If America hadn't entered WWI?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Here's a Churchill quote (Yes Mandelson I've been reading Churchill quotes)
"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government — and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."

what do you think?

[Poach]

Unlike the American entry into Second World War, their entry into the First World War didn't really bring about any major improvement in the Allied position.

By the time the US entered the war, the Battle of Jutland had already been fought and the High Seas Fleet would not leave port under arms again: The British blockade had held.

This had the effect of destroying the German home front: desperate measures were being taken to break the food shortage, including turning public parks into farmland. In addition to the food shortages, the German war effort was facing shortages of a great number of vital war resources (shown by the fact that they used U-Boats to sneak past the British blockade and bring back the resources into Germany).

Oft cited is the 1918 Spring Offensive and how, without US presence, it would have succeeded. This is questionable: the vast majority of the soldiers fighting in the offensive were still non-US soldiers. The German Army may have made further gains than it achieved historically, but one must look at why the offensive took place: Germany wanted to try and win before the US arrived in force. Would they have attempted the offensive without US presence?

Presume they had, the 1918 Offensive was the last desperate gamble of a nation teetering on collapse: their manpower after the Offensive was exhausted, many of their veterans had been killed (as the Stormtroopers led the attacks and their casualties were heavy) and their material situation was critical. The Allies, on the other hand, had material aplenty and a manpower situation that was not as desperate as the Germans were facing.

To conclude, I don't think the US entering the First World War was as major an event as some believe. It certainly sealed Germany's defeat, but it did not rescue the Allies from defeat.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Germany would stay on defensive.
IMO they would again try to bleed France white.

[Orko]

Germany was very slowly starting to gain some advantage before the US joined the war. It may lead to a very indecisive peace treaty slightly favoring the central powers.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

It may lead to a very indecisive peace treaty slightly favoring the central powers.

better than Versailles and Hitler

[Poach]

Germany was very slowly starting to gain some advantage before the US joined the war. It may lead to a very indecisive peace treaty slightly favoring the central powers.

Frankly that's impossible.Even if Germany had managed to conquer France*, her home front was in a state of advanced collapse. Access to French resources, the ones not destroyed or evacuated to the UK, would aid her but she had no way of reaching the British. Germany would be forced to negociate, at best, a status quo ante bellum in order to get the British to lift the blockade.

* I regard this as impossible. All the major armies were exhausted, their manpower reserves severaly depleted. Unlike Germany, however, the Allies were not suffering crippling war material shortages. A 1918 Offensive by Germany, excluding any US help, wouldn't knock France out of the war. The Germans would have gained more land than they did in the historical 1918 offensive, perhaps, but they didn't have the ability to knock France out of the war. The German offensive would stall fairly quickly due to lack of manpower and supply.

As I've stated, in my opinion no United States would change little. Germany would still surrender, perhaps in 1919 rather than 1918. Would they be in a position to get a better deal than the historical Versailles? Perhaps.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Here are German war aims during WW1 from one book:




Left map:
That orange strip at the Alsace is considered "core expansion plans"
The light orange/dark yellow blop encompassing Luxemburg and Belgian Luxemburg is considered "wider expansion plans"
The striped area is the "planned tributary state Flanders-Walloonia"
The white area bordered by blue are the insane anenxation plans of teh Allgerman Association.

The right map: Brown of course are the German colonies 1914
Orange are the territories demanded in the "September Prorgamm" of 1914
Pink are the territories demanded or planned to demanded in 1917/18
Pink striped are German plans or considerations in 1918
The blue dates in the German colonies is when they surrendered.


I'm wondering how would they make Great Britain agree to this? I mean ceading so many colonies?

EDIT:
Some more information about German war aims in Western Front
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist.../ralprs34.htm/

[Tiberios]

I'm wondering how would they make Great Britain agree to this? I mean ceading so many colonies?

They wouldn't be able to. The German navy had not been able to overcome the British and got mauled at Jutland and stayed in port for the rest of the war, thus Britains colonies would remain save from German attacks.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Germany wasn't planning to conquer France, it wanted to only capture Paris and ports/cities like Calais and Dunkirk. And of course give Paris back.
With Paris falling France would surely sue for peace.

[Poach]

Germany wasn't planning to conquer France, it wanted to only capture Paris and ports/cities like Calais and Dunkirk. And of course give Paris back.
With Paris falling France would surely sue for peace.

Germany would conquer France in order to drive the British off the continent. I disagree that the French would sue for peace of Paris were to fall. They only sued for peace so quickly in the Second World War because it was clear they had already lost: her armies were seperated and surrounded, while German armour roamed free.

Were the French still in fighting order when Paris fell, they would continue to fight if they thought they could win.

A 1918 Germany that managed to occupy Paris would have achieved far beyond what anyone expected, and it would have also destroyed its army in the process. Driving that far into Allied territory would have come at a huge cost in manpower and supply: a cost Germany would ill-afford. And the Allies would know it.

[warluster]

Germany would conquer France in order to drive the British off the continent. I disagree that the French would sue for peace of Paris were to fall. They only sued for peace so quickly in the Second World War because it was clear they had already lost: her armies were seperated and surrounded, while German armour roamed free.

Were the French still in fighting order when Paris fell, they would continue to fight if they thought they could win.

France fell in WW2 due to core parts of their government were desperate for peace and did not want a repeat of the massive losses of the First War. (I am referring mainly to Petain here, and his ministers). In fact Churchill was planning to send over the Canadian division in 1940 to Brittany (and he did send some I think?) to help a general French defense. (Stated so in Churchill's own book).

A 1918 Germany that managed to occupy Paris would have achieved far beyond what anyone expected, and it would have also destroyed its army in the process. Driving that far into Allied territory would have come at a huge cost in manpower and supply: a cost Germany would ill-afford. And the Allies would know it.

I believe that the situation here would have been possible to swing both ways. With both sides (Allies and CP) drained of manpower it would have been a case of who collapses first. In this situation, even though a continuing offensive into France would have been impossible for Germany, the prestige which comes with occupying Paris would be enough to push public morale back in Germany upwards and force both sides into a delicate peace negotiations.

The Allies probably would have settled for a quick deal here because they were just as exhausted by the war, even though they had a good supply things weren't spectacularly perfect. The loss of Paris would have been too much.

A quick peace deal because of this (and note the lack of a US entry) would mean that the crippling restrictions and terms enforced at Versailles would have not been there. This would mean a Germany which is not struggling in poverty and thus turned to this 'new hope' and a Allied force which turned out wary that it had not won.


As for the terms in the peace we can look to the Franco - Prussian War here. With France completely defeated the Germans insisted only on the Alscae - Lorraine province (Though something like 20% of France it wasn't its lifeline). That was with total victory. In a case of even victory in 1917 with no US support it would have been some provinces in Africa and the Pacific/Asia, even less with the progress of the Allies in Palestine.

If the Allies somehow managed to rally support for a war which appeared to the public (Which is the key here) lost then, inevitably, the Germans would have collasped as rapidly as 1918.

[Poach]

I believe that the situation here would have been possible to swing both ways. With both sides (Allies and CP) drained of manpower it would have been a case of who collapses first. In this situation, even though a continuing offensive into France would have been impossible for Germany, the prestige which comes with occupying Paris would be enough to push public morale back in Germany upwards and force both sides into a delicate peace negotiations.

Yes indeed, the loss of Paris would be a morale booster, but was it possible? The closer German forces got to Paris, the more men the French would divert to defend it and the stiffer French resistance would become. Germany was hardly in a position to conduct an extended offensive against an increasingly resolute enemy.

The Allies probably would have settled for a quick deal here because they were just as exhausted by the war, even though they had a good supply things weren't spectacularly perfect. The loss of Paris would have been too much.

Had Paris fallen the German position would improve considerably and they could probably argue for a status quo ante bellum. I doubt the British could be persuaded to hand over any colonies, and if they threatened to continue the war the Germans would be forced to drop their demand: having taken Paris (which would undoubtably be the tip of a salient), they would be in no position to defend it for any length of time against a vengeful French counter-attack, with British support.

A quick peace deal because of this (and note the lack of a US entry) would mean that the crippling restrictions and terms enforced at Versailles would have not been there. This would mean a Germany which is not struggling in poverty and thus turned to this 'new hope' and a Allied force which turned out wary that it had not won.

Lack of crippling versailles would indeed make WW2 very unlikely.

If the Allies somehow managed to rally support for a war which appeared to the public (Which is the key here) lost then, inevitably, the Germans would have collasped as rapidly as 1918.

Depends entirely on the reality on the ground. Loss of Paris would hurt public morale in France and Britain, but wouldn't lead them to assume the war was lost. The British especially would be unlikely to be on the verge of giving up, and might be able to rally the French for a counter-attack on Paris.

[Ulf]

Germany wasn't planning to conquer France, it wanted to only capture Paris and ports/cities like Calais and Dunkirk. And of course give Paris back.
With Paris falling France would surely sue for peace.

I disagree completely. Any study into how the German military operated throughout its history would show that the German army attacks their enemies armies (not their cities). capturing Paris was never a war aim during the attack on France (WWI or otherwise). If the French army had holed themselves in Paris (ala 1870/71) then Paris would have become a military target of Germany. But typically Germany attempts to win wars by defeating their enemies armies.

OT: I'm not quite sure how America not entering the war would have ended the war sooner as the Churchill quote by the OP suggests. Germany was (although having recently lost its entire eastern theater) still hard pressed to break the Western Front.

[Ataegina]

american entered late and in phase where the outcome was already decided, was just matter of time until one of the sides go into negotiations for peace, but like ww1 and ww2 america always enter at mid or on later stages when both sides are crimpled and than get credits, just matter of ego's not as decisive factor for victory but sure a less humilliating treaty would have change the whole world history

[SorelusImperion]

And the Allies would know it.

The Allies were not aware of just how strained the German homefront was at that point and even after the failure of the German offensive expected the war to take at least one more year. A loss of Paris might have just add up that important moment of shock though the events in the Balkan or the Mid East must not be neglected. A sorta reasonable offer by the Germans would have been vital as well to bring an end to the war since I doubt that the Allies would have folded as the Germans did in 1918.

[Poach]

The Allies had their spies in Germany just as the Germans had their spies in Allied nations. I find it hard to believe that the higher ups in Allied command were wholly unaware of the German supply situation.

[SorelusImperion]

I find it hard to believe that the higher ups in Allied command were wholly unaware of the German supply situation

What they said during and after the war indicates that the information they had was either very sketchy or not trusted as they were hardly optimistic which they should have been if they were as well informed as you seem to think.

[Azog 150]

The war probably would have dragged on another year and caused Britain and France even more casualties- but it would have been won. the British blockade of Germany was tightening its grip, the German's were running out of manpower and the Ottoman Empire was battered by Britain and France regardless of US help

[hellheaven1987]

The war probably would have dragged on another year and caused Britain and France even more casualties- but it would have been won. the British blockade of Germany was tightening its grip, the German's were running out of manpower and the Ottoman Empire was battered by Britain and France regardless of US help

And France and Britain were running out of manpower too. Be honest, the only advantage Allies had on Central Power is blockade, but that blockade could be easily broken if Germany decided to jump on Red Russia again.

[Azog 150]

^^And that would require a further splitting of their man-power and another war on two fronts which is the last thing anyone needs. Now I know Red Russia was hardly in the strongest position, but they wouldn't have just bent over for the German's.

You have also got to remember that once the Ottoman Empire was defeated, there was another avenue of attack for the Allies. Plus there was the Italian front.

Simply put, Germany was in no position to continue a war of attrition for very much longer. Sure, Britain and France weren't looking too much better but their manpower situation was not nearly as precarious as Germany's. Not only did they have the French and British populations to draw upon, but that of their colonies as well. On top of this they had a ready supply of weapons and other such materials whereas the Germans continued to suffer from the blockade. Finally, there is the shift in Allied tactics as shown as the Battle of Amiens which involved great use of combined arms and proved quite unstoppable.