The US enters WWI in 1915 rather than in 1917

[WolfBear]

What if the US would have entered WWI in 1915 after the sinking of the Lusitania rather than in 1917? The logic here would be to build a giant US Army in Europe by the start of 1917 so that a giant offensive on the Western Front could occur that year. The US would wait until after the 1916 election to do this in order to avoid hurting Woodrow Wilson's reelection bid that year by having a lot of US WWI casualties before the election.

Thoughts on this? Would this actually be enough to prevent one or both Russian Revolutions?

 

[raharris1973]

The Lusitania wasn't the last straw for Americans, by far.

It was the first straw.

It's a crappy PoD for getting the USA into WWI without multiple further events (that in OTL took multiple years to happen) also occurring.

A much better PoD for an earlier US entry would be the perpetrators of the 1916 Black Tom explosion doing more damage (civilian casualties or damage to the Statue of Liberty or both), and getting caught and traced to Germany.

 

[WolfBear]

The Lusitania wasn't the last straw for Americans, by far.

It was the first straw.

It's a crappy PoD for getting the USA into WWI without multiple further events (that in OTL took multiple years to happen) also occurring.

A much better PoD for an earlier US entry would be the perpetrators of the 1916 Black Tom explosion doing more damage (civilian casualties or damage to the Statue of Liberty or both), and getting caught and traced to Germany.

OK, let's go with your PoD here. Anyway, what happens afterwards?

 

[bintananth]

OK, let's go with your PoD here. Anyway, what happens afterwards?

Germany gets fucked over even harder than it was by Versailles. A reluctant but irritated and annoyed US was a deciding factor in RL. Drag the US in earlier and it's just going to get uglier for the Central Powers because the blank cheque with the signature line filled in arrives sooner.

 

[WolfBear]

Germany gets fucked over even harder than it was by Versailles. A reluctant but irritated and annoyed US was a deciding factor in RL. Drag the US in earlier and it's just going to get uglier for the Central Powers because the blank cheque with the signature line filled in arrives sooner.

Whether Versailles will be harsher for Germany will I think depend on whether one or both of the 1917 Russian Revolutions still occur before the end of WWI in this TL. A socialist-dominated Russia is likely to be much more sympathetic to Germany than Tsarist Russia would have been, after all.

 

[History Learner]

What if the US would have entered WWI in 1915 after the sinking of the Lusitania rather than in 1917? The logic here would be to build a giant US Army in Europe by the start of 1917 so that a giant offensive on the Western Front could occur that year. The US would wait until after the 1916 election to do this in order to avoid hurting Woodrow Wilson's reelection bid that year by having a lot of US WWI casualties before the election.

Thoughts on this? Would this actually be enough to prevent one or both Russian Revolutions?

The Germans go full USW from 1915 onwards, which may just give them the edge to knock the Anglo-French out in 1916.

 

[WolfBear]

The Germans go full USW from 1915 onwards, which may just give them the edge to knock the Anglo-French out in 1916.

Might the Americans be inclined to send their troops to Russia en masse, then?

 

[History Learner]

Might the Americans be inclined to send their troops to Russia en masse, then?

I doubt it, the infrastructure wasn't there. Ottomans can cut the Iran route, nor is the Trans-Siberian really there.

 

[WolfBear]

I doubt it, the infrastructure wasn't there. Ottomans can cut the Iran route, nor is the Trans-Siberian really there.

Had the T-S Railway been completed in 1914, would that have made a difference here?

 

[History Learner]

Had the T-S Railway been completed in 1914, would that have made a difference here?

Hard to say. The logistics would be bad, so even if the Americans get a force there, it would be too small to make a massive difference.

 

[WolfBear]

Hard to say. The logistics would be bad, so even if the Americans get a force there, it would be too small to make a massive difference.

Are you sure that the Iranian route would be closed? Because the Anglo-Americans could attack into Iran (Persia) through British India, no? And at the same time, the Russians could attack into Iran from the north.

 

[History Learner]

Are you sure that the Iranian route would be closed? Because the Anglo-Americans could attack into Iran (Persia) through British India, no? And at the same time, the Russians could attack into Iran from the north.

The Ottomans even in 1918 were able to prevent it, so I doubt they couldn't here.

 

[WolfBear]

The Ottomans even in 1918 were able to prevent it, so I doubt they couldn't here.

In 1918, Russia was already out of the war, so the Ottomans didn't have to worry about putting too many of their own troops in the Caucasian Theater, no?

 

[History Learner]

In 1918, Russia was already out of the war, so the Ottomans didn't have to worry about putting too many of their own troops in the Caucasian Theater, no?

Actually much of the Ottoman Army was in the theater, because they had to reclaim the extensive Russian conquests into Anatolia and were trying to achieve Pan-Turanist aims by securing Baku as a gateway to Central Asia.

 

[WolfBear]

Actually much of the Ottoman Army was in the theater, because they had to reclaim the extensive Russian conquests into Anatolia and were trying to achieve Pan-Turanist aims by securing Baku as a gateway to Central Asia.

Gotcha.

Why did the Germans oppose the Ottomans taking Baku, BTW? Because it would have made the Ottomans too independent of the Germans? It seems like weakening Russia by stripping it of Baku would have been something that the Germans should have ideally supported, and yet, they didn't!

 

[stevep]

Difficult to say what happens with Russia but its unlikely that the Bolsheviks will gain power, which would be a big plus for the world. If the monarchy clings onto power its probably going to implode in the next few years unless Nicky gets a brain.

In terms of the war in the west a lot would depend on the circumstances. A major US role from say spring/summer 1917 is going to be hugely costly for them, if the Germans have done a pull back to a defensive position similar to OTL Hindenburg line. Their going to be attacking with gusto but no real experience against very powerful Germans strongly manned by veterans. Going to cost the Germans but the Americans a lot more.

After that how does the US respond? Doubling up and start learning more about modern warfare or backing off?

Assuming the former then the war will probably still end in 1918, just possibly late 1917. Likely a harsher peace for Germany as no one will want them starting another war and the US will be embittered by its war losses. Although Russia if it avoids the Bolsheviks could be a big factor here as the sheer survival of a government acceptable and accepting the western powers means that there's a powerful eastern counter to any German revanchism. Which was what was lacking in OTL to balance out the US withdrawal into isolationism and French and British reluctance to risk a new war with German. As such, and especially if a Russian republic has been formed there is less need for a strict peace treaty. You will still have most of the reparations because the allies need that to rebuild, especially France and Belgium and there might be calls for more from Russia here.

The devil as always is in the detail so a lot of butterflies flapping their wings here.

 

[WolfBear]

The Germans go full USW from 1915 onwards, which may just give them the edge to knock the Anglo-French out in 1916.

BTW, what would make USW more successful in 1915-1916 than it was in 1917-1918?

 

[stevep]

BTW, what would make USW more successful in 1915-1916 than it was in 1917-1918?

Probably very little. Not sure they would have the forces at that stage to greatly increase sinkings.

Also I must admit, reading great-war-1914-1918-day-by-day - where that site's manager has been doing a WWI day by day - the vast majority of sinkings were largely coastal in nature. I.e. in the English channel, Celtic sea, North sea etc and often of small ships like trawlers. What bigger ships carry goods from other continents were sunk seem largely to be caught very close to their end ports. Ditto with the Med. This tends to raise questions about the traditional idea that using convoys was the solution to the problem in WWI. Yes for longer ranged traffic across the Atlantic or in the Med but doubtful that could be done that well with things like fishing fleets or without a lot more ships coastal convoys and Anglo-British trade. I think the problem was that a/c were too under-developed in the 1914-18 period to provide the cover that would have been far more effective. Especially since many of those attacks were done on the surface using the deck gun rather than the rare torpedoes.

 

[WolfBear]

Probably very little. Not sure they would have the forces at that stage to greatly increase sinkings.

Also I must admit, reading great-war-1914-1918-day-by-day - where that site's manager has been doing a WWI day by day - the vast majority of sinkings were largely coastal in nature. I.e. in the English channel, Celtic sea, North sea etc and often of small ships like trawlers. What bigger ships carry goods from other continents were sunk seem largely to be caught very close to their end ports. Ditto with the Med. This tends to raise questions about the traditional idea that using convoys was the solution to the problem in WWI. Yes for longer ranged traffic across the Atlantic or in the Med but doubtful that could be done that well with things like fishing fleets or without a lot more ships coastal convoys and Anglo-British trade. I think the problem was that a/c were too under-developed in the 1914-18 period to provide the cover that would have been far more effective. Especially since many of those attacks were done on the surface using the deck gun rather than the rare torpedoes.

What does a/c stand for?

 

[stevep]

What does a/c stand for?

Sorry, aircraft. Its an abbreviation I'm familiar with but possibly that's age or location related, being a Brit not quite in the 1st flushes of youth.