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

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Germany would have fought on for longer, but would have collapsed in the end.

Yeah, it would have been a race between German and British capitulations due to exhaustion. But, from what happened in late 1918, Germany was far more politically unstable than Britain, which argues for an earlier German collapse.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sandman
Germany would have fought on for longer, but would have collapsed in the end.

Releasing troops for agriculture wouldn't help them very much. They were starving, and there was another winter on the way. The wisdom of pulling troops off the frontline at a time when the Western Allies are gaining a decisive technological advantage is also questionable.

Also, I am thinking here that you are thinking late 1918. But, the real threat to Britain appeared to be the U-boat campaign that America helped with enormously, it appears, when it entered the war. Without America's help, it appears that Britain would have collapsed in 1917 at a time when Germany was still very powerful.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually it was the cash that the US loaned to Britian that mattered the most, by 1916 the allies were pretty near broke. The US made a deal though. Prior to the war foreign interests, primarily British, owned more than 20% of the American stock markets. The US required that British and French stock holding interests liquidate their holdings before the US lent them money.

[Ned]

No doubt. There are multiple ways Britain would have collapsed in 1917 had we not ridden to the rescue. Germany reached the end of her rope more than one year later.

[Barnabas]

Would it be accurate to say that Germany lost due to Trench warfare, which turned the war into something very different from the French Prussian war, far more defensive, difficult to advance + the british naval blockade which crippled germanies economy?

[Ned]

B, but the German U-boat campaign was just as effective against Britain.

As Strangelove has noted, had the US not came in when it did, Britain may have collapsed a lot sooner than the Germans did.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually it was the cash that the US loaned to Britian that mattered the most, by 1916 the allies were pretty near broke. The US made a deal though. Prior to the war foreign interests, primarily British, owned more than 20% of the American stock markets. The US required that British and French stock holding interests liquidate their holdings before the US lent them money.

Where did Germany get its money?

[Lonestar]

Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, and, incidently, the number one chemical industry. They had the vast majority of the war material and cash they needed, and the British blockade was a joke.

[Barnabas]

Was oil highly needed in ww1?

[Proteus_MST]

Probably not as important as in WW2.

Most of the long range troop movements took place in trains (which were the reason why germany was very efficient in bringing troops to the front as germany had a good rail network).

Therefore I think coal was a little bit more important (for powering of trains as well as production of steel) and germany had coal in abundance thanks to the mines in ruhr valley

The highest usage of oil probably was in the navy (submarines) and the airforce (planes)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The highest usage of oil probably was in the navy (submarines) and the airforce (planes)

Airforce? They had only a few planes and they were little wienie ones. They couldn't have used much gas.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany would have won.

Frankly, if Wilson hadn't been a Germanphobe to begin with and had forbidden the sale of all arms and war material from the get-go like a true neutral would have, Britain and France would have collpsed very quickly.

But remember, Wilson was leading the holy crusade against Imperialism... by allying with the two largest empires on Earth...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


But remember, Wilson was leading the holy crusade against Imperialism... by allying with the two largest empires on Earth...

Geez, guys, Wilson wasnt a Germanophobe. TR had been pushing for intervention on the allied side for a long time. Wilson had been opposed to that, and kept the US neutral. The Germans finally made it impossible to keep that up, and the March rev in Russia took away one of the moral arguements against supporting the allies.

And Wilson wasnt for ending imperialism everywhere immediately, like lots of folks then he felt that peoples in africa and asia werent ready for independence.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Germany had the second biggest economy in the world, and, incidently, the number one chemical industry. They had the vast majority of the war material and cash they needed, and the British blockade was a joke.

actually the blockade was fairly effective, but Germany was able to adjust. The effectiveness of the blockade was one reason they didnt need cash - they couldnt have bought much anyway, since they couldnt get it through the blockade.


The CP economies WERE suffering badly, and thats one of the reasons for the collaps of Austria, and the revolution in Germany.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't think that the U.S. restrained the French and British at all. In fact, I think that the American presence falsely strengthened French bargaining power. They could demand things with the American presence that they could not have otherwise demanded. Germany could not have refused the Allies in Versailles, because the U.S. was a fresh and comparably inexhaustible power ready to invade Germany if necessary to secure the terms of the armistice.

If there were no U.S. presence, the Germans could have rejected a harsh armistice and waged a defensive war, hoping to exhaust the French and British while cultivating the newly won Eastern territories.

Nope, the US was rapidly demobilizing after Nov 11, and there was no real prospect during the Paris peace talks of US troops being sent into Germany - one of the reasons US leverage was declining - most of what leverage the US had in Paris was financial. I suggest McMilland "Paris 1919" for a more detailed picture.