing those large machines?

Edit: Of course in your version of history I'm sure Britain won the war singlehandidly.


Back to the original subject:

I think the world may have been a better place if the US hadn't interveaned directly as it probably means no WWII. Although anyone who has played Red Alert 1 or 2 can tell you I might be horibly wrong.

 

[kronic]

The Germans certainly wouldn't have given up if there were not these hundreds of thousands US troops coming to France every month. Until 1918 the French and Brits couldn't really beat the German troops, although the Germans as well had to fight against the Russians most of the time.

If the Germans were able to use the agrarian potential of the Ukraine, they wouldn't starve to death...

But then, I don't know, if it would have been better with a tie or a German victory. Sure, the holocaust might not have happened, but I wouldn't count on that. Maybe, Germany wouldn't be a democracy today...

 

[blindside]

The USA had almost no influence on WW1, because soldiers had almost no influence on WW1.

It was a war won by massive machines such as battleships and tanks. The USA had no noticeable influence on the deployment of such decisive weapons.

I thought the USA played a key role in forcing back the German spring offensive in 1918. The American soldiers weren't as well trained or equipped as the other powers but their presence turned things around. In World War II the Soviets would have won the war regardless of American military involvment but American involvment did save half of Europe (and perhaps the world) from Soviet control.

 

[Chieftess]

Well, I took a look at this site, and I never knew the Russian civil war lasted until 1921. (I had always thought it was a quick revolution) Well, with that in mind...

Since Russia was in no position to attack again, I think Germany would have (slowly) pushed into France. England would've attacked from the north and south once they were through with the Ottoman Turks. I'm not sure of Spain's condition during WWI (I can't seem to find any info, and google tells me "Spain WWI" should be "Spain WWII"). But, Spain and England might've slowed the Germans for atleast a few months or years. Now, if Germany continued improving their tanks, then they probably could have won.

However, there might've been a WWII of a different sorts - between Communist Russia and a Monarch German Europe.

 

[FriendlyFire]

If the Germans were able to use the agrarian potential of the Ukraine, they wouldn't starve to death...

Server man power shortages.