# No USA participation in WWI



## gjs238 (Jun 12, 2015)

So, what would have happened had the US remained neutral?


----------



## mikewint (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm also curious as to what you mean by the US remaining "neutral." The US had a fair amount of pro-Allies bias before their formal entry into the war, which was one of the reasons the Germans ultimately chose to engage in Unrestricted Submarine Warfare despite US objections; they believed American entry into the war was already a foregone conclusion by that point.
A US that maintains a policy of strict neutrality as the Secretary of State at the time advocated is very different from a US continues to offer supplies and funds to the Entente powers, but avoids formal entry into the war.
My personal opinion; Germany's 1918 offensive might be delayed a bit for more careful planning as ending the war will not seem as urgent as it did at the time, and Italy, which after Caporetto the Germans saw as being fairly weak, might well be the target instead of France. If the Germans manage a second Caporetto, Italy probably starts negotiating, and with two of their allies knocked out of the war France and Britain might decide to negotiate as well while they're still in a position of strength.
Since the US is the only great power not involved in the war there's a fair chance that the US might end up hosting the peace negotiations since it would be regarded as neutral ground.
Another interesting possibility is that a neutral US would invest in a major fleet since Wilson was pissed with Britian's Naval policies. Not to the point of going to war with Britain but with Britain's high handedness with neutral shipping and America's interpretation of 'freedom of the seas' a significant rift was in the making. The US began its 1916 expansion because of its neutrality and in order to protect its neutrality. Wikipedia puts US Naval strength at the start of World War I at 11 pre-dreadnoughts and 10 dreadnoughts, with another four being commisioned in 1916. Not a force large enough to seriously threaten the Royal Navy's supremacy, but certainly significant enough to cause problems for Britain. With some better propaganda from Germany and/or worse from Britain and with all the Irish and Germans in the US it wouldn't take much to swing US support into their favor.
So how about the US entering the war on the side of the CP. For the US to enter the war on the CP side would probably at least require a different president (Wilson was too much of an anglophile). The best way to change the president is to change the Democratic nominee. James Beauchamp Clark seems like a natural replacement for Wilson; he initially held a majority of the votes at the Democratic convention so he's obviously a viable candidate, and he opposed US entry into World War I.
So a different president, better German propaganda, anger at Britian's Naval policies, and pressure from the US large German and Irish population and the US enteres on the side of the CP!
The timing of US entry matters quite a bit; if it's prior to Jutland then we likely see a weaker British force when the Germans make their naval sorite (I'd assume that Britain diverting ships to North America would make the Germans even more eager to seek battle). If the US enters after Jutland then perhaps Germany is a bit more aggressive with it's fleet once the battle damage is repaired; the naval situation is better for Germany compared to OTL. A CP US also makes Unrestricted Submarine Warfare much less of a diplomatic problem for Germany, and the loss of the US as a trade partner will make economic damage inflicted by German submarines all the more painful.
Britain is also going to be forced to divert some ground forces to the defense of Canada; at the very least the Canadian Corps would be recalled to defend the homeland, and likely some British forces would be dispatched too. The US will take quite a while to assemble a proper army so a defensive build-up won't need to be too massive at first, but every soldier in Canada isn't on the Western Front. If the war goes on long enough for the US to get fully geared up to fight (which will probably take at least a year) the British will have to either pull large numbers of troops off of the Western front or resign themselves to losing Canada.

Isn't speculation FUN...back to the original question: Okay, if the US stays neutral, perhaps becoming embroiled in the Mexican Civil War as nearly happened, the Central Powers are in pretty good shape--Russia is out and Italy is staggering. The Ottoman Empire is in a world of hurt with Lawrence of Arabia roaming about, but otherwise, the Central Powers seem to have the upper hand. Obviously, Germany is going to redeploy her army squarely against France, although reinforcing Austria against Italy might be more helpful, in terms of knocking the Entente out of the war. I think France will slowly be forced backwards, rather than the quick advance that was attempted. The loss of Paris would not end France's ability to fight, but it might be serious enough that the French would probably have to know that they were beaten--and even if this is not the case, the loss of Paris can only mean that the war has swung heavily against the Entente. Whether the French sue for peace or simply start to crumble, Germany is going to redeploy against Italy, and then mop up the Balkans. This would probably take until 1920--but after Paris falls, the war is winding down.
After that the CP writes Peace Terms. The UK gets a fair deal, as does Portugal and Japan, but France and Italy can expect no more mercy than Russia received.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 10, 2021)

Short answer predicated on the US remaining truly neutral. Negotiated peace, No Nazi party in power, Adolf ekes out a living as a painter, Vladimir Ilyich remains in Switzerland, no Tripartite for Japan to join, British Empire lasts a little longer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 10, 2021)

A negotiated peace. Germany gets a better deal. Ottoman Empire is still kaput. Pretty much what you said.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 11, 2021)

In my readings on WWI I came across the following curiosity. Pre-war British Naval Doctrine was to maintain a navy that was ideally, twice as large as the two other largest navies in the world. German war aims (early, they changed later in the war) was to have Great Britain and France agree to a negotiated peace through which the Royal Navy would maintain it's status by having a fleet twice as large as the world's single largest navy. I think the book was titled 'The Pity of War' but it might have been some other book.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 11, 2021)

Colonel House, Wilson's man in Europe, (his Harry Hopkins or Henry Kissinger, if you like), was a total creature of Britain's foreign policy and miss-information campaign. For the POSSIBILITY of the US staying neutral, Wilson cannot be Col House's cat. And .... House is the man who crafted Wilson's political career.

WW1 is doomed train smash-up no matter what track you take.

Structures and political institutions collapse_ from within_, from corruption and rust, IMO. Three empires toppled and the charges laid under two more - Britain and France.
In hindsight what does that say about the world of 1914 that was coming to en end

A world that in sparkling new Anglo-Canada ... the role of Bastion of the British Empire seemed an honorable role, a role that men could enlist and fight to defend.
Mother's family resort, Rostrevor, on lake Rosseau. The saucy blonde tomboy with her brothers and clan circa 1908 at the 'cottage'. Father and two brothers would enlist and serve; all would return. To a changed world. What you see had been swept away .... coming back as we speak, for "Hollywood".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jun 11, 2021)

Assuming a truly neutral stance, I think Operation Michael achieves a breakthrough, the Germans take Paris, the French sue for peace, the Brits follow shortly thereafter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 11, 2021)

michaelmaltby said:


> Colonel House, Wilson's man in Europe, (his Harry Hopkins or Henry Kissinger, if you like), was a total creature of Britain's foreign policy and miss-information campaign. For the POSSIBILITY of the US staying neutral, Wilson cannot be Col House's cat. And .... House is the man who crafted Wilson's political career.
> 
> WW1 is doomed train smash-up no matter what track you take.
> 
> ...


I believe that one of the most important reasons that Col. House was so important to Wilson is that they both thought alike. Their world views were not only compatible, but to a large degree interchangeable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 11, 2021)

The two power standard was the idea that the RN would have to have equal or more battleships than the next two great naval powers which would have been France and Russia. Sigh Rule Britannia and all that.

My favourite is the Japanese 888 fleet so 8 battleships and 8 battlecruisers each no older than 8 years old. The Japanese economy would have sunk well before any enemy fleet.

The naval treaties ended all this so the great battleship ding ding of the twenties didn't happen. Much to the chagrin of fight fans. Jutland 2 cancelled!

Anyway back to Americas.

USA stays totally neutral. No guns or supplies so war ends early in some kind of truce. 

USA keeps on making and selling arms but doesn't get involved. If the Soviet revolution still happens then Germany could have a big advantage on the Western Front. So that's either a negotiated truce or German breakthrough. Whether Kaiserschlacht was a thing without or with America is a difficult one to say.

Rapid movement was not a thing in ww1 so getting to Paris would have been a stretch but I am still annoyed about that Citroen I once owned so the destruction of Paris gets the nod from me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 12, 2021)

I've read a number of histories on WWI and did a little digging into how the war boosted the American economy. Within the first 4-6 months the French andBritish realized that it was going to drag out longer than they expected and more importantly, that they planned for. This is when they opened up their wallets. Between 1915 and early 1917, just before America declared war on Germany, Great Britain and France were spending the equivalent a billion dollars a week in 1990s U.S. dollars. Apparently not only did they deplete their financial reserves to catastrophic levels, but they had to borrow money in those same amounts from the United States banks. It's no wonder that everybody, but everybody, owed the U.S. money after the war ended. I'm pretty sure they were counting on the fact that once the U.S. realized being forced to the negotiating table would mean they could not to pay back their debts in a timely manner the U.S. would step in. They were counting on the U.S. ensuring that they would be able to pay back the loans they owed to American banks. For the U.S. to have remained truly neutral would have meant an all out ban on all military goods and services, including loans.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2021)

Europe was a powder keg in the early 20th century and it would be only a matter if time before it blew up.
The saber-ratteling, political posturing and social unrest madenit hard to predict just when it would happen - the Balkan Wars came close to doing it.

As it was, the war was bankrupting all the nations, including the ones that fell by the wayside during the conflict - it was non-sustainable and if the U.S. had not entered the war, it would have eventually ground to a halt with compromises and treaties to stop the collapse.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
 2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 12, 2021)

To say ww1 was inevitable is kinda true kinda false. Stuff was going on but it wasn't a 100% inevitable. It could have been avoided if men of goodwill choose it. But war is what was wanted so it was inevitable by design and not random chance.

America supported the allies by building weapons and food stuff and made off with massive bags of cash.

Oddly America was utterly unready by 1917 so it wasn't a case of just stepping in. Even in 1918 still unready so it would have been 1919 before they got the full war machine going. So this was the cut off for Germany either win in 1918 or lose in 1919.

Ww1 was the end of the British Empire and the end of Numero Uno status. Even the end of British naval supremacy. Damn you Kaiser!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 12, 2021)

The Basket said:


> To say ww1 was inevitable is kinda true kinda false. Stuff was going on but it wasn't a 100% inevitable. It could have been avoided if men of goodwill choose it. But war is what was wanted so it was inevitable by design and not random chance.
> 
> America supported the allies by building weapons and food stuff and made off with massive bags of cash.
> 
> ...


Not only was America not ready but it became necessary to buy back some of the equipment that had been sold to the allies to supply the U.S. forces. Another statistic that people in the U.S. do not know is that in WWI U.S. forces had the highest rate of casualties of any conflict in U.S. history.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Jun 12, 2021)

If Great Britain knew that the economic burden of WWI would permanently damage their empire to the point where it was no longer sustainable, would they have supported France and Russia?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jun 12, 2021)

If every country knew their fate then boy howdy ww1 wouldn't have happened.

Tsar Nicky, you are going to put against a wall and shot with your whole family. 

Maybe Nicky wouldn't have been so eager.

From British point of view then probably no. But the start of ww1 was going to be a jolly jape giving the hun a bloody nose and then back home for tea and medals.

Not four years of mud and trenches.

So could Britain have avoided war. Probably not. 

Had it known exactly what would happened then would it have done any different? Again dunno. I am only an idiot with a crippling porn addiction. This is way beyond me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 20, 2021)

The gift the United States gave the Allies in the Great War was manpower, and lots of it. Unlike WW2 the logistical support the US offered wasn't there despite promises, the fledgling US industry couldn't produce anything like what it could in WW2, but the outcome was the same, the weight of manpower and what weaponry it could supply made a big difference in a war of attrition. In 1918 the entire nature of the war changed and despite the inspired ideas behind the Kaiserschlacht, the Germans were not able to maintain what they had achieved and its objectives proved beyond their efforts. 

It did take a complete overturning of conduct that forced the Germans from the areas they captured during the Kaiserschlacht and having extra manpower definitely aided in the 100 Days Offensive that was characterised by fast moving (for the Great War at least) ranging attacks on German fixed positions. Since the Germans had solidified and retreated behind the Hindenburg Line since late 1917, after the failures of Passchendale and the Third Battles of Ypres the Allies learned they could only successfully attack German fortifications whilst on the move, and so they did. Between April and November 1918, Allied troops had recovered over 80 square kilometres of previously German held territory, from the Ypres salient lines like Kemmelsburg, through the Somme Valley at places like Bapaume, all captured during the Kaiserschlacht were retaken and attacking the Hindenburg Line at places like Havrincourt in flanking manouvres and reaching Cambrai and close to the German border by mid November, meant the Germans couldn't hold their positions and were overrun. The Allies also had air support and more tanks on the ground in support of the troop movements, which they used to their advantage as never before, the foundations of tactics successfully employed in WW2.

The common perception is that the German army was not defeated on the Western Front. It was, very much so. It couldn't sustain the gains it made in April and an onslaught with swift movement of masses of troops across such a broad front as that the Allies were moving throughout late summer and autumn 1918 was something the Germans couldn't counter directly anymore. The army was overwhelmed and couldn't hope to resupply itself owing to the pace the Allied armies were moving across the front. The cost in Allied manpower was high but compared to previous campaigns had less impact on the advance, the Allies could sustain the losses and keep moving.

Concluding, perhaps if the US hadn't gotten into the war, the opportunity to launch an attack of the magnitude of the 1918 offensives would not have come. Nevertheless, Germany was in a precarious position, it's armies were losing ground and back home, people were starving and resources not as bountiful for the troops at the front as they had been.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2021)

Akuma said:


> Another statistic that people in the U.S. do not know is that in WWI U.S. forces had the highest rate of casualties of any conflict in U.S. history.



Be interesting to know where that statistic came from.
In WWI, the U.S. mobilized 4.35 million troops, had a total of 53,402 dead and 205,690 wounded. The KIA accounted for 1.2% of it's combat forces.

In WWII, the U.S. lost 407,316 KIA with 671,801 wounded out of 16.2 million mobilized. The KIA accounted for just over 2.5% of it's combat forces.

However, the American Civil War has the distinction of being the bloodiest war ever fought by the United States.
Of the 2.2 million Union troops mustered, over 110,000 were KIA with over 282,000 wounded. The KIA accounted for 5% of it's combat forces.
If we factor in the numbers lost due to dying in Confederate prisons, disease and infection, then the Union death toll climbs to over 365,000 lost, or *16.6*% of it"s total combat force.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Akuma (Sep 5, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Be interesting to know where that statistic came from.
> In WWI, the U.S. mobilized 4.35 million troops, had a total of 53,402 dead and 205,690 wounded. The KIA accounted for 1.2% of it's combat forces.
> 
> In WWII, the U.S. lost 407,316 KIA with 671,801 wounded out of 16.2 million mobilized. The KIA accounted for just over 2.5% of it's combat forces.
> ...


It's been a while since I came across this. "The Myth of the Great War" by John Mosier. Take the number of days that US troops began engaging in action in WWI and divide the casualty figures to get an average daily number. Multiply that by the number of days of the civil war using the same criteria.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 5, 2021)

The time span is irrelevant.

The number mobilized and put into combat, with subsequent losses will arrive at the percentage lost.

We could do the same "projection" with WWII casualties, since the U.S entered the European war two years late or the Pacific war four years late.


----------

