What if Wilson did not ask for a declaration of war in 1917?

[Anthony]

With all the what ifs focused on WWII, let's have a WWI what if.

What if the US did not enter WWI. Would the Allies have lost? WOuld the British have gone to Napoleonic War strategy (i.e. pull the troops off the continent and fight on the periferies until France or Russia got back into the war)?

Would the Allies have held on for a negtioated truce status quo ante?

Would France have spawned a fascist or communist regime?

Would the Bolshevik Revolution have failed?

What would have happened to Italy? The Ottomans?

What about the British Empire (remember, while the British were losing on the continent, they were winning, big in the desert (where the Ottoman Empire was collapsing) and in Africa? But the war lead to the begining of the end of the Empire, as it put off home rule in Ireland, and lead the British to overreact to the Easter Rising.

[CrewDust]

If the Frech had stuck with it the Allies probably would have won in 1919. Germany was in a world of hurt on the domestic front.

[DoctorD]

If the French had stuck with it the Allies probably would have won in 1919. Germany was in a world of hurt on the domestic front.

But wasn't this due to Wilson's tacit support of the Allies pre-1917? He allowed trade with the UK and not with Germany. Consequently Germany was hurting for a lot of raw materials. German boats were held up in US ports.

The anglophile Wilson also disregarded German threats to sink all shipping, thus precipitating the Lusitania crisis. Much more cynical behavior than that of Roosevelt prior to WWII.

[Owen Gohl]

War probably would have ended in a stalemate or a German victory.

Haven't the time to go into any depth on this, but I have often wondered if such an outcome might eventually have led to a communist revolution in Germany, especially if the Bolshevik revolution had failed in Russia. Germany would have been in for some hard times even had it won the war and returning veterans and the working class might have pushed the country to the left, rather than to the right. History would have been very different if the first communist government had been established in highly advanced Germany instead of in less developed Russia.

[DoyleG]

What if the US did not enter WWI. Would the Allies have lost? WOuld the British have gone to Napoleonic War strategy (i.e. pull the troops off the continent and fight on the periferies until France or Russia got back into the war)?

In this case, the British would've kept on fighting in Europe in order to make the blockade much more effective. The blockade was wrecking Germany's ability to fight and was talking it's toll on the civilian population. The 1918 offensive could be seen as the last chance to break the bloackade.


Would the Allies have held on for a negtioated truce status quo ante?

This option would not be considered as there was a push the defeat Germany. As is stated in another post, the war woudl've dragged on a bit longer but the result was obvious.


Would France have spawned a fascist or communist regime?

As we had seen during the French mutiny in 1917, any resistance would've been brutally supressed. Such types would either be executed or put into penal batallions.


Would the Bolshevik Revolution have failed?

Not likely in the case but the eventual Civil War would've still been in the balance as well as other countries taking advantage a taking a huge chunk out of the category.


What would have happened to Italy? The Ottomans?

Germany's allies were largely alone in fighting their enemies. It was the collapse of the other Central Powers that eventually brought Germany to it's knees as it meant troops would be arriving in France in large numbers.


What about the British Empire (remember, while the British were losing on the continent, they were winning, big in the desert (where the Ottoman Empire was collapsing) and in Africa? But the war lead to the begining of the end of the Empire, as it put off home rule in Ireland, and lead the British to overreact to the Easter Rising.

The British and French had knocked the Germans out of Africa and rolled up the Ottomans in the Middle East. As for Ireland, the leaders certainly realized that Britain, even burdned by war, could still deal with any domestic crisis. Better to wait till the end when:

1) The British would be demobalized wholesale. This leaving them with not enough troops to handle Irish resistance.

2) Recruting by the Irish of soldiers from the war into rebel units.

[Scarecrow]

War probably would have ended in a stalemate or a German victory.

Haven't the time to go into any depth on this, but I have often wondered if such an outcome might eventually have led to a communist revolution in Germany, especially if the Bolshevik revolution had failed in Russia. Germany would have been in for some hard times even had it won the war and returning veterans and the working class might have pushed the country to the left, rather than to the right. History would have been very different if the first communist government had been established in highly advanced Germany instead of in less developed Russia.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hadn't the Russians effectivly withdrawn from WWI once the revolution began? I don't know that the result in Russia would have been any different if the US hadn't entered the war. I do think that it is likely that a stalemate would have been the final result. Also the flu pandemic that hit took quite a toll on both sides, it is possible that both sides would have gone into a pro-longed cease fire or ended actual fighting for some time.

It is an interesting concept.

[taosjohn]

But wasn't this due to Wilson's tacit support of the Allies pre-1917? He allowed trade with the UK and not with Germany. Consequently Germany was hurting for a lot of raw materials. German boats were held up in US ports.

The anglophile Wilson also disregarded German threats to sink all shipping, thus precipitating the Lusitania crisis. Much more cynical behavior than that of Roosevelt prior to WWII.

The British Navy did not allow trade with Germany, not Wilson. Wilson's naval building program of 1915 was aimed at the British with an eye to overturning the blockade, not at Germany. Tensions were very severe until the Germans started dabbling in unrestricted submarine warfare and switched sympthies against themselves... No one wants to remember it now, but in early 1915 there was at least as good a chance we would fight Britain for a third time as Germany...

To characterize Wilson's behavior in regard to U-boats as cynical is 20-20 hindsight. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a complete departure from established European traditions, and neither Wilson nor anyone else could have credited that the Germans would actually do such a thing... Sims might perhaps have speculated about it but Wilson was utterly unequipped for such an insight. Even in the 1930's submarines were percieved as primarily scouts for the battle fleets and Germany's use of them during the war for Guerre de Course was ignored as a sort of rudeness, flatulence in church, noted but not acknowledged...

And Britain had only six weeks food left and was losing bottoms at two or three times production when the US entered the war. US entry brought the convoy system, hydrophones, a huge number of antisubmarine craft, an enormous shipbuilding industry, and the mass produced magnetic mine into the war, and reversed the trend in a couple of months... the war would have ended with Britain's collapse in 1917 without. The supply and loss curves were approaching intersection with horrifying rapidity. On this basis the claim that the US saved everyone is better in 1917 than in 1944... though still silly. What could have happened, did, and it involved the efforts of a great many different forces. It wasn't called a World War because some countries faked it while others paid the price...

OTOH the German army was already bled dry. The failure of the last offensive probably would have happened without US participation, and after it the question was only a matter of how much Germany would lose. US units performed exceptionally well, and Summerall demonstrated pretty conclusively that the stalemate was largely a product of bad tactics in the deployment and control of artillery, and this hastened the end somewhat, but the collapse was coming before the end of 1918 anyway... The German economy was in ruins and domestic discontent was spreading. Given Britain's survival to late 1918, Germany's collapse was inevitable.

It is also mostly forgotten, but the southern front pretty much fell apart on Germany in 1918 too... Even had the economic/political side of things held up, the military situation would probably have become untenable by mid 1919 at the latest, with Turkey and her Balkan allies out of the war and the invasion of Bavaria underway...

What could have happened, did...

[sardus_pater]

1) A stalemate which could have ended with +/- a "status quo ante" peace or 2) a defeat of Germany if the war had continued.
A big step back for US ambitions and chances to gain a more preminent role in the world scenery.

Option 1) could have likely avoided Hitler and nationalsocialism and maybe a ww2.

[Anthony]

1) A stalemate which could have ended with +/- a "status quo ante" peace or 2) a defeat of Germany if the war had continued.
A big step back for US ambitions and chances to gain a more preminent role in the world scenery.

Option 1) could have likely avoided Hitler and nationalsocialism and maybe a ww2.

I am not so sure Germany would have been defeated had the war continued. While the rest of the world was falling apart for the Central Powers, the main theater still was Europe.

The Russians still would have pulled out of the war after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Would Britian have been able to feed itself without the US Navy and US supplies?

The French army had mutinied in early 1917, even with the propaganda boost of US entry into the war. And while only token amounts of US troops entered the conflict before early 1918, our troops did show up at important places and blunt German attacks.

Matbe the Germans win, maybe we end up with a stalemate whereby the Germans get their colonies back or territorial concessions in Eastern Europe.

Also, maybe a French defeat leads to a fascist regime in France (it was, after all, only 20 years after the Dreyfuss Affair) or maybe a communist regime there.

And WWII maybe becomes a war of the democracies against communism (I've seen that refered to as the "Red Europe" scenario).

[Scarecrow]

I am not so sure Germany would have been defeated had the war continued. While the rest of the world was falling apart for the Central Powers, the main theater still was Europe.

The Russians still would have pulled out of the war after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Would Britian have been able to feed itself without the US Navy and US supplies?

The French army had mutinied in early 1917, even with the propaganda boost of US entry into the war. And while only token amounts of US troops entered the conflict before early 1918, our troops did show up at important places and blunt German attacks.

Matbe the Germans win, maybe we end up with a stalemate whereby the Germans get their colonies back or territorial concessions in Eastern Europe.

Also, maybe a French defeat leads to a fascist regime in France (it was, after all, only 20 years after the Dreyfuss Affair) or maybe a communist regime there.

And WWII maybe becomes a war of the democracies against communism (I've seen that refered to as the "Red Europe" scenario).

Had Germany won, WWII would still have happened. For one the English and French would have been unhappy with the treaty ending the war and surely France would have wanted lost territory back. Second, German and Russian people have long been enemies, with the rise of the commies, war surely would have come between the two. Stalin would have still come to power and he most likely would have been a catalyst for war.

[Norsk Troll]

What if the US did not enter WWI. Well, clearly, without Sergeant York's participation, Germany would never have been defeated.

[Scarecrow]

Well, clearly, without Sergeant York's participation, Germany would never have been defeated.
All the man ever wanted was a good piece of bottom land. :)

[Norsk Troll]

All the man ever wanted was a good piece of bottom land. :)And if you ask me, Gracie Williams was a fine piece of bottom.
http://www.alohacriticon.com/images/elcriticonfotos/joanleslie7.jpg

[minorthreat]

Had Germany won, WWII would still have happened. For one the English and French would have been unhappy with the treaty ending the war and surely France would have wanted lost territory back. Second, German and Russian people have long been enemies, with the rise of the commies, war surely would have come between the two. Stalin would have still come to power and he most likely would have been a catalyst for war.Agreed, to a point. Since Germany set the 20th century precedent for punitive treaties when they ended the war with the Bolsheviks with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, it's almost certain that they would have done more of the same if they had managed to win the the First World War, demanding large concessions from France and the United Kingdom. I don't think either the French or the British would have stood for it, and would certainly have been looking for a way to regain their losses.

I'm not so sure about the Russians, however. Without Hitler in power (and I don't think he would have taken power had Germany won WWI), Germany might not have divided up Poland with the USSR, thus bringing the two's borders together and making war more likely. Without a clear German threat, I think Stalin would have focused a lot more on the rapidly forming Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, since Russia was still smarting from the first Russo-Japanese War and would not have taken kindly to the idea of potentially having to make further concessions to the Sun Throne.

[minorthreat]

An interesting question is whether or not Austria-Hungary would have collapsed if Germany had won the war.

[Scarecrow]

Agreed, to a point. Since Germany set the 20th century precedent for punitive treaties when they ended the war with the Bolsheviks with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, it's almost certain that they would have done more of the same if they had managed to win the the First World War, demanding large concessions from France and the United Kingdom. I don't think either the French or the British would have stood for it, and would certainly have been looking for a way to regain their losses.

I'm not so sure about the Russians, however. Without Hitler in power (and I don't think he would have taken power had Germany won WWI), Germany might not have divided up Poland with the USSR, thus bringing the two's borders together and making war more likely. Without a clear German threat, I think Stalin would have focused a lot more on the rapidly forming Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, since Russia was still smarting from the first Russo-Japanese War and would not have taken kindly to the idea of potentially having to make further concessions to the Sun Throne.

That's a very good point. I forgot about the 1903 Russo-Japan war. That would have been very fresh in their minds then.

Thinking about it, if WWI had ended that way, the whole Cold War and Space Race and everything else would have been completely different. I wonder where the US would have been had that happened? I still think that we would have become a world power, but not to the extent that we have.

I also wonder if Mexico had gotten the German letter without it being interecepted and had agreed and entered the war on the Germans side. As I recall that letter was sent just prior to the US entering the war correct?

[Scarecrow]

An interesting question is whether or not Austria-Hungary would have collapsed if Germany had won the war.

I think it would have with Austria joining into Germany.

[minorthreat]

I also wonder if Mexico had gotten the German letter without it being interecepted and had agreed and entered the war on the Germans side. As I recall that letter was sent just prior to the US entering the war correct?The Zimmermann telegram? Yeah, it was sent in January 1937, and we entered the war in April.

I don't think it'd have made a huge difference, really, since Mexico was in the middle of a constitutional convention at the time and would have quickly devolved into anarchy if actual war broke out with the United States. However, it certainly would have changed the American war effort, since Pershing was down there chasing around Pancho Villa and would most likely have been pinned there in the event of conflict.

[Scarecrow]

And if you ask me, Gracie Williams was a fine piece of bottom.
http://www.alohacriticon.com/images/elcriticonfotos/joanleslie7.jpg
And he got that. :)

[Scarecrow]

The Zimmermann telegram? Yeah, it was sent in January 1937, and we entered the war in April.

I don't think it'd have made a huge difference, really, since Mexico was in the middle of a constitutional convention at the time and would have quickly devolved into anarchy if actual war broke out with the United States. However, it certainly would have changed the American war effort, since Pershing was down there chasing around Pancho Villa and would most likely have been pinned there in the event of conflict.

I know you meant 1917.
I agree it would have changed the US war effort, I wonder by how much? Enough to give Germany time, perhaps hurt the French enough to force a surrender or cease fire?