Wwi

[Wolf Rider]

I've been thinking about WWI a bit, and I have two questions in particular that I think are interesting:
1) If the Zimmerman telegram had not been intercepted by the British (or sent by the Germans) and the Lusitania wasn't sunk, would the US have joined the war? Also, assume no other ships were destroyed, so that they didn't take the place of the Lusitania. Basically, no unrestricted submarine warfare.
2) If they above happened, and the US stayed out, would the course of the war have been dramatically altered? Could a DMZ formed, just like in Korea? If that DID happen, that DMZ might still exist today, right? I'm asking this because the US wasn't very powerful when they joined the war.
Please correct an mistakes I made.
Thanks.

 

[LightSpectra]

1) If the Zimmerman telegram had not been intercepted by the British (or sent by the Germans) and the Lusitania wasn't sunk, would the US have joined the war?

Impossible to say.

2) If they above happened, and the US stayed out, would the course of the war have been dramatically altered?

Impossible to say, though given the imminent collapse of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire anyway, it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which Germany wins the war in any scenario. U.S. entry only ensured that a negotiated peace would be improbable.

Could a DMZ formed, just like in Korea? If that DID happen, that DMZ might still exist today, right?

Impossible to say.

I'm asking this because the US wasn't very powerful when they joined the war.

lolwut?

 

[Wolf Rider]

I assume that you disagree that the US wasn't very powerful at the start of WWI. I wasn't very sure about that, but I think I heard (or read) it somewhere.

 

[LightSpectra]

I assume that you disagree that the US wasn't very powerful at the start of WWI. I wasn't very sure about that, but I think I heard (or read) it somewhere.

The U.S. had a larger GDP than all four Central Powers combined. What exactly do you consider to be "powerful?"

 

[Wolf Rider]

Military Size (Number of Men), weapon technology, navy size, Training, etc... Obviously on their own this doesn't make a an army powerful, but you need some of each to be "powerful". GDP and economy does help, though.

 

[LightSpectra]

Military Size (Number of Men), weapon technology, navy size, Training, etc... Obviously on their own this doesn't make a an army powerful, but you need some of each to be "powerful". GDP and economy does help, though.

And what absurd source has given you the impression that the U.S. was lacking in any of these?

 

[Wolf Rider]

I can't remember what the source was, and I can't find anything on that can verify it, either. I posted a question about it on the forum. Maybe somebody else knows something.

 

[Dreadnought]

I've been thinking about WWI a bit, and I have two questions in particular that I think are interesting:
1) If the Zimmerman telegram had not been intercepted by the British (or sent by the Germans) and the Lusitania wasn't sunk, would the US have joined the war? Also, assume no other ships were destroyed, so that they didn't take the place of the Lusitania. Basically, no unrestricted submarine warfare.
2) If they above happened, and the US stayed out, would the course of the war have been dramatically altered? Could a DMZ formed, just like in Korea? If that DID happen, that DMZ might still exist today, right? I'm asking this because the US wasn't very powerful when they joined the war.
Please correct an mistakes I made.
Thanks.

1) If you read into the political history of the time, Wilson's administration and several notable US businessmen (JP Morgan, for example) were firmly on the Allies side even if not directly in the war with them. With Wilson winning the reelection, it was a virtual guarantee that the US would join the Allies - in fact, in can be said that the Germans reinitialized U-Boat warfare because they knew that the Americans were going to come in 1916/17, so they gambled that they could defeat Britain before the US declared war.

2) I'm thinking there would be most likely a negotiated peace between the powers. If that didn't occur, it would be a race to see which would collapse first - the French military or the German homefront.

 

[Verbose]

2) I'm thinking there would be most likely a negotiated peace between the powers. If that didn't occur, it would be a race to see which would collapse first - the French military or the German homefront.

I'd say neither, or in a pinch, of these the German home front then. In reality, me, I would expect the German army to cry uncle sooner or later after the failed 1918 spring offensive.

The French army in late 1918 - given the tactics and gear used - wasn't closer to collapse than say the British, and the Germans were a fair bit worse off than either, having lost its last trump card, the relative manpower advantage in it once enjoyed, in its 1918 spring offensive, and being outclassed in just about everything else. (The Germans also hit the British in their spring offensive, being the softer target compared to the French.)

The British and the French both enjoyed massive advantages in artillery, tanks and aircraft. The British were less sensitive to casualties, so could trade lives for speed, which I would think a major reason why the Entente offensive in 1918 to a rather large extent became a British victory. The French couldn't so didn't, but also didn't really have to, and ground down the Germans perfectly well on their own accord, albeit slower than the British. And by the time the Germans really had nothing to shift either from fighting how and when the chose anymore.

I'd rate the biggest French problem in late 1918 to be the upcoming manpower bottleneck when it would stop being feasible for them to retrain more front line infantry to artillery duty. There was a "thinning of the line" phenomenon already, with about 3 in 8 French soldiers on the western front detailed for chucking high explosives at anything German stirring. I would think somewhere around 4 in 8 or so further "thinning" becomes impossible. All of this will slow the French, but won't cause them to take casualties at an unsustainable rate for at least another year or so. Expectation would be to win in 1919. If that didn't happen, scratch the bets.

Imo as long as the US continued to extend credit to France and the UK, and US firms continued to accept contracts from them, Germany would lose. But yes, it still just might have got a situation where it would be offered terms, not just unconditional surrender.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'd expect the US to join either way because Woodrow Wilson was so committed to the entente cause (even when Britain and Germany acted similarly, he would defend Britain and condemn Germany). If they didn't join, I think Germany would have won, it would have just taken longer. In some ways, Germany's biggest successes (their 1918 offensive and their resuming of unrestricted submarine warfare) were done to win the war before the US entered. Without the US, they probably would be less ambitious and there would have been a slow collapse simply due to the British blockade. But I'd still imagine a far more negotiated settlement.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm not seeing any situation outside of the absurd where Germany can win after 1917. Even without U.S. entry to the war, Austria-Hungary's economy had collapsed and its military was trembling. After they fall, theoretically a new front is opened up against Germany by the Italians.

I refuse to play what-if, but nevertheless the only non-defeat scenario I can see for the Central Powers is if they negotiate a peace in 1918 before the Alps Campaign is concluded.

 

[Verbose]

In some ways, Germany's biggest successes (their 1918 offensive and their resuming of unrestricted submarine warfare) were done to win the war before the US entered.

But both of these were failures. If Germany would win in the west, it would win in 1914, but then the gains would also be limited.

 

[Heraclius49]

By the Time the US joined the war, Germany had already lost the Naval war. They were stuck behind the UK's blockade, despite their attempts to breakout. Even the declaration of unrestricted Naval warfare did not change Germany's situation much. Britain has adopted a convoy system to protect its merchant marine. The rate submarines downed ships continued to decrease per month. I do not see Germany winning this war by any means.

 

[Naskra]

If you read into the political history of the time, Wilson's administration and several notable US businessmen (JP Morgan, for example) were firmly on the Allies side

A deeper reading of the history will show that JP Morgan died before the war.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm not seeing any situation outside of the absurd where Germany can win after 1917. Even without U.S. entry to the war, Austria-Hungary's economy had collapsed and its military was trembling. After they fall, theoretically a new front is opened up against Germany by the Italians.

I refuse to play what-if, but nevertheless the only non-defeat scenario I can see for the Central Powers is if they negotiate a peace in 1918 before the Alps Campaign is concluded.

This. Though theoretically Germany could have pulled out a negotiated peace with fairly decent terms if they managed to hang in there or launched another offensive that met with more success than it should, they certainly couldn't win after 1917.

 

[say1988]

I don't see the Germans have any significant success in 1919, even if their allies managed to hold out. British and French armoured forces would be that much larger and better (training, experience, improved vehicles and strategy) providing a significant advantage. Their all-out offensive in 1918 failed and time was definitely on the Allied side, with its blockade and developing tank forces and strategy. If things got desperate the British always still had their Indian forces to bring to bear, which they had generally avoided using in Europe, with half a million men and plenty to recruit from.

 

[Glassfan]

I assume that you disagree that the US wasn't very powerful at the start of WWI. I wasn't very sure about that, but I think I heard (or read) it somewhere.

At the start of WW I, August 1914, the US Army was indeed very small and weak - Black Jack Pershing could not even catch Pancho Villa across the border. The Army Air Corps was virtually non-existant. Only the US Navy was fairly strong. During the three years of neutrality, America slowly expanded its forces. But even by April, 1917 when America declared war, it was unprepared. The first US division to land in France was a hodge-podge of Army and Marine units. The Americans had to borrow French airplanes and British tanks. But withing a year, more than a million troops had arrived and several million more were in the pipeline. When the 1st US Army entered the lines, the last major offensive had begun.

So yes, the USA wasn't very powerful in arms at the start, but it caught up fast, and would have been the dominant force on the continent had the war lasted into 1919. And as much as I hate to agree with LightSpectra, Gross National Product, industrial capacity, natural resources and population are extremely important. If you have three years to turn it into military force.