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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Guess which belligerent made money out of WWI.

And in which markets....

er, Japan?

The US had become number one in GDP in 1905, IIRC, and while WW1 certainly hurt Britain and Germany relative to the US (more than it directly helped the US) there is little likelihood that Germany or the UK would have passed the US in GDP in the '20s absent WW1.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


er, Japan?

The US had become number one in GDP in 1905, IIRC, and while WW1 certainly hurt Britain and Germany relative to the US (more than it directly helped the US) there is little likelihood that Germany or the UK would have passed the US in GDP in the '20s absent WW1.

My point was that the financial positives of WW1 enabled the US to realise that its already large economy could be used as tool of power.

Further their advantage over Britain grew enourmously as a consequence of Britain spending all their mone on supplies from the US

[Ned]

Given the harm WWI did to Britain, it is a wonder they got involved in it at all. They could have chosen to stand back, like the US, and watch. Nothing required them to voluntarily declare war on Germany.

[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.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Given the harm WWI did to Britain, it is a wonder they got involved in it at all. They could have chosen to stand back, like the US, and watch. Nothing required them to voluntarily declare war on Germany.

Other than being allied with Belgium and France,

I understand as an American standing by allies is only done when your own national security is at risk

[Ned]

TheStinger, correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Belgian" treaty was a century old and Begium was not even a party. The Brits had no alliance with France. They could have stayed out of that war without anyone thinking the Brit word was worthless.

From Wikpedia

"Belgium's de facto independence had been established through nine years of intermittent fighting, the Belgian Revolution. The signatories of the treaty (the United Kingdom, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and the Netherlands) now officially recognised the independent Kingdom of Belgium, and (at the United Kingdom's insistence) agreed to its neutrality.

The treaty was an important document, especially in its role in bringing about World War I. When the German Empire invaded Belgium in August 1914 in violation of the treaty, the British declared war on 4 August. Informed by the British ambassador that Britain would go to war with Germany over the latter's violation of Belgian neutrality, German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg infamously exclaimed that he could not believe that Britain and Germany would be going to war over a mere "scrap of paper."

In reality, the German invasion led to Britain's decision to go to war for reasons that were felt in Britain to be more significant: it was considered inconceivable that Germany, with her expanding Navy, should be allowed to control Belgium's sea ports. On 2 August, Kaiser William II unsuccesfully asked Moltke to cancel the invasion in order to keep Britain out of the war."

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If the Brits didn't collapse first back in 1917

Regarding the supposed imminent collapse of Britain in 1917, are there any reliable sources (no, not Mosier) who say such a thing?

[Ned]

Sandman, this was something l learned in school a long time ago now. I think the U-Boat campaign that brought America into the war had Britain on its knees. Didn't I provide some links earlier in this thread?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Given the harm WWI did to Britain, it is a wonder they got involved in it at all. They could have chosen to stand back, like the US, and watch. Nothing required them to voluntarily declare war on Germany.

"Hindsight is always 20-20."

All parties believed that the war would be a short and relatively painless one and that victory was assured for their respective sides.

[Ned]

Z, based on past Euro-wars, that might be true. But the American Civil War should have told all sides that it would be a protracted struggle and that when two large armies faced off in the open, it would resolve into trench warfare as it did in '64-'65 in America.

I trully find it hard to believe that Britain thought the war would be over soon with them winning it. Their reasons for entering the war were the shallowest of all original participants. They clearly had no causa belli other than the defeat of a rival European power. No Central Power had done Britain any harm nor even threatened her in any way. Yet Britain attacked them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Z, based on past Euro-wars, that might be true. But the American Civil War should have told all sides that it would be a protracted struggle and that when two large armies faced off in the open, it would resolve into trench warfare as it did in '64-'65 in America.

The Prussians crushed France in 1870-71, after the American Civil War.

Why assume that it would have to turn into trench warfare. Germany nearly took out France in August 1914 - i.e. within a matter of weeks - as it was.

[Ned]

D, You have a point there. The French didn't provide much of an opposing force in 1870 did they? You have to be able to stop the enemy at some point in order for both sides to dig in.

[Lancer]

A million Americans were in France when Germany launched its 1918 'Peace Offensive' which included massive reinforcements from the east. That offensive gained only three miles in the face of allied numerical superiority which was due to the million Americans. Otherwise the Germans have the numerical advantage. Also, the American troops were fresh and looking for action. The French were bled white and looking for peace. If the Germans had launched their offensive against the French sector instead of the Brits and if there were no US troops, I see Germany plowing through for a nasty, bloody, victory.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, this was something l learned in school a long time ago now. I think the U-Boat campaign that brought America into the war had Britain on its knees. Didn't I provide some links earlier in this thread?

It's hardly a convincing link, referencing a Wikipedia article which doesn't exist. History learned in school is likely to be rubbish.

[molly bloom]

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.

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.

A million Americans were in France when Germany launched its 1918 'Peace Offensive' which included massive reinforcements from the east.

Lancer

Evidence for this number, please.

That offensive gained only three miles in the face of allied numerical superiority which was due to the million Americans. Otherwise the Germans have the numerical advantage. Also, the American troops were fresh and looking for action. The French were bled white and looking for peace. If the Germans had launched their offensive against the French sector instead of the Brits and if there were no US troops, I see Germany plowing through for a nasty, bloody, victory

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.

No Central Power had done Britain any harm nor even threatened her in any way. Yet Britain attacked them.

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.

The French didn't provide much of an opposing force in 1870 did they?

They did- they simply had an appalling commander.

I think the U-Boat campaign that brought America into the war had Britain on its knees.

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.