WWI: What if the U.S. stayed neutral?

[germanos]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
I agree with the majority here:

No US entry, Germany defeated Russia, occupied Ukraine, solved food problems; stayed defensive in the West, made peace with the Entente, and returned to pre-war borders.

Conclusion: decisive German victory.

First off: I would not describe a return to pre-war borders a decisive German victory, but more some sort of stale-mate.

Secondly: Why would an absence of the US mean a victory over Russia?
Lenin & Co was brought to Russia (by and through Germany) before the entry of the US, even if it was only by a matter of days. Germany needed a quick and decisive end of militairy operations on the eastern front urgently, even without a full scale war with the US. It still took many months (or up to a year, depending in the count) before this was finally established.
I would think that the Germans were aware of their predicament, and their decision to allow Lenin to mess up Russia was not so much to enable them to advance on to the Ukraine, but more so to safegaurd their back. They would still have needed to make strategic gains in the west before they could even contemplate moving back east and stab Lenin in the back.

[Lancer]

molly, next to my toilet I have a big fat book titled 'Encyclopedia of Military History' by Dupey & Dupey. You are welcome to use my bathroom any time you like.

Consider that though the American inf didn't do alot to blunt the attack they did occupy space in the front that freed up French forces to concentrate elsewhere.

Originally posted by molly bloom



That's a lot of ifs. Even after Imperial German forces had occupied the Ukraine, food supplies were halted by starving citizens of Austria-Hungary.



Lancer

Evidence for this number, please.




You seem not to have read accounts of where the attacks occurred, who the Germans faced, and what resulted from the German offensive.

I'm not denying American participation in WWI, but this version of history seems to overplay rather the American infantry's role in blunting the German offensive.




Still intent on laying the blame, somehow, anyhow, on Perfidious Albion, eh, Ned ?

So the presence of German troops in (neutral) Belgium was what ? An oversight on the Germans' part, and the British should simply have said , ' But of course, we'll ignore any treaty obligations we might have to Belgium or France or Russia. Why not take Denmark and Sweden too ?'

I don't think you've read any recent works on the causes of WWI- certainly not since the interwar fabrications of German scholars 'proving' that the war wasn't Germany's fault.



They did- they simply had an appalling commander.




Unfortunately you seem to have ignored any evidence that I produced showing that the introduction of the convoy system meant that the British were able to 'get off their knees'.

You also appeared to claim earlier that the British were somehow responsible for the Germans introducing unrestricted submarine warfare, when in fact the Germans had re-introduced it because the British naval blockade was working and the British were still getting supplies through, despite the U-Boats.

[Zkribbler]

Dupey & Dupey?? They sound like 2 of the 7 dwarves

[Lancer]

...and I was wrong. It's a book titled 'Civilization' that does a brief bit on WWI. I'll post more when I get home.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lancer
molly, next to my toilet I have a big fat book titled 'Encyclopedia of Military History' by Dupey & Dupey. You are welcome to use my bathroom any time you like.

I have more than enough tomes on military history in general and on specific campaigns and wars as it is. I'm thinking of moving and just allowing the books, magazines, periodicals and newspaper clippings to get on with it, in an orgy of spontaneous generation.

What I was asking you for was some specifics, re: American troop numbers in France, when they arrived, and when they saw battle.

The first German offensive of 1918 took place on 21st March, against the British 5th Army along the Somme-Oise. The offensive was checked and held before Amiens.

Next came an attack on the British and Portuguese forces in Flanders on April 9th, this attack being halted by April's end.

The German Army had consistently suffered higher casulaties than the British since March 21st.

Foch had been created Commander in Chief of the Allied forces on 14th April.

The next attack was at Chemin des Dames and the Aisne on 27th May 1918.

Between 20th March and 25th June (after the Germans attacked at Noyon-Montdidier) the Reich lost over 800 000 men, a disproportionate number of whom were their elite 'Stormtrooper' units designed to spearhead the offensives.

Simply put, the Germans had already lost, because unlike the Allies they were not paying for the war as they were going, their economy was suffering, they too had mutinies in their front line areas and in their naval bases, their civilian population was going on strike over working conditions and rioting over lack of food, and their Alliance partners were being overrun or actively plotting behind their backs with the Entente.

The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was an illusory 'Carthaginian' peace- it created discord with Ottoman Turkey (which had 4 divisions in Rumania which it could have used in Mesopotamia) and meant keeping between 1.5 and 1.8 million troops in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, who ate some of the agricultural supplies needed throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Far from the Ukraine being a huge asset, Germany needed to keep troops there and send 80 000 tons of German coal to keep the railways operating in the Donetz Basin.

The Americans first saw frontline action in June-July 1918, as far as I recall, by the way...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I have more than enough tomes on military history in general and on specific campaigns and wars as it is. I'm thinking of moving and just allowing the books, magazines, periodicals and newspaper clippings to get on with it, in an orgy of spontaneous generation.

What I was asking you for was some specifics, re: American troop numbers in France, when they arrived, and when they saw battle.

The first German offensive of 1918 took place on 21st March, against the British 5th Army along the Somme-Oise. The offensive was checked and held before Amiens.

Next came an attack on the British and Portuguese forces in Flanders on April 9th, this attack being halted by April's end.

The German Army had consistently suffered higher casulaties than the British since March 21st.

Foch had been created Commander in Chief of the Allied forces on 14th April.

The next attack was at Chemin des Dames and the Aisne on 27th May 1918.

Between 20th March and 25th June (after the Germans attacked at Noyon-Montdidier) the Reich lost over 800 000 men, a disproportionate number of whom were their elite 'Stormtrooper' units designed to spearhead the offensives.

Simply put, the Germans had already lost, because unlike the Allies they were not paying for the war as they were going, their economy was suffering, they too had mutinies in their front line areas and in their naval bases, their civilian population was going on strike over working conditions and rioting over lack of food, and their Alliance partners were being overrun or actively plotting behind their backs with the Entente.

The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was an illusory 'Carthaginian' peace- it created discord with Ottoman Turkey (which had 4 divisions in Rumania which it could have used in Mesopotamia) and meant keeping between 1.5 and 1.8 million troops in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, who ate some of the agricultural supplies needed throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Far from the Ukraine being a huge asset, Germany needed to keep troops there and send 80 000 tons of German coal to keep the railways operating in the Donetz Basin.

The Americans first saw frontline action in June-July 1918, as far as I recall, by the way...

There is no doubt in MY mind, that if every American soldier had magically vanished on n June 1 1918, the outcome of the war would have been the same. Once the German spring offensive was underway, the destruction of the German army was too far gone to permit of recovery, and French and British and Commonwealth troops would certainly have won.

But American neutrality sets things changing well before that. Im not sure if the entire course of the eastern front in 1917 even goes the same. Perhaps there is no Russian summer offensive 1917 (perhaps Kerensky doesnt see it as worth it if no Americans on the way) Perhaps Kerensky makes a deal with the Germans and averts the Bolshevik revolution. Or maybe he triggers a counter revolution. Who knows how far off the rails Russian history goes?

ASSUMING Russia goes pretty much the same as in OTL, it still seems clear to me that with no Yanks, Germany pursues a defensive policy in the West. I am not convinced from Mollys factoids on coal that Ukraine is not an asset. I also am not sure how many troops and especially horses could be released back to German agriculture if theres no offensive in the West. It still WONT be a happy winter of 1918-1919 in Germany or Austria, but Im not convinced collapse is inevitable. As it was they didnt collapse till November, and Italy came close to collapsing first. And France was not in wonderful shape either. UK may have been far from collapsing, but UK was the strongest state of those who had been in the war from the beginning in that respect (and the ground commitment of UK troops hadnt been that big relative to population till 1915, and for parts of the Commonwealth till 1916, and UK didnt have conscription,IIUC, till 1916, and Canada never did, so theres some logic behind that)

[Sandman]

How would the Germans stabilise the collapsing fronts in Italy and the Balkans if they released men for agriculture?

[DinoDoc]

If we're assuming a neutral US, why would we still be implicitly assuming the loans the US made to the Allies to fund thier war effort still happens?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If we're assuming a neutral US, why would we still be implicitly assuming the loans the US made to the Allies to fund thier war effort still happens?

Or, for that matter, continue supply of vital war material (industrial chemicals, etc). DuPont made otu like Bandits even before official entry.

[Ned]

Molly, from my understanding of the 1800's treaty, the Belgian neutrality clause was added at Britain's instance to an agreement among the Netherlands, France, Germany and England when Belgium was separated from the Netherlands. The Brits did not want the Belgian ports to be bases for other European powers.

When German troops entered Belgium in 1914, it was not to attack Belgium per se, but to get to France. Belgium's neutality vis-a-vis Britain was not threatened by Germany.

But, it was soon made clear that Belgium itself was not neutral. Had it been neutral, it would have simply protested the German moves, but would not have engaged in warfare against her. Later, both French and British forces entered Belgium as well. The Belgians did not attack them. All three parties fought on the same side against the Germans. Clearly, Belgium was an active participant on one side and Britain's pretext for joining the war against Germany was just so much smoke and mirrors. Britain's entry into the war was legally unwarranted, even if Britain thought it necessary to thwart growing German power.

Then there is the matter of Britain attacking Turkey. Turkey had not attacked Britain, nor had it violated any agreement to which Britain was a party. Britain actually attacked Turkey before declaring war on her.

Finally, what had Austria ever done to Britain?

Britain was acting in all matters strictly on a voluntary basis with a view of protecting and extending her own Empire.

But the results of her greed and ambition undid that Empire, did it not? Had Britain simply stayed out of the war, she would have been much better for it.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, from my understanding of the 1800's treaty, the Belgian neutrality clause was added at Britain's instance to an agreement among the Netherlands, France, Germany and England when Belgium was separated from the Netherlands. The Brits did not want the Belgian ports to be bases for other European powers.

When German troops entered Belgium in 1914, it was not to attack Belgium per se, but to get to France. Belgium's neutality vis-a-vis Britain was not threatened by Germany.

But, it was soon made clear that Belgium itself was not neutral. Had it been neutral, it would have simply protested the German moves, but would not have engaged in warfare against her. Later, both French and British forces entered Belgium as well. The Belgians did not attack them. All three parties fought on the same side against the Germans. Clearly, Belgium was an active participant on one side and Britain's pretext for joining the war against Germany was just so much smoke and mirrors. Britain's entry into the war was legally unwarranted, even if Britain thought it necessary to thwart growing German power.

Then there is the matter of Britain attacking Turkey. Turkey had not attacked Britain, nor had it violated any agreement to which Britain was a party. Britain actually attacked Turkey before declaring war on her.

Finally, what had Austria ever done to Britain?

Britain was acting in all matters strictly on a voluntary basis with a view of protecting and extending her own Empire.

But the results of her greed and ambition undid that Empire, did it not? Had Britain simply stayed out of the war, she would have been much better for it.

So the US would permit Candaian troops through its territory to attack Mexico

[Ned]

The Stinger, bad analogy.

Better would be Canada trying to stop US troops from moving to Alaska to stop a Japanese invasion. During WWII, Canada actually permitted us to do that. But, what if Canada had used all its power to stop us while permitting Japanese access to Canada? One could conclude that Canada was in league with Japan.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If we're assuming a neutral US, why would we still be implicitly assuming the loans the US made to the Allies to fund thier war effort still happens?

As molly has pointed out, the war could probably still have been financed somehow. We've yet to see a reliable source clearly outlining Britain's impending collapse in 1917.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
As molly has pointed out, the war could probably still have been financed somehow.

Molly pointed out that the UK had an economically better position than Germany. That doesn't explain how the war could have been financed without the rather large American loans Keynes came hat in hand to the US to negotiate. (IIRC, they still haven't been repaid.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
How would the Germans stabilise the collapsing fronts in Italy and the Balkans if they released men for agriculture?

The front in Italy wasnt collapsing till well on in 1918, and ditto the Balkans, IIUC. With US out, Italian morale is going to be even worse than in OTL, and ppossibly Austrian a bit better.