What if USA didn't involved in WWI ?

[Gustav_Adolf]

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

 

[RedRalph]

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

 

[Lone Wolf]

(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.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[Reno]

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.

 

[RedRalph]

Wasnt Germany more or less starving by 1918?

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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...

 

[kulade]

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.

 

[Tee Kay]

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.

 

[Tee Kay]

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.

 

[azzaman333]

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

 

[FriendlyFire]

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.

 

[Naskra]

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

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

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.

 

[Adler17]

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

 

[Verbose]

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.

 

[Steph]

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.