English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How might the events and outcome be different if the United States had not sent troops to Europe in WW1?

2007-11-29 10:55:19 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

10 answers

you really need to do your own homework. If you never do it yourself, you will never learn anything.

2007-11-29 10:58:18 · answer #1 · answered by JaneDoe 6 · 1 0

The problem here is that the war would have been fought very differently from early 1917 onwards, so a lot will change in respect to casualties and offensives maybe not even being made at all? The blockade could be decisive unless supplies could be gained from the east, which didnt occur by the time the war ended, and maybe a negotiated peace would be more likely?

The problem here is the financial interest in seeing the Entente emerge as the winners is probably too large by 1916 for the US to simply sit out and let the Central Powers win outright. If the Central Powers win, all these debts will be pretty much uncollectable, a result far from in line with US interests. After the war was over the debts were not that easy to repay for all of the victors, hence the entire war guilt issue at Versailles! It is very hard to see a scenario where the US wont become involved to some extent by the later part of the war, even if its only to prevent the Central Powers from winning.

The balance of forces and markets all favour the Entente quite heavily, so they would have the best options, however Germany did perform very well, and if a few decisions went against the Entente badly, then the best hope for a Central Powers victory woulf have to be a very rapid collapse where the US had no chance to effect peace talks. Rapid collapse was not something any Great Power became victim to, it really wasnt that sort of war, but it is possible if morale falls enough on one side or the other.

Terry
I must accredit this work to the man who wrote it on the site listed below for more information.
There is a long rolling discussion on the subject.

2007-11-29 18:59:57 · answer #2 · answered by HASTHEANSWERS 3 · 2 0

The events would of been different in that Germany would of won the war. The U.S. was supplying the French and British with weapons. But they played a so called neutral part in the war in that they were not directly involved. Germany was a power industrial nation on the side for the Triple Entente ( I think thats the bad guys but whatever) And Britain was the Industrial nation for the good guys. The only other industrial nation was the U.S. and having to powerful industrial nations on one side will make a powerful team to defeat. So thats why Germany lost and the allies won.

2007-11-29 19:34:05 · answer #3 · answered by Faisal A 3 · 0 0

My high school son says that germany could have taken over and won...

2007-11-29 18:58:47 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0 0

I didn't know the Americans were involved in WW1

2007-11-29 18:57:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

We might all be speaking German right now.

2007-11-29 19:01:01 · answer #6 · answered by Frosty 7 · 1 0

maybe the side we had been fighting on would not have won...?

2007-11-29 18:58:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they maybe would of won!!!

2007-11-29 18:57:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!!!

2007-11-29 18:58:04 · answer #9 · answered by BobRoberts01 5 · 2 0

WELL CAUSE US THEY WERE DUMB

2007-11-29 18:58:38 · answer #10 · answered by Miguel M 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers