No. England would have negotiated - they were exhaused. And with France in German control, the blockade would have been broken. The UK government of the time was not Churchilian and the UK empire was not truely threatened...
The US AEF was the only reason that the Germans failed in 1918. Keep in mind that European Divisions had been reduced to 10,000 men each due to manpower shortages by then. The fresh US divisions had 25,000 men each.
Of note: The mistake the Germans made in 1914 was the Plan they followed. They would have been better off staying defensive against France and concentrating on Russia. That would have kept UK out of the war since Belgium neutrality would not have been violated and Germany would not have attacked France.
The UK treaty with France was defensive - if France attacked Germany - no treaty. The UK’s official reason for declaring war on Germany was the violation of Belgium neutrality - the UK was one of the signatories to that neutrality treaty.
Thus there would have been no blockade and Russia would have fallen. France would have wasted troops charging into MGs and probably given up with the fall of Russia.
Thanks to both of you for posting the argument for going to war in 1917. What you are both saying makes me want to read the books suggested in this thread. I want to know more.
And what you are both saying is basically the US presence was necessary to prevent a German victory.
However, neither of you have addressed the question of Hitler.
If the US had not entered WWI, isn’t it safe to say that no matter what happened next (either a stalemate or an outright German victory), Hitler would not have risen in Germany?
Now, of course, no one in 1917 could know that Hitler was in their future, but still, I find the question interesting.
Any thoughts?