Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say America had agreed to fight in WWI at the outbreak so in 1914 fully committed to sending troops, supplies, etc. Do you think the Central Powers would've fallen much faster? Say in 1916 or so.
Its would be guess but that was a era that Americans wanted nothing to do with Europes continuing war for centuries. I can remember hearing as a kid GI of WWII and to almost a person they never wanted anything to do with Europe again. They saw it much as Vietnam veterans did a war to solve what Europe as a whole had caused. I think Wilson leaving Europe after treaty quietly and the US congresses reaction showed just what was thought on Europe after WWI. The treaty was a division of the spoils like others in Europe for centuries. At that point it only would likely have meant more US casualties in WWI. We didn't even have enough side arms for soldiers.
G.I.s would have been, just like millions of better trained, better equipped French, British and German soldiers, happily and bravely charged into machine gun fire, with similar death tolls, making ALL wars fought by the US, except for civil wars, looked like kids' game in comparision, and similar effect on troop moral and domestic public opinion (British, French and German public opinion didn't collapse mainly because sh**t happened so close they got no choice, Russia, even an European country, however, collapsed from within, simply because of how big it was and the distance there was between front line and civilian population, ANYTHING but war was the slogan, Lenin signed off like 80% to 90% of Russian wealth because he knew he got no choice, the war must stop even if it meant reducing Russia from a great power to a rump state, there was zero will left to fight. The same country sustained 35 million casualty in WWII still pushed into Belin. Difference? I think technology and how technology shaped reality impact general mentality. I would bet Americans, sitting on a different continent, would have remembered founding father's warning NOT to get ensnared in devious European affairs pretty darn quickly and voted accordingly.), remember, the reason the 2 million US troops played such a decisive role as they did in ending the war was not just the number, it's also the fact that these boys were fresh, in the sense that they had not seen and not known just how pointless and hopeless it is to fight against entrenched defensive lines in WWI time line. It's one thing to fight and die for your country, for a good cause, it's quite another to fight and die in the millions over a few miles of waste land. Germany capitulation also didn't happen on German soil as it did end of WWII, Germany surrendered the moment the country realized there was no hope of winning; France collapsed later in WWII in less than 2 month when she realized she lost. All of which, I suspect, had something to do with just how hopeless as a war trench warfare was. That's something I think even seasoned WWII veteran didn't realize: the war they fought was scary, horrendous, crazy, and demanding of unimaginable sacrifices, but never as meaningless and hopeless as WWI to WWI veterans.
I would think Germany would be less reluctant to go to war. The Germans knew going into the war that they had inferiority in terms of manpower and industrial output against the Allies. The solution was the Schlieffen Plan, a risky plan, which hoped for a quick victory of France in a similar fashion as in 1871. With France defeated, Germany could concentrate on Russia along with its Austro-Hungarian allies. Great Britain would not be a factor on land. If the USA was allied from the start with France, Russia, and Great Britain, this dynamic for quick victory would change.
But, there were no scenarios in 1914 or before that would compel the USA to join the fight.
Possibly. American forces would have been an ideal reinforcement for Russia as the US could field a military of the size needed to soak up the distances involved on their fronts. If nothing else it may well have spared mankind decades of communism.
Similarly the U.S. navy could have given the entente the numbers to really press the fight at sea possibly leading to the fall of Constantinople (this really should have happened anyways, but the British and French lost their nerve for really no reason at the crucial moment). That alone would knock the Ottomans out of the war earlier, and allow those forces devoted to them to be redirected to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria. Being able to force a decisive battle with the High Seas Fleet by having no fear the blockade would fail with a loss would have allowed shelling of German cities on the coast, and in the longer term you'd have likely seen low scale strategic bombing across Germany from carrier based aircraft. On a smaller scale the same would have happened with naval war against Austria-Hungary.
Given how the war was actually run though, France would throw everything it had against Germany early on decimating the French male population while relying on allied American troops to occupy their country and run its basic governmental functions. Germany may have won as France drops out, or a British/American coalition sees the war through to its end with France emerging nominally victorious but even more broken than Germany was in our timeline.
Say America had agreed to fight in WWI at the outbreak so in 1914 fully committed to sending troops, supplies, etc. Do you think the Central Powers would've fallen much faster? Say in 1916 or so.
No. U.S. had tiny army. Britain's army was small compared to the continental europeans, was larger than the US one and took two years to develop factories at home and train troops. It would be the same experience as the Brits who only gained proficiency on the battlefield in late 1917. Perhaps in Kaiser's Offensive, Michael, in 1918. But It would have ended in 1918.
I would think Germany would be less reluctant to go to war. The Germans knew going into the war that they had inferiority in terms of manpower and industrial output against the Allies. The solution was the Schlieffen Plan, a risky plan, which hoped for a quick victory of France in a similar fashion as in 1871. With France defeated, Germany could concentrate on Russia along with its Austro-Hungarian allies. Great Britain would not be a factor on land. If the USA was allied from the start with France, Russia, and Great Britain, this dynamic for quick victory would change.
But, there were no scenarios in 1914 or before that would compel the USA to join the fight.
I don't think the Germans had much respect for America's ability to fight or field an army back then. I kind of doubt it would have affected their decision making at all. Even in WWII Hitler was advised by Goering that "America makes good cars and refrigerators but they cannot make airplanes" And a few years later B17's were dropping bombs on Berlin escorted by P51 Mustangs
If there was any larger joke among the European powers than the American military in 1940 (we ranked behind Romania) it was the American military in 1914.
I don't think the Germans had much respect for America's ability to fight or field an army back then. I kind of doubt it would have affected their decision making at all. Even in WWII Hitler was advised by Goering that "America makes good cars and refrigerators but they cannot make airplanes" And a few years later B17's were dropping bombs on Berlin escorted by P51 Mustangs
I was assuming with the poster's hypothetical, the USA had a descent military in 1914 above what it actually had and was committed to an Alliance that woiuld have dealt with these issues. How else would the USA fight in 1914? But again, there is no way is this a possible scenario.
Last edited by jobseeker2013; 07-27-2015 at 08:58 AM..
I was assuming with the poster's hypothetical, the USA had a descent military in 1914 above what it actually had and was committed to an Alliance that woiuld have dealt with these issues. How else would the USA fight in 1914? But again, there is no way is this a possible scenario.
Had Roosevelt been president he undoubtably would have done everything possible to bring the U.S. into the war early on. Now that still sounds unlikely, but as President he could have sent naval vessels to Europe of his own accord. Neutral naval vessels cruising around the war zone would have been highly suspicious, but it would not in and of itself violate a nation's neutral status. It would create a situation in which a German submarine captain could be provoked into firing on the neutral vessel. If that had happened, it would have been difficult to keep the U.S. out of war.
Even without that these sort of promises of unofficial naval support were the start of a chain of events that drug Britain into the war against the will of a lot of folks high in the government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
