History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhat would happen if the U.S never entered WWI

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: What would happen if the U.S never entered WWI
    Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 19:18
i would have already moved this thread to Historical Amusement, where it belongs, but a bug in the forum software that affects older threads prevents me from doing so.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 16:05
What collapsed on 11 November 1918 was not Germany but the historical epoch and dynamic known as the "Age of Imperialism". The economic and social exhaustion of Europe as a whole was already fact in 1918 and did not require 1945 to confirm it. Nevertheless, the posit behind this thread is as fruitless as that other game with history, "[W]hat if the South had won the Civil War?".
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by Hypocrisy Hypocrisy wrote:

I've made a general assumption, regardless of WWI or WWII, on what world would be like if the U.S didn't play a decisive role in the recent history.
 
The assumption seems pointless.  Either the time machine has to go back to 1491, or the Western Hemisphere doesn't exist - there is nothing from Land's End to the Land of the rising Sun.
 
That isn't history.
 
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:16
You mean there's a rising sun flag flying over California, Oregon and Washington?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Hypocrisy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2009
Location: Smyrna
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hypocrisy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:22
I've made a general assumption, regardless of WWI or WWII, on what world would be like if the U.S didn't play a decisive role in the recent history.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 10:46
I really don't understand that, even allowing for the probability that Hypocrisy is mixing up his world wars.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Hypocrisy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2009
Location: Smyrna
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hypocrisy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 09:59
The participation of the USA in WWI was the first step to spread out the gravest plague called "Liberalism" across the world. If the USA never entered WWI, Liberalism which implants incoherent thoughts into people's mind would not exist. Otherwise, the like of liberalism would come out as well.

Besides, i don't see Germany resisting against the Allied powers any longer, since she was in a pathetic status for a prolonged battle. Russia's socialism takes over the seat of liberalism and covering all the way up to the western Europe, as the USA is absent. Germany could not have recovered herself due to probable ongoing retaliation of the Allied powers. She ends up annexed to France.

America vs. Socialist Europe, i have no idea which one of them wins out. A conditional armistice signed in favour of Europe might finish the devastating bloodshed. Another story is that they somehow manage to get along well in peace in the first place. They obviously, sooner or later, discern that the truce can not be maintained for so long.



Edited by Hypocrisy - 02-Jun-2009 at 12:29
Back to Top
Bertucat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13-Jun-2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bertucat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 07:58
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Originally posted by Bertucat Bertucat wrote:

 Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
No country and no generals were prepared for 1914.  The Germans, French, British, Russians etc. all fought with the same Naploeonic tactics.  For example, tens of thousands of untrained German university students died making bayonet charges against British regulars in September 1914. German historians call it the "Slaughter of the Innocents".
 
The main factor seems to be the huge size of the armies.  With the exception of the British, all other European nations had millions of men in the reserves. The slogan "Every man a citizen, Every citizen a soldier" was the rule of the day.  The vast magority of these men could not be trained in anything other than parade ground drills. When millions of these men marched off the parade ground and into machine guns and 75mm cannon fire, the result was a disaster 
 
  
 
I agree, but there are some specific things for France. I think that the disasters of 1914 would have been able to be less grave if certain generals had not been pushed aside for coarse reasons.
 
On the other hand, after the desasters of 1914, other nations were not so slow to change, and they did not benefit from the striking experience of 1870 as France. If you can read French, about it : http://gustave.club.fr/doctrine_militaire.htm
 
 
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 08:01
Originally posted by WolfHound85 WolfHound85 wrote:

Hmm this it tricky but its still very possible for either the Soviets to conquer all of Europe, or the Nazis have a bitter peace with the Russians thus the Russians acquire land all the way up to the Oder-Neisse line.
 
We seem to be confusing WWI with WWII here!
Back to Top
WolfHound85 View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2008
Location: USA and Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WolfHound85 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 00:05
Hmm this it tricky but its still very possible for either the Soviets to conquer all of Europe, or the Nazis have a bitter peace with the Russians thus the Russians acquire land all the way up to the Oder-Neisse line.
College Student
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-May-2009 at 23:16
Originally posted by Bertucat Bertucat wrote:

 Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
No country and no generals were prepared for 1914.  The Germans, French, British, Russians etc. all fought with the same Naploeonic tactics.  For example, tens of thousands of untrained German university students died making bayonet charges against British regulars in September 1914. German historians call it the "Slaughter of the Innocents".
 
The main factor seems to be the huge size of the armies.  With the exception of the British, all other European nations had millions of men in the reserves. The slogan "Every man a citizen, Every citizen a soldier" was the rule of the day.  The vast magority of these men could not be trained in anything other than parade ground drills. When millions of these men marched off the parade ground and into machine guns and 75mm cannon fire, the result was a disaster 
 
  
Back to Top
Bertucat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 13-Jun-2008
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bertucat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-May-2009 at 08:31

General Petain never promised that french army will only fight in defense, He restored the trust of the soldiers by eliminating the tactics which, expensive in human blood, did not look of good results.

The mutinies arrived logically : with a napoleonic tactic, french generals et colonel sent soldiers to attack with bayonets in squeezed row in front of the german machineguns without artillery support. For all the war, France lost 1.500 000 men died in battle, and 600 000 of them were lost only in the first monthes ( from august 1914 to early 1915). Explain why french generals were so bad at the beginning of this war is too difficult and complex, because it concerns the French domestic policy of period 1895-1914.
 
Then, the French artillery remaining weaker than the German artillery, the French soldiers often had to attack without support, while they saw that opposite the Germans were better supported. General Nivelle counted on the breasts of his soldiers to overcome the German artillery and the machine guns. He underestimated his opponents, etc. There is a lot of exemples of this kind of things, where french soldiers were sent to attack without ou unsignifiant artillery support.
 
French soldiers fought in northern France, 100 to 150 kilometers from the border, so a lot of soldiers didn't know anything about their families, and all others were offended by the fact that they did not manage to push away, after 3 years of war,  the Germans of France. Furthermore, the provisioning was inferior, the insufficient rests and there were no permissions.
 
Pétain restored the trust of soldiers with promising that all attacks will be supported by artillery, and ordered that only useful attacks be done. After 1917, the french army is more powerfull and effective as it never war during this war : good commanders, experimented soldiers, artillery.
 
The rôle of United State army (regardeless the logistic support to Allies) is not very important, because Germans asked for armistice before the US Army gives all its power. Hindenburg and Ludendorff asked Wialliam II to ask armistice after 1918, august the 12, because they knowed that it was already possible to ask it ; for know, the military defeat was far to be total : german army was on rearwalk, but still in France. Waiting only few monthes and allied will be on the road of Berlin : Pétain and Pershing thought that the armistice have to be signed after the german army pushed back in Germany. They prepared a great attack in Lorraine for november, but the armistice of 11/11 stopped this project. If sucessfull, this attack would be the start of the big end of german army.
 
For me, the question is not "what would happened if US dis not enter the war", but "what would happened if Allies wait that US army was at its higher level, for attack in automn 1918 and refused the armistice of 11/11". For me, the war would be ended in 1919, and not in 1945.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2009 at 20:40

Germany didn't have the capacity to sustain war any longer, whether the Americans arrived or not. Their allies in Austro-Hungaria had already collapsed. They had no food, they were using sawdust for flour in ersatz foods due to the British blockade. During the Spring Offensive, timetables couldn't be met because troops often refused to advance from captured positions; they were busy eating provisions that were left behind. By 1918, a major famine was underway in Germany and not just among civilians.

Then came the Spanish flu.

Germany didn't stand a chance to continue. Had the November Revolution not happened, Germany may have pushed itself forward to a disastrous conclusion. But the November Revolution did happen, and once it did, the war would have been concluded even if Germany had been doing better than it was.

Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2009 at 18:42
Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Jonathan4290 wrote:

Both sides had already poured too many resources and human lives into this war, demonizing the other to the point of heaven versus hell that. In this way, no government could agree to anything but outright surrender from the opposing side because they would be unable to justify the war they entered in the first place.
Both sides wanted to fight until total victory. But... the population of both sides was exhausted. In addition, neither side had a large enough military or technological advantage to force strategic victories.
 
My guess is that without the USA, Britiana and France would slowly force Germany to a negotiated peace by Spring 1919. The terms would not be as harsh as Versaille, but wpould include the loss of all German colonies and Alsace Lorraine.  
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-May-2009 at 00:42
Originally posted by poirot poirot wrote:

My wild guess: France or Germany agrees to a conditional surrender, and the Treaty of Versailles would not have existed.

 
Logically yes. In reality, it would've never happened or it would've happened in 1915 when both sides' generals looked at each other and said "well that didnt work, what do we do now?"
 
Both sides had already poured too many resources and human lives into this war, demonizing the other to the point of heaven versus hell that. In this way, no government could agree to anything but outright surrender from the opposing side because they would be unable to justify the war they entered in the first place. Both sides believed that attaining victory would attain some sort of reward.
 
As for Pershing: this happens way too often on forums, a general regarded as "brilliant" is immediately degraded to "worthless" because they do not agree on his current reputation. He may not be as skilled as many think but this doesn't mean he's at the opposite end of the spectrum. Pershing's organizational skills were excellent.
 
The presence of the American troops (250,000 coming in per month) would have decisivelt defeated Germany in 1919 if it had come to that.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
warwolf1969 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 08-May-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote warwolf1969 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-May-2009 at 22:29
The main allied attacks in 1918 were led by British and French forces.  The US army had very little effect on those attacks.  The German army was smashed in Early August 1918, by the French and British.  The whole reason the German military sought the armistice was to avoid a total defeat, which is what would have happened in the allies continued attacking.  This was not effected by the US army, there were not enough troops involved. 
 
As for the French Mutiny, that was solve well before the US came into the war.  Petain had gained back control of the army, and was already planning the 1918 offensives.  Again the US was not needed militarly to solve that.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:46
Originally posted by antonioM antonioM wrote:

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.


That is what I said. You are just repeating what I said. However, Pétain did not deserve all the credit. The arrival of American troops boosted the morale of the French and the other Allied. The French then led the upcoming Allied Offensive despite Pétain's promises that the French army would only be used for defense. The French were able to do that because they had fresh American troops backing them up.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.


It would not have taken place without the Americans assisting the offensivie. Explain how you think the Allied Offensive, (which by the way was in response to the Spring Offensive which by the way would not have taken place if the Americans were not coming to assst the Allied) would have been carried out without fresh American troops?

And the Spring Offensive were certainly not a failure for Germany. Germany pushed back the Allied and gained much territory before being stopped. It was a stalemate. A stalemate broken by the arrival of American troops.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them


So were the Allied without American troops assisting them. that was the point of this discussion. The Allied would not have won without American assistance.
 
No your comments on the French mutinies was not quite the same as mine. Yes Petain did deserve the credit for getting the troops back into fighting mode nor did he ever make a blanket promise that they would never be used for an offensive.
 
I will agree that the German Spring Offensive was designed to take place before the major US forces arrived. It was designed to break the French and British armies. Despite gaining a fair bit of ground it utterly failed to do that. If you are attacking an enemy and fail to achieve your goal, you've lost. The French and British armies bore the vast majority of this thrust and they stopped it. US troops were involved in this but to a far lesser extent.
 
The Allies had the the resource to launch their offensive. Their artillery and armour had reached their peak and they had at last created the combined arms tactics which defeated the Germans. Yes the US were there and yes they took a good part in the offensive. Their influence on Allied morale as a result of their presence was great. However, it is too much to say the Allies would not have won without them. The Central Powers were far too close to collapse internally. This was not reflected in the Allies
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 69
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-May-2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.


That is what I said. You are just repeating what I said. However, Pétain did not deserve all the credit. The arrival of American troops boosted the morale of the French and the other Allied. The French then led the upcoming Allied Offensive despite Pétain's promises that the French army would only be used for defense. The French were able to do that because they had fresh American troops backing them up.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.


It would not have taken place without the Americans assisting the offensivie. Explain how you think the Allied Offensive, (which by the way was in response to the Spring Offensive which by the way would not have taken place if the Americans were not coming to assst the Allied) would have been carried out without fresh American troops?

And the Spring Offensive were certainly not a failure for Germany. Germany pushed back the Allied and gained much territory before being stopped. It was a stalemate. A stalemate broken by the arrival of American troops.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them


So were the Allied without American troops assisting them. that was the point of this discussion. The Allied would not have won without American assistance.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 579
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 08:32
Most historians agree that there was a serious mutiny amongst the French. Most historians agree that the majority of the French Units involved were prepared to defend against any German attack but not launch any more bloody offensives. Most historians agree that Petain sorted out the mutinies not by appeasememnt but by redressing the perfectly reasonable grievances of the French troops and bringing them up to a state where they could once more be fully relied upon.
 
In the big Spring Offensive the Germans were in the main stopped by the French and British and Commonwealth armies. The US were still basically organising their army at that time but did send some supporting troops to help. The Americans did then play their part in the subsequent allied advance.
 
After the failure of their Spring Offensive, Germany as you rightly noticed was exhausted and had nothing left to offer except a defense against the allied counter-offensive which would have taken place anyway.
 
Given the general state of Germany and the Central Powers there was no hope of any real victory for them
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 69
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2009 at 03:52
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

No I think not.Petain had already sorted out the French army. In any event even at the height of the mutiny they were still perfectly prepared to defend against any attacks. The French mutiny's cure had nothing to do with American aid.
 
that is not what historians say. Although they disagree about the extent of the mutiny, most agree that the mutiny was serious and that it may even have reached 50% of the French armies.
 
Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Apart from one minor part of the Spring Offensive,


What minor part? The Central Powers gained a lot of territory during the Spring Offensive, more than they had gained during the war. And Germany would not have launched the Spring Offensive if the American troops were not already on their way to assist the Allied, and in fact, were already there.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

the Central powers had been stopped by the French and British armies.


You left out the Americans who were already there. There were other nationalities there. It reached a stalemate.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

Whilst the arrival of American troops heartened the Allies and disheartened the Central Powers, there was no stalemate.


Yes, there was. The Allied were too battered to launch a major offensive same as the Central Powers whose Spring Offensive petered out because of exhaustion. Stalemate without the fresh American troops assisting the Allied.

Originally posted by Peteratwar Peteratwar wrote:

The Allies prepared their big offensive for later in 1918 which lead to the Central Powers suing for peace


Don't forget the Americans who played a big part in the offensive and who invigorated the Allied in their offensive. Without the Americans, no offensive and therefore, stalemate, or a possible slight Central Powers victory.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.