What if the US had stayed out of The Great War?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
From inter-war books, there little evidence that the imminent arrival of the Americans in WWI was much of a morale booster at all.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Why were the allies (especially the Brits) trying so hard to bring the US into the war then? From my own readings in the past I’d say that the allies desperately wanted the US in the war for our fresh man power and industrial might…and that they were thrilled that there would be fresh troops to fight the Germans with instead of their own ragged and war weary ones.

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
The Americans had virtually no veteran forces (aside from a few thousand that had chased Pancho Villa around Mexico under General Pershing), and hundreds of British NCO’s were brought over to train them. The U.S. military had very little in the way of logistics infrastructure or field deployment experience.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: While I don’t disagree with you that the US Army at the time was green, how well trained were the allies armies at that point…considering the massive losses they had incurred throughout the war? What kind of advanced training do you suppose it took to charge machine guns and trenches? AFAIK, only the Germans were highly trained at the squad level at this point in the war…and even they had sustained such massive losses that I would guess they were using troops just as green as the Americans for the most part, interspersed with a few surviving veterans. The fact that the Americans did fairly well against the Germans (because of or perhaps in spite of the training by the allies) kind of speaks to this point.

As for logistics…well, up to the intervention by the US the front was mainly static. So tactical logistics were pretty easy as you didn’t have highly mobile forces. From a strategic perspective…well, who do you think was supplying the allies with much of their war material up to that point??

Again, I agree that the US Army was woefully under trained, under equipped and green as grass (as it was in WWII and even Korea before we finally learned our lesson about sending green, poorly trained and poorly equipped and lead boys to their deaths)…but I think the nature of the conflict minimized the urgency of refined training. Had the war been one of high mobility you may have a point…but it wasn’t. I think the lack of US training is counterbalanced by the large numbers of fresh troops who weren’t weary from years of slaughter. And I think this had a serious positive impact on the allies…if not at the troop level (though I would need a cite to convince me they weren’t positive about fresh US troops, if for no other reason than it would give the Germans someone new to shoot at) then at the higher levels.

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
It was Pershing himself, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, that insisted that the Americans be allowed to fight as a coherent force.
[/QUOTE]

Yes he did…and damned good thing to considering what the allies had done with THEIR men throughout the war.

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
It’s really hard to say what would have happened if the US had stayed out of the Great War. It’s true that more than 117,000 Americans lost their lives in the war, but the other participants suffered far, far worse (even if only compared to their own population, although most suffered greater absolute losses as well), so there was no great set-back to America’s ascension as a world player. Indeed, the radical overhaul and modernization of the US military was instrumental to America’s strong influence and rise as a superpower.
[/QUOTE]

Two points. First off, it wasn’t our fight…the fact that the Europeans suffered more is a direct consequence of the fact that it was THEIR fight. They brought it on themselves. There shouldn’t have been ANY US ground combat deaths at all (we would have lost some people through naval actions even if we stayed out of the war…as we should have)…let alone a hundred thousand.

Secondly, I don’t think American ascension as a world power came about because of WWI…at least not from a military perspective. Nor did the US military modernize or become a strong military power post WWI (except perhaps our Navy). It wasn’t until after WWII that the US became a true modern military and world power form a military perspective. That’s one of the big reasons we got dragged into yet another European bloodbath unprepared…because we DIDN’T learn any lessons and DIDN’T attempt to modernize or even train and equip a modern military (again, with the exception of the Navy…and even there I would rank us as perhaps a second rate power…perhaps number 4 or 5 of the world navies).

-XT

42

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Interesting.

<snip>

(again, with the exception of the Navy…and even there I would rank us as perhaps a second rate power…perhaps number 4 or 5 of the world navies).

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I disagree with your very last point.

The USN was #2 in size (a hair behind Great Britain). This was set up by treaty in 1922 and 1930.

The USN was #2 in tactics (a little behind Japan), due to the potential of the carrier being underestimated until after Pearl Harbor. (Although, the move to use submarines in an anti-commerce role instead of a fleet scout role was made very quickly, speaking to a flexibilty in the command structure and strategic thinking groups that Japan lacked…)

In my opinion, of course. :wink:

43

I’m ex-Navy so I’m bending over backwards to try and be fair here…I’m obviously biased. I would think that the French Navy, (perhaps) Italian Navy and certainly the Brits RN were superior if not in shear numbers than in quality of naval units. But I admit…I don’t know. There were also the Japanese navy and the Russian navy in there somewhere as well.

-XT

44

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I’m ex-Navy so I’m bending over backwards to try and be fair here…I’m obviously biased. I would think that the French Navy, (perhaps) Italian Navy and certainly the Brits RN were superior if not in shear numbers than in quality of naval units. But I admit…I don’t know. There were also the Japanese navy and the Russian navy in there somewhere as well.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

It’s difficult to judge the Italian and Russian ships directly with the American ones.

The Italians and Russians did not have to devote as much tonnage to long distance steaming endurance. Their overall strategy didn’t need it. (The Italians did not expect to have to work very much outside of the Med, let alone European waters, for example.)

Thus, they could devote more tonnage to different ship qualities. (Say, speed, or maybe just realise a savings in ship size and cost.)

The Japanese emphasized speed and hitting power over protection a little bit more than the US/UK did. They knew that they could not outproduce both the US and UK, so they wanted their ships to hit harder sooner. (Massive torpedo salvos, for example.)

The closest analogs to the American ships are the British designs, due to similar philosophies and world strategy needs, but the British were saddled with an older (first generation) aircraft carrier force, designed with the assumption of operating within European waters and augmented by shore based aircraft.

The French built their ships to be superior in qualities to the Italian and German ships, who they saw as the most likely foes in the next war.

Nuthin’s ever easy… huh?

45

If it were easy then they’d be talking about this on another board. :wink:

-XT

46

IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.

Britains main interest at that time was trade and her world empire and probably most people didn’t even know where Serbia was or cared less.

47

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.

Britains main interest at that time was trade and her world empire and probably most people didn’t even know where Serbia was or cared less.
[/QUOTE]

It was in large part halfway much a huge misunderstanding anyway. Everyone just knew a war was coming. And it did, partly by expectations, but mostly because of sheer tension. The entire Continent was ready to go up in flames.

Austria made a huge grab for Serbia and that got Russia involved. ussia pulled in France. France pulled in England. Actually, England and France might not have been involved except for two factors: the Prussian General Staff and the Kaiser were dimwitted baboons. Back in the day, a plan had been created for the worst-case scenario: a land war from both east and west. The assumption had been made under the cicumstances 50 years ago, nd the short version was that the guy who wrote it figured they had to knock out France fast before they armed up too much. Then hit Russia before they got five million Colorless 1/1 Soldier tokens pumped out (Magic: tG reference).

Thing was, France wasn’t that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn’t invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.

48

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
It was in large part halfway much a huge misunderstanding anyway. Everyone just knew a war was coming. And it did, partly by expectations, but mostly because of sheer tension. The entire Continent was ready to go up in flames.

Austria made a huge grab for Serbia and that got Russia involved. ussia pulled in France. France pulled in England. Actually, England and France might not have been involved except for two factors: the Prussian General Staff and the Kaiser were dimwitted baboons. Back in the day, a plan had been created for the worst-case scenario: a land war from both east and west. The assumption had been made under the cicumstances 50 years ago, nd the short version was that the guy who wrote it figured they had to knock out France fast before they armed up too much. Then hit Russia before they got five million Colorless 1/1 Soldier tokens pumped out (Magic: tG reference).

Thing was, France wasn’t that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn’t invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.
[/QUOTE]

Slight Hijack:
I wonder how much different the world would have been if the UK managed to sit out WWI. Germany would have no doubt won the war and become the dominant power on the continent. Without England, the US never enters the war. Would England have managed to postpone its decline as a world power? In retrospect, England’s interests on the continent were not that important compared to their primary need to maintain a global military. If they stayed out could they have done a better job building a military that could protect their overseas interests? Would war between England and Germany been inevitable if Germany became significantly more powerful on the continent (basically a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars)?

49

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Thing was, France wasn’t that interested in war in 1914. If the Kaiser hadn’t invaded, they almost certainly would have sat it out. England definitely would have. And Germany could have fielded a sufficient defensive force.
[/QUOTE]

There is absolutely no possibility that France would have sat out a war between Russia and Germany/Austria. Under the Franco-Russian military convention, France was obligated to immediately attack Germany should Russia be attacked by Germany or by Austria supported by Germany (likewise, Russia agreed to attack Germany if France were attacked by Germany or Italy supported by Germany). The whole point of the convention was that both France and Russia realized that Germany could roll over either one of them individually, and so it was in both their interest to force Germany to confront them both at the same time. While France certainly didn’t want war, they were absolutely committed to it in the event of a German invasion of Russia and had begun mobilization as the confrontation grew on the Eastern front.

50

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
IMO politics aside there was a good case for Britain not getting involved in a European war at all back then.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that was ever seriously in the cards. Britain’s own treaty obligations are what brought her into the war…and I doubt she ever seriously considered getting out of them. For one thing the UK was starting to be a bit alarmed about the growing German Navy…as well as Germany’s growing over seas colonial empire. Germany was perceived as becoming a serious threat…so the war just gave the Brits the excuse to go to war (just like most of the other major powers in Europe…it was a set of dominoes that invariably lead each nation into the conflict). Besides, I don’t think anyone foresaw exactly what this war would be like (had they paid more attention to the US Civil War they would have at least had an inkling…though they should have known anyway from their own conflicts).

IIRC the British population (not unlike the populations of the other major powers) were pretty enthusiastic about the war and the prospects for victory. My guess is that each sides military high command were equally confident of a swift and crushing victory. It wasn’t until they were hip deep in the war (and so were stuck) that the realization (eventually…these folk were pretty thick) that this was not going to be over by Christmas…
The US on the other hand COULD have stayed safely out of it. We were under no treaty obligations after all. Sure, the Germans had given us Casus Bellum…but we didn’t HAVE to take them. Or, we could have waged a more limited naval war instead, supplying the Allied powers with war material while protecting the convoys…and letting the Euro’s do what they do best, slaughter each other in job lots…while keeping our ground troops completely out of the conflict.

-XT

51

[QUOTE=flurb]
There is absolutely no possibility that France would have sat out a war between Russia and Germany/Austria.
[/QUOTE]

I am not at all certain that France would do so, in fact, and neither were the French, traty or not. They hadn’t made up their minds at all. Even if they did attack Germany, England had already given Germany word that as long as they didn’t invade France, England would not get involved.

52

Speaking as a Brit I would say that as a nation, as opposed to individuals,we are mostly too stupid to surrender.

When Europe was totally Catholic and the Armada was sent to deal with us we carried on fighting.
When all the countries of Europe had surrendered and then started actively collaberating with the French we carried on fighting inspite of our pathetically small army.

In WW2 the nations of Europe were over run and surrendered to the Germans.

At the time we thought that we were going to be invaded but the mind set of the time was that we would fight to the death down to our own women and children level.
This is not as brave and noble as it sounds,we just cannot understand foreigners and regard them as weird,unnatural beings.

So if the Americans hadn’t of joined in we still would have carried on fighting,probably to the very last gasp.
As I said we are quite stupid in some ways,me just as much as everyone else.

53

Don’t kick yourself…the fact that you guys were too stubborn to surrender in WWII is probably what saved the war. Myself, I have my doubts that the Russians would have defeated the Germans without the Brits still being in the war…and I know that American wouldn’t have been able to do much of anything against Germany without England to act as a huge staging base and unsinkable aircraft carrier.

-XT

54

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I am not at all certain that France would do so, in fact, and neither were the French, traty or not. They hadn’t made up their minds at all. Even if they did attack Germany, England had already given Germany word that as long as they didn’t invade France, England would not get involved.
[/QUOTE]

I’d appreciate a cite that there was any serious consideration given by the French Government to abandoning their treaty obligations and remaining neutral in a war between Russia and German/Austria. As the crisis deepened at the end of July, Poincaré and Viviani, who were in Russia at the time on a diplomatic trip, pledged their full support to Russia. Joffre assured Russia’s Military Attaché of France’s “full and active readiness faithfully to execute her responsibilities as an ally.” When Germany demanded that France declare its neutrality, they refused to do so.

Also, the majority of the French public was strongly for war. The disaster of the Franco-Prussian War and loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Bismark’s Germany still rankled deeply. When war was declared, the French public was ecstatic and huge war rallies were held in Paris and throughout France.

Also, Britain did not give their word that they would stay out of a continental conflict as long as Germany did not invade France. The German ambassador in London reported his belief that Britain would remain neutral, and this got misinterpreted by the Kaiser as a British proposal to guarantee French and British neutrality. Which horrified the German military, which needed a war with France for the Schlieffen Plan to work.

55

I thought that the Shlieffen Plan presumed a war with France, and was intended as a strategic plan to conduct that war. I mean, otherwise, they risk all of this just for Belgium?

56

[QUOTE=MichaelQReilly]
Slight Hijack:
I wonder how much different the world would have been if the UK managed to sit out WWI.
[/QUOTE]

Or if the US had intervened on the side of Germany. Sorry if this was covered in an earlier post – don’t see it – and I’m relying on memory here, but wasn’t there a chance of that at the time? A large number of first- and second-generation German immigrants, plus many recent Irish immigrants who hated the British, made that a possibility, didn’t it? At least in the minds of many at the time.

57

[QUOTE=Kozmik]
Seriously, I do wonder if we had stayed out of WWI, we wouldn’t have been involved in WWII (no Pearl Harbor).
[/QUOTE]

I’ve been trying to think of why you conclude this, and I’m not succeeding. Why would there be no Pearl Harbor attack in WWII if we’d stayed out of WWI?

Sailboat

58

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
The First World War was not ended by anything soldiers or diplomats did, it was ended by the Spanish Influenza 1918,

Spanish 1918 killed more soldiers, in all armies, than the entire war did.
And devastated civilians, to boot.

War production, food production, transport… it was all deeply effected.

Spanish 1918 sapped the will of the political leaders, as it often took weeks or months to recover one’s health afterwards, & most of the war leaders caught it.
[/QUOTE]
This is almost completely untrue. It didn’t first appear anywhere until March 1918, and then only in the USA (Kansas). It was unknown in Europe until appearing in western France (Brest) in August 1918, only 3 months before the end of the war by which time the Germans were already in retreat. In fact it had relatively little impact until the end of the war, which triggered huge movements of people around the world and helped spread it much faster than during the war.

It is true it killed more people than WWI did, but not during WWI.

To the OP: US troops had only limited impact on the course of the war, not arriving on the Western front in numbers until the Germans were already beaten so they at most shortened the war, not won it. Probably the greatest impact would have been the reduced influence the US, and Woodrow Wilson in particular, would have had on the text of the Treaty of Versailles; whether that would have ended up for good or ill is unknowable.

59

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Speaking as a Brit I would say that as a nation, as opposed to individuals,we are mostly too stupid to surrender.

In WW2 the nations of Europe were over run and surrendered to the Germans.

At the time we thought that we were going to be invaded but the mind set of the time was that we would fight to the death down to our own women and children level.
This is not as brave and noble as it sounds,we just cannot understand foreigners and regard them as weird,unnatural beings.

QUOTE]
Stupidity doesn’t enter into it.

We value our freedoms and will defend them to the death no matter the cost.

As for not understanding foreigners, you got that wrong. We understand them, we just don’t trust 'em

60

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Speaking as a Brit I would say that as a nation, as opposed to individuals,we are mostly too stupid to surrender.

When Europe was totally Catholic and the Armada was sent to deal with us we carried on fighting.
When all the countries of Europe had surrendered and then started actively collaberating with the French we carried on fighting inspite of our pathetically small army.

In WW2 the nations of Europe were over run and surrendered to the Germans.

At the time we thought that we were going to be invaded but the mind set of the time was that we would fight to the death down to our own women and children level.
This is not as brave and noble as it sounds,we just cannot understand foreigners and regard them as weird,unnatural beings.

So if the Americans hadn’t of joined in we still would have carried on fighting,probably to the very last gasp.
As I said we are quite stupid in some ways,me just as much as everyone else.
[/QUOTE]

Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?