What If America Stayed Out of WWI?

[@Nostripe361]

I actually would like to see an alternate timeline with the US and the Soviets being much closer together while the rest of Europe looks upon it with suspicion. Its such an alien concept to me that its fascinating. Like would the Soviets just be happy to have a semi-friendly nation working with them or would they be willing to risk relations with the US by pushing a full communist revolution.

[@DefnotKaisey]

I feel like if usa was communist it would be ending up challenging Soviet influence like the Chinese

[@dairebulson7122]

That depends on what Soviet leader- but most would probably have pursued a realpolitik alliance. Stalin would have accepted the alliance, possibly while secretly plotting against the US. Khrushchev and Brezhnev would have been even more pragmatically accepting. The alliance could potentially fracture if the US is angry at the Soviet Union courts left-wing revolutionary movements and governments in Latin America.

[@captainkyperplayz1162]

​@@DefnotKaiseyoh it would eclipse Soviet influence as the primary communist leader, because the US has the advantage of a navy capable of projecting force anywhere on the planet, while the Soviets were really just a land power

[@Thatonepersonyouheard]

​@@captainkyperplayz1162but would this commie america have or want that capability?

[@nathansorlien2296]

Russia or ussr isn't friends with anyone they don't think they can control

[@jasongraham8250]

How neutral are we talking here because without American loans France and Britain would have been out of the war in 1917.

[@louisgangloff]

I believe Germany in 1914 was not forbidden to do commerce with the rest of the world. It’s just it had not the capabilities for it.

[@Bronasaxon]

Germany absolutely was forbidden from doing commerce with the rest of the world via the British blockade (which was incredibly strict in its definition of ‘war material’, denying even food, which was against the rules of war). Which prompted the Germans to retaliate via Uboats, then the British brought out their secretly armed merchant ships in defiance of the rules of war (AGAIN), causing uboats to adopt the sink without warning tactics we use today, which made the British throw a fit because how dare someone else break the rules of war. Also American shipping companies were not happy with the British blockade at the time.

[@jackwalters5506]

I think you're significantly underestimating the effect American entry had on morale. From the perspective of the average soldier on the western Front, they didn't know about the extreme hardship in Germany. What they did know however was that they had never won a significant victory against the Germans, and their most powerful ally in the east was now beaten and out of the war. Without the perception of a powerful new ally coming in to help, the soldiers may have considered the war to simply be unwinnable and mutinies likely would have been far larger and more severe. War isnt fought by guns or tanks, it is fought by people, and people wont fight if they think winning is impossible(or if they think losing is worse then death, as in the case of Germany against the USSR in 1945)

[@hailexiao2770]

In turn I think you're significantly underestimating the low morale on the Central Powers side. The German army was as close to mutinying as the Ententr armies, and the Austro-Hungarian army even more so. It's not a question of whether one sides morale will collapse, but which one collapses first. I have my money on the side that isn't starving to death.

[@InquisitorXarius]

@@hailexiao2770Tell that to the French Mutinies in 1917 that occured even with the news of American reinforcements. Imagine how worse the mutinies would be without the good news to the bad news of Russia getting stomped.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@InquisitorXariusI would cause they didn’t rebel against the government and refused to fight like the Germans did. The French stayed at their post till the very end as did the British and it’s commonwealth.

[@InquisitorXarius]

@@kordellswoffer1520 The Entente would have lost without the American Industrial, Economic, and Military support. The American Government illegally kept France and Britain’s economies afloat during WW1. The German Spring offensives that exhausted them were because of the existential threat to their war effort that was the new tidal wave of American manpower that wasn’t tired from years of war.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@InquisitorXarius American man power played no major role in the defeat of the German military. The British and its empire forces totally destroyed German forces in 1918 and the Americans mostly got bogged down by the Germans. The American industrial might was of no meaningful impact on the outcome of the war. Britain would have survived with or without American ammunition and weapons as they’d easily get it from somewhere else. American did grant loans which were vital but the loans could have been found from other places or other forms of revenues could be found. American wasn’t very important to the outcome of the war.

[@NapoleonVIII]

Even in OTL, one German Division passed the Marne, until been thrown back by the Americans. In our alternate timeline, the Entente would need to compensate that, weakening the other fronts.

[@agdillo1368]

Random Texas fact related to the video- Texas barbecue is the evolution of German cuisine from those immigrants. The sides are all things like sausages, potato salad, pickles, coleslaw etc. because that is the Texas Germans' evolution of traditional German food.

[@CommissarMoody1]

Interesting concept. I would love to find an alternative history fiction about a post world war partitioned Germany.

[@TheKulu42]

That's an interesting idea. What if Germany was broken up into its original kingdoms and principalities?

[@CommissarMoody1]

@@TheKulu42 Yep, or you even little republics after the Great war. And then see how things turned out. Also interested to see how the revolutionary movements that ran rampart in Germany after the were successful or not.

[@alganis3339]

Yeah I agree especially that it was a "new" country and mostly dominated by prussian nobles. I would like to see how a alternate bavaria kingdom would have done. Would they have become fascist ?

[@JJLGamingNL]

Fascinating stuff. I actually have the same feeling as you: I don't think the American intervention was quite as crucial to victory as it's sometimes portrayed. Yes, it was a massive morale boost, and it might have shortened the war by a year or more. But as in World War II and the American Civil War, long-term the Entente just had the advantage, in manpower, industrial capacity, raw resources, financial instruments etc. etc. The Spring Offensive was Germany's last real chance of victory, and it was a slim one, an all-or-nothing gamble with poor odds. I think most alternate historians wildly overestimate how successful it would have been. I think it's much more likely that it grinds to a halt near Paris, and I also think that even if Paris were occupied, that isn't an automatic German victory. Germany was streeeeetching its lines at that point. The homefront was unruly, and anything short of an amazing victory would have caused revolution and forced the Germans to the negotiating table.

[@ralphstrickland7110]

Yes-it was a desperate roll of the dice to try to achieve a breakthrough. The western allies had developed their “defense in depth” such that they could give up ground while the Germans had to keep pushing their sturmtruppen forward as they would stop and gorge themselves whenever they came upon a French or British supply depot. Germany’s desperation was amply demonstrated by the fact that they sent Lenin to Russia. It was like setting your neighbor’s house on fire to get him to move away. Even if it worked it still left you with giant problems. They had gotten into an untenable situation and were desperate for a way out.

[@PhilosoShysGameChannel]

Glad to see another alternate history vid! Thanks! 😊

[@GwainSagaFanChannel]

Glad to see you return

[@bakomusha]

One thing about the US Military of the time is that while the Navy was struggling, and the Regular army was practically nothing, the US Marines where a very experienced fighting force thanks to Americas own form of Imperialism. Its why the units to see combat where Marines mostly. A post "WW1 but worse" world is a world I see where corporate backed American mercenaries become a common sight around the world since nominally we are at fever pitch to stay out of war, but the Chiquita Banana girls needs to dance on the graves of Latin American children to grow her fruit still.

[@MYBALLSARERUNNING]

The image of the banana girl dancing on the Graves of Latin American children seems so goddamn sad but memey to me "Lmao get fucked kid you didn't meet your banana quota"

[@snapdragonzoroark]

International American mercenaries sounds like the coolest shit ever ong

[@MYBALLSARERUNNING]

Badass af

[@SCHMALLZZZ]

The United States was and still is Anti Imprrialist. Imperialism does not facilitate free trade nor does it desire Free Trade or Capitalism. Its much closer to mercantilism and colonialism.

[@oliverstianhugaas7493]

A question i always ask in such a scenario is "How do you cross the Rhine?" It was not technologically possible before 1943 to even try it while under fire. Most when discussing WW1 assume Germany would keep attacking and never fortify the Rhine instead, it is one thing striking when the army is in France but another when France is in Germany.

[@johnny_thunder_3024]

As said here, they didn't need to

[@aleksjamnik5360]

in reality this isnt ww2 germany would surender before such a thing would be needed and just pushing them to the rhine would alredy be cathastrophic for germany with alot of german industry being on the rhein

[@mappingshaman5280]

And what happens after germany fortifies the rhineland? They've just lost their industry, the entente is still pushing their allies back, and seeing the loss of the German industry, the soviets may well strike to retake ukraine and ruin what little food supply germany still has. Even the best most well fortified army cannot function without food and germany had none left.

[@helmuthvonmoltke5518]

​​@@mappingshaman5280You are underestimating the amount of industry Germany had in Saxony, Silesia and Brandenburg during the early to mid 20th century. While the Rhineland was certainly very important for German production, the area wasn't nearly as dominant as during WW2 and, later, the Cold War era. Your other points are absolutely correct though. A retreat behind the Rhine River wouldn't have changed much because the country was quite literally starving to death and unable to import anything really.

[@jshaw3793]

After the cold war should've stayed isolated but kept up to date on world events

[@elianes5505]

Damn, it's impressive how much the war affected American culture and internal politics, for better or worse. One usually tends to look past that.

[@cjvoerman5591]

I like that you also detailed what American cultural society looks like (fashion, niche societies, etc.) because I’ve tried to speculate what effects alternative histories like these have on the average man and not the whole nation.

[@TheKulu42]

All and all this video is very interesting. I like how you delve into how life in America and trends such as the Civil Rights Movement and women getting the vote change. The idea of a blowup with England over the Ente's blockade is a counterfactual I've never considered. I now imagine something like an American freighter trying to run the blockade. A Royal Navy ship fires a warning shot, but instead of going across the bow, it goes through the ship and causes considerable loss of life, perhaps even sinking the freighter. Matters would be worse if it turned out that the freighter was hauling food or medicine. That could give the American isolationists a lot to work with.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your videos man! Thanks for this! You should do one with the Habsburgs victorious!🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@taylorphillips7030]

Great topic. I often find casual history buffs lack a real understanding of the situation in Europe in 1918 and vastly overestimate Germany and underestimate the entente. I agree with pretty much everything you had to say. I think a lot more would have to change about the war to lead to a Central Powers victory.

[@gumdeo]

For the Central Powers to realistically win, they need Italy on their side.

[@louisgangloff]

It’s incredible to think the non-help of America in WW1 would have helped Europe much more maintained its power instead of suicided itself a second time.

[@johnwalsh4857]

How about the entente cultivating their alliance with Japan. to counterbalance the Americans.

[@sylvali1046]

why does the map in the thumbnail show the USSR with its real life 1945 borders? Apart from that, very interesting video about a "what-if" that always got me curious! I like that you covered consequences other than just the military situation

[@worldofdoom995]

neat concept.

[@ahmedjouhari8122]

Amazing

[@johndavis8669]

I couldn't imagine that Kaiser Wilhelm being close to the USA.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Great video as always! Suggestion: What if Kaiser Karl I of austria saved the whole Empire?

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

A better world.

[@aesopsaintours4491]

Your dissection of the social effects of the counterfactual is fascinating, but your grasp of military history leaves a bit to be desired. The Kaiserschlact was not stopped by the Americans, this is true. But the French and British were thrown back dozens of miles, undoing years of work. The Germans took near a million casualties, but the Entente losses were still higher by two hundred thousand. Undoing this disaster was the Hundred Days Offensive, which took two million Americans-in this timeline, you can bet that never happens. And remember, Germany was not thrown back into its homeland in this war. The fighting ended in Belgium because the Germans looked forward and saw no possibility of victory, only bloodshed. That was almost ENTIRELY due to American involvement. A country of fresh troops and fresh coffers essentially reset the countdown clock on a German victory through attrition. Without that, not only can the Entente not achieve near the success of the historical Hundred Days, the Germans will know at the end that their enemies are near as close to collapse as they are. Certainly, even if the Germans still lose, the peace will be nothing like Versailles-the Entente will have no ability to force Germany to the table.

[@bones6448]

I think the treaty depends on when the central powers decide to sue for peace. If its after the failure of the 1918 offensive then they likely get a much lighter treaty as while the offensive failed, German armies haven't been routed and the allies lack the capabilities to deliver a decisive blow. In OTL the germans got so desperate after the failure of the offensive that they kept attacking after operation michael, the main thrust of the offensive, failed. Causing significantly higher german casaulities then their need be, all due to the fear of american troops landing in force and counter attacking. In this TL the central powers likely sue for peace after the failure of operation michael. This is when the German army was still intact and relatively powerful. And notice how I say central powers not just Germany, without American entry into the war and woodrow wilson pushing for recognition of nationalities, the entente never declares their support for indepent states out of Austria-Hungary, Britain was heavily opposed to the idea before america joins, so theres no entente recognition of czechslovakia. And if the armistice is asked for after operation michael, its before the Austro hungarian armies collapse. Which means central europe will likely stay intact. I see Germany losing Alsace lorraine but thats about it. They have 1 million men occupying states in the east and without american troops to threaten them theres no reason for germany to get rid of those men. So we still see independent eastern states, but Germany and AH don't lose land to them, Poland is likely very small for example. In fact we could possibly see Germany getting a free hand in the east and setting up the economic union they planned to during the war since their position in the east was unrivaled. Austria-Hungary doesn't collapse, Bulgaria gets its gains recognized, and the Ottomans lose less land. The kaiser still abdicates but with the eastern economic union the government will be able to sell it as a win so the german government doesn't destabalize. However if the central powers try holding out until 1919 then I can see the scenario going the way your video suggests.

[@redeset8586]

The german army was broken, out of reserves, and the two southern armies supposed to guard the alps and the balkans had just been crushed Germany had nothing to oppose the Entente marching through Austria

[@bones6448]

@@redeset8586 When I say after the failure of the spring offensive, I mean specifically after the failure of operation Michael, after which the germans still had plenty of reserves and outnumbered the allies on the western front for the time being.

[@danielbickford3458]

Another thought, if I'm not mistaken during the world wars religion took a big beating,. At so if the u.s. never enters World War 1, it's entirely plausible that it stays a more religious country longer.

[@badart3204]

World wars didn’t really effect religion in the US as much so it would probably be the same. It mostly killed god in Europe

[@johnhallett5846]

The morale boost on the Entente side and the opposite effect on the Central Powers side is hard to quantify but it certainly was significant. The French Army mutinees occurred after the announcement; how bad would they have been without the hope of American aid?

[@johnwotek3816]

French mutinies were mostly about staying in their trench, manning defensive position and refusing to get into costly and useless assault.

[@johnhallett5846]

@@johnwotek3816 which was understandable. BUT what if the US had not come in. Would it have gotten worse?

[@johnwotek3816]

@@johnhallett5846 The American entry into the war changed little on the subject of mutiny. The 1917 mutinies were the direct result of the Nivelle's offensive on the ladie's path. The offensive started on the 16/04/1917, while the American had joined the war 11 days before, on the 05/04/1917. That 1917 attack was the last straw that broke the camel's back. The men in the trenches did not care about American soldier that would only be deployed on the frontline arrive 8 month later. They cared about senseless attack being repeated ad nauseam by reckless general who only knew war through the comfort of their head quarter. They cared about spending the last 3 years in cold and muddy trenches, with very fews leaves, while Paris was partying like it was the roaring 20 already. These idea spread even quicker considering how much men were grouped together in preparation for the next attack. So when they were asked to attack again in May, they said no. Petain was brought forward to replace Nivelle and improved the condition of the French soldier while changing the attack tactics. While some mesure would be taken to discipline the men, including execution, only 74 would be put in front of a firing squad in 1917. In 1915, they were 235. Because, yes, susprise, there were other mutinies, even as soon as 1914. High intensity modern war isn't for the feint of heart and even the bravest men cannot stand very in such insanity. Everyone was facing similar mutinites. The British had them, the German had them. Even today, both Russian and Ukrainian are facing mutinies because trenche warfare is that terrible. The USA entry in the war had nothing to do with the mutiny, its intensity nor its resolution. The world doesn't revolve around the USA.

[@crappycat9056]

@@johnhallett5846To some extent certainly, but its not like these guys are just gonna let the germans ravage their home without a bigger fight seeing what already happened in occupied Belgium and France

[@warrenmay3600]

It may have taken longer, but the British naval blockade was starving the Germans out of the war.

[@jamiemcintosh3030]

Mr. Mittrovich, have you heard of or read "Man-Made Hell" by Joseph Kyle (?), published by Sea Lion Press?

[@ajwestgate3066]

YOU NEED TO DO A MCADOO VICTORY IN 1920.

[@henrybass7979]

Germany was never defeated on the field of battle by the British, French and Americans. Germany had a revolution that started in the port of Kiel when the Kaiser ordered the Germany navy to fight the British knowing full well the British had a larger fleet. The German navy refused and this sparked more socialist/communist revolution all over German which resulted in the Kaiser being forced to give up power.

[@Wonderwall627]

Argonne offensive says otherwise

[@redeset8586]

The german army was broken, out of reserves, and the two southern armies supposed to guard the alps and the balkans had just been crushed Germany had nothing to oppose the Entente marching through Austria

[@Bearhoff]

What about the Canadian troops?

[@TheEmperorYTP]

god, the spring offensive was so poorly planned i have no idea how anyone thinks it would lead to germany winning the war. imagine planning an offensive with 0 strategic goals in mind and forcing your soldiers to raid allied tents for basic supplies

[@jgr7487]

The thing is that, in the end, French divisions were retreating every time a Stormtrooper division attacked their trench, following the order of their supperiors, which only ended with American officers giving the order not to leave & strike back. The German troops were tired, but so were the French ones. Besides that, Petain & the Foch command blocked pretty much all contact from the "revolutionary" troops, so there wouldn't be an SFIO revolution among workers.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

That’s not true. French troops didn’t just drop their arms and run like girls. No they actually fought against and defend their trenches.

[@jgr7487]

@@kordellswoffer1520 at that point of the war, their orders were to retreat.

[@maryrowe1504]

Texas is known for schnitzel- it’s just called “chicken fried steak” or just “chicken fry”

[@DimPete]

We got Kaiserreich to make this what if...

[@nealjroberts4050]

Shout out to Marc from The Professor!

[@nobody-sp9ps]

The US had a large german population at the time. So what if we actually entered on Germans side

[@kordellswoffer1520]

The war would most definitely have ended in a stalemate and peace agreement. The Germans likely would have still fell apart and Britain would look to stale mate the Americans in Canada. Which it likely would have for at least a year or two. More than long enough to pound the Germans to peace and sue for a mutual agreement.

[@ralphstrickland7110]

After 1916 the Central Powers could not win the war. Access to the sea allowed the western powers to import all they needed to win. Germany suffered through the “turnip winter” and its allies were looking for a way out. By 1918 the western allies had figured out the tactics needed to defeat trench warfare. Don’t underestimate their learning how to use machine guns for indirect fire. The change from using artillery meant that they could still keep the Germans down in the trenches, but reduced their own casualties from rounds falling short. Add to that the use of tanks and the development of close air support and the western forces were close to victory.

[@benx6264]

If America had stayed out then the war would have petered out in early 1919. The Russians were already out of the war. The Germans had shot their offensive bolt and were on the brink of starvation. the French army was close to mutiny. Austria-Hungary and the Italians were at an impasse. Everyone's civilian population was sick and tired of the war. There would have been a negotiated "peace with honor" that probably would have set the borders back to pre-war - or close to anyway. Everybody (except the Balkan nations - and who really cares about them anyway?) would be able to point to something and say "see - we won".

[@washingtonradio]

The French Army partially collapsed in 1918 with American troops on the front lines. While "Retreat, hell, we just got here" is probably apocryphal according the US 2nd Division history, the 2nd battalion, 6 Marines did note they received written orders from at least one French officer to retreat. I tend to think if Kaiserschlacht had hit the French first, Germany might have won in 1918.

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of What If America Stayed Out of WWI? Momentum 100

[@Berserker3624]

Hmm I think we’re underestimating the potential ramifications of the yanks dying in British port or whatever happened remember when the reason why the Germans stopped unrestricted submarine warfare was because of because of US civilian I think with that in mind the and Americans tried of their ships being geld up in ports for months at a time would demand that the British alter their blockade to allow American ships to not only go though transit faster but for them to reach German ports and deliver there supplies(of course assuming they Kaiser pays up, which he will) of course they’d stipulate that only food and alcohol could be transported as to not to anger the Brit’s. I think the Americans in 1916 or whenever would see this as fair deal(and would be getting galvanized by any German spies as well) the Americans get their pay, along with America demonstrating their sovereignty and comment to neutrality by not having favorites. Hell the German spies would probably akin this diplomatic crisis to the war of 1812 comparing the British to doing virtually the same the thing, by disrupting American trade the Germans might even push it by comparing the American sailors in 1812 and 1916 conditions as similar after all, the American sailors thanks to the English are under threat of zeppelin air raids same as how the British were forcing american sailors to fight for them in the napoleonic wars! Now would the British actually accept this deal? I think likely after all it’s quite reasonable to anyone not in the entente, the Americans aren’t trading guns to the Germans they’re trading food it would be hard to convince foreign powers on why that was was such a bad thing. I can see the german government highlighting their starving cities and how the people are eating cats and dogs to just to survive, it would more likely than not grant them sympathy form neutral countries and their civilian populations along with painting the British in nasty light for a while. And of course we can’t forget a very important reason for the British accepting American terms, *their loans* , i won’t go into detail because i think it’s fairly obvious but generally pissing off your pay master is a bad idea and the Germans throwing gasoline on the fire doesn’t help matters. That’s why I believe the British would accept American terms and agree to a partial end to the German blockade. *Three cheers for diplomacy!* Now, just how would this affect the war effort? Well I can confidently say with the Germans able to to feed their population better we expect there to be more stable and less violent population, after all people will do anything to feed themselves which is the core reason in our timeline for most of the mutinies and revolts that later led to the kaisers unfortunate abdication. With a more loyal army and steady food coming back to the German army I think the Germans would take longer time before launching the Kaiserschlacht the reason for this would be because they wouldn’t fear an American entry into the war and would that time anyway to better supply their army now that they can. Would this be enough to cause Kaiserschlacht to be successful? Partially. The German army would be a lot more closer to Paris and would also succeed to dividing the French and British armies thanks to capturing French railways preventing a fast deployment of reinforcements but I don’t think they would reach Paris ether, it’s just too far away form current german positions and the german army would certainly be almost as exhausted as the British and French armies. Why do I think this time around the german army would be more successful, simply put its because of supply and what we know in our timeline. In our time the British managed to prevent any major german breakthroughs but they just barley managed to do that the British were exhausted in our timeline and that was when the Germans were facing supply problems and plagued with mutiny’s along with an more unstable home front, but in this timeline with those issues resolved(or at least far better) they would be able to break entente lines this time and achieve true success during the offensive! With the Germans in a far better situation now than in our timeline they would probably offer an armistice to the entente, the generals realizing that this would probably be as far they can push would support this and the German Kaiser hoping to ride the kaiserschlacht results along with encouragement of the Germans by shelling Paris would hope that would be enough convincing to end the war in German favor

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Doubtful Britain would accept this at any point before 1917 or at the earliest 1916. The us couldn’t really enforce anything on Britain besides maybe trade and Financial restrictions but even that I doubt. The Americans fully enjoyed and liked American dollars flooding into Europe and buying American goods and taking out loans and investing in American arms and food and material and its expansions. The Americans would yell but it wouldn’t go any further.

[@Berserker3624]

@@kordellswoffer1520 that’s why I mentioned this happening at 1916. Considering just how dependent the British were on American loans to the point that later when the American economy sunk so did the British, all the Americans would have to do is threaten to raise their interest rates to make the Brit’s negotiate listen to their demands. That’s true the Americans did enjoy being in the European market but there’s more to politics than money and if the American people suspect that their leaders were doing nothing…well it won’t look good on Election Day that’s for sure, not to mention patriotic politicians and how they’ll almost definitely raise hell for this incident you can bet that with pro German politicians(people who don’t want an American entry) raising their voice over what happened

[@kordellswoffer1520]

@@Berserker3624 the Americans enjoyed the loans cause it revived their own economy and the British could get loans from other places. The uk would negotiate if I treat rates were raise of course the uk was a rational nation but it wouldn’t have conceded everything to the Americans nor could America get everything it would want. The general public would do nothing and nothing would come of them. The wider issue would be the ideological political class.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

Even if it wouldn't change much, no on principle, didn't have much reason for us to be involved in that disaster.

[@danz1182]

I think you underestimate two things. First, the impact America's entry had on German strategy. The Germans knew there was a clock ticking once America entered the war. They might have foregone the Spring offensive if they were not concerned with the arriving Americans. Second, the chances for a white peace or at least terms much more favorable than what they received. Germany was spent in 1918, but France and Britain were not that much better off. Germany might have been able to get a much better deal. Also, what circumstances would otherwise have to change for America to stay out? How would those changes have impacted the balance between the combants?

[@lsbc9666]

4:58 love the kaiserreich mention

[@jamescaan870]

When the us decided to acquiesce to the British blockade American entry was for better or worse inevitable. Unrestricted submarine warfare was the only way Germany could fight back and eventually even without ludendorff they would've realized this by 1918 at the latest. So to have the us stay out you have to have the us not agree to the blockade, ie blockade busting

[@atriox7221]

Honestly an incredible concept in my head now, a fictional story set in a world where America remained neutral, entente forces prevailed with victory before 1920, Germany got the ottoman treatment and had the Turkish reaction leading to a United German peoples and ironically notably larger Germany by 1925-30. Usa went socialist and began a soft tie with soviets that was a legit alliance by 1935, british empire underwent more extreme reforms in increased autonomy and established dominions across its empire from the increased exhaustion of the empire, and alongside France they turned against the socialist usa and ussr, allying with the Germans and supporting this nationalistic moderate right Germany to become a more or less German empire again. With france, Britain and Germany working together to push the agenda that usa and ussr will attempt to invade and convert all of Europe and the wider world to communism, i can imagine this powerful trio amassing quite the alliance of lesser European, even middle eastern nations. I have to suspect that Japan would be more likely to work with the socialist alliance in the hopes of snatching the European colonies of Asia and taking China, meaning China would largely be brought in with the Europa alliance. Assuming some time between 1935 and 1940 the Europa alliance starts a war preemptively, the Japanese ambitions spark a war between 1930 and 1940, or the socialists strike first between 1940 and 1950, any of the options would result in a very interesting and utterly wild ww2. Depending on how this alternate Germany functions (if their Jewish scientists are still by their side), how Britain reforms it’s empire (does australia, South Africa, Canada, and India each become far more equal heads of their respective regions of the empire for example), does their alliance securely hold the lands across to the Middle East that can allow resources that alongside africa, India, and Australia will allow their side to cripple the soviets, repel the Japanese and secure a near inevitable victory, or will they be demolished from all sides. I assume the British-German cooperation would lead to some terrifying technological advantage between the two of them alone, combined with industry, navy and colonial resources I think this is absolutely capable of being a more deadly war then ours was, even without the natsoc atrocities. A war based series in such a timeline starting in the last years of buildup for the war and based over a 6+ year war timeframe would almost certainly see some scary weaponry, Anglo-Deutsche (or Germanic to be more vague) nuclear weaponry would be a certainty and most likely too late to use on Russia, but usa being hit by a rain of nukes after a near decade of war and left in a post apocalyptic hellscape while the European empires begin a new era of revived imperialism and unparalleled capability to inflict death, and Japan sees a more European imperialist themed fate. Certainly the potential for a scary post war world, the war being fully over by 1950 (1960 if the war started in the 50’s), and the following 20-50 years being very unsettling, I can only imagine the 2000’s.

[@johnschmidt1262]

One problem with all alternative timeline scenarios, what do we really mean by the US not joining the war. This is especially clear in world war I where I agree us goods and resources were far more valuable than the troops. It could mean anything from the US doesn't send troops but otherwise fully backs the British, to an absolute nightmare scenario where they start shipping goods to Germany.

[@meejinhuang]

The war would have dragged on longer, but Germany would still lose.

[@damiano1174]

How?

[@jackdoyle7453]

The US militarily made little impact in WW1.

[@thevettegetsitwett]

Even if Germany did not break through they simply could stalemate out the Brits and French. The Tanks were overrated with frequent breakdowns and it did not take long to develop countermeasures. Germany could even afford to move slightly backwards as long they retained gains in the east and inflicted higher casualties on the defense.

[@instrumentsofdestruction5737]

The Salonika Front decided the war, not the Western Front.

[@roguenine9LU]

I think the most notable difference that America not gettting into the war would cause is for Russia to exit the war earlier and the subsequent failure of the October Revolution since Moscow would have more than a few officer cadets to defend it from the Reds. I don't think that would change the ultimate outcome of the war, Germany likely still loses but I think they get a more favorable peace, the Nazis don't come to power in the 30s. We possibly still fight a war with Japan in the 40s, but if so it gets our full attention and assuming Japan also attacks British holdings their's too, so its a much shorter war, ends without atomic weapons being used, and probably without even the demand for unconditional surrender that prevented a pre-Hiroshima surrender in our own timeline.

[@ladyagnes7781]

Imagine what the world would be like if America had put their might behind trying to prop up the Russian Republic instead of getting in the middle of the war

[@adamnanney4952]

Well one thing for sure, we wouldn't have made the mistake of getting ride of the gold standard.

[@Pandacous]

The entente would have still won i think. Germany was good but was running out of time in 1918 for sure

[@launiesoult3248]

I don't think the Allies would have won either war world war I or world war II without American support

[@Lawfair]

I've never played with the particular scenario I am about to suggest, but what if America entered WWI at the very beginning?

[@bear3616]

What if Teddy won the election. That would be the big change you would need.

[@Bwkjam]

Germany had three albatrosses around its neck.

[@James-pq7nf]

No Way why do you think they call it WORLD WAR

[@Toastedblueberry0]

No?

[@christophercole8114]

I'm of the opinion that the US' entry into WW I sped up the Entente's victory. The German government and its military leaders put everything into having a fairly quick and tidy war with no alternate plan in case that didn't happen. It didn't happen. So from 1915 onward the German military had no clearly defined objectives and were slow to adapt to modern war despite having the most famous flying ace in all of history on their side. The Zimmerman Note revealed, perhaps unintentionally, just how bad things in Germany had become. Asking Mexico, in the midst of civil war and turmoil, to essentially keep the Americans pre-occupied while they reimplemented unrestricted submarine warfare was a last ditch desperate attempt to have anything go their way. Had they truly understood what Mexico was dealing with and knowing it was in no position to raise a force even against a modest US Army at the time, I don't think they'd have even made the request. That isn't to say the Entente military leadership was stellar (it wasn't), they were just in a much better position to not have their mistakes be as detrimental to their overall war effort. They adopted to modern warfare much better, they didn't have quite the same civil unrest to deal with, they could have essentially waited the German's out.

[@F1pidis]

The Central Powers never stood a chance. As long as Britain and France could receive aid from the US, while Germany was isolated, it was hopeless. Even China sent insane numbers of people to help the Entente, the Central Powers were fighting against the world already. US troops simply helped finish the war a bit sooner..

[@francissreckofabian01]

It never occurred to me that Slovenia fought on the Austrian side. Obvious of course. My Grandfather was 14 when the war started so he wouldn't have taken part. Mind you, he and my older uncles were guerrillas in WW2 (against Italians & germans). Scary times for them. I have it so easy in Australia thanks to them.

[@SavageDarksider-sw7rp]

I still think Germany would win but that's just my opinion.

[@sagittariusa7662]

Yes, no bras. More Corsets.

[@diollinebranderson6553]

Next video; what if Germany stayed out of ww2?

[@Sharpe095]

What if the Austro-Hungarian empire was made of chocolate?

[@4JBrewer]

There could also have been a modified Schlieffen Plan where Germany avoids invading Belgium altogether, allowing both Belgium & GB to remain neutral - thus WW1 Western theater becomes just the Franko-German War of 1914. Then the war would just be a repeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

[@gumdeo]

The secret military alliance between Britain and France assured that the Brits would enter at some point.

[@Meshakhad]

In my timeline "The Fire Never Dies", socialist opposition to US entry into World War One escalates into a full-scale socialist uprising and civil war in 1917. This not only prevents American soldiers from ever seeing action on the Western Front, but also cuts off the supply of war materiel to the Entente. I had the Kaiserschlacht offensive going better than in our timeline due to the French and British being undersupplied, with the Germans getting in sight of Paris before proposing a negotiated end to the war. The only good news for Britain and France is that they don't have to repay their loans to American financiers who have been killed by American socialist revolutionaries.

[@CausticSpace]

New HOI4 mod dropped

[@dadrumer]

It‘s funny, because in my german hystory lessons in middle school I learned that it was the english and french troops with their tanks, the poor decisions of the german head of state, leaving the population starve as well as the financial and material support of the US that brought the victory. We as the loosers of the war know about the small role the United States played on the battlefield, so the, staying pseudo-neutral wouldn‘t have helped the germans very much.

[@johnmitchell4043]

can you do a what if america stayed out of ww2? as in no lend lease for britain or the soviet union. keep in mind 90% of russian food tanks jeep and raw materials cam from america for most of the war

[@tristancropley4630]

The USA had a minimal impact in wwi

[@kingofthejungle3833]

To truly answer the question in the title, you would need to go back to 1914 and propose true US neutrality for the entirety of the war, thus all that ammo that the US sent to Europe would not have arrived.

[@taylorshipman1045]

Germany wins because: if America is truly neutral, no weapons support, germany has no moral crush from the arrival of a new fresh faced enemy knowing the Brits and french are weary aswell. Troops werent really the factor, more the material and morale

[@andrewfischer8564]

we had as as many german american as british we co

[@stephensangalli]

It probably would have ended in a draw. 😊

[@gsmiro]

Even without the US entering into the war, US would still be closely aligned to Great Britain and France during the war through financial and material assistance and so their relationship wouldn't sour after the war. US is very much not a socialist country and it does not have the per-requist conditions to become a socialist country. So it is very unlikely that US would align itself closer to USSR. In real timeline US participated in the attempt to support White Russians and fought against the Bolsheviks. US may still do the same economically try to block USSR's growth and influence.

[@jackdoyle7453]

Would Spanish flu reach Europe without mass transmission by American troops

[@gumdeo]

The Great Flu may well have remained an American thing.

[@soulbreakerthelastmanalive]

Spanish flu started from Chinese migrants working on the railroad. It is never talked about.

[@jackdoyle7453]

This seem to be a popular opinion only in the US. The Austrians and Ottomans were already collapsing. The Germans would still have internally collapsed due to the blockade.

[@antinancy]

great content, but spoken too fast to follow...

[@greenman5555]

The US

[@kingofthejungle3833]

@7:00 even taking into account the events that happened up until 6th April 1917, if the US didn't declare war on Germany, 6 months later the Russian and Germany sign an armistice. German troops start flooding the western front, that's an extra 1.1 million soldiers, when factoring in 1.5 million US troops not joining the entente, it's hard to conceive that Germany wouldn't be able to push into France. Afterall, if the US troops provided a boost to moral for the Commonwealth and French troops, then Eastern Front Germans swelling the ranks of the German Western Front could only serve to boost their moral.

[@redeset8586]

There was practically no american in europe in 1917. In 1918, the german army was broken, out of reserves, and the two southern armies supposed to guard the alps and the balkans had just been crushed Germany had nothing to oppose the Entente marching through Austria

[@CompComp]

Lol

[@joelnorman9294]

The other scenario you didn’t address is what if the USA stayed out of the war because Britain stayed out? I have seen British historians debate whether they should have been involved or not. Americans got involved partly because Wilson was such an Anglophile. That is a scenario where Germany could have won, and all the old aristocracies of Europe might have survived longer.

[@Mlc473-n6y]

Without the us the allies would have been forced to make a compromise.Yes german civillians where starving but that wasn t enough.You also have to notice that Germany did their last big offensive because of the usa entry into the war.Without that it would have stayed a stalemate.It was just Not possible for the european allies to break throug.Only with 100 of thousands americans landing every month at the Continent the German leadership accepted that the Situation was not winnable because the allies could replace their troops but not the germans.And the allies where also running out of money.The french had the biggest Problems replacing their troops because their Population was only 40 mil

[@Sutton-vp3bf]

If the US didn’t bankroll the entente war effort then Germany would have gotten a more even peace rather than a crushing loss. However a full German victory would be very debatable

[@romad357]

It would have been better if the UK had also stayed out of it as they almost did. Most forget that SERBIA triggered the war by having an agent murder the Franz Ferdinand (the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and his wife. Russia supported the murderers which caused Germany to support Austria. France decided to jump in and try to conquer Alsace and Lorraine thus also supporting the murderers. In the Interwar period Serbia controlled Yugoslavia continued to cause problems. Only under Tito's control after World War II kept Serbia from causing problems until after his death. After Yugoslavia separated into is former countries, Serbia started committing genocide in them. It finally took NATO intervention to crush Serbia mass murder of non-Serbs. If Serbia had been punished for the July 1914 murders, the 20th Century might have been less violent.

[@brandonmikhailov3569]

TRUTH

[@GabFrrost]

Sorry, not buying it. Peace based on Status qou ante proposed by Austro-Hungary would be widely popular. Serbia and MonteNegro would follow Romania sa puppets of Central powers. Without american morale bust, without huuuge american loans and supplies, Italy and France would seek peace, and then go bankrupt, with UK going broke and empire collapse by 1930. USA would suffer badly for loss of loans to Antante.

[@Sirenensang]

From the german side, the entry of the US did not change morale much one way or the other. It was rock bottom at this point, and for good reason. The comments talking about well-motivated german stormtroopers or whatever are supposing that the german army was somehow qualitatively different from the rest of western europe. They weren't, and the stalemate on the western front despite major offensives is testament to that. Ultimately, the US socialists saying that this war was not in service of the people were right. Only France and the US were democracies at that point, and Germany was not the genocidal monster it became later. Obviously, they all had a colony or three and practised future war crimes there. And man the people of 1917 were sick of the war, especially in Germany. It doesn't matter if the US became involved or not, the peace talks would've been between a German republic and a victorious Entente.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

I have to disagree, the allies outnumbered the germans as a joke and on the western front. The fact the entente never broke through the much weaker numerically German lines I the western front, and the fatc the germans broke through the first time they focused the majority of their soldiers in the western front despite still being out numbered shows the germans did infact have a qualative advantage.

[@hailexiao2770]

​@@matthiuskoenig3378The Germans were tactically superior, operationally equal and strategically inferior to the western Entente.

[@kordellswoffer1520]

Both Britain and its dominions were democratic states.

[@tomb7942]

Over half the US population was Germanic. The US also traded with Germany when they could get a sub over here to buy things COD. The Germans doing unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain was NO DIFFERENT than the British doing the same to the Germans, but with surface ships. Britain also did the same against the neutral country of The Netherlands. Most stories of German atrocities in Belgium were British propaganda. By rights, the US should sided with Germany, but Wilson, the biggest POS to ever live in the White House, was so pro British that was never going to happen. The biggest affect the US entering the war had was that the US assumed all of Britain's and France's war debts, which allowed both countries to buy more war material from the US.

[@dakotadak100]

It was unethical for the us to enter ww1

[@xCeLProDucTionZz]

If the allies would have lost without America how exactly would Germany overcome the Royal Navy who had a larger navy then the entire axis powers combined? and are these historians American by any chance ??🙃

[@lordcharlesthomas]

This video was insufferable

[@mininoble2253]

Just because the devil you know was awrful doesn’t mean the devil you don’t would be much better. Germany in ww1 was not a pinnacle of modern western values and in a world where they won they still would have done plenty of bad things. It would have been a difference in degrees but not in type. In the east they still viewed the people there as barbarians, though not below human, and saw themselves on a civilizing mission on which they had little regard for civilian life, happy to kill or neglect as long as they got what they wanted economically and it didn’t go against their very specific long term vision for what future civilization in the region would look like. In the west it would have been traditional subjugation

[@mininoble2253]

And by subjugation I mean in the traditional European way of the past several centuries, albiet with new trappings and maybe better long term prospects for those on the losing side. Another war likely would still come, Japan would still want more land and Germany would be in there way or alternatively China wouldn’t stand by and let themselves be gobbled up, and the America and Russia along with probably Britain and Italy would all be gunning for revenge.

[@jaredcarrick3468]

It would’ve prevented everything we see going on in the Middle East today. There’s a reason the US was pressured into entering the war. That reason is officially recognized in historical documentation known as the Balfour Declaration. There’s a reason the you know who’s in Israel celebrate what is now commemoratively named “Balfour Day” (November 2nd) annually, and why Palestinian Arabs mourn that day annually as a day of grief. If you bring this up though, you will comically be called a “conspiracy theorist” by lying communists…. even though it’s a completely bald faced lie that is extremely easily and quickly debunked by facts that aren’t even disputed, or they will try to shut down any civilized discussion about it by immediately calling you an “antisemite”. Further speculating…. who knows if it would’ve changed that much in terms of European history in the 20th century, as the openly stated goal of the communists was world domination via one world communist government, ie: COMINTERN (The Communist International). Their documented plan was to foment Bolshevik revolutions throughout Western Europe so the Soviet Union could swallow Europe whole. This was demonstrated by the multiple communist revolution attempts in Western European nations during the 1920s. The communist victors of WWII dominate the media and wrote the history books though…. a history that conveniently omits these Revolution attempts (although doesn’t dispute they occurred if you study the period), and instead claims that the resulting fascist and national socialist movements which came to power to counter these communist revolution attempts were “spontaneous movements led by horrific and evil antisemitic power hungry would be dictators”. According to conformist historians, the you know who’s are completely innocent and have never in history done anything to deserve any of their hostilities throughout European history, and that Europeans in the over 100 countries which have expelled the you know who’s throughout history just randomly woke up one day and they all suddenly decided to hate and expel the you know who’s for no reason whatsoever or because they were merely “antisemitic”, and they expect the general public to really be stupid enough to just swallow this narrative and never ask any questions about it, under the threat of being called an “evil antisemite”. I digress, before the deal was made between the Zionists and the British war cabinet in October 1916, Germany had pretty much won WWI. The elite and best French troops had been eliminated (600,000), the Russians had to pull their troops because of the internal Bolshevik uprisings, the German subs had successfully swept away the British convoys in the Atlantic, cutting off British troops from further supplies, and not one inch of German territory had been invaded or occupied. Victory was imminent for the Germans at that point, but they wanted peace the entire time and continued to make extremely generous peace offers to Britain despite having all but won the war. The Germans had nothing to gain from victory and no real interest in the war other than their defensive pact with Austria-Hungary to defend them even if they had started a war (which they did when they invaded Serbia). Britain was seriously considering these peace terms towards the end of 1916, as they had no choice. This was when Chaim Weizmann (who would go on to become the first ever president of Israel) went to the British war cabinet and assured them they could still win the war if the US would enter as their ally, and promised them that the Zionists would use the very strong Jewish lobby in the US to pressure them into the war as their ally, as well as getting German Jews to initiate worker strikes in German factories to undermine the German war effort, and in exchange, once Germany and Austria Hungary was defeated, the allies had to kick the Ottoman Turks out of Palestine so Jews from around the world could begin settling there. Once the Zionists made good on their end of the bargain and the US had entered the war and the tide had turned decisively against Germany, they returned to Britain and demanded to see something in writing officially recognizing their deal, along with an official statement of intent to make good on their end of the deal and secure Palestine for a new Jewish settlement. This piece of writing is known as the Balfour Declaration. Had all this not taken place, a peace agreement would’ve been reached between Britain and Germany and the Versailles Treaty would’ve never been. If this would’ve been the case, who knows if such extreme measures would’ve been necessary to prevent the Bolshevik communist cancer from taking over Germany. This means that there’s also a chance that there would’ve been no National Socialism necessary to rebuild what was a morally and economically bankrupt Germany, and it would’ve been much more likely that some sort of alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and the western empires would’ve been formed to ultimately help them defeat communism in Europe. Thus, no global communist one world government new world order, no new world order European Union and so on.

[@MrMirville]

Stupid : the Jews had many plans to become the number ones in the government of Europe and the one involving Israel was only a B-plan. Their A-plan was to make Paris into the capital of their NWO, holding supposedly better moral standards than other neighbouring powers (like antiracism and multi-culturalism).