How long could the Allies have lasted WW1?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

As a counter point to the Germany in WW1 thread, assuming that the US does not enter the war in 1917, how long could the Entente last?
Lately it seems to be fashionable to state that Germany and the Central Powers would have lost anyway, but based off the information that Mikestone has contributed vis-a-vis the ending of American loans in 1917 (thanks again for all the info and book recommendations), it seems that France and Russia would have run out of money once the US spigot is shut off. The British could have financed their own war effort without US loans though.

POD: Ferdinand I of Romania is more cautious and does not enter the war in 1916, meaning that the Russians are stopped even earlier during the Brusilov campaign and are defeated as in OTL, just slightly earlier.

This enables Falkenhayn to barely maintain his position as Chief of Staff of OHL throughout 1916 with several results. First and foremost the Hindenburg program never gets enacted and the fragile German economy is not pushed over the edge by the ill thought out fantasy that Ludendorff, his cronies, and German industrialists forced on the War Ministry.

As a result going in to 1917 the German home front is more stabile, meaning less unrest and strikes as the coersive labor mobilization bill isn't passed; production is actually higher than OTL 1917 because scare resources aren't used to build factories that were never put to use as under the Hindenburg Program; the army is bigger because workers aren't demobilized to work in these factories that are never put to use; and because there is not a collapse in coal mining from the strikes trains have enough fuel to distribute food to cities, meaning less hunger in Germany.

Perhaps more importantly is that at the Pless Conference Bethmann-Hollweg has a critical ally in blocking the resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: Falkenhayn. Without Ludendorff pushing for the navy's plan while running OHL the measure fails, meaning that there is no Zimmerman Note and therefore no US declaration of war in April 1917.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pless_conference

Bethmann is scape-goated for blocking the act and is dropped as in OTL. Georg Michaelis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Michaelis
is now the Chancellor, but he is little more than a puppet of Falkenhayn, who is now essentially dictator of Germany. His position, which was critically weakened by the events of 1916, is now unassailable thanks to revolution in Russia and the US cutting off loans to the Entente while putting pressure on the Entente to negotiate.

The most important result of all this is that by mid-1917 Germany's leader realizes that negotiation is key and sees no gain in forcing a Brest-Litovsk or holding on to Belgium. He is also pro-labor and anti-Industrialists, as they have been pushing for his removal from office, meaning he is sympathetic to their plight instead of OTLs Ludendorff, who tried to conscript labor into the army, prompting several crippling strikes.

Instead of holding out for total victory Falkenhayn wants to negotiate, albeit from a position of strength. What happens now in the Entente camp?
 

Deleted member 1487

Really, nothing? Not even anyone telling me that I'm wrong?
 

Cook

Banned
Well it’s certainly interesting.
:)
But covers a lot of ground, a considerable amount of which is pretty specialist.
Give them time.
 
If Falkenhayn is not 'limogé', Bethmann will not fall. Although Bethmann didn't trust Falkenhayn (because he feared he might be replaced by him), Falkenhayn was faithful to his monarch and the civil side of the government.
Bethmann had already spoiled Falkenhayn's concept for 1916 by torpedoing unrestricted submarine warfare; and F. had accepted that.
The Kaiser very much wanted to keep F. and B., so, as long as the two co-operate, they will be kept in office.
Bethmann initiated F.'s downfall, because he believed the war was lost after Romanias entry, and he thought a 'bad' peace could be sold better to the German people with the popular Hindenburg as chief of staff.
 
Well, in answer to the original question they could not have lasted long. Britain and France were stretched to the breaking point as it was on the Western Front. I believe (I'm not sure so don't quote me) that France lost a higher percentage of its population during WWI than Germany and was on the verge of breaking anyway. Take away America the War is over probably by 1918.
 
So what of the Royal Navy blockade of Germany? I'm not particularly clued up on that to be honest, does it still have the bite required or would more stable and less stretched industry counter that?
 
The blockade only became 'tight' when the US entered the war - and put a total embargo on goods destined for Germany.

With the US staying out of the ring, the Royal Navy will have a hard time imposing a 'tight' blockade. Especially because the British government always tried not to annoy the US administration.
 
So what of the Royal Navy blockade of Germany? I'm not particularly clued up on that to be honest, does it still have the bite required or would more stable and less stretched industry counter that?


It will be weaker anyway without the US. Most of the imports of the neutrals bordering Germany came from America, and so could now be controlled at source without the need for a physical blockade. And of course a Germany controlling the continent can "export" many of its shortages to occupied countries.

Also, expect the US to get far more intolerant of the blockade. Even OTL, relations with the Allies got pretty strained during 1916, but their war needs provided such a big market that it was worth many Americans' while to put up with it. With no Western Front, that market goes, and the interruption of American trade with (now) virtually all of Europe will be far less tolerable.
 

Grey Wolf

Donor
The scenario as depicted is going to balance Germany's gains through the continuation of US proxy trade, with German losses through not dominating and basically raping the Romanian economy.

For the allies the writing is going to be on the wall assuming a Caporetto occurs here - one assumes that Falkenhayn will stay go ahead with that offensive? If he does, then Britain and France are only just able to plug the gaps in Italy.

Throw in the 1918 Michael offensive, and even if the first wave is halted, the second is likely to break through.

Of course, this offensive might NOT occur for without the US in the war, Germany is not going to be so desperate to try to finish the allies off in one massive blow.

However, continuing to sit on the defensive when they have troops now freed up in the East would not seem logical either, since Germany obviously wants to WIN the war and to end the fighting as soon as it can...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Throw in the 1918 Michael offensive, and even if the first wave is halted, the second is likely to break through.

I don't see why, relatively few US troops were deployed by that stage. The German offensive will run out of steam and that will be that. The German economy is screwed and they are running out of key things, like rubber - try resisting gas without it.
 

Commissar

Banned
I don't see why, relatively few US troops were deployed by that stage. The German offensive will run out of steam and that will be that. The German economy is screwed and they are running out of key things, like rubber - try resisting gas without it.

U.S. Troops were key to halting the assault as they blocked key bridges and blunted and turned back several thrusts by the Germans.

They then counter-attacked and broke the Germans at the Argonne and made into Germany proper.

As for the German economy, no U.S. Declaration of war means the Germans will be able to send more cargo subs to pick up rubber in the U.S. and the Allies will be unable to buy anything. Considering the Germans hold all of France's iron mines and most of its coal, no U.S. declaration of war is a death blow for France and they give up in 1918.
 
U.S. Troops were key to halting the assault as they blocked key bridges and blunted and turned back several thrusts by the Germans.
.

I always love reading this sub-mosieresque stuff. Numbers of YUS troops were few and could have been substituted, it was the secondary German offensive after the first one ran out of

They then counter-attacked and broke the Germans at the Argonne and made into Germany proper..

Germany proper? Interesting. The main offensive was the northern one, it took more ground and captured most of the prisoners.

As for the German economy, no U.S. Declaration of war means the Germans will be able to send more cargo subs to pick up rubber in the U.S. and the Allies will be unable to buy anything. Considering the Germans hold all of France's iron mines and most of its coal, no U.S. declaration of war is a death blow for France and they give up in 1918.

You really just don't know about this.

What "cargo subs?"

There is no German cash to buy anything anyway. The Allies can buy what they want due to British credit rating. Read Strachan, please, if you want to discuss this.
 
for one the unsecured loans to the entente will not happen, restricting very much what they will be able to buy.

Apart from the political side, there is also the matter of morale, the french was experiencing extremelt low morale and a few revolts amongst the soldier had already happend. The US entry although low in number at first, did give them a morale boost. When this will not happen, expect more uprisings amongst the soldiers furtherreducingthe french efficiency.

After the CP victory in the east there will be most likely some sort of brest-litovk, don't see that not happening.

Under the described condition I don't see a entente victory happen, although a CP one might not be that easy either. It is going to be a matter of a bloody stalemate, and waiting how long it will take for france to collapse or how soon the entente is prepared to talk.
 
The Entente wouldn't hold on for much longer - but the Germans wouldn't either. Now add into this situation Falkenhayn being willing to negotiate and Germany already having won in the East and the solution should be clear: Peace negotiations in the west start soon.

If not, then the question is how certain factors play out:
- Germany has no cash to buy, but might collateralize its property in the US to get supplies?
- how bad will the end of loans for the Entente effect those? Particularly France could crumble rapidly.
- Romania neutral and trading with the CP: better or worse than Romania being looted?

The main point though is militarily. If either side gets a victory, this might be seen as the turning point and the other side might give up. Essentially, both sides are similarly able to give that blow - and to receive that blow.
 
This might happen: Both sides collapse due to a revolutionary wave. A red Europe is born.

Now that would be a great timeline: a Soviet Union from the Atlantic to the Pacific, conquering the remaining states on the continent, and then engaging in a cold war with the evil British-US-Japanese capitalists. Add in a successful sealion and let Rommel and Shukov, the "desert foxes" have a race to the Suez channel, one from Soviet Libya, one from Soviet Iran...
 

Deleted member 1487

The Entente wouldn't hold on for much longer - but the Germans wouldn't either. Now add into this situation Falkenhayn being willing to negotiate and Germany already having won in the East and the solution should be clear: Peace negotiations in the west start soon.

If not, then the question is how certain factors play out:
- Germany has no cash to buy, but might collateralize its property in the US to get supplies?
- how bad will the end of loans for the Entente effect those? Particularly France could crumble rapidly.
- Romania neutral and trading with the CP: better or worse than Romania being looted?

The main point though is militarily. If either side gets a victory, this might be seen as the turning point and the other side might give up. Essentially, both sides are similarly able to give that blow - and to receive that blow.

Germany has not yet tapped into her holdings abroad, as she could not access them just yet, though there were gold reserves in Germany that were actually stronger during the war than prior thanks to loans made to allies resulting in Germany snapping up their gold in exchange.
My understanding of the loan issue is that Britain would be okay with minor budget cuts, but her allies were in trouble. France had to import literally everything she needed including food, so without loans from the US or Britain there is no way to fund her massive war effort. Russia then has no reason to remain in the war and indeed little ability to continue fighting without the materials supplied by its allies and the loans that were taken out in her name by Britain.
Romania never provided nearly the amounts predicted. In fact the looting of Romania was not worth the effort put into conquering her. Despite many denigrating the contribution of Romania during the war, she drew off crucial Central Powers forces that could have been used elsewhere. Here she can just sell wheat and oil to the CPs, which means Romanian trains will be shipping this material removing the burden from the CPs and they will be providing resources while at peace meaning production will be significantly higher and require no resources from the CPs other than cash.


If Falkenhayn is not 'limogé', Bethmann will not fall. Although Bethmann didn't trust Falkenhayn (because he feared he might be replaced by him), Falkenhayn was faithful to his monarch and the civil side of the government.
Bethmann had already spoiled Falkenhayn's concept for 1916 by torpedoing unrestricted submarine warfare; and F. had accepted that.
The Kaiser very much wanted to keep F. and B., so, as long as the two co-operate, they will be kept in office.
Bethmann initiated F.'s downfall, because he believed the war was lost after Romanias entry, and he thought a 'bad' peace could be sold better to the German people with the popular Hindenburg as chief of staff.

Bethmann and Falkenhayn had a very rocky relationship, namely because Bethmann kept blocking Falkenhayn's peace proposals and kept trying to get him fired by supporting his rivals. Once given nearly total power by the loss of Bethmann's political support in the Reichstag, Falkenhayn would probably have been more than happy to remove his political rival. Their cooperation was impossible considering their differing strategic outlooks and Bethmann's focus on his political career instead of doing what was best for Germany.
Honestly I don't see Bethmann surviving too long into 1917 when Falkenhayn is ready to cut a deal and Bethmann is still trying to get him fired. One of them has to go and given the scenario it isn't Falkenhayn.
 
Throw in the 1918 Michael offensive, and even if the first wave is halted, the second is likely to break through.

Of course, this offensive might NOT occur for without the US in the war, Germany is not going to be so desperate to try to finish the allies off in one massive blow.


Indeed; a 1917 without the US is likely to be quite a bit different from OTL.

With Britain no longer able to subsidise her, it is France who is "racing against time" (rather as Germany was in 1918 OTL) so has to either make peace on the best terms can be had, or else try and get a knock-out blow in before it's too late. The first might be wiser, but from what I know of attitudes during WW1 I'd think the second is far more likely.

So Pétain's "no major offensives" policy isn't acceptable. France has no choice but to launch one (presumably in conjunction with Haig's at Ypres) and hope for the best. If the best does not materialise, as on past form is surely the way to bet, France finishes 1917 both exhausted and broke at the same time.

One interesting thought. During 1917/18, there was much discussion in Britain of extending the Conscription Act to Ireland, a step which Haig in particular favoured. OTL, a law to that effect was passed in 1918 but never put into effect. Without the US, could the pressure for a quick win become so great that the misgivings are overcome, and this law is both passed earlier and enforced. This means that a lot of highly disloyal soldiers will be either in the front line (where they may well defect to the Germans) or taking over duties back in the UK, where they are liable to mutiny if things go pearshape at the Front. Such a move would also, of course, divert quite a few soldiers to Ireland to do the enforcing. Sounds uttely insane, but like I say it was seriously considered. That could really liven things up.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why would Britain be unable to subsidise France?

Britain's finances were not strong enough to finance both her own effort and France's out of pocket. France was pretty much broke by 1917 and had next to no resources to fight a modern war. Though possessing a large war industry at this point, the resources to turn out artillery, munitions, and small arms all had to be brought in. This also is true for nitrates, both for munitions and farm production. On top of this food still needed to be shipped in. Capital had fled Britain, France, and Russia by this point and the only nation outside the CPs that had the wealth necessary to fund the war was the US.

In the US Wilson's advisors realized that US industry would collapse when the Entente could no longer pay for their goods out of pocket or obtain private loans. As a result Wilson's administration decided to let the current round of Entente loans run out and refuse to subsidize more while heavily discouraging private loans being made to the Entente. Both as a reaction to the dependency of US industry on the war and frustration with the Entente for spurning Wilson's peace proposals in 1916, this change in fiscal policy would have crippled the Entente war effort and probably forced them to the negotiation table with Wilson getting to play peace maker (his goal all along). The question is how long the Entente could coast along before having to negotiate.

Frankly, I think late 1917 would be the latest, as Russia is likely to exit the war much sooner, probably before Kerensky gets tossed out. With no money to fight the war and the Entente unable to hold the loan issue over his head, Kerensky would be forced to cut his losses and make the best deal for Russia he could. With Falkenhayn still around he could get a sweet deal too: probably acknowledging CP gains to this point and status quo with the Ottomans.

Without Russia out sooner, but Germany slightly worse off by having to buy goods from Romania instead of loot them (and of course AH a gigantic basket case with the Italian front to deal with) France's government is very apt to fall soon after. Joseph Caillaux enter stage left. At this point the situation is very unhappy in Germany and France, but both nation still expect gains in the West regardless of the situation.

The French army, despite the mutiny, which was really just a protest against terrible conditions and wasteful offensives, not a protest against the war, still expected a decent peace deal. Its up to the CPs to dissuade them. I imagine that an earlier Caporetto would do nicely to force the Italians out or at least make them cut a deal.

But the question is whether this victorious momentum would convince the Germans to keep going or negotiate immediately.
 
Top