Who Wins WWI if America Doesn't Enter the War?

[Razgovory]

The one other thing I can think of is the major German offensives in 1918, would they still have happened (and at the same scope) if the US had not entered the war?

[Faeelin]

This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

[grumbler]

The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

Got a cite for that?  All I can find is a Fed warning that the British Treasury Bills would likely not be redeemable in three months as advertised. (Mobilization for total war: the Canadian, American, and British experience By Nándor F. Dreisziger p. 33  - see Google Books).

[grumbler]

The US entry into the war caused the Germans to take rash decisions to end the war. The 1918 offensive was the quickest and best way to kill off the most motivated and best trained German soldiers. The allied counter attack (Combined Arms beats Stormtroopers) took the land lost back at far lower casualties, not to mention not getting stalled. All of this was done without important US contributions, this was basically the war winning move. 

Gonna need some evidence for that, given that there were 1.5 million US troops in France when the Allied offensive began.  What were they doing, given your assertion that none of them were doing anything "important?"

I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

I agree with your conclusion that Germany had lost the war bu 1918, but I don't agree with your arguments.  I think they ignore the effects of the blockade on Germany and the effects of a million and a half American troops in allowing the British and French to concentrate the troops they needed for the Hundred days Offensive.

[Ideologue]

This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

I've always suspected Hitler could've negotiated a peace if he'd entirely given up France and the Low Countries.  Poland would've been enough to digest anyway.  I might be wrong, though; did the stuff that was rumored to allude to a negotiated peace on Britain's part ever get unclassified?

The thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

[grumbler]

This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

As I mentioned above, earlier development of Stosstactics was probably the bast (and maybe only) shot Germany had to win the war.

[The Minsky Moment]

Whoever got their war status cards out quicker.

[jimmy olsen]

The Federal Reserve strongly warned US banks not to take unsecured loans on Nov 27, 1916. No hindsight was necessary.

Got a cite for that?  All I can find is a Fed warning that the British Treasury Bills would likely not be redeemable in three months as advertised. (Mobilization for total war: the Canadian, American, and British experience By Nándor F. Dreisziger p. 33  - see Google Books).

The announcement also carried an injunction to private investors to consider carefully the nature of their overseas investments, particularly in the case of overseas unsecured loans. Allied shares fell sharply, and $1,000 million was wiped of the stock market in a week. The ensuing run on the pound could only be staunched with the shipment of more gold. To save its exchange, Britain stopped its American orders and tried to curb those of its allies.

link

Any objections to my citations in reply #29? How is Britain going to continue to finance the war if America stays neutral?

[Neil]

I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

And this is what's key.  Allied finances were troublesome, but they weren't going to end the war as the Allies still had resources to tap.  German starvation was still going to result in the disintegration of the Germany as a country, no matter what the military situation.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Just so, Britain was running short of gold but Germany was running out of turnips.

[The Brain]

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

Yes. By staying away from Dolchstosstactics.

[grumbler]

Any objections to my citations in reply #29? How is Britain going to continue to finance the war if America stays neutral?

I am waiting for a cite that says that

Britain and France go broke without American loans and have to come to the negotiating table.

or

loans from America would have ceased

Mere assertion is not evidence, and citations that don't say what you say or even support your assertions do not advance your case.

That Britain and France would have paid more for their loans is my argument, so don't try to convert your argument that they couldn't have gotten loans into an argument that it would simply have been harder.  Even if your point were true, Britain and France would be, at worst, reduced to the financial position that Germany was already in.

[Razgovory]

I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

And this is what's key.  Allied finances were troublesome, but they weren't going to end the war as the Allies still had resources to tap.  German starvation was still going to result in the disintegration of the Germany as a country, no matter what the military situation.

Is there any chance the food situation would have improved in 1919 with Russia out and the Ukraine under German control?

[Cecil]

Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

[Razgovory]

What other forum does he frequent?  The Alternative History forum?