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

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

And how long will it be before the French government loses patience with Petain?

With no Americans coming, what does his strategy offer them? Little more than holding the existing front line until a peace is negotiated - a peace which, given that France has no bargaining chips except Kamerun and a sliver of Upper Alsace, is bound to be a win for the Germans.

Will the government acquiesce in this, or will they, at some point, do what Jefferson Davis did in 1864, and replace Petain with some French equivalent of John B Hood? If the latter, France could be headed for a second (and probably worse) "Nivelle Mutiny".

Mikestone8

Other people are saying that the French won't launch further attacks without a clear sight of victory. Given the reaction after the Nivelle offensive I think they will stay largely on the defensive.

However the thing is, if the Germans are insisting on the terms that General Mosh is suggesting then the French can't really make peace while they can still fight and Britain won't.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by wiking

I don't know why you're not understanding that the Entente would starve to death in 1917 if not for US loans. France badly needed food and imports. The 25% number only refers to BRITAIN. Without France Britain is nothing in the war and has to retreat to her island. By 1918 without the US the war would have been OVER.

wiking

Because I see no evidence for it! I see a serious crisis that means they have to stop importing, or greatly reduce imports from the US. This will hit the military production as assets are switched to necessary imports. However the munitions production is still very large.

What I fail to see is how Germany is able to keep magically producing men, resources, weapons and willpower and keep on making attacks regardless of loss whereas the allies, with a larger and richer population, access to vast imperial resources and not as crippled by military occupation burdens find themselves forced into basically unconditional surrender when they continue to defeat their opponents! The allies lose their ability to trade with some extra-European sources but that is something Germany has lacked for 4 years. This levels the playing field a bit but doesn't automatically mean defeat as you are insisting. If someone can give any reason why I'm wrong on the above I would be interested to know why. However just saying that the allies lose most of their trade with the US does not mean they lose their own considerable resources.

Steve

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by miketr

On comments up thread of UK and France facing starvation without US loans. I really don't see that. Both nations are still generating foreign exchange. Said cash would be assigned to get key imports such as food. I don't see it as reasonable that all imports just stop. What you would get is a BIG reduction in imports, more pain on home front and general production slow downs.

Michael

As to foreign currency from trade surplus, the only items that stood out during WW1 was tea, cocao, and gold mines. Each of these can be run with resources not used in the war. Rubber looked to be in short supply as would all food items with calories. At least the tea would cause a interesting morale and PR issue. When there is no tea in England, everyone understands you are losing.

Did you have some other items in mind?

I looked at how the UK/France could get more significantly resources every way I could think of for my TL, but each came with a cost that would make negotiation with the CP look attractive.

1) India can be a vast pool of enthusiastic men and to lesser extent material, for the mere cost of Dominionship.

2) There are lots of things the USA would love to have in the Western hemisphere for loans. There are obvious things such as annexing Bermuda, and there are less obvious things such as selling all the Railroads in Canada to the USA, a 99 year lease on the Salmon harvest, 99 lease on cod fishing rights. But again, Canada would insist on negotiations with the UK. The Canadian railroads were worth well over a billion USD alone.

3) The Louvre is worth a fortune. Ship to expanded US embassy in Spain (a warehouse), ship to USA after war.

4) Other items like this, but when I looked up non-critical war materials that could be exported, the dollar total was not that large compared to the needs. JP Morgan was advancing 75 million per week to the UK. Exporting the entire tea harvest might be a few weeks of war purchases in the USA, and that is assuming that the USA wanted to drink a lot more tea. The items capable of supporting the war for a few more months are literally selling parts of the empire, the crown jewels, or other high profile items of great value. For example, at the right discount, I am sure JP Morgan would love to have the gold and diamond mines of South Africa. But even with handwavium that SA would agree, it would make more rational sense to sell out France's industrial region to Germany or the Balkans to A-H.

So based on my analysis, it looks like the best realistic case scenario is the UK is able to pay for a few % of the needed USA imports. So for some small item of huge value (some steel additive for example), yes the UK could import. But not the massive amounts of food, ammo, and equipment needed.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by stevep

Miker has said it was 25%, I'm not aware of any others that have posted figures on the total - but then getting late and a long discussion so might have missed. That 25% sounds large but willing to accept for the moment.

Since JP Morgan was their bank in the USA, we know the figure. It is 75 million USD per week. If you add up UK war spending claims plus what the claim to be unpaid loans it is about 57,000 million USD for the war or about 250 million per week.

Or put another way, the amount of unsecured credit advance to the UK after the USA entered the war exceeds the value of all land, building, mines, and railroads in Canada. Or another way, since the USA offered 300 million for Cuba, the USA would need another Cuba value area for each month of support.

Its called diminishing returns. I'm using guestimations I admit but given the vast amounts used it would have applied. Also as I say the allies might render the issue fairly pointless, at least for shells, by ditching the pro-longer barrage, rather than the shorter, intense ones, which were actually a lot more effective.

You are adding a second POD to counter act. It just as easily could be a German who learn this earlier.

The Ottomans I can see but not aware at this point of anywhere we were facing the Austrians in the Balkans? Again this might mis-fire for the Ottomans as Envha Pasha is still in charge so he could well do something stupid. More to the point neither the Bulgarians or the Ottomans by this point are in no condition to threaten anything vital to the allies. Such a move would give the allies additional forces at the vital front.

Again, you are adding additional POD unrelated to the original POD.

I repeat, its not my idea. Other people suggested it. However its one possibility. I still find you're suggestions of hugely reduced casualties for the Germans very odd. Also I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the highlighted section above. Furthermore I'm a bit surprised that you think the Germans were so inefficient in the conflict, since you're assuming that the French 1917 offensives cost the Germans 200k more casualties than the French?

If you cancel major battles, casualties go down for both sides. No, you misunderstand where the fewer casualties come from. If you fire 25% less ammo, you kill roughly 25% fewer people, so the Germans take a lot fewer dead and crippled. Since the Germans fire the same number of rounds, there is no corresponding benefit for the French.

What would happen would be the French would be put on ammunition rationing. So for example in one the frequent artillery duels, instead of both sides firing 10,000 rounds, the Germans fire 10,000 and the French fire 7500 rounds. French losses will be about OTL, Germans will lose fewer men.

What I did suggest was that there are a number of things the allies could do, including changing some operations activities, which could greatly boost their relative manpower.

Why did they not do these easy improvements IOTL? What were these improvements?

I don't follow the 1st part? Are you referring to buying additional munitions from the dominions?

I will try to explain with a personal analogy. The UK went to total warfare and largely stopped exporting. It was living off savings. So this is similar to a highly paid lawyer being losing his job. In both scenarios, you start with a fixed amount of money. The more the doctor spends, the faster he depletes his savings and goes bankrupt. Bankruptcy for the UK is the inability to import from outside of the empire.

So lets take some round numbers of the right order of magnitude for the UK. The UK starts with 10,000 million USD of assets in the USA and imports 100 million per week. After 100 week, the UK has to stop importing. Now if the UK imports 110 million per week, it has to stop importing in the 91st week.

On the 2nd the assigning of additional boats came as a result of the decision to go to USW OTL so it would not necessarily occur without that. Either way it is drastically reduced once Britain accepts the change to convoying, which I think occurred as early as ~Jan 1918 for the coal shipments to France.

No, the number of boats varied even while following cruiser rules.

A lot will depend on how things change but against the exhausted and over-extended German positions and with the allied material superiority, which will be less but still large, they will counter-attack and drive the Germans back. Not as far or fast as OTL but it will happen.

By the Germans having a full army in reserve are you saying they had one OTL or saying this will come from the drastic reductions in artillery efficiency you assume?

No, without the USA troops in the field, the major offensive will not be launched and the Germans will never be exhausted.

I am saying that IOTL, Ludendorff ran out of reserves in late 1918, and this is why he made peace. In the ATL we are discussing, he will always have at least a full army in reserve, so he will not make peace, he will just keep reinforcing the areas attacked. And the Allies will be the one with almost no reserves. Everything changes if the German Army remains stronger than the Entente army in France in 1918.

They will have a new class of recruits, as will the allies. Given the steady collapse of the German economy under the blockade will they be able to equip them as well as the new allied recruits will be? Given the failure of the 1918 offensives for Germany how motivated with they be?

Better than the French, which is what counts. Also, the Armies on occupation duty will not need as many artillery brigades, machine guns or ammunition as armies in combat, so this frees up a huge amount of material. As does the largely inactive A-H army.

At the worst by this time you might see some sort of negotiated peace that sees Germany possibly keep much of its eastern gains, although that will mean all its neighbours will be armed camps against another attack while it bleeds further in the east. Expect either a collapse or a new conflict inside 5 years probably.

Yes, the peace is negotiated but on terms very favorable to Germany. Germany keeps the Eastern gains and the UK gets the option of choosing if Germany keeps the industrial region of France or gains a larger colonial empire. Russia will still collapse into civil war in most ATL, even though a faster loss like Wiking supports will mean Russia has a good chance of avoiding a major civil war.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Clandango

Maybe they could try to pawn off their islands and other territories?

Sure. And I wanted to use this in my ATL, but I found no indication this was ever seriously consider or for that matter was ever consider by anyone. And due to the size of the loans needed, we are talking about a Cuba value area every month or a Canada each year. I can imagine the USA wanting purchasing everything west of Ontario, I just can't imagine it being offered. The USA would have loved to own Hong Kong and Singapore, but again, I can't imagine them being sold. I have found all kinds of bizarre ideas considered by the UK such as an invasion of the German Coast in the Baltic. I have never found discussion of selling off any of the prime parts of the British Empire.

[Clandango]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Sure. And I wanted to use this in my ATL, but I found no indication this was ever seriously consider or for that matter was ever consider by anyone. And due to the size of the loans needed, we are talking about a Cuba value area every month or a Canada each year. I can imagine the USA wanting purchasing everything west of Ontario, I just can't imagine it being offered. The USA would have loved to own Hong Kong and Singapore, but again, I can't imagine them being sold. I have found all kinds of bizarre ideas considered by the UK such as an invasion of the German Coast in the Baltic. I have never found discussion of selling off any of the prime parts of the British Empire.

I somehow doubt that the United States would actually want to annex any of it. There might be various small things to put in though. Combining American and German Samoa. Giving Sabah to the Phillippines at indepence as the Americans originally got the land before the British and Fillippinos had some claims to th land. Support for that treaty port in China that Japan blocked. Sierra Leone to Liberia as with parts of the Ivory Coast. Rights to the mouth the Congo. Mostly commercial things. Nothing as major as purchasing every island of British Columbia. The French might be more likely to actually sell. I chose the word pawn as it meant that the lands would be collateral, not outright sales. Mostly too expensive for Washington to administer anyways.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by wiking

Money to be gained by trade. The US economy is going to be hurt by the reduction of trade with the Entente, trade with Germany and AH is going to cushion the fall. Besides, what can Britain really do, start a shooting war with the US?

Does the US government consider the long term rather than just the short term, and weigh up which side would be better "neighbours" (and probably better trading partners) if they won with US support, or worse ones if they won despite the US trading with their enemies? If so, then do you really think that they'd choose the Central Powers over Britain and France? Seriously?!?

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

Does the US government consider the long term rather than just the short term, and weigh up which side would be better "neighbours" (and probably better trading partners) if they won with US support, or worse ones if they won despite the US trading with their enemies? If so, then do you really think that they'd choose the Central Powers over Britain and France? Seriously?!?

Wilson was furious with Britain over their refusal to offer terms in late 1916 when he tried to broker a deal. The Germans offered a starting point, but the Entente refused to participate totally, leaving the Germans to seem more reasonable than the Entente:
Devlin "Too Proud to Fight".

Britain and France were already beholden to US interests, because they pretty much mortgaged their treasuries for US loans. Germany had no such relationship with the US and would have been locked into the US post war paradigm if they too could mortgage themselves to US banks (of course the Germans were financing the war mainly through internal debt and had a fair amount of foreign exchange left to trade with the US).

But mostly Wilson wanted to end the war before Europe went communist. There would be no more effective way of scaring the Entente to the peace table after the Russian revolution of February 1917 than to threaten to break the blockade, the one last weapon the Entente had over the Central Powers.

After Russia drops out of the war, which will be earlier here because of the lack of US loans keeping them in the war, German and Austria can hit Italy earlier and harder in 1917. That would be enought to knock them out of the war. Couple the US non-participation, with early Russian and Italian exits from the war and the French and British are outnumbered by the Central Powers.

Sure the colonies had lots of people, but the British weren't willing to use colonials in a 'white man's war' and were furious at France for using African soldiers in Europe. The Brits tried to use Indians, but they were badly slaughtered and froze in the winter. Plus there was an ongoing revolt in India during WW1.

The French colonials, mainly Africans, did very poorly in the Winter and the French didn't want to destabilize their colonies too much by drawing too hard on local manpower and touching off a rebellion, which they couldn't afford. Remember too that there was a war still ongoing in Africa that lasted longer than the war in Europe. The Entente had something like 1 million people chasing Lettow-Vorbeck around. Also the was vast destruction and disruption in Africa because of the war, killing about 3 million Central Africans.
Plus Africa wasn't as populous at this time as it later was, so if the French wanted to gain anything from the colonies or have enough manpower to hold them down and prevent rebellions, they couldn't pull out too many white or black soldiers. And North Africa was never too far from a revolt against France.

[Shadow Master]

Originally Posted by Shadow Master

Can you give us a definitive time for this ATL Mexican-American war? For instance, does it start and end prior to late 1915? 1916? Or perhaps the beginning of 1917?

My suggestion on this later.

Originally Posted by Shadow Master

When does the USA go 'True Neutral' in your ATL? Right from the start, meaning no trade with the allies right off? Or does the USA start off as OTL and then switch at a later time. Basically, what if the USA said, in effect, it's trade with all of you, or trade with none of you? Would this bring the allies to the peace table in 1915-1916?

So less stuff for the Allies and more for Germany.

Originally Posted by General Mosh

Here's the armistice

(#1) Brest-Livotsk legitimized.
(#2) British pay 500 million pounds each to the Ottomans and Germans. Germans keep all African colonies. Germans get Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast.
(#3) French pay 250 billion francs (10 billion pounds). French recognize Alsace-Lorraine as legal German territory. Germans get small African colonies (not sure which ones yet).
(#4) German troops leave Belgium in return for Belgium Congo.
(#5) Italy gives some islands in the Adriatic to Austria-Hungary, and a small amount of reparations.
(#6) Ottomans get Suez.
(#7) Japan gets some German Pacific holdings, up to Rabaul.

Am I missing anyone?

While I see what you are doing, I have to say that this type of peace is only going to be possible with a total combat victory on the part of the axis. The UK is not going to be defeated without an invasion of their home islands, so give up on those parts of your treaty. To lessen the sting for the French, see below.

#1 An absolute must, and just who (with an intact army) is going to be able to say no to this at this point?
#2 Forget the alarmist colonies (they are just a drain on the empire) and forget reparations from the UK. Crippled economy doesn't mean territorial or monetary consessions.
#3 Again, if you want a peace treaty that can allow saving face, France too looses nothing, and should be allowed to keep the (usless) German colonies for brag rights. See, we really won the war, as we took part of the German empire and they failed to take anything from us.
#4 Let them keep their colonies. For now...
#5 No way short of Axis landings in the UK.
#6 Not a problem.

For my own part:
#7 Allies have to turn a blind eye to axis punishment of Italy's betrayal, IE, Italy is going to be hardest hit of all, for without her turning traitor and backstabbing the CP, the war would have been far less bloody and prolonged. So the CP get to keep beating Italy up and the rest of Europe has to agree to sit back and not interfere.

That being said, Germany and A-H are going to make some harsh terms for their erstwhile Italian allies. My thoughts would be annexation of all of northern Italy by A-H, which pretty much puts paid to Italian industrial and agricultural production. Just my thoughts, as the terms you posted will never be agree to by an undefeated UK, and my revised terms are hard to argue with in the face of public opinion.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by Shadow Master

#1 An absolute must, and just who (with an intact army) is going to be able to say no to this at this point?

Exactly

#2 Forget the alarmist colonies (they are just a drain on the empire) and forget reparations from the UK. Crippled economy doesn't mean territorial or monetary consessions.

Well, I think the British should give up something. Wait, wasn't there some sort of limit on the German navy the British had? If there is, then the British should just discard that limit. Perhaps I'll change those demands to opening demands, and only give the Germans some concessions on other things. Do you think it would be realistic for the British to give the Germans a couple dreadnoughts and cruisers rather than monetary gains? I don't think the British people want to lose another million men and starve for a couple ships they've never seen.

#3 Again, if you want a peace treaty that can allow saving face, France too looses nothing, and should be allowed to keep the (usless) German colonies for brag rights. See, we really won the war, as we took part of the German empire and they failed to take anything from us.

Well the Germans have Paris surrounded and under siege, so the French have to give up some things. The Germans have to keep their colonies, and the French should give up some money, but perhaps not as much as I was suggesting

#5 No way short of Axis landings in the UK.

Already discarded this one.
For my own part:

#7 Allies have to turn a blind eye to axis punishment of Italy's betrayal, IE, Italy is going to be hardest hit of all, for without her turning traitor and backstabbing the CP, the war would have been far less bloody and prolonged. So the CP get to keep beating Italy up and the rest of Europe has to agree to sit back and not interfere.

Of course, I should have payed more attention to this. Perhaps this kind of victory over the Italians, coupled with Brest-Livotsk, and less Austrian casualties, could be enough to keep the Austria-Hungarian empire together? It would be interesting to see what happens between them and the Ottomans in say, 1940 or so

[Shadow Master]

I have to say, you have posited a VERY interesting can of worms here my friend. Very interesting indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ar...estlitovsk.jpg

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...ad.php?t=25160

The top link is to a Wiki page on the map for B-L.
The second link is to a thread right here on AHDB from back in 2005.

I have things to do right at the moment, but will definately be back later for more.

*SUBSCRIBED*

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire

This third link shows most of the German colonies at the outbreak of WWI. It should be noted that dispite their size, none of them EVER broke even for the German empire's investments. In other words, loosing her colonies is a net GAIN for the post war German empire economically.

[General Mosh]

When I start this timeline, I'm hoping not to be too much of a noob. It won't be great, probably not even good, but my goal is to make it not bad. Also, I've recognized I have the problem I'm a little too biased towards Germany and the Central Powers, which I should probably quit

Perhaps I'll start thinking about ways the Germans are going to either improve their colonies, sell them, or do something to get out of the money sink they're becoming. I doubt independence for colonies is in the cards just yet, so I think they'd focus on trying to improve just one of them.

[Scottyp]

Earlier in the post, everyone seemed to assume that England was untouchable because of the strength of the Royal Navy. If the scenario was no US and the French getting knocked out of the war, I presume the French Navy would be included. IIRC, the French were heavily involved in the blockade. Was the RN that strong in comparison to the Kreigsmarine? Jutland, which included the French, seemed a tactical win for the allies at best. If one can't assume England was untouchable, that would certainly give reason for her to bargain and be willing to give up some colonies to secure peace.

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Scottyp

Earlier in the post, everyone seemed to assume that England was untouchable because of the strength of the Royal Navy. If the scenario was no US and the French getting knocked out of the war, I presume the French Navy would be included. IIRC, the French were heavily involved in the blockade. Was the RN that strong in comparison to the Kreigsmarine? Jutland, which included the French, seemed a tactical win for the allies at best. If one can't assume England was untouchable, that would certainly give reason for her to bargain and be willing to give up some colonies to secure peace.

The UK maintained an impenetrable blockade for virtually the duration of the war; Jutland represented the failure of Germany to end that situation.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by Scottyp

Earlier in the post, everyone seemed to assume that England was untouchable because of the strength of the Royal Navy. If the scenario was no US and the French getting knocked out of the war, I presume the French Navy would be included. IIRC, the French were heavily involved in the blockade. Was the RN that strong in comparison to the Kreigsmarine? Jutland, which included the French, seemed a tactical win for the allies at best. If one can't assume England was untouchable, that would certainly give reason for her to bargain and be willing to give up some colonies to secure peace.

She was pretty untouchable, because of time. The Germans were running out of time. The Germans could have easily starved out England if their people were happy and well fed, and if their allies weren't collapsing. Pretty much, Germany had to get a peace treaty before it all fell apart at the seams. Also, a German invasion of England (if it ever got to that point) would require a lot of experienced manpower and even more materiel that I'm pretty sure the Germans didn't have.

[bguy]

Originally Posted by Shadow Master

That being said, Germany and A-H are going to make some harsh terms for their erstwhile Italian allies. My thoughts would be annexation of all of northern Italy by A-H, which pretty much puts paid to Italian industrial and agricultural production. Just my thoughts, as the terms you posted will never be agree to by an undefeated UK, and my revised terms are hard to argue with in the face of public opinion.

Why would A-H want to annex northern Italy? Adding millions of restive Italians to their population would only further destabilize the Empire. I could see harsh reparations and military limitations being imposed on Italy, but large scale annexations of Italian land are unlikely.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by bguy

Why would A-H want to annex northern Italy? Adding millions of restive Italians to their population would only further destabilize the Empire. I could see harsh reparations and military limitations being imposed on Italy, but large scale annexations of Italian land are unlikely.

Because A-H was initially planning on fully annexing Congress Poland during the war, and their leadership is batshit insane.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

The UK maintained an impenetrable blockade for virtually the duration of the war; Jutland represented the failure of Germany to end that situation.

NO. There were many blockade runners and trade through the Netherlands until 1917 when the US entered the war and sealed the gaps.
Not only that, but the most of the British blockade had to do with buying up the excess production of the US so it wouldn't flow to Germany and setting a list of approved firms to trade with and having a black list of firms that couldn't trade with the Entente if they traded with Germany. Once the money runs out half of the blockade suddenly disappears.

[wiking]

Originally Posted by trollhole

Because A-H was initially planning on fully annexing Congress Poland during the war, and their leadership is batshit insane.

No, they weren't planning on this. Franz Josef hated the idea. They were planning on installing a nephew of the Emperor who had daughters married into the Polish nobility.
Kaiser Karl jumped into the mess and thought about taking the crown himself after the death of his uncle and Karl's rise to the throne of Austria-Hungary, but could get no one to support his claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduk...hen_of_Austria

Candidate for Polish crown

On 5 November 1916 the German Emperor William II and the Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria issued the 'Act of 5 November' creating the Kingdom of Poland as an independent State with a hereditary monarchy. Charles Stephen was considered as a candidate to be regent and eventually king.[4]
At the time Charles Stephen was living at the Castle of Saysbusch (Żywiec), in Galicia. His chances were enhanced by the fact that he spoke fluent Polish. Two of his daughters were married to Polish princes belonging to the noble houses of Radziwill and Czartoryski. However as Charles Stephen was a member of the Imperial House of Austria he needed permission to become king from the head of the family, Emperor Charles I, who hesitated, having himself planned to assume the Polish crown. Moreover, the Radziwill and Czartoryski families urged the cause of Russia (as their ancestors had in the 18th century). Adding to the political muddle was the support of Ukrainian nationalism by Charles Stephen's son, Archduke Wilhelm.

[Badshah]

Originally Posted by wiking

No, they weren't planning on this. They were planning on installing a nephew of the Emperor who had daughters married into the Polish nobility.
Kaiser Karl jumped into the mess and thought about taking the crown himself after the death of his uncle and Karl's rise to the throne of Austria-Hungary, but could get no one to support his claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduk...hen_of_Austria

Before that...in 1914, Austria-Hungary was planning on legitimately annexing Congress Poland....Charles Stephen was after.