Well, I mostly agree with your post, even if we are in the speculative field. But here, in the quoted part, I don't agree. The League of Nations was the embryo of the UN.…but I don't think that would have been a great loss.
Would Britain have actually felt a need for a more moderate peace if it knew from the very beginning that the US won't help it and France enforce the post-WWI peace settlement, though?Yeah, I think Chlodio has got it pretty right. Lloyd George might have been able to somewhat rein in the French and their revanchism given that the Americans and British had actually been to do so in real life.
Central Powers/Allied split decisionHello everybody and dear specialists.How would have finished the WWI if USA decided to stay neutral ? Thank you very much.
So to dig deeper into your question; to what degree would that entail US neutrality? Since in truth the United States had not been functioning as a true neutral since about late 1915, that would potentially mean a very different war. The United States was producing specifically for French and British a lot of war materials, and supplying foodstuffs. Had the United States been functioning as a Neutral during that entire period it would have demanded that Britain not interfere with US shipments of food, and non war-essential products to the "Central Powers", this would not have been the war we knew at all. It would have also meant that the United States would not have been producing things like ammunition to the Triple Entente which it had since late 1915.Hello everybody and dear specialists.How would have finished the WWI if USA decided to stay neutral ? Thank you very much.
I am not sure. That would be part of the settlement. I think they'd go the France route. Germany didn't need to weaken the French more if they are isolated(which was the Bismarckian goal that failed)and they'd still have to negotiate themselves out of the chokehold the UK has them in. If Germany doesn't need a concession don't see them pushing the issue. After all UK was scared of one power dominating Europe and they'd need to ease those concerns. Generally given what an incredible deal they got to the East, I really think a Central Powers settlement would focus little on territory to the West though they'd be some form of restitution from France, France's defeat alone would do more to satisfy Germany than Germany's did France because France didn't have the ability to beat Germany and they were trying to compensate. Luxembourg makes sense one of the last German states not in Germany but nothing else does, Alsace-Lorraine in 1870 had been a stretch and look what happened.@Emperor of Wurttemburg 43: Do you think that Germany would aim to strip France of iron ore-rich Briey and Longwy if it defeats France? Also, if the Entente still win, I'm presuming that the German monarchy still survives, correct? What about the Austrian and Ottoman monarchies? In addition, if the Entente wins, might France aim to split Germany up into several separate and independent countries due to France knowing ahead of time that the US won't help it enforce the post-WWI peace settlement?
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|How Great Britain and the USA lost the victory in World War II.||History Blogs|
|World War III: USA+allies vs. Russia and China: the Result?||Speculative History|
|Will China ever have "World Cop" Wars like the USA?||Military History|
|What if World War III broke out during the Cold War (without the usage of Nukes)||Speculative History|