World War One without the US

[~Corsair#01~]

The Kornilov Affair gave an excuse for the "Red Guards" to start mobilising as some kind of force, and built up Bolshevik credibility (they had been rambling about conspiracies and counter-revolutionaryism for ages), and so helped the October Revolution to take place.

This and Kerensky's disasterous July 1917 offensive were pivotal in putting the Bolsheviks in a position to take power but I don't think either event was influenced by the US entry into the war.

 

[DAv2003]

I think the war would have ended practically the same as it did. The American Army had little physical affect in the war. The British blockade did the worst damage to the Germans... Apart from the needless bloodshed I mean.

 

[1889]

Lenin was in Switzerland and allowed passage through Germany in April of 1917. If the war ended before that Germany would have had no interest in helping Lenin return, on the other hand if the war was over and the Tsar gone Lenin could have bought his own ticket I suppose.

The Kornilov thing is new to me,
( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkornilovR.htm )
But I agree with what you’re saying.

Most of the communist support came from people who wanted out of the war (and oddly enough were willing to fight for that.) Had the provisional government made peace with Germany many of Lenin’s supports may have backed Kerensky. There were still plenty of people to fight a civil war though so “no October Revolution” may not equal “Russian democracy”.

 

[Antilogic]

As far as I understand, the reason why the second "Red" revolution occurred in Russia was because the new representative government had promised to end the war, but the Western allies could not let them lest Germany be reduced to a one front war. One of the reasons why the United States waited so long to go to war was because Wilson couldn't sell the war as a "war for democracy" if they were allied with the most backwards, czarist regime of Russia. The fact is, the Russians were doomed to revolution, irrelevant of the entry of the United States. Both the White Russians and Red Russians wanted out of the war. It's just the Whites were dependent on foreign aid from allies to stay in power.

The true question for Russia, therefore, is whether or not a serious, organized attack against the Bolsheviks following World War I would have saved the Russian republic during the Russian Revolution (lasted until 1922, if I remember correctly).


Also, the Spring Offensive by Germany in 1918...the infamous strike that gave the illusion that the Germans were going to win the war, despite their equally severe morale and domestic problems at home...this was a desperate effort to finish the war before the United States forces had been deployed. More than likely, if the United States hadn't entered the war, the Spring Offensive would not have worked out the same way...and then, you really can't predict what would have happened.



And, in terms of a world leader...well, take a look at Europe. They were devastated by 4 years of slaughter. The United States lost relatively little, so I would say they would still be in a powerful position. It's just like the Civ game where two superpowers beat each other into submission, and then the second rate power that wasn't close to the top 40 years ago is suddenly the victor by default. Also, look at the casualties to the working class...the United States lost relatively little of its population of males in the 18-30 range. Take a look at the European workforce in 1913 and 1918. Not pretty, is it?


EDIT: Typo!

 

[Adler17]

Antilogic,

Russia could have made peace earlier, I mean Kerensky could have done so. It was clear Russia had lost. And despite all possibilities to go out of the war, and though no risking another revolution, he stayed in the fights. That doomed Russia. If he made peace with Germany another revolution might not have taken place. Lenin would have stayed in Switzerland and no Bolshevistic revolution occured.
In 1917 the French forces were in an even worse shape than the Germans. Germany was also in a bad shape indeed, but the French were in an even worse one. They were only persuaded to fight again, because the US would enter the war. But if that did not happen, a second mutinee in 1917/1918 was very propable.
However even if the French decided to fight further the German offensives in the Spring/ Summer of 1918 would have been much more successful and also not hurried.
Although Germany was in bad shape, the French were in an even worse one. They would have collapsed sooner.

Adler

 

[Yeeek]

Why in your what-if scenario you forgot to mention the British and their navy?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Antilogic,

Russia could have made peace earlier, I mean Kerensky could have done so. It was clear Russia had lost. And despite all possibilities to go out of the war, and though no risking another revolution, he stayed in the fights. That doomed Russia. If he made peace with Germany another revolution might not have taken place. Lenin would have stayed in Switzerland and no Bolshevistic revolution occured.
In 1917 the French forces were in an even worse shape than the Germans. Germany was also in a bad shape indeed, but the French were in an even worse one. They were only persuaded to fight again, because the US would enter the war. But if that did not happen, a second mutinee in 1917/1918 was very propable.
However even if the French decided to fight further the German offensives in the Spring/ Summer of 1918 would have been much more successful and also not hurried.
Although Germany was in bad shape, the French were in an even worse one. They would have collapsed sooner.

Adler

I do believe the French would have crumbled if we hadn't been the proverbial glue that held the together. I mean the war could have gone entirely different if the Germans launched a massive offensive during the French Mutiny. I don't believe the British would have been able to shore up the gaps in time. If they fought at all, morale was very low during most of the war and to see your allies deserting could have been enough to make British troops do the same, all the while boosting that of their enemy. I believe the British would have made a quick attempt to shore up the gaps, which would inevitably fail, at which time they would do what they quite frequently do, retreat across the channel.

@Yeek: The British Navy was far more concerned with keeping the German High Seas Fleet at bay to worry about supporting the army. While I grant you they would have diverted some ships to aid had the French broke and ran, they would only be able to slow the German advance near the coast. Naval shells can only travel so far inland before they run out of steam.