US influence on the outcome of WWI

If the US had remained neutral, would the outcome of the Great War have been any different? I recall that the Germans had plans regarding America's eventual entry. They held on for more than a year and a half, but were doomed to be beaten with the entry of the doughboys. What might have happened in America's absence?

[Barrett]

I can't find it now, doggone it, but I recall reading that Churchill stated that American entry prolonged the war by more than a year. Otherwise, he felt there coulda/shoulda been a European settlement in 1917.
Anybody have a source?
Interesting to speculate how success of the Schlieffen plan in '14 would've been one of the best things for the sanguinary 20th century: probably an early end to the war, no onerous Versaille Treaty, probably no Russian Revolution anytime soon, almost certainly no WW II as we now know it, and possibly no 70 years of communism.
Assuming, of course, the diplomats didn't screw things up otherwise...

Definately, I think a German victory in '14 would have provided for the best outcome. (This is difficult for me to say because I'm 25% German, 25% French, 25% English, 12.5% Austrian, and 12.5% Irish) However, if the Americans had not intervened in April 1917, a German victory in the summer of 1918 would have been inevitable. They had air superiority with the new D-VIIs and their offensive appeared to be unstoppable. What's not clear is what sort of an outcome this scenerio would have produced. Certainly no Nazi Party let alone Hitler.

>If America hadn't entered the war in April 1917, a German victory in the summer of 1918 would have been enevitable. <

Garbage. The war ended because the German Homefront was starving. Most of Germany starved through the early 20's too. Ground Troops had nothing to do with it. The Royal Navy actually were the ones who hastened the wars end.




cam

<<If the US had remained neutral, would the outcome of the Great War have been any different?>>

Nope. The Royal Navy played its part in breaking the German population's morale through the blockade, but the job was finished by the British Army, both in absorbing the Spring Offensives and during the last 100 days.

It's often noted that had the war continued into 1919, American troops would have become a significant factor on the Western Front. But in 1918, there just weren't enough present to make a major impact.

Regards,

Simon

[Vigilant]

America's role was important but only in that it forced Ludendorff into a "last roll of the dice" in Spring 1918. The Kaiserschlacht was always going to be a huge gamble because the number of 'fit' attack divisions the Germans possessed was tiny compared to the mass of mediocre trench divisions. The reason for this state of affairs was the losses the German army had suffered at Ypres, Messines, Chemin des Dames, Somme, Verdun, as well as the RN blockade as mentioned above.

I don't believe the American presence was as important in containing the Spring Offencive as it was in triggering it. Does anyone know how many US troops were in the front line March/April 1918? I can't readily find figures.

Vigilant

A German victory for the best? Yuck!!!! Then you have the militarists vindicated and Germany learning once again (as they had in 1864, 1866 and 1870) that starting wars is the answer.

The impact on German domestic politics could have been catastrophic, with the Kaiser and Army politically strong enough to crack down on the SPD.

I think that the success of the Schlieffen plan, which was highly questionable given the fact that the Germans were incapable of logistically supporting it, would certainly not have ensured a better outcome.

How do we know it would not have meant an even more destructive war later, similar to WWII but with different players?

We do not.

It surely would not have averted the great depression which IMO was the #1 reason Hitler managed to get in power.

Read in the paper yesterday that Austria is possibly(or has?) electing a very nazi-like party...some people never learn.

I think Germany would have just had more Resources and Political pull for WWII if they had achived an armistace in their favor. Are we to think that Hitler with all his charisma stood no chance of getting the German people up in a fervor in the dirty thirties?

Kory, I do not believe that there is any association whatsoever between the right-leaning Austrian party and the radical right. The press is always quick to suggest that any group to the right of center is somehow Nazi in character. Personally I dont know enough about this party to make an informed comment, but it seems to me that we need more than a press report and condemnation from some in the 'Euro-union' before judgement is passed.

[mike_baram]

Kory,
Even in the best of times there are always groups that can't, for one reason or another, share in the wealth a society generates.
Those disenfranchised, instead of working towards upward mobility, find it easier to succumb to the lure dangled by demagogues.
There will always be a place for the Farrakhans and the Buchanans of the world. I hope the majority of intelligent voters can keep them at bay. But I'd rather take the risk than prevent them from presenting their views. If you stifle one man's voice, you stifle freedom.
VBR,
Mike