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.
If America had been truly neutral, then the financial assistance that they offered to the Allies would not have been present. It was in large part this financial aid that enabled the economies of Britain and France to avoid massive inflation potentially leading to collapse. That in turn allowed continued productivity at wartime levels therefore leading to the stalemate of 1914-1917 and into early 1918. Once the Russians fell, Germany also had a good opportunity to fight a war on a single front. This opportunity was lessened by the arrival of American forces. By early 1918, the contributions of the US forces were still small in number, but growing rapidly. The effect on morale of the French and British troops was significant, and the pace of troop arrivals was what led to the strategic decision of Germany to launch the 1918 offensives that ultimately proved unsuccessful and led to the Allied counteroffensives and the eventual surrender of Germany.
Without American help, and this is of course speculative, it seems that the Germans would not have been hard-pressed to launch yet another futile offensive in 1918. The increasing pressure on the economies of Britain and France would have possibly allowed Germany to continue the war of attrition with the hope of an Allied economic collapse. A truly neutral America would likely have been funneling some of its productivity toward Germany also, allowing the German economy some relief relative to the real life events. Further, it's less likely that the Brits would have been able to insist on such a tight blockade in the face of a truly neutral America attempting to ship goods to Germany. Would Britain have risked sinking American merchant vessels and the potential entry of America into the war on Germany's side?
In terms of troops involved and overall war effort, certainly the American contribution pales in comparison to that of Britain and France. However, it does seem that the American contribution was significant, and that the outcome of the war might well have been different without it.
No American involvement would have made the peace VERY different. Perhaps much better.
German geo-political goals for WWI were different than WWII. The Wilhelm government was not trying to take over Europe, it was to make Germany stronger than France and/or Britain. German would never have had the November revolution and the trauma that went with it. It would have retained its constitutional monarchy for who knows how long... perhaps well into the 20th century.
Germany was pretty well spent by 1918, so peace negotiations would have happened sooner or later... after 1918 maybe the war would have dragged on into 1919. However, without the U.S. influence, Germany would have been able to negotiate from a position of relative strength.
From a stronger negotiating position, the Germans would have tried to get as much as they could from their original war goals - the Septemberprogramm I suspect that Germany would have tried its best to negotiate separate peace agreements with France and Britain, in particular so it could focus its energy on getting a pound of flesh from France.
In Richard Evans's "Coming of the Third Reich," he wrote that most Germans expected to get out of the war by the end-stage were - 1) a fusion with German-speaking Austria, 2) some Polish provinces, 3) some northeastern French provinces, particularly France would relinquish any claims on Alsace-Lorraine.
Without the Treaty of Versailles there is no way Germany produces Hitler. The problem is, that perhaps the Hitler equivalent may have been produced from France if Germany had gotten its way.
The logic of handing controls down the command chain in order to exploit success quick made sense when you're in attrition mode and want the other guy to cry uncle. This approach will likely result in the capture of a lot of poorly defended and therefore less valuable area which is what they accomplished.
Hindenburg and co. also shouldn't have split their forces into multiple engagements but go for a single game changing objective like the channel ports of Paris.
They evaluated several options to launch an attack. Flanders was out because it normally was too wet till July or August. Further east the French were stronger and the Americans were starting to take up positions.
The German troops were retrained in new assault tactics developed by General Von Hutier at Riga and new artillery methods developed by General von Bruechmueller. Attacks were to be by small groups, 9 men or so led by an NCO. They had light weapons. Following groups would have heavier equipment like flamethrowers. A third wave would secure the advance and mop up points of resistance.
Commanders were replaced by new ones who had shown ability in 2017. Von Below who defeated the Italians at Caporetto, von Marwitz who led the defense and counter attacks at Cambrai.
But German transport was deficient. They didn't have rubber tires so their trucks destroyed roads with their steel wheels. They never made many tanks and the ones they made were not much use. So if the attack was going to die of exhaustion even if it succeeded at first.
But to the OP's point, if America had strictly adhered to neutrality from the outset, by 1918 the Allies would have been in worse shape than Germany. The would have been unable to stop a German attack, unable to launch one of their own, and unable to keep their armies in the field.
The war was lost for Germany BEFORE the Americans got anywhere near it! The German army was still far from defeated when they surrendered but the war was lost on the home front, the German population where starving to death because of the Royal Navy blockade, people in Germany were starving in the streets. The Allies simply had a much greater access to resources.
The war was lost for Germany BEFORE the Americans got anywhere near it! The German army was still far from defeated when they surrendered but the war was lost on the home front, the German population where starving to death because of the Royal Navy blockade, people in Germany were starving in the streets. The Allies simply had a much greater access to resources.
You can make a good argument for what you are saying.
However, in 1918 there are at least two counter-arguments. First, without the Americans it might have possible for the Germans to force the French to come to terms.
The second, more realistic in my opinion, is that the Germans and Austrians might have been able to get some food out of Eastern Europe. Enough to get through to 1919 at least.
There is even a third option, although I do not know how realistic it is. I never read about it anywhere else. The Germans could drop their plans to annex parts of France, go for a stalemate on the Western front and instead turn south and drive against the Italians, perhaps capturing Venice. They then propose a peace conference, hosted by none other then Woodrow Wilson. This would not only help prop up their Austrian allies but Venice/Venetia/Lombardy would be useful diplomatic chips at a peace conference and would appeal to Wilson's vanity.
You can make a good argument for what you are saying.
However, in 1918 there are at least two counter-arguments. First, without the Americans it might have possible for the Germans to force the French to come to terms.
The second, more realistic in my opinion, is that the Germans and Austrians might have been able to get some food out of Eastern Europe. Enough to get through to 1919 at least.
There is even a third option, although I do not know how realistic it is. I never read about it anywhere else. The Germans could drop their plans to annex parts of France, go for a stalemate on the Western front and instead turn south and drive against the Italians, perhaps capturing Venice. They then propose a peace conference, hosted by none other then Woodrow Wilson. This would not only help prop up their Austrian allies but Venice/Venetia/Lombardy would be useful diplomatic chips at a peace conference and would appeal to Wilson's vanity.
Good points. In addition, the OP couched his question in terms of 1915 - 16. Strict US neutrality then would have bitten the Allies really hard by 1918.
In 1914, the US had no arms industry to speak of. By 1918, it had the largest in the world. The reason is the US started supplying arms to the Allies almost from the War's beginning and by 1916 was vital to their arms supply. US food was critical as well. And the allies could pay for none of this. All was paid on credit.
Even so, without US military involvement Germany would not have felt compelled to address the Western Front in 1918. Given Austria's dire condition, it might well have sent divisions from the Eastern Front to Italy and the Balkans to close those fronts and relieve the pressure on its ally.
The most compelling point Ive read here is that without American involvement, the Germans would not need to rush into the Spring Offensive when they did. They could have waited until they sent more eastern divisions to the western front. The entire motive for the Spring Offensive was for Germany to deliver a knockout blow before millions of American troops arrived on the continent.
You can make a good argument for what you are saying.
However, in 1918 there are at least two counter-arguments. First, without the Americans it might have possible for the Germans to force the French to come to terms.
The second, more realistic in my opinion, is that the Germans and Austrians might have been able to get some food out of Eastern Europe. Enough to get through to 1919 at least.
There is even a third option, although I do not know how realistic it is. I never read about it anywhere else. The Germans could drop their plans to annex parts of France, go for a stalemate on the Western front and instead turn south and drive against the Italians, perhaps capturing Venice. They then propose a peace conference, hosted by none other then Woodrow Wilson. This would not only help prop up their Austrian allies but Venice/Venetia/Lombardy would be useful diplomatic chips at a peace conference and would appeal to Wilson's vanity.
Only Ukraine made enough to make a difference, and I think they had to use the Danube to transport most of these food and Austrians and Germans were bickering over who gets how much. They could've gotten more out in 1919 after they figured out how to transport these grain.
I don't think the Germans needed to do anything about the Italians. They were the junior partner and that front had been passive for a while. If they didn't go for the spring offensive in 1918 somehow then the flu epidemic might prompt one of the Crown Princes to get the Kaiser to ignore the hardliners and attempt something like you described.
Only Ukraine made enough to make a difference, and I think they had to use the Danube to transport most of these food and Austrians and Germans were bickering over who gets how much. They could've gotten more out in 1919 after they figured out how to transport these grain.
I don't think the Germans needed to do anything about the Italians. They were the junior partner and that front had been passive for a while. If they didn't go for the spring offensive in 1918 somehow then the flu epidemic might prompt one of the Crown Princes to get the Kaiser to ignore the hardliners and attempt something like you described.
The fall of Russia in 1917 freed up many German troops. I am thinking along the lines that the Germans were probably going on the offensive somewhere in 1918.
Since the Western Front against the French and the British had already proven to be a tough nut to crack, perhaps things would have been less difficult against the weaker Italians. Plus, it would provide a boost to their Austrian allies. The grabbing of additional territory in northern Italy, possibly even Venice, when added to the already existing German occupation of most of Belgium and some key parts of France, might be valuable at a peace table.
You can make an argument that Germany should have used the freed up troops and reinforced all fronts and stayed on the defense in 1918. The bulk of the forces would be sent to the Western Front where the main threat was but portions would go to the Italian Front to help the Austrians and another portion to the Balkans to help the Austrians and Bulgarians. The problem is that staying on the defense left the initiative to the Allies, offered no real possibility of victory, the Germans may never get a better chance to go on a future offense and thus the German high command was probably not going to accept it.
How do you stay neutral when we get bombed with airplanes?
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.
