USA stays neutral in WWI
- Thread starter Aranfan
- Start date
Yes and no. A big part of what caused Germany's rise to Nazism was a combination of anger at an unjust treaty, Germany's not entirely diminished status as a European giant, and already present radical elements in German society who had their views greatly magnified. However, if you get a CP victory, you get the same sort of treaty, except France and Russia are not strong enough to get back up from such a fall.
Now, this would be no better in truth than the Allies' vision of the results of their peace treaty, but there's a third, obvious unforeseen element which does help out matters: imperial overstretch.
Because Germany was also exhausted by this war, liberals and reformists in the post-war era had become very powerful. Without catastrophe hanging over their heads, there's no incentive for the rise of radicals, meaning that some badly-needed reform is going Germany's way. Over perhaps even the same time period as OTL, Germany will be forced by internal and external pressures to liberalize, reduce the hold it created over its Empire, and everything eventually works out. Or not.
This is obviously the best case scenario. The worst-case scenario is that liberals and reformists don't get their way, and we just end up with a massive blow-up in Europe some ten or fifteen years down the line, and everyone's unhappy.
Strategos
Banned
Germany wouldnt be forced into anything. Exhausted yes but unlike France and Britain in OTL, they have gained something. A hefty chunk of European Russia for start.
While the price is invariably unusually high, its still and honest to god victory. With the omnious threat of Russia dealt a massive blow and France held off and Britain denied. There is no way Liberalizers can use this. If anything, the only downside is epic victory disease of something horrible happenening like what Japan did to itself.
This doesnt discredit the Prussians one bit. The Junkers may have inflicted horrors upon thr German nation, but they gained something unlike Britain and France.
And Germany wont be nearly so hobbled in development as it was in OTL, and the Russian Civil War may last longer with a Germany arming the Whites even more. And with a better headstart, a much more powerful Germany and a weakened Russia....
WWII can easily see Russia and France defeated and conquered.
Just remember people, a Germany that keeps its Eastern gains and has a relarive victory to brag about is a Germany that is riding high off its success. It has plent of morale to spare. And the French will be incapable of doing much about it and any revanchist ideals would be duly crushed by the Kaiser. No, the real danger of a German dominated continent was crushed in WWI. Afterwards, there was no real chance for a Europe spanning Reich.
While the price is invariably unusually high, its still and honest to god victory. With the omnious threat of Russia dealt a massive blow and France held off and Britain denied. There is no way Liberalizers can use this. If anything, the only downside is epic victory disease of something horrible happenening like what Japan did to itself.
This doesnt discredit the Prussians one bit. The Junkers may have inflicted horrors upon thr German nation, but they gained something unlike Britain and France.
And Germany wont be nearly so hobbled in development as it was in OTL, and the Russian Civil War may last longer with a Germany arming the Whites even more. And with a better headstart, a much more powerful Germany and a weakened Russia....
WWII can easily see Russia and France defeated and conquered.
Just remember people, a Germany that keeps its Eastern gains and has a relarive victory to brag about is a Germany that is riding high off its success. It has plent of morale to spare. And the French will be incapable of doing much about it and any revanchist ideals would be duly crushed by the Kaiser. No, the real danger of a German dominated continent was crushed in WWI. Afterwards, there was no real chance for a Europe spanning Reich.
The German Army in 1918 in not more than a kind of highly profesional militia. You have prussian influence, yes but the main body of the army werent prussian junkers. You have a revolutionary situation, which doesnt go away only because there is peace or victory. Than the SPD will definitely want more liberal and democratical influence. The Kaiser postion is dead as a dodo, and the OHL have an amry which is a good tool against foreign foes, but not interior foes.
Well this is not the situation in which a country goes onto a anex-spree through europe. And the post war plans of the Kaiserreich are more happenstance than a well planed blueprint for post war Europe. Your opinion is highly formed from the prussian-militaristic cliche which the entente painted out of Germany. Sad thing, nothing is more far away from the real situation in which the land was in first half of the 20century.
BlondieBC
Banned
Germany is likely to be able to keep France down since Germany is bigger than France. But Russia likely rise again, once its internal house is put back together. And Germany wanted desperately to get one major ally out of the war, so they had offered much milder terms. Without the USA in the war, Russia likely accepts these terms and lose only Poland and part of the Baltics.
And the worst case is a bit worse than you give. The powers continue their brinksmanship pattern of pre war actions until nuclear weapons are held. Then something pushed them the last few inches over the brink and the Great War opens with a nuclear exchange. While unlikely since Hitler was a near worst case scenario, going back in time and preventing WW1 has a small chance of even worse outcome where WW1 erupts later and with use of NBC weapons.
Strategos
Banned
Yes, the revolutionary situation does by and large "go away" thanks to victory. And calling the German military that doesnt change the fact that they were a first rate army and a large and experienced one at that. And they had already annexed a hefty chunk of territory in addition to setting the Baltics free.
Brest-Litovsk remember?
Besides, this war isnt going to last until 1918. In fact, with true neutrality enforced, its highly unlikely there would be any American ships entering British ports at all and frankly any that do would be doing so outside the consent of the Federal govt. They are putting there own necks at risk.
This is a situation where Unlimited Uboat Warfare, restricted only the seas it covers, can easily be seen as Germany's answer to the blockade.
Which means the British will have to force a naval confrontation ala Jutland. But on worse terms. Now, good news is, even if the British come out with not even a single BC and less than half a dozen Dreadies, as long as the HSF Capital line is wiped out, the British fome out ahead.
But again. The Uboat Warfare may not last long enough. May not need to. Because absent American support, the French soldier mutiny will only be worse. Much worse. It might be what leads to peace and frankly, it would save lives. And it would be a nice lesson for the politicians.
No, I am sorry but if the German Empire comes out of this just simply intact with nothing even approaching Versailles happening, then Russia is screwed.
Really, Russia's Revolution was outright inevitable at that point. Bolshevism or not. Austria-Hungary was even worse. It might have broken up before 1920 war or not.
Still. I dont know where you are getting this outright nonsense of a German victory, especially with solid territorial gains of any kind, being conducive to inspiring a revolution. This will end before Germany is really feeling the pain in regards to the blockade and it will end in 1917.
Besides, Britain and France wont be doing so awesome in regards to the food situation themselves.
Brest-Litovsk remember?
Besides, this war isnt going to last until 1918. In fact, with true neutrality enforced, its highly unlikely there would be any American ships entering British ports at all and frankly any that do would be doing so outside the consent of the Federal govt. They are putting there own necks at risk.
This is a situation where Unlimited Uboat Warfare, restricted only the seas it covers, can easily be seen as Germany's answer to the blockade.
Which means the British will have to force a naval confrontation ala Jutland. But on worse terms. Now, good news is, even if the British come out with not even a single BC and less than half a dozen Dreadies, as long as the HSF Capital line is wiped out, the British fome out ahead.
But again. The Uboat Warfare may not last long enough. May not need to. Because absent American support, the French soldier mutiny will only be worse. Much worse. It might be what leads to peace and frankly, it would save lives. And it would be a nice lesson for the politicians.
No, I am sorry but if the German Empire comes out of this just simply intact with nothing even approaching Versailles happening, then Russia is screwed.
Really, Russia's Revolution was outright inevitable at that point. Bolshevism or not. Austria-Hungary was even worse. It might have broken up before 1920 war or not.
Still. I dont know where you are getting this outright nonsense of a German victory, especially with solid territorial gains of any kind, being conducive to inspiring a revolution. This will end before Germany is really feeling the pain in regards to the blockade and it will end in 1917.
Besides, Britain and France wont be doing so awesome in regards to the food situation themselves.
So you are saying that Germany does not enact USW.....thus tightening the noose on british shipping and leading to a large portion of the problems feeding and such....yet they simply still have the problems the USW caused the Entente?
Without restrictions on Entente shipping across the Atlantic and leaving the Entente to have essentially peace time trade in the region and around much of the world the financial situation of the Entente would be better than OTL while the CP would retain the same problems.....
I would have put the likelihood at being at some sort of bloody stalemate later than 1918 with an Eastern Europe initially under the influence of Germany directly following the war whose grip would be shaken by the unopposed rise of Bolshevism due to German concentration on the western front. Coupled with an Austria-Hungary likely to have imploded under war exhaustion if the war had passed onwards to 1920 and post war Germany might well have gained large chunks of Eastern Europe but they are still possessed of a gutted economy much as the other combatents but have commitments to hold down much of the Best-Livortsk land as well as a civil war in Austria-Hungary.
So yeah...complicated....
Without restrictions on Entente shipping across the Atlantic and leaving the Entente to have essentially peace time trade in the region and around much of the world the financial situation of the Entente would be better than OTL while the CP would retain the same problems.....
I would have put the likelihood at being at some sort of bloody stalemate later than 1918 with an Eastern Europe initially under the influence of Germany directly following the war whose grip would be shaken by the unopposed rise of Bolshevism due to German concentration on the western front. Coupled with an Austria-Hungary likely to have imploded under war exhaustion if the war had passed onwards to 1920 and post war Germany might well have gained large chunks of Eastern Europe but they are still possessed of a gutted economy much as the other combatents but have commitments to hold down much of the Best-Livortsk land as well as a civil war in Austria-Hungary.
So yeah...complicated....
I was thinking, that why would the second war break out explicitly after nukes, but then, it wouldn't break out before, because there would be no equalizer that makes it possible before, right?
What do you mean by "essentially peace time trade"?
Allied shipping losses were climbing rapidly even before USW was introduced. Even had they stayed constant at the level of Jan 1917 (the last month before USW) the 1917 losses would still have exceeded those for 1914, 1915 and 1916 put together. And even without USW they might well have continued to rise.
This leaves out the question of what economic sanctions the US might have been imposing in retaliation for British blacklists etc. Congress had already (early Sep 1916) empowered the President to do this, and after the rejection of his peace initiative, he would have no further reason to delay doing so.
Any "neutral US" WI which assumes a continuation of the late 1916 status quo is unrealistic. Things were not stable then. Anglo-US relations were rapidly going from bad to worse, to the point where intelligent men like Colonel House thought war against the Allies possible - until the Germans pulled the chestnuts out of the fire by launchimg USW.
Strategos
Banned
No, Im saying that with a true neutral America, USW could be seen as the German answer to the blockade. As in, America is refeusing to ship stuff to the Entente anyways, so anyone trying to avoid either one of them is putting themselves in unnecesary peril and outside of the protection of the USN. BAsically, a neutral America wouldnt be shipping to the Entente and wouldnt come down so hard on USW and would write off any American losses as "You should have known better, dumbass"
No...because you entirely reversed what I posted. You severely misinterpreted it.
A true neutral America would refuse shipping to either and consider the USW to be a legitimate answer to the blockade and simply declare European waters an unsafe warzone. Otherwise it isnt neutral America, its lazy America.
Ah so you mean the US would throw 150 years of laissez faire out. Also even without shipping to the entente the shipping lanes attacked by USW were hardly exclusive to US-entente trade.
As I said, I feel that the war would have ended in a bloody stalemate later than OTL and Germany having to deal with all the problems that the Ottoman and AH weakness plus the Russian civil war was likely to cause them. Arguably a victory on land gained but leaving Germany saddled with a massive drain on time/money/military strength at the expense of their post war recovery.
As I said, I feel that the war would have ended in a bloody stalemate later than OTL and Germany having to deal with all the problems that the Ottoman and AH weakness plus the Russian civil war was likely to cause them. Arguably a victory on land gained but leaving Germany saddled with a massive drain on time/money/military strength at the expense of their post war recovery.
A true neutral America would refuse shipping to either and consider the USW to be a legitimate answer to the blockade and simply declare European waters an unsafe warzone. Otherwise it isnt neutral America, its lazy America.
No. A truly neutral America would allow any belligerant to purchase and import whatever it could. It was not America's fault that RN supremacy in the Atlantic meant that the Entente could do this but the CP could not. Nor was America under any obligation to correct this imbalance either by imposing an embargo or by allowing the CP to torpedo US merchant ships.
But nor, OTOH, was America under any obligation to tolerate the blacklisting of her nationals for failure to co-operate in Allied blockade measures. She had every right to retaliate for that, and would almost certainly have done so had the destruction of her merchantmen by German subs not acted as a "weapon of mass distraction" on that point.
BlondieBC
Banned
It might not. But it is the realistic worst case that is possible. We can debate when nuclear weapons would be available, but it would happen eventually. And we almost did a full nuclear war a couple of times IOTL, so it is easy to do ITTL.
We tend to forget that it was pretty evident a Great War would cripple all parties involved. No hindsight required. It was clear that peace need to be made by winter of 1915/16. It is all sitting in the New York Times for the period. There is a lot of post war "airbrushing" of history in biographies and autobiographies to try to hide the mistakes. It was in no WW1 leaders interest to admit he knew it would be a fiasco and he went to war anyway. From the breaking of the empires, to the inability to garrison Germany, to the USA likely retreat to isolationism, to the outlines of the the cold war. People openly discuss these issues in the press.
BlondieBC
Banned
It is not even clear that USW actually increased sinkings in any significant way. There is at best a week correlation. What matter most is number of ships on merchant warfare station on any given day. The reason that USW is often seen to increase sinkings is that the Germans changed U-boat patterns when they went to USW. When not in USW periods, they generally had the vast majority of their U-boats hunting the Royal Navy. When the went to USW periods, they would surge out U-boats to hunt merchant ships. And the sad things for the Germans, is there own data clearly shows it. So there are a few possibilities - at some level in the German Admiralty, they simply forged the data sent up Or they just did not bother to look at the data or they were trying to intimidate neutral ships. I lean towards the intimidation explanation. The German Navy likely thought that the USA and Norway would simply ban ships travelling to Entente ports out of fear.
And there are also some common myths around USW.
1) It was all or nothing. In any given month, there were always ships sunk without warning per the German records. There were always ships stopped. There were places where USW cause no issues as far as I can tell. For example, once you rounded Crete towards Saloniki, it was always USW. In other places in the Med, the always checked ships before sinking.
2) USW months had higher % of sink without warning than non-USW months. Sometimes there were more warnings after the USW declaration or expanded engagement rules went out.
3) Average RN response times was 10-12 hours. At the start of the war, more than 1/3 of ships did not have radio. There was plenty of time to warn then sink.
4) Q-ships sank a lot of U-boats. Not true.
5) Once the RN arrived on the scene, it was difficult for a U-boat to escape. Several issues. Back then, many of these ships used coal, so you could often see the help ship coming. And in the early days of the war, the weapons were basically useless against U-boats once they dived. Later in the war, we see better weapons like depth charges, but without good sonar, at best you get one chance to kill.
Sometimes people who are very smart and very educated simply pick the worst possible option, and it is knowable to them at the time. USW is a good example of this type of decision making process. If i put something as dumb in an ATL, people would complain that it was ASB.
Kiritsugu
Banned
If the USA wouldnt help the entente in WW1 at all, most likely Germany would have won. no i am actually pretty sure they would have, cause with the east army free and hindenburg in the west, i dont think france and britain would have won at all. I thin either Germany won and France surrendered, white peace with britain, cede of some french provinces and britain retreats from the european continent (wish would become german), so no ww2 e.g, OR the Central powers and Entente sign a "White peace" without versailler treaty e.g. So probably no ww2 either.
Strategos
Banned
No. Food and Guns are and have been considered War Materials. Banning the sale to either belligerent is actual neutrality.
But that wouldnt be very pro-Entente, would it?
This isnt Neutral America you are actually discussing, there is hardly any change at all. Save that unsecured loans arent happening. Maybe.
Although next the two of you will state that America will be against Uboat Warfare as well?
One thing I've not seen emntioned.
If America is neutral through the Summer of 1917, presumably American Socialists come to the Stockholm Conference. OTL, of course, with America in the war, the Wilson Administration forbade them to go.
Is their presence likely to make any difference?
If America is neutral through the Summer of 1917, presumably American Socialists come to the Stockholm Conference. OTL, of course, with America in the war, the Wilson Administration forbade them to go.
Is their presence likely to make any difference?