If the US did not enter WW1, would Germany win?

[General Mosh]

Simple question. Suppose because of events in 1916 (which I'm still working on), the USA is forced to remain out of WW1. That's the point of divergence, so obviously the Germans are still going to beat Russia and the situation in Europe will not be changed. So, could the Germans win? I'm looking for a very plausible way they win, not reasons they could lose, cause we all know they're are plenty of them

And if the Germans do win, what do they demand of the allies? I'm guessing some territorial concessions from France in Europe, some colonies from both France and the UK, and some major economic reparations from France and the UK. What about Italy? I'm pretty sure by this point they would have joined the allies, so what does Germany want from them? I assume Austria Hungary gets some concessions from them. The Ottoman Empire probably gets some concessions. Finally, what would the Germans do next? Or the Austrians and Ottomans? Sorry for all the questions guys, I'm thinking of doing an alternate timeline off of this and I want it to be good and plausible.

[baldipaul]

I don't think that Germany would be in any position to enforce any colonial territorial gains, or for that matter reparations against the UK.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by baldipaul

I don't think that Germany would be in any position to enforce any colonial territorial gains, or for that matter reparations against the UK.

Why not? I understand what you're getting at here though, it would have hardly been a total victory. Presumably the Germans take Paris and make peace with the allies. So perhaps they force some minor colonial possessions out of France, as well as a European province, some major economic reparations from France, and some minor ones from England. Perhaps this would mean a very unstable France with a stable England looking on in worry.

[mstross96]

Originally Posted by baldipaul

I don't think that Germany would be in any position to enforce any colonial territorial gains, or for that matter reparations against the UK.

Originally Posted by General Mosh

Why not?

Because at this point what can Germany do to Britain? They may get some minor concessions but nothing major

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by mstross96

Because at this point what can Germany do to Britain? They may get some minor concessions but nothing major

So like I said, some minor reparations and perhaps a small African colony or two. Like Sierra Leone or something.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by General Mosh

Perhaps this would mean a very unstable France with a stable England looking on in worry.

Britain might not be as stable as all that. She has lost upwards of half a million men, and the deaths will now have been totally in vain. There's going to be alot of very angry people, some of them angry that the war wasn't fought harder, others because it was fought at all. We could be a seriously divided country in the postwar years.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

Britain might not be as stable as all that. She has lost upwards of half a million men, and the deaths will now have been totally in vain. There's going to be alot of very angry people, some of them angry that the war wasn't fought harder, others because it was fought at all. We could be a seriously divided country in the postwar years.

True. But, at least economically you still have a stable US to trade with, and you haven't been forced to pay hundreds of millions of pounds. Instead, you have a slightly unstable country politically, probably with some very isolationist party gaining power. However, France will have a major economic crash and will turn to extremes, much like Germany did in the interwar years.

[zoomar]

Even if the final German offensive in 1918 suceeded,Paris fell, and France capitulated, the absolute best Germany could get in a final treaty would be far less than it might desire - and probably less than ordinary Germans might expect.

Britain (with its empire) is still in the strategically superior position. Britain would not accept an armistice unless it restored France and Belgium, and at least acknowledge the Italian front stalemate. Britain Probably would accept some minor border adjustments and modest reparations on France in the final treaty since France did, after all, surrender and the principle of "to the victor goes the spoils" was still operative. Its unlikely that Britain would acquiesce to German occupation of any French Colonies or allowing France to restore any former German colonies it occupied to German control. Most likely Britain might occupy these places themselves when it became apparent France was a goner.

Britain would still be unbeaten and largely invulnerable. The RN would still rule the seas, and Germany would be slowly starving. Germany would never be in a position to dictate unfavorable peace terms to Britain. There would be no reparations, no return of colonies seized by Britain and Japan, or any possibility that a peace treaty would address any limitations on British naval might.

To obtain a British acceptance of Germany as the dominant continental power, Germany would probably have to give up pretentions of challenging the British Navy by accepting agreed upon limits of future building - enough that the German navy would become only a regionally powerful European fleet (like Russia or France) not a potential equal (like the USN).

[Know Nothing]

Germany wins if the US isn't financially backstopping the Allies after 1915.

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Even if the final German offensive in 1918 suceeded,Paris fell, and France capitulated, the absolute best Germany could get

Would there still need to be a 1918 offensive as we know it?

In 1917/18 France is being kept going by British loans, which in turn are made possible by US loans to GB. If the US remains neutral (almost certainly a requirement for a CP victory) these loans won't be forthcoming, so France almost certainly can't go on beyond the end of 1917. By 1918 Britain is fighting alone, under conditions like 1940 only in some repects worse.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Germany would be slowly starving

All sounds good, except this bit. Yes, Germany was starving, but so was Britain. Especially since after 1916, the US is in no position to give aid to the UK. So, with no one to give much aid to them, Russia and France have fallen, I don't think its unreasonable for the Germans to expect major reparations and territorial gains from France, but obviously only slight reparations from the UK. Austria-Hungary will probably want some small territorial gains from Italy and some reparations. The Ottomans will probably settle for some money. Is there anyone else on the allies that AH and the Ottomans had an interest in? I'm pretty sure there's not.

Originally Posted by Know Nothing

Germany wins if the US isn't financially backstopping the Allies after 1915.

The US has just started the Second Mexican War in late 1916, they're not giving much aid to the allies, as the American people are concerned with Mexico. And then the American people get bogged down in a guerrilla war in Mexico for some time. So yeah, they're staying out of Europe.

[RamscoopRaider]

Assuming the US stays out of it Britain runs out of US dollars in mid 1917

After that allied war material production falls from 25-33% (they were buying from the US for a reason, if they could get a better deal elsewhere they would)

Assume 1918 without the US, there are a million less allied troops in France (given the US troops were not the best but they were still warm bodies) and they will be a lot less profligate with munitions, in addition there will be more Germans due to lessened attrition

A 1918 offensive will do better and may actually succeed in this context. Assuming France is knocked out Germany can send help to finish off Italy and close the Balkan front and rescue the Ottomans

Britain is still in a good position, but they are essentially broke, will have no allies on the continent and be dealing with German raids and commerce warfare, it will not be as strong as some think

Also without the war and Hooverization the US will not be exporting grain in 1917

[Anaxagoras]

If the US doesn't enter the war, I would expect a peace of exhaustion in 1918 or 1919. The British and French would keep the German colonies they've taken, but Germany keeps Alsace-Lorraine and makes territorial gains in the east at the expense of Russia.

[Berus]

Some of you are overestimating n Britain too much, sure they were the dominant colonial power and they have the strongest navy, impossible for the germans too beat it. But still, i doubt the british would be as stubborn, they lost the war, their economy is weakend because of the war, and the people want peace, would those colonies be worth fighting longer =´?, i can see that some of the minor british colonie would be given to germany if they demand them, nothing major like India or South Africa, but things like Kenya or Uganda would be given i think, would those colonies be worth fighting the war and letting thousands of people die ?

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by General Mosh

All sounds good, except this bit. Yes, Germany was starving, but so was Britain.

one of my books on American history claims that pretty much everyone involved in Europe was hungry, and that one of the first things the USA had to do was massively increase it's plantings so they could send a big pile of food over there. Not sure how true that is...

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by General Mosh

All sounds good, except this bit. Yes, Germany was starving,

But TTL she has won the Continental war so has all Europe to draw on. She can "export" a lot of the hunger.

Also, the waters off an occupied France and neutral Spain can't be mined the way the North Sea is, so the blockade is now far leakier than heretofore. And the US is likely to be less tolerant of it without the Allies as a market.

[TyranicusMaximus]

One thing is sure, Germany will NOT get enough grain from the Ukraine to make a substaintial difference.

[General Mosh]

Ok, so how about the final German offensive actually succeeds with a bit weaker UK and France who have less production. The Germans then send troops to Italy, and break through there. The French and British ask for peace, and negotiations start. Germany keeps its Russian gains. France recognizes Alsace-Lorraine as legal German territory. Germany keeps its African colonies and gains Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast. Germany pulls all its troops out of Belgium and leave it to be an independent country. Austria Hungary gets parts of Serbia and Italy and all of Montenegro. The Ottomans and Bulgaria gain nothing but retain all prewar territory. Germany and the Ottomans get 1 billion pounds each from the UK. I believe 25 french francs equaled 1 pund sterling at the time, so the Germans demand 300 billion francs. Realistic?

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

But TTL she has won the Continental war so has all Europe to draw on. She can "export" a lot of the hunger.

Also, the waters off an occupied France and neutral Spain can't be mined the way the North Sea is, so the blockade is now far leakier than heretofore. And the US is likely to be less tolerant of it without the Allies as a market.

So you're saying Germany's food situation is actually BETTER than Britain's?

[BlondieBC]

You more likely get a cold peace. Both sides are worn out followed by a negotiated peace. It is possible also to get a German "win", but this is more a negotiated peace where it leans heavily in Germany's favor. What will happen is the war will go much like OTL, except for changes due to your POD. Then around April, the Entente looses about 25% of its supplies. Which will have a lot of effects.

1) Ballpark is 25% fewer German casualties on the Western Front.

2) More Entente casualties before adjusting for #3. Less ammo means battles go worse for Entente. Much harder to quantify, but think of Verdun with 25% fewer artillery rounds fired by French as a 1916 example. Or think in terms of the first tank battles being fought with all the tanks, but 25% less artillery support.

3) Entente will have to cancel offensives. Most likely is less important theaters such as Ottomans or Balkans. Lots of TL implication of Germans not being attacked as hard.

4) Loser Blockade - USA still fighting UK on strong blockade, diplomatically. Hard to quantify, but things like A-H falling apart happens a lot slower.

As to what Germans want, it is a cold peace. There wants will be unreasonable, but we can generally assume the will negotiate hard to keep all the gains in the east. They will also try to keep as much of France and Belgium as possible, and the UK will negotiate hard against them. They will also want colonies back, and it is possible if they trade things in Europe for some of the colonies. I can't see reparations from the UK, but Germany will loot France. Italy might lose some land in the NE. Look up what Austria lost in the previous century and give it to them, or parts of it. The cease fire line being the new border is quite possible in NE Italy. Ottomans want their lands back, but unless Germany will trade things in France, this will be hard. Look for losses in Arabia and Southern Iraq with gains in North Persia and on the Russian border.

I have the initial demands in a CP win in my TL. You will have different demands since there will be no Republic of Greater South Africa and you don't have 24 German divisions in Africa. But you can see some of where I think it would go in Europe. You can also post questions in the TL if TL specific. I am taking a break on it, but I do check new posts.