DBWI: What if the United States entered World War 1?

[victhemag]

This could have happened if Germany made the bad decision to continue unrestricted submarine warfare. Luckily for the Germans, the German government realized the negative repercussions of such a choice. As we all know, Germany won the war through a successful spring offensive after gaining much needed resources from the new lands acquired in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. So, here's my question: what if Germany continued unrestricted submarine warfare, which could get the US in the war?

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

I read a short story "Unsinkable", where the Titanic never hit the iceberg (delayed in harbor), and was therefore still in service during the war, only to be accidentally sunk off Southhampton by a U-boat. That might well provoke U.S. declaration of war -- the Hearst papers would immediately claim it was deliberate, without waiting around for mere facts.

 

[Don Corleone]

We would have tipped the balance from the Central Powers to the Allies. That could have disastrous results.

France might have tried to impose excessive reparations on Germany, especially with lingering bitterness over 1870. That might lead to the fascist government springing up in Germany instead of France, and a fascist Germany could have done a lot more damage, maybe even causing a second Great War in Europe.

We might see a better Middle East, though. England and France would have taken the Levant from the Ottoman Empire and introduced Western civil institutions like democracy, due process, property rights, etc.

 

[ben0628]

We would have tipped the balance from the Central Powers to the Allies. That could have disastrous results.

France might have tried to impose excessive reparations on Germany, especially with lingering bitterness over 1870. That might lead to the fascist government springing up in Germany instead of France, and a fascist Germany could have done a lot more damage, maybe even causing a second Great War in Europe.

We might see a better Middle East, though. England and France would have taken the Levant from the Ottoman Empire and introduced Western civil institutions like democracy, due process, property rights, etc.

Bullshit. If the US joins the war anytime during or after 1917, France will still fall during the Spring Offensive before the US can mobilize it's forces and send them to Europe. Central Powers will still win.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

One long term effect is the US Army/War Dept gains some larger experience in mobilizing a large field army & some combat experience in a European size war. The Mexican interventions 1914-1919 revealed deficiencies and gave the War Dept some insights into changes needed. But few of the recommendations of the Army CoS Peyton Marsh or his successors were implemented. Thus the US Army remained a tiny entity, barely more than a colonial police force. The state militias remained stagnated with no effective action in creating a organized reserve or the proceed National Guard system. The general staff of the War Dept also remained mired in its grossly inefficient 19th Century form. A year or two of experience with a multi million man army, mobilized and sent to European combat would see huge and fundamental reforms post 1918.

Even in the latter 1930s when war with Japan grew as a possibility the US Army was hard pressed to show how it could field a 100,000 man expeditionary force in less than 12 months for service in a Pacific war. That this had been a clear requirement under War Plan Orange for fifteen years made the situation look even worse.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

One long term effect is the US Army/War Dept gains some larger experience in mobilizing a large field army & some combat experience in a European size war. The Mexican interventions 1914-1919 revealed deficiencies and gave the War Dept some insights into changes needed. But few of the recommendations of the Army CoS Peyton Marsh or his successors were implemented. Thus the US Army remained a tiny entity, barely more than a colonial police force. The state militias remained stagnated with no effective action in creating a organized reserve or the proceed National Guard system. The general staff of the War Dept also remained mired in its grossly inefficient 19th Century form. A year or two of experience with a multi million man army, mobilized and sent to European combat would see huge and fundamental reforms post 1918.

Even in the latter 1930s when war with Japan grew as a possibility the US Army was hard pressed to show how it could field a 100,000 man expeditionary force in less than 12 months for service in a Pacific war. That this and been a clear requirement under War Plan Orange for fifteen years made the situation look even worse.

What, so you think the USA would have been less isolationist if they got involved in WWI? Interesting.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Not necessarily less isolationist, tho I cant entirely discount that possibilty. What I am describing is reforming the War Dept & Army, and sinking funds into something akin to CoS Marsh proposals. From the Spanish American War the US had developed a series of war plans for dealing with overseas wars. At the stratigic level the War & Navy Departments had a understanding of what it would take to execute the "Color Plans". What we can see from comparing these plans of 1902-1940 is Congress never took the Army portion of them seriously and almost nothing required to execute the Army portion of these plans was funded or organized. The Navy was in much better shape in this & as it stood had some ability to execute its part in the larger war plans like Orange (Japan), Yellow (China), Green (Mexico), Blue (defense of the continental US).

The US public was ok with funding a large Navy, they even demanded it & were harsh on politicians who opposed it. Conversely the fiscal conservatives that dominated the US Congress for these decades were able to squelch any proposal to create a Army comparable to the Navy. One of the reasons the Navy was able to win the budgetary and doctrinal battles for expanding its Marine Corps from a ships guard to a combined arms expeditionary force of 20,000 regulars and 8,000 reservists was the inability of the Army to provide such a standing force with the budget it had.

For informational purposes here is a brief sketch of the Marsh plan for a 20th Century US Army. Submitted to the Sec War in 1919.

500,000 Regular army standing force. This would comprise both field forces and a robust schools staff for training reservists & new recruits at the start of a war mobilization.

500,000 National Guard made up from the former states militias. These would be fully equipped as a field force of infantry divisions & receive Regular army supervised training. Marsh recommended a 1,000,000 man NG, but the proposal was reduced.

100,000+ Trained Reserve officers. These would be officers drawn from a reserve training program among civilian college & university students, and regular army officers leaving army service. These would be seperate from the National Guard & Regular Army OB, comprising 2,500 man 'division' officer cadres and a group for supplementing school staffs.

Industrial planning board and subsidies for industry retaining a reserve weapons manufactoring capacity. That is the ability to shift to weapons/equipment production in pace with training a mass of new recruits. This included a robust R & D budget.

Goal of all this was the ability to field a expeditionary force of 100,000 imeadiatly, 500,000 men in six months, 1,000,000+ in 12 months. As it was the Army was hard pressed to provide a understrength 15th Infantry Regiment for deployment in the Shanghai emergency in 1927. The Navy had a Expeditionary Brigade of 4,000+ embarked in less than two weeks. When the war scare of 1937 over the sinking of the gunboat Panay came the Sec War was embarassed to report the Army could not deploy 20,000 organized and armed men to the west coast in less than 60 days.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

A few other points...

The US Army remains less influenced by European armys. No wholesale adoption of French artillery. Home grown existing models like the 3" gun & 4.7" family of guns and howitzers remain standard.

The Liberty engine remains less well known & does not become a standard for the 1920s.

Brownings automatic rifle may not be adopted and license built by the Belgians, Poles, Swedes & variants of the operating system less likely to appear in other weapons.

US Army is not traumatically shown how its staff training was inadaquate to Great War requirements, thus it remains weak in this until the next war trips it up.

No demonization of the 'German' population in the US. German remains a second language longer, German cultural artifacts more popular, business & social connections to Germany remain stronger.

Nuetrality Acts as we know them not passed by Congress. Isolationist sentiments not expressed the same as OTL.

Less post war disillusionment since 'we' were not suckered into such a horror and waste.

Relevance to post war European politics different than OTL.

Possible financial loss if defeat means loan defaults.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

We would have tipped the balance from the Central Powers to the Allies. That could have disastrous results.

France might have tried to impose excessive reparations on Germany, especially with lingering bitterness over 1870. That might lead to the fascist government springing up in Germany instead of France, and a fascist Germany could have done a lot more damage, maybe even causing a second Great War in Europe.

We might see a better Middle East, though. England and France would have taken the Levant from the Ottoman Empire and introduced Western civil institutions like democracy, due process, property rights, etc.

What? Fascist Germany? Are you bonkers? Who should lead that thing at all? Which party, which person should take up the role that the Volontaire Général had taken up in France?

And why do you think if the British and French took over the Middle East that this would have ended up any better than OTL?

 

[Don Corleone]

And why do you think if the British and French took over the Middle East that this would have ended up any better than OTL?

I can see the British turning the old Ottoman territory into colonies for itself, and eventually giving them their own Parliament and large scale autonomy by the 1950s. They could be like Canada or Australia, or maybe India. At least it wouldn't be like OTL, where you have a kleptocracy stealing the oil wealth and blaming Western infidels for all the problems.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

I can see the British turning the old Ottoman territory into colonies for itself, and eventually giving them their own Parliament and large scale autonomy by the 1950s. They could be like Canada or Australia, or maybe India. At least it wouldn't be like OTL, where you have a kleptocracy stealing the oil wealth and blaming Western infidels for all the problems.

I think this is an utopian dream, unfortunately. An Assyria like Canada? Unfortunately, even if for example the French were to take over, I think it would more end up like OTL Southeast Asia.... it's about power and tourists, and rare species, down there instead of about oil, but still. I will only direct you to the State of the Four Truths in parts of India and the Caodai theocracy ruling from Vientiane to Ho Chi Minh City.

This is more like what a European-colonised Middle East will end up like, I believe.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

It all depends on the 1919 spring offensive - if the US can bring its potential large army to Europe to prevent the Gemran breakthrough then is all well for the Entente. It would be enough to tempt the Germans to try an offensive in 1918 to secure Germanys defeat - no need for actual US troops. in 1918 Germany was not ready. 1918 is needed to kick the Italians out of the war and secure the Balkans while holding the west. In 1918 the Entente is strong enough to hold out against the still undersupplied Germans.

 

[white crowe]

This could have happened if Germany made the bad decision to continue unrestricted submarine warfare. Luckily for the Germans, the German government realized the negative repercussions of such a choice. As we all know, Germany won the war through a successful spring offensive after gaining much needed resources from the new lands acquired in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. So, here's my question: what if Germany continued unrestricted submarine warfare, which could get the US in the war?

So the U.S.A. which sat back and let the English starve German women and children will all of a sudden get up in arms about the Germans blockading England? American sabre rattling over te naval war was nothing but bluster.

Ending the blockade was one of the silliest things the Germans did. If they'd kept it up they'd probably have won by the end of 1918.

 

[stodge]

From a British perspective, the defeat of 1918 was a huge psychological setback but one which I think with time did the country a great deal of good.

Britain had always prevailed in conflict - the American War of Independence a notable exception - but we had somehow contrived to overcome Napoleon and claimed victory over Imperial Russia in the Crimea and had conquered large parts of Africa.

Defeat in Europe to an upstart nation like the Germans had been unthinkable but it happened. To be fair, the German terms could have been a lot harsher - yes, we lost parts of Africa and were forced to acknowledge German hegemony on the Continent though that proved a mixed blessing as Berlin found itself carrying the ungovernable Ausgleich. Overall, Britain remained a major power but we were forced to re-think our priorities.

The rapprochement with Berlin in the 1920s was inevitable as France slid into Fascist anarchy. Part of the "humiliation" was seeing Kaiser Wilhelm lording it over George V in the 1922 State visit but Berlin had enough problems with all its new eastern acquisitions and found, as Britain had done, there was a right and a wrong way to manage an empire.

Within Britain, the 1918 defeat led not to revolution which isn't the British way of doing things but to re-appraisal. Out of the political wreckage of the old Conservative and Liberal parties came the new Social Democratic party which would dominate 20th Century politics on its pan-European agenda. The "Establishment" wasn't so much torn down as renovated. Edward VIII proved the ideal monarch for the time and oversaw the renewal of Britain in the middle of the century via the policy of non-involvement in Europe (the view being getting involved in 1914 had been a ghastly mistake)

The third Franco-German War (when it inevitably came) was brutal but Britain stayed out and rightly so. The modern mechanics of war terrorised Europe once again but on a more horrific scale than in 14-18. Both Berlin and Paris were razed by air power and the tank battles ruined Belgium, Luxembourg and the Rhineland. Neither Government survived the carnage and dragged other countries into chaos. Ultimately, it was London and Rome that pulled Europe back from the brink and oversaw the reconstruction of both belligerents and the redrawing of much of the Continent based initially on the old Wilsonian concept of self-determination but tailored by reality and realpolitik which led to the temporary divisions of both the former French and German states.

Post-fascist France and post-Imperial Germany took decades to mend their fences and join Britain, Italy and others in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Of course, few in 1945 saw EFTA leading to EuroFed but men like Mussolini, Churchill and Emperor Otto von Habsburg all saw the need for political re-alignment and convergence toward a unified Europe in contest with America and the Sino-Japanese Alliance.

America's lack of involvement in Europe in the 20th Century hasn't stopped it adopting the Monroe Doctrine in the western hemisphere but in the Pacific it faces both an emergent East Asian superpower and an Australasian Union still strongly tied to Britain and Europe. Though maintaining linguistic ties, America is for most British and European peoples a curiously alien place, culturally and politically quite different but perhaps that's where a century of peace would have taken Europe but we weren't so fortunate.

 

[Dave Howery]

the common perception is that the US was practically disarmed back then, with a tiny army, a barely adequate navy, and few stockpiles of military goods... how long would it have taken the US to get up to speed? Soon enough to do any good?

 

[West]

I can see the British turning the old Ottoman territory into colonies for itself, and eventually giving them their own Parliament and large scale autonomy by the 1950s. They could be like Canada or Australia, or maybe India. At least it wouldn't be like OTL, where you have a kleptocracy stealing the oil wealth and blaming Western infidels for all the problems.

Anything that prevents the rise of Salem the Mad is a net benifit for the middle east.

After his wife was killed by an Arab nationalist he went on a killing spree that you have to go back to the mongols to really equal. Its estimated that he murdered up to 60% of the Empires Arab population, and Half of the Kurds. The only reason the Jewish and Christian populations were spared his genocidal rampage is because of outside european pressure.

From 1939-1952 millions of people died in his death camps, in his extermination through labor campains, the arabs still haven't recovered from that, socially, politically, or numerically. So yeah a net benifit.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

Anything that prevents the rise of Salem the Mad is a net benifit for the middle east.

After his wife was killed by an Arab nationalist he went on a killing spree that you have to go back to the mongols to really equal. Its estimated that he murdered up to 60% of the Empires Arab population, and Half of the Kurds. The only reason the Jewish and Christian populations were spared his genocidal rampage is because of outside european pressure.

From 1939-1952 millions of people died in his death camps, in his extermination through labor campains, the arabs still haven't recovered from that, socially, politically, or numerically. So yeah a net benifit.

If you mean that, then of course, anything would have turned out somewhat "better" for the Middle East. But what if fanatical Wahhabist Islamism takes control of significant areas?

Still, in any way, this does not lead to Canada-like Assyria!

 

[MERRICA]

Speaking as a Frenchman, we could have driven the German basterds off of our land and finally taken back Alcase-Lorraine. We had to endure again a betrayal by those Traitors in Rome and London who prevented us from taking what was ours, WE WERE AT THE GODAMN ELBE!! And yet we could only take the Saarland and Alcase-Lorraine after that war ended.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

WE WERE AT THE GODAMN ELBE!!

Speaking as a Britisher, and to quote Montgomery at the Peace Accords: "The Elbe does not Berlin make".

Anyway it was barely half a Corps of motorised cavalry you had near the Elbe and you know full well von Manstein was preparing his counter stroke when the peace treaty was signed.

 

[Pragmatic Progressive]

We had to endure again a betrayal by those Traitors in Rome and London

And that is - most basically - far-right nationalist, if not Vananist-Sabourinist, propaganda.