- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who would've won WW1 if the US didn't enter the war?
Posted on 2/18/23 at 4:42 am to Volvagia
Posted on 2/18/23 at 4:42 am to Volvagia
quote:
Which means no NATO, generation of global allies for America, no Special Relationship, and no kick start from depression to world superpower.
Also gotta wonder if we ever develop nukes without WW2 or Soviet Union ever existing. Nuclear deterrence has been a hell of a peacekeeper in our time.
0
Posted on 2/18/23 at 6:17 am to ClientNumber9
The Allies probably still win it but it goes until mid 1919. England had effectively blockaded German ports. The German navy was largely non existent after the Jutland. England would have supplemented with troops from India. They already had started that. Fully 1 million were already there as a supplement on the southern flank.
However, the British probably would have had to give up their gains in the Middle East....although by early 1918 the Ottomans had essentially capitulated.
The Allies had too much manpower and a distinct advantage in resources even without the United States entry to lose. By mid 1917 they were already beginning to break the backs of the Germans.
However, the British probably would have had to give up their gains in the Middle East....although by early 1918 the Ottomans had essentially capitulated.
The Allies had too much manpower and a distinct advantage in resources even without the United States entry to lose. By mid 1917 they were already beginning to break the backs of the Germans.
Posted on 2/18/23 at 6:23 am to CCT
quote:
I didn’t know about the French revolts against WW1. What’s a good read on this?
They’re not very well known for probably obvious reasons. There’s a few decent reads on it but for a very brief and bird’s eye view introduction to it, just listen to Blueprint for Armageddon by Dan Carlin. I think maybe the second to last or last episode covers it.
Posted on 2/18/23 at 6:28 am to KiwiHead
quote:
The Allies had too much manpower and a distinct advantage in resources even without the United States entry to lose. By mid 1917 they were already beginning to break the backs of the Germans.
I’m not saying the Germans win in any military sense. But if they hold on until the end of 1919, I think the entente comes to the table.
Posted on 2/18/23 at 6:31 am to GREENHEAD22
The downhill negative effects of WW1 are huge. The general public probably doesn’t understand how tensions in todays world are directly linked to how WW1 began, ended and the resulting “new” countries that were cobbled together. It would have to rank near number 1 or is number 1 for the war that truly altered history the most at its conclusion.
Posted on 2/18/23 at 7:08 am to TygerDurden
I think it is less Germany losing, but more how France and UK punished and humiliated the Germans. How they arbitrarily drew borders on the map forming new countries.
These decisions led to Hitler and WWII. But communism was also a force building as well. Look at the Spanish revolution. Europe was fricked no matter what. Too much history of fighting factions ethnic hate ect. War was coming regardless
These decisions led to Hitler and WWII. But communism was also a force building as well. Look at the Spanish revolution. Europe was fricked no matter what. Too much history of fighting factions ethnic hate ect. War was coming regardless
Posted on 2/18/23 at 11:48 pm to Volvagia
Allie’s anyway or a deal
Posted on 2/18/23 at 11:56 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Who would've won WW1 if the US didn't enter the war?
obviously European Jews would have been the big winners if the US doesnt join the fight
both sides sue for peace
no economic destruction of Weimar Germany
no hitler, no nazis, no holocaust
Posted on 2/19/23 at 12:22 am to supatigah
Two other big what ifs, assuming there is no WWII as a result of how WWI ends:
1. With no war on the horizon in 1939, does FDR only serve two terms from 1932 to 1940? How much different is the current power of the federal government if the 1940’s happen under a Taft or Willkie administration?
2. With no war against the US in the Pacific to divert their attention and resources, and no reason for the US to ramp up its naval power in the west, does Japan eventually fully colonize a China that probably hasn’t gone Communist in the absence of a Soviet Russia?
1. With no war on the horizon in 1939, does FDR only serve two terms from 1932 to 1940? How much different is the current power of the federal government if the 1940’s happen under a Taft or Willkie administration?
2. With no war against the US in the Pacific to divert their attention and resources, and no reason for the US to ramp up its naval power in the west, does Japan eventually fully colonize a China that probably hasn’t gone Communist in the absence of a Soviet Russia?
Posted on 2/19/23 at 12:59 am to Cosmo
quote:Lenin was sent back to Russia to sow dissent by the Germans themselves so not sure how Germany winning world war 1 helps prevent the communist take over of Russia.
Soviet Union likely doesnt happen
Posted on 2/19/23 at 1:15 am to grizzlylongcut
More people at the time we’re dying of the Spanish flu rather than combat. The numbers were staggering.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 2:33 am to Breauxsif
quote:and wanted to make Germany great again.
It was fueled by defeat and the desire for revenge.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 4:27 am to ClientNumber9
quote:
The Allies win anyhow,
This was the outcome regardless of whether the US enters or not. We just helped speed up the end.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 7:30 am to mauser
quote:
I think the Spanish flu would have made them decide it's time to quit and go home.
Don't know why folks are downvoting this with the malnutrition levels (especially among Central powers), it might have wiped out the combatants to where they couldn't fight anymore.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 7:35 am to ClientNumber9
Counterfactuals are just historical fanfic. And historians are notoriously bad at predicting the future... BUT
...I find it interesting that a historian as well known as Niall Ferguson is fairly adamant that the UK should not have entered the war at all and everyone would have been better off (wouldve meant no US involvement either).
Dominick Sandbrook (professor, author, and great podcast co-host) has suggested that the UK should have sided with the Central Powers against France and Russia.
No one knows how it would have gone, but the results of WW1 were shattering to Western Civilization, direct and indirect.
...I find it interesting that a historian as well known as Niall Ferguson is fairly adamant that the UK should not have entered the war at all and everyone would have been better off (wouldve meant no US involvement either).
Dominick Sandbrook (professor, author, and great podcast co-host) has suggested that the UK should have sided with the Central Powers against France and Russia.
No one knows how it would have gone, but the results of WW1 were shattering to Western Civilization, direct and indirect.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 8:06 am to ClientNumber9
With no American intervention, this would change the equation of what Germany would do with the forces freed up on the Eastern Front after the collapse of Russia. As things turned out in the real world, Germany felt pressure to to use these forces in fruitless offensives to try and win the war in the West before American forces had been built up in sufficient numbers to make a difference. But if America was not in the war, Germany would no longer be “on the clock”, if you will.
Likewise, no America in the war would also change the mindset of France and Britain. When the US declared war against the German Empire in April 1917, it gave the Allies a renewed sense of hope that no matter what, help was on its way soon that would tip the scales so far in their favor Germany’s defeat was only a matter of time. All they needed to do was hold out a little longer and they’d win the war. This belief held even after the Russian Revolution lead to the loss of Russia as an active participant in the war. Yes losing Russia was a shock. But that shock was tempered due to the thousands of American troops already arriving at French ports monthly.
However, the picture in 1917 would be far different had the US not jumped into the war. Imagine the mindset of France & Britain if in early 1918 they had fought a meat-grinder stalemate war with casualties in the millions for both and now their only real major ally, namely Russia, just sued for peace. No help is coming from America and Germany now has, if I remember correctly, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 veteran battle-hardened divisions on their way to the Western Front. France and Britain had already spent three years of trying again and again to break the German lines with nothing to show other than mountains of dead and wounded. Now the prospects of evicting the Germans from Flanders and France would seem all but impossible. In my opinion, the most likely outcome from America not enter the war would be that within months of Russia suing for peace, France & Britain would probably launch offensives in a last ditch desperate attempt to break the German lines before the Germans had time to transfer its armies to the Western Front. These offensives would end the same as all previous attempts. Following this, France & Britain would ask for an armistice followed by a negotiated peace agreement that would leave Germany as the undisputed super power of Europe.
Likewise, no America in the war would also change the mindset of France and Britain. When the US declared war against the German Empire in April 1917, it gave the Allies a renewed sense of hope that no matter what, help was on its way soon that would tip the scales so far in their favor Germany’s defeat was only a matter of time. All they needed to do was hold out a little longer and they’d win the war. This belief held even after the Russian Revolution lead to the loss of Russia as an active participant in the war. Yes losing Russia was a shock. But that shock was tempered due to the thousands of American troops already arriving at French ports monthly.
However, the picture in 1917 would be far different had the US not jumped into the war. Imagine the mindset of France & Britain if in early 1918 they had fought a meat-grinder stalemate war with casualties in the millions for both and now their only real major ally, namely Russia, just sued for peace. No help is coming from America and Germany now has, if I remember correctly, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 veteran battle-hardened divisions on their way to the Western Front. France and Britain had already spent three years of trying again and again to break the German lines with nothing to show other than mountains of dead and wounded. Now the prospects of evicting the Germans from Flanders and France would seem all but impossible. In my opinion, the most likely outcome from America not enter the war would be that within months of Russia suing for peace, France & Britain would probably launch offensives in a last ditch desperate attempt to break the German lines before the Germans had time to transfer its armies to the Western Front. These offensives would end the same as all previous attempts. Following this, France & Britain would ask for an armistice followed by a negotiated peace agreement that would leave Germany as the undisputed super power of Europe.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 8:17 am to Cosmo
quote:
Who would've won WW1 if the US didn't enter the war?
US entered the war in 1917 but there was no real US offensive until May 27-31, 1918 with the battle for Cantigny (Sommes), France. It's entirely possible that France and England would have sued for peace by this time had they not had the promise of manpower in the form of fighting units from the US to give them hope.
quote:
Soviet Union likely doesnt happen
The Soviet Union was declared to be created in October 1917. This is seven months prior to the first real American offensive in WWI. By the time the United States had any impact in WWI, the Soviet Union had already been created. So the Soviet Union is still going be be a part of history.
Hitler, however, would have never risen to power. The belligerents of WWI would have eventually bled themselves dry and would more than likely have eventually come to an armistice. The term would have most certainly been more favorable for Germany than what they got out of the Treaty of Versailles. The economies of ALL the nations involved would have been in tatters, so it's entirely plausible that a whole lot more of Europe could have turned to communism or socialism similar to the Bolshevik movement in Russia.
The fact that a war involving all the developed nations of Europe came about over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who was the "heir apparent" to the throne of Austria-Hungary, but was by no means the leader of that nation at the time, is astonishing.
Austria-Hungary and Serbia were far from world powers at the time, and were not even major economic players in Europe. The war came about due to several ridiculously convoluted, and semi-secret treaties between nations that caused a domino effect that rippled through Europe as events caused these treaties to be acted upon.
The end result? The US enters the war and tilts favor toward England and France. Germany is blamed for something they didn't start and their economy is wrecked, leading to years of inflation and economic frustration that allow Hitler to rise to power. The Soviet Union already existed, but would never have become a world power without being brought into WWII due to Hitler's invasion.
Without US entry into WWI, the war would have eventually dwindled down due to lack of manpower and resources. An armistice would have ended the fighting in order to save the economies of all involved, and WWII would have never happened.
This post was edited on 2/19/23 at 8:24 am
Posted on 2/19/23 at 8:49 am to Swamp Angel
The only way the Soviet Union doesn’t emerge from WWI is for the war to not drag on to 1917.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 9:08 am to Martin Blank
quote:Without WWI ending like it actually did, FDR might never had been President, much less Wilkie or Taft.
Two other big what ifs, assuming there is no WWII as a result of how WWI ends:
1. With no war on the horizon in 1939, does FDR only serve two terms from 1932 to 1940? How much different is the current power of the federal government if the 1940’s happen under a Taft or Willkie administration?
2. With no war against the US in the Pacific to divert their attention and resources, and no reason for the US to ramp up its naval power in the west, does Japan eventually fully colonize a China that probably hasn’t gone Communist in the absence of a Soviet Russia?
The geopolitical situation in the Pacific would have been much different as Japan would have been dealing with Germany still involved there and a different US State Department and military.
There are too many permutations to actually know how things would have shaken out.
Reality was pretty shitty though.
Posted on 2/19/23 at 9:52 am to ClientNumber9
If the USA had never entered WW1, the Allies winning the war would have been unlikely. After all, Russia had already surrendered in 1917. The German divisions on the East Front shifted to the West and the Spring and Summer 1918 Western Front German offensives were powerful.
It really was the US military's fresh divisions that turned the tide for the Allies.
It really was the US military's fresh divisions that turned the tide for the Allies.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News