What If... The US hadn't entered World War One?

[Storico]

Woodrow Wilson made the following speech to Congress on April 2, 1917:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

German submarine warfare had, in Wilson's opinion, went too far. Americans had been killed and the German U-Boats had attacked neutral convoys, ie, hospital ships or passenger ships. Wilson's conclusion was that war was inevitable, and that the Axis had crossed unspeakable territory, and so must be stopped at all costs. The war had already been on since 1914, but on the US entering the war, a new surge of troops were sent to the frontlines. Many historians have argued that it was this infusion of troops that guaranteed the Allied win in 1918.

I'd like to posit the theory that that's perhaps correct. Canada, Britain and the other Allied powers could have continued into 1919, and perhaps 1920, but their numbers were low, their casualties were increasing, and they needed a fresh round of troops that the Americans provided.

But what if the USA hadn't entered the war? What if it had remained an economic contributor to the Allied cause only, as Wilson originally intended? Would those last months of the war still been taken by the Allies, or would the Axis have stood a chance?

[Ryokan]

Woodrow Wilson made the following speech to Congress on April 2, 1917:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

German submarine warfare had, in Wilson's opinion, went too far. Americans had been killed and the German U-Boats had attacked neutral convoys, ie, hospital ships or passenger ships. Wilson's conclusion was that war was inevitable, and that the Axis had crossed unspeakable territory, and so must be stopped at all costs. The war had already been on since 1914, but on the US entering the war, a new surge of troops were sent to the frontlines. Many historians have argued that it was this infusion of troops that guaranteed the Allied win in 1918.

I'd like to posit the theory that that's perhaps correct. Canada, Britain and the other Allied powers could have continued into 1919, and perhaps 1920, but their numbers were low, their casualties were increasing, and they needed a fresh round of troops that the Americans provided.

But what if the USA hadn't entered the war? What if it had remained an economic contributor to the Allied cause only, as Wilson originally intended? Would those last months of the war still been taken by the Allies, or would the Axis have stood a chance?Well, it was the central powers, and yeah, I think Germany would have broke the allies and there would have been a negotiated peace in Europe more favorable to Germany but less lopsided than Versaille.

[James Peter]

You know if we'd lost WWI then there is a fair chance that there wouldn't have been a WWII. If the settlement at Versaille hadn't been so harsh...

Then again without WWII you'd never have had the stable, modern Europe either.

[Storico]

You know if we'd lost WWI then there is a fair chance that there wouldn't have been a WWII. If the settlement at Versaille hadn't been so harsh...

Then again without WWII you'd never have had the stable, modern Europe either.

You know, I was thinking about that today. The treaty of Versailles was really messed up in sooo many ways. The Central powers were right in thinking that they were looking at the very short end of the stick. They were. And what Ryokan said might have something to it -- there would have been something arranged more to Germany's benefit had the US never entered the war, or had the Central powers won it.

But about what you said, James Peter... I'm not so sure World War Two was a fair price to pay for a stable, modern Europe. I think one would have come into it's own eventually, just a few decades later... especially with the dawn of increased commercialism and travel, etc. Then again, we could just as easily make the argument that the Holocaust might never have happened (or that the Nazi party would never have flourished) had the Vienna School of Art accepted Adolph Hitler as a student. He would have been there during most of the war years, but as it turns out, he was rejected and he was ECSTATIC to find out World War Two was beginning. (Edit: I don't buy the argument myself. If Hitler had been the only one in Germany full of paranoid homophobia and antisemitism, the world would have been safe enough yet. That people agreed with him in mass numbers quickly became the problem.)

On another note..

The implications for the US are even more interesting, had they not joined World War One. See, I'm not convinced at ALL that WWII wouldn't have happened had the Central powers won WWI. I think it would have anyways. The Central powers, triumphant, confident and daring, would have started making territorial claims the same way they did. Whatever they settled after WWI wouldn't have been enough for them, I don't think, unless they settled for taking over 3/4 of Europe! So where does the US tie in? The US got its feet wet in WWI. Canada did too. Canadian historians have said WWI created a "nation forged in fire", and the US has heard similar sentiments. There was no state-against-state infighting. Instead, it was a chance for the US to turn the tide of the first world war that had happened in a long time. It was a moment of pride for Americans, I think. Had they not entered, and had WWII began, their regiments wouldn't have been organized, they wouldn't have had the chance to co-operate with Allied powers in the previous war, they wouldn't have established themselves, and German-Japanese policy against the USA would have been altered radically, due to the fact that those powers would have been out of the loop when it could come to the USA'S potential capabilities.

[Ryokan]

WW2 probably wouldn't have happened, Storico. France was broken and Britain has little stake in continental Europe, especially with their empire still intact. The great Patriotic war, though....

[The Curtmudgeon]

Interesting topic to speculate on.

The German reason for stepping up the U-Boat war was to defeat England before the US could enter the war; they knew that the US would enter the war with the increased attacks on neutral shipping, but they thought it would take longer for us to get into the war than it did. If Wilson (remember, his initials also stand for "World War") didn't get us in, then I think a few things happen:

Lloyd George is forced into a negotiated separate peace by summer 1918. Kitchener was dead and Churchill discredited and ousted from the Admiralty before 1917; there's not a brain left in the British military hierarchy (don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that Kitchener had any brains, either, but he did have an amazing ability to mobilise people to do what he wanted done), and the idea that "just keep hammering them until the hammer breaks" doesn't rank real high as military strategy. With the home front facing starvation due to the U-Boat war, Lloyd George can't hold support for the war much longer, so I expect the UK is out by summer 1918.
I'm not sure whether the French crumble before the Germans or not. In actual history, even with the influx of American blood and arms, both the French and German armies simply gave out about the same time. The logical progression is without the US and the UK, the French should crumble even that much sooner, right? But I'm not convinced. This French army still had memories of the collapse in 1870, and the humiliating submission to Germany then; desperation might, then, keep them going against tremendous odds where (it might be argued) they succumbed in actual history at least in part because they could. The Germans certainly had a lot of problems of their own behind the lines, and the U-Boat war couldn't improve their situation in itself, it could only weaken the Allies to (hopefully, from the German POV) the same or lower status. A French army that stood to the task despite the overwhelming odds might have been just enough to still gain a stalemate.

So I'll hypothesise a stalemate finish, with Germany holding its gains in the East from the Soviets, but with pretty close to status quo ante in the West. Germany is certainly in a much stronger position, but the real difference is no Treaty of Versailles (and the other treaties that broke up the AH and Ottoman empires). Austria is prostrate (they already were, in fact, long before 1917), and cannot prevent internal break-up over the next decade. It's interesting to think that, without a total defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Kemal Ataturk might not have risen to power in Turkey at all, leaving the world with The Sick Man of Europe still (although budding nationalism movements would have done for it, like the AH Empire, soon enough).

All of which leaves Germany as the only strong nation in central as well as eastern Europe, and France facing its worst fears.

But do we thus avoid WWII? I think not; the events of 1929/30 happen with or without Versailles, and as mentioned above, Hitler was not the only radical nutcase in Germany. While the "stab in the back" and Versailles were two of his more pronounced platform planks, he (and those like him) had plenty to raise hell about besides them (and could just as easily manufacture some other excuse just as the "stab in the back" theory was a manufactured exercise in political fantasy). Without the Versailles reparations, perhaps Germany's 1930s are no worse, or not much worse, than the US's, but there's enough of a powderkeg sitting there that we'd still get the NSDAP (perhaps under Ernst Rohm rather than the Vienna paperhanger, but there's not much difference in rotten eggs) in time to set the world in flames by 1940 or so.

All of this is predicated on a totally secular interpretation of world history, BTW. I don't exactly hold a totally secular interpretation of world history, but I'll leave my religious beliefs out of this.

Another aside: I personally do believe that WWI was the most evil war ever fought (to date; there's still time for things to get worse) by so-called civilised man. WWII was fought against a more complete evil, but WWI was itself an evil war because it was so completely unnecessary, and it was forcibly grown out of what could have been, and should have been, a limited, local war in Austria's backyard by the decidedly and intentionally inflammatory acts of the German High Command and the total idiocy and incompetency of Kaiser Bill. Yes, I do believe that Germany must bear almost the total blame for that war, although that does not mean that I believe the Versailles Treaty (et al.) was necessarily a good or proper way to handle them afterwards. Certainly, imposing the stringent conditions of Versailles, enforcing them to the point of almost destroying Germany and then backing off and allowing Germany to flagrantly violate the terms, having been bred to a complete hatred and fear of the former Allies, was neither Britain's nor France's most intelligent strategy. But that's part of the problem, isn't it: the whole of WWI shows that neither Britain nor France could come up with a viable strategy, military or political, at that time.

The (as always, only one man's opinion) Curtmudgeon

[shunyadragon]

Woodrow Wilson made the following speech to Congress on April 2, 1917:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

German submarine warfare had, in Wilson's opinion, went too far. Americans had been killed and the German U-Boats had attacked neutral convoys, ie, hospital ships or passenger ships. Wilson's conclusion was that war was inevitable, and that the Axis had crossed unspeakable territory, and so must be stopped at all costs. The war had already been on since 1914, but on the US entering the war, a new surge of troops were sent to the frontlines. Many historians have argued that it was this infusion of troops that guaranteed the Allied win in 1918.

I'd like to posit the theory that that's perhaps correct. Canada, Britain and the other Allied powers could have continued into 1919, and perhaps 1920, but their numbers were low, their casualties were increasing, and they needed a fresh round of troops that the Americans provided.

But what if the USA hadn't entered the war? What if it had remained an economic contributor to the Allied cause only, as Wilson originally intended? Would those last months of the war still been taken by the Allies, or would the Axis have stood a chance?

There is an interesting factor that few pepole consider that may have contributed to the end of the war and that is the Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919. It had a devastating impact on the armies and the civilian population in Europe and world wide.

[Ryokan]

There is an interesting factor that few pepole consider that may have contributed to the end of the war and that is the Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919. It had a devastating impact on the armies and the civilian population in Europe and world wide.
It did, but, frankly, it was not as devestating to civilians and the allied bombing campaigns in world war 2 or stalins scorched earth policy, and all those states managed to soldier on. US entrance was, in my opinion, the decisive factor. Without that, there could not have been the allied counter attack, battlelines would have to have been redrawn deep in france, and its hard to imagine that a settled peace would not have been the result. Even if the flu was decisive, it would have decided in Germany's favor without the involvement of the US.

[Timothy Leary]

I believe that if we had not entered WWI, there wouldn't have been a WW2. Germany wouldn't have been smashed into pieces during WW1, it wouldn't have been hit nearly as hard as it was by the depression, etc. and the climate neccessary for hitler to rise to power wouldn't have existed.

Furthermore, I think we were on the wrong side of WW2. But that's another thread.

[Storico]

There is an interesting factor that few pepole consider that may have contributed to the end of the war and that is the Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919. It had a devastating impact on the armies and the civilian population in Europe and world wide.

Very, very true.

In all likelihood, like most of the rest of history, there were several factors that led to the end of the war in 1918. The flu pandemic certainly "helped" (I say tongue in cheek). In fact, it caused mass panic and it was spread so rapidly that by 1919 in parts of the world, depression conditions were already starting to kick in due to the loss of life either because of the flu or because of the war. So did the American entrance help the war's end occur in '18. So did a few tactical blunders on both sides. The lack of new Central recruits helped, too.


The more I study history, the more I think about it, the more I'm amazed to see that any one issue, any one factor, relies so heavily on those surrounding it. The "what if", the story behind things, is what fascinates me, and at times, horrifies me.

[shunyadragon]

Very, very true.

In all likelihood, like most of the rest of history, there were several factors that led to the end of the war in 1918. The flu pandemic certainly "helped" (I say tongue in cheek). In fact, it caused mass panic and it was spread so rapidly that by 1919 in parts of the world, depression conditions were already starting to kick in due to the loss of life either because of the flu or because of the war. So did the American entrance help the war's end occur in '18. So did a few tactical blunders on both sides. The lack of new Central recruits helped, too.


The more I study history, the more I think about it, the more I'm amazed to see that any one issue, any one factor, relies so heavily on those surrounding it. The "what if", the story behind things, is what fascinates me, and at times, horrifies me.


There may be a little irony here concerning the entry of the US into the war. A US Army private came down with the Flu at Fort Riley, Kansas, March of 1918. Hundreds followed, and than thousands. The flu was than carried to France by the US Army. It seems the US Army carried the greatest most deadly germ warfare weapon in history into battle without knowing it.

[shunyadragon]

Woodrow Wilson made the following speech to Congress on April 2, 1917:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

German submarine warfare had, in Wilson's opinion, went too far. Americans had been killed and the German U-Boats had attacked neutral convoys, ie, hospital ships or passenger ships. Wilson's conclusion was that war was inevitable, and that the Axis had crossed unspeakable territory, and so must be stopped at all costs. The war had already been on since 1914, but on the US entering the war, a new surge of troops were sent to the frontlines. Many historians have argued that it was this infusion of troops that guaranteed the Allied win in 1918.

I'd like to posit the theory that that's perhaps correct. Canada, Britain and the other Allied powers could have continued into 1919, and perhaps 1920, but their numbers were low, their casualties were increasing, and they needed a fresh round of troops that the Americans provided.

But what if the USA hadn't entered the war? What if it had remained an economic contributor to the Allied cause only, as Wilson originally intended? Would those last months of the war still been taken by the Allies, or would the Axis have stood a chance?

One more comment - The Treaty of Versaille was in 1919, which ended the war.

[Tladatsi]

Wilson entered the war to protect US loans to GB and France and other mutual economic interests. The sinking of the passanger ships were merely a convient excuse.

The US was in the war for only 5 months (July through November 1918) and lost over 100,000 dead in that short time. That is 20,000 dead per month of the war (that is just staggering). They would have remained alive had the US not joined the war.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

There were widespread mutinies in the French, Italian, and Russian armies. Revolution toppled the Russian government in 1917. Had the war continued, the armies would have collapsed and or mutinied, there were hardly enough men left alive to fight. France alone lost nearly 3 million young men, a huge portion of their reproductive population (they suffered a huge "baby bust" in the years following). The same thing happened in Germany. As it was the German and Hungarian governments faced Bolshivik inspired revolutions 1919 and there was social turmoil through Europe and the US. All of that happened with the war over. Had the war continued, far greater turmoil would have been unleasted.



Woodrow Wilson made the following speech to Congress on April 2, 1917:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm

German submarine warfare had, in Wilson's opinion, went too far. Americans had been killed and the German U-Boats had attacked neutral convoys, ie, hospital ships or passenger ships. Wilson's conclusion was that war was inevitable, and that the Axis had crossed unspeakable territory, and so must be stopped at all costs. The war had already been on since 1914, but on the US entering the war, a new surge of troops were sent to the frontlines. Many historians have argued that it was this infusion of troops that guaranteed the Allied win in 1918.

I'd like to posit the theory that that's perhaps correct. Canada, Britain and the other Allied powers could have continued into 1919, and perhaps 1920, but their numbers were low, their casualties were increasing, and they needed a fresh round of troops that the Americans provided.

But what if the USA hadn't entered the war? What if it had remained an economic contributor to the Allied cause only, as Wilson originally intended? Would those last months of the war still been taken by the Allies, or would the Axis have stood a chance?

[One Bad Pig]

I picked up this book (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-MILITARY-Historians/dp/0425176428/sr=1-1/qid=1171065594/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4205460-1783937?ie=UTF8&s=books) on the cheap the other day. Looks interesting.

[Storico]

OBP, it and What If 2 are GREAT.