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

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by stevep

The fall of France would weaken the blockade but pressure from a distracted US, busy with its own quagmire, is unlikely to. Also this presumes that Germany has funds to buy items, much of which will still get intercepted. [The real solution to Germany's food problem is to restore some of the resources the military sucked out of agriculture but that's nit going to happen and would take some time].

Why would it not happen? Germany is no longer fighting on land, bar a couple of very minor fronts in Mesopotamia and Palestine, so nine-tenths of her army is now on garrison duty, and needs far less resources than it did. Agreed it will take time to arrange, but in 1917 she has time.

a) How quickly would Britain introduce convoying? If it comes earlier it would save a substantial amount of resources. Possibly they could delay it even later, which would be very bad, but it seems unlikely.

If the PoD is America not entering the war, there is no real scope for bringing it in earlier. OTL it was introduced in May, only weeks after America's entry. Also, a large number of American destroyers, sloops and other small ships were employed for escort duty, and TTL these won't be available. Iirc, Lord Jellicoe said later that without the US convoy could not have been introduced "when it was" though afaik he didn't give an opinion on exactly when it could have been. Probably reckon on several months delay.

Britain could make up some of the shortfall by pulling out the destroyers of the Mediterranean Squadron, but of course that means abandoning the Med, and with it probably the Palestine Front, so that all merchant shipping from east of Suez will have to go round the Cape of Good Hope, greatly lengthening the voyages.

[Richter von Manthofen]

After Brest Litovsk and the Romanian Peace in early march the CP could transfer troops to other fronts (As OTL). So they achieved numerical soperiority on the Western front.

IOTL the Spring offensive was quite sucessful, but stalled in summer. If you assume it stalls ONLY because of US troops, you can assume it lasts a few weeks longer with gains over OTL gains.

If the 4th attack (Moyon Montdidier) reaches for example to or near Chantilly, then Paris is threatened.

If Germany offers a reasonable peace at this time negotiations might start.

German offer could look like this:

All Entente must recognise peace in the East.
Luxembourg becomes German
Belgium demilitarized
Give back German colonies and concessions (but see below)
moderate reparations (except below)
(PR gag - "Shared responsibility for war because of failing diplomatic ties")

France
acknowledge Alsace Lorraine is German
cede Djibouti
Morocco is joint German/French protectorate - independence in 10 years - Tanger leased for 99 years to Germany/Casablanca for 99 years to France)

UK
(if Germany transfers more troops to Turkey to "threaten UK" interest)
Pre war Borders in Egypt and Iraq
Compensate Turkey for seized ships
Force dominions to retreat from German colonies
Cede Zanzibar

Japan
Give back seized Colonies - Germany offers them for sale
Restore German concessions in China

Italy
Dodecanes/Libya to Turkey
Demilitarized zone against Austria
Acknowledge pre War Borders to Austria as natural borders, no further claims
No Italian warships larger than 1.500 ts allowed in Adriatic

Balkans - de facto Borders after First Balcan Wars except between Bulgaria and Turkey and Albania in Borders after 2nd Balcan War.
Austria leases Vlore for 99 years.

Portugal
Ajuda, Sao Tome and Cabinda to Germany

Serbia
Extradite all persons that are connected to FF assassination
Heavy reparation for AH
Limited military

[Clandango]

Would that be their opening offer?

[Paul MacQ]

I see many comments regards post war Diplomacy. But getting back to if the US stayed out of the War. To quote what seems to be a reasonably research article.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_part_...in_World_War_1

By 1st April 1917 Britain had an overdraft in the United States of $358 million and was spending $75 million a week. The American entry to the war saved the Entente - and possibly some American speculators - from bankruptcy." Stephenson doesn't go quite so far, saying that - "By the time the United states entered the war in April 1917 London had enough gold and securities remaining to finance just three more weeks of purchases and only advances from Morgans enabled the Treasury to meet its obligations in the United States. Although the British could still have covered their dollar requirements without American intervention they would have had enormous difficulty in continuing to bankroll their allies." Quite why the difference between Page and Stephenson I don't know. Possibly Page just didn't distinguish as much as Stephenson between Britain's own needs and her need to support her allies, considering the one just as essential as the other. But that's only a guess.

It was often forgotten how much finance plays in war. Germany and AH finances also had problems but all the money being spent was internal.

Britain could rely on it's Empire to stay afloat internally for some time, But it ability to asset especially France's War industry would have been dramatic.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Paul MacQ

I was often forgotten how much finance plays in war. Germany and AH finances also had problems but all the money being spent was internal.

In war and in any peace terms offered; Germany had to win big or face bankruptcy, the enormous number of war bonds sold to finance the war had to be covered, even if they didn’t pay a significant dividend, otherwise the investments of everyone who’d bought them, including the German banks, would be wiped out. So unfortunately a ‘reasonable’ peace offer, wasn’t really an option. It was a Brest-Litovsk level of demands, or ruin.

[Paul MacQ]

Originally Posted by Cook

In war and in any peace terms offered; Germany had to win big or face bankruptcy, the enormous number of war bonds sold to finance the war had to be covered, even if they didn’t pay a significant dividend, otherwise the investments of everyone who’d bought them, including the German banks, would be wiped out. So unfortunately a ‘reasonable’ peace offer, wasn’t really an option. It was a Brest-Litovsk level of demands, or ruin.

That is very true But it is still internal Debt not debt owed to other countries. I am not saying Germany was not going to have big problems. Just the Entente was in far worse shape than even poor state of German Debt.

[Simreeve]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Yes, mostly for pride reasons. When fully costed, all the colonies of all powers lost money outside of areas like gold mines.

In 1939 -- I think that was the year -- Malaya was said to be more profitable to the Treasury than all of the UK's other colonies & protectorates put together: Tin, rubber, quinine, and peaceful enough that only a minimal garrison was needed...

[Clandango]

Couldn't the Entente simply refuse to pay reperatations or get loans from the United States and default like the Germans did?

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by Clandango

Couldn't the Entente simply refuse to pay reperatations or get loans from the United States and default like the Germans did?

The continental allies can't - and would such loans be on offer? Britain had already used up most of it's availoable collateral.

[General Mosh]

Originally Posted by Cook

In war and in any peace terms offered; Germany had to win big or face bankruptcy, the enormous number of war bonds sold to finance the war had to be covered, even if they didn’t pay a significant dividend, otherwise the investments of everyone who’d bought them, including the German banks, would be wiped out. So unfortunately a ‘reasonable’ peace offer, wasn’t really an option. It was a Brest-Litovsk level of demands, or ruin.

Well here's the thing. In TTL the US is suddenly gonna be a huge trading partner of Germany. So the Germans will likely stay afloat.

Originally Posted by Clandango

Couldn't the Entente simply refuse to pay reperatations or get loans from the United States and default like the Germans did?

Of course. France is never going to have enough money to pay. The reparations are more a matter of pride than actually expecting to get all that money

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Cook

In war and in any peace terms offered; Germany had to win big or face bankruptcy, the enormous number of war bonds sold to finance the war had to be covered, even if they didn’t pay a significant dividend, otherwise the investments of everyone who’d bought them, including the German banks, would be wiped out. So unfortunately a ‘reasonable’ peace offer, wasn’t really an option. It was a Brest-Litovsk level of demands, or ruin.

It would not be that bad, but it would be bad. The USA was unable to pay 4 billion USD (16 billion marks) of bonds in the early 1930's, so FDR was force to default (revalue currency versus gold/seize gold). Domestically debt just got paper. Germany will also have economic issue, but no where near as bad as OTL or what you are saying. More like the USA in OTL and possibly less severe than OTL in the UK.

From my ATL research, it looks like the UK expanded the money supply (debt) by 3:1, sold off all its USA assets of all UK citizens and Greatly depleted it gold reserves. Germany is closer to a 2:1 change (up to to 4:1 looking at some information), has its USA assets, and has it gold. It is bad for Germany, but not end of world. For an example of how this could work out ok with no future wars, it is not that far from the USA after ACW. Worse, but not that far.

It is basically the same dilemma that Churchill face after the war. He could try to go back on the gold standard and force a 2/3 collapse of money supply or he could admit to the UK public that the war had permanently lowered their wealth by 2/3. Or some combination such as FDR and the Republican Presidents tried. Where we paid some of the debt and default on a big portion.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Simreeve

In 1939 -- I think that was the year -- Malaya was said to be more profitable to the Treasury than all of the UK's other colonies & protectorates put together: Tin, rubber, quinine, and peaceful enough that only a minimal garrison was needed...

I did my research on the 1900-1914 period, so I can't directly comment on your number outside of one question.

If we add in the cost of the other far east colonies including the FULL cost of the army, navy, and bases to support them; is it still profitable? For each case in Africa and India I looked at, the pre-full costing accounting profit turned into a loss even with very minor allocations of the military budget. And in each case, I found a welfare system where the UK taxpayer subsidized rich/connected business men via the RN.

Now it is possible that tin and rubber are a rich enough combination to make it profitable for this one colony. Also, do you have an amount for this profit? XXX British pounds.

Now you statement does reflect the widely held belief at the time the colonies made money, and would drive peoples actions.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Cook

In war and in any peace terms offered; Germany had to win big or face bankruptcy, the enormous number of war bonds sold to finance the war had to be covered, even if they didn’t pay a significant dividend, otherwise the investments of everyone who’d bought them, including the German banks, would be wiped out. So unfortunately a ‘reasonable’ peace offer, wasn’t really an option. It was a Brest-Litovsk level of demands, or ruin.

Most of the debt as I recall was in the hands of the middle class, it was 5 year notes offering 3 - 5% returns. Because of the war effects the Mark had through inflation falling to 1/3 of its pre-war value, maybe 1/4. Much depends on date.

Germany can handle its internal loans, just as everyone else did. Yes its better to get someone else to pay the bill.

Michael

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Clandango

Couldn't the Entente simply refuse to pay reperatations or get loans from the United States and default like the Germans did?

By 1917 UK was at its limit, US banks refused to do more loans unless US treasury agreed to back the loans. If US Treasury fails to act then JP Morgan and the other big banks holding British and French loans go down in flames. This might or might create a general bank panic in US. It should certainly cause bad things. Which is sorta silly as the loans till then were mostly secured loans but it was a combination of a perception issue and cash on hand. Morgan needed Treasury backing to cover the perception issue.

US banks would be gun shy for a few years after this point.

If US doesn't enter and refuses to back more Loans then there is a sudden stop to the production and material curve. Last year of the war saw huge increase in material delivered. Without loans at least half, perhaps closer to all of US material is lost. I would have to check if it was cash up front orders or on delivery; if the later than contracts would be a few months out so once US loans stop the UK would keep getting material for a few more months but no new orders.

UK / French production would odds are hold at current levels as they should be able to come up with enough cash to handle imports of any needed raw materials but production increase stops. UK and France start to face inflation effects. Pound starts a spiral vs. Dollar as US treasury was supporting pound and that goes away here. This drives up costs of imports and bites into production even more. Like Germany though production would continue just at increased social and economic cost is all.

What this means for 1918 and beyond?

Germany was all time champs at bad diplomacy. Odds are they over demand. Highly unlikely they make a reasonable peace offer.

Most likely outcome is peace of exhaustion in 1919. Still possible for German collapse and French collapse is also possible.

Michael

[Mikestone8]

Originally Posted by miketr

UK / French production would odds are hold at current levels as they should be able to come up with enough cash to handle imports of any needed raw materials

British production maybe but French?

That certainly wasn't the case OTL. According to Broadberry [1] French GDP went from 95.6% of its prewar level in 1916 to only 81% in 1917 and 63.9% in 1918, a decline paralleling Russia's but running a year behind [2]. OTL this didn't matter too much due to American support, either direct or via Britain, but take that away and France is in trouble.

Most likely outcome is peace of exhaustion in 1919. Still possible for German collapse and French collapse is also possible.

Why 1919?

If, despite the above, France is still fighting in 1918, Germany is likely to launch some kind of offensive. If this succeeds, Germany wins in 1918, if it fails, she loses in 1918. I suppose some butterfly could extend the war a few weeks into 1919, but I don't really see anything that would prolong it by a year.


[1] The Financing of the First World War http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ec...erview2005.pdf
scroll down to Table 4.

[2] Figures for Russia are 1915 95.5%, 1916 79.8%, 1917 67.7%. In the same period British GDP actually increased, though whether it would have still done so absent US loans is another question.

[miketr]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

British production maybe but French?

That certainly wasn't the case OTL. According to Broadberry [1] French GDP went from 95.6% of its prewar level in 1916 to only 81% in 1917 and 63.9% in 1918, a decline paralleling Russia's but running a year behind [2]. OTL this didn't matter too much due to American support, either direct or via Britain, but take that away and France is in trouble.

GDP is only part of the story. The over all economy goes down more, as I pointed out with talk of inflation pressure, etc. What happens is the French and British have to squeeze the economy harder to get same production out of it. That is what I mean by hold on the production curve, France and UK don't get the 1918 production increase or as much of it.


France
Product, 1917 -> 1918
Shells (100K's) 90,350 -> 92,500
Rifles (thousands) 900 -> 1,056
MG 88,842 ->144,780
Artillery 7,000 -> 7,908
Aircraft 14,915 -> 24,652

I wouldn't expect a decrease over 1917 production levels or even a total freeze but some % of 1918 production increase is lost and combined with lost US production isn't to be a good thing for France and UK.


One way or another France and UK will pay their internal bills; odds are with an inflation problem like Germany had as a result.

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

Why 1919?

If, despite the above, France is still fighting in 1918, Germany is likely to launch some kind of offensive. If this succeeds, Germany wins in 1918, if it fails, she loses in 1918. I suppose some butterfly could extend the war a few weeks into 1919, but I don't really see anything that would prolong it by a year.

Offensive is most likely but not absolute given. Also without pressure of US its doubtful that Germany presses the offensives as hard as historic. Without US material and some amount of 1918 Production increase lost its open question if UK and France can break the Germans in a counter offensive. WW1 was very much a war of material.

What I expect to happen is Germans attack someplace. Most likely France, but Italy is dark horse possibility. If in France and UK / France fail to collapse, defense is a force magnifier after all and they might have enough to hold. The Germans then stop. Allies counter attack, does German will collapse with their offensive a 'failure'? Open question people can argue either way. Winter of 1918-19 is going to suck for everyone. Its going to be cold winter for everyone with social and political unrest everywhere. Things would be ripe for a peace of some type then.


Michael

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Germany will be getting its food easily from the Ukraine by 1919.

This seems unlikely; grain production in occupied Romania between 1916 and 1918 slumped to a quarter of its prewar level; why would it do better in the Ukraine? (Ferguson, the Pity of War, p. 251).

And of course German wheat production fell by half during the war as well. (Id. 252.)

In 1918, German troops in the Ukraine ate the entire surplus, because it was so difficult to get peasants to give their food at gunpoint.

(Hitler learned from the Kaiserreich, and just starved the cities).

Originally Posted by Paul MacQ

It was often forgotten how much finance plays in war. Germany and AH finances also had problems but all the money being spent was internal.

Ooh. Ferguson has a good point about this: by the beginning of 1916, J.P. Morgan was so committed to Britain that a crises was unthinkable, since it would threaten Wall Street as well. So I don't see why mere continued neutrality would end the aid; Britain ended the war a net creditor, after all.

Most likely outcome is peace of exhaustion in 1919. Still possible for German collapse and French collapse is also possible.

On the other hand, by 1918 the Allies have shown that they know how to blow through German lines with tanks; the CP is collapsing, Austria-Hungary is collapsing; and the Spanish flu is about to hit a German populace which is going hungry.

Grimdark, 1920!

[TyranicusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This seems unlikely; grain production in occupied Romania between 1916 and 1918 slumped to a quarter of its prewar level; why would it do better in the Ukraine? (Ferguson, the Pity of War, p. 251).

And of course German wheat production fell by half during the war as well. (Id. 252.)

In 1918, German troops in the Ukraine ate the entire surplus, because it was so difficult to get peasants to give their food at gunpoint.

(Hitler learned from the Kaiserreich, and just starved the cities).

Thanks for backing me up. I remember seeing something similar in a post you made in a WW1 thread I was looking at in search.

[Clandango]

How far into Rhodesia would Lettow get without the war suddenly stopping?

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

This seems unlikely; grain production in occupied Romania between 1916 and 1918 slumped to a quarter of its prewar level; why would it do better in the Ukraine? (Ferguson, the Pity of War, p. 251).

Romania declined largely between the dates due to men and draft animals being used in the war. As the men and horse return to the farms in 1919 for the full growing season, yields will increase substantially. I also expect the efficiency of the German extraction methods to grow more effective and the Germans to use more harsh measures if needed.

And of course German wheat production fell by half during the war as well. (Id. 252.)

In 1918, German troops in the Ukraine ate the entire surplus, because it was so difficult to get peasants to give their food at gunpoint.

(Hitler learned from the Kaiserreich, and just starved the cities).

A starvation diet is around 1500 calories. The prewar diet was around 2800 to 4500 calories, so you numbers are about correct. If we look at over 70% being grown in Germany, we are looking at a 1000 to 1500 calories from domestic sources. This will increase slightly once we factored in the war dead. There is also food imported from occupied territories, and food eaten by soldiers in the territories. The numbers I see show around 2000 to 2300 in 1916 which was the official ration. This was supplied fairly close in 1916 but started to decline, and based on some of the reports from cities looks like 1500-1700 by late 1918. All these numbers fit together reasonably well.

So we are looking at trying to find an additional 200-350 calories per day per German to stave off collapse. We are not talking about Germans who are not hungry, or even keeping the birth rate up. We are looking at keeping enough food in their stomachs to avoid a St. Petersburg like event. We are talking about less than 10-15 pounds of food per German per month or 400,000 tons or so per month. And this food does not have to make it all the way to Germany, it can be accomplished by moving Germans to the food. The example you list of the Germans soldiers eating the all the food of the Ukraine did help Germany, it is just not the best use. A few well feed armies in the east does not help as much as evenly spreading the food around through a good rationing system.

Also, many A-H troops were under TOE and up to 55 years old. IF A_H can make it through the winter, A-H food production will also jump substantially. There is not enough space for the Armies in the east on the Italian front, and the TOE way to light for most units to be effective in France. It is not pretty, the CP can still collapse internally in 1919, but they might even last into 1920.

On the other hand, by 1918 the Allies have shown that they know how to blow through German lines with tanks; the CP is collapsing, Austria-Hungary is collapsing; and the Spanish flu is about to hit a German populace which is going hungry.

Tanks did help, but it was as much the lack of reserves that hurt the Germans. Remove the 1,000,000 USA troops from France, and you basically cancel the 100 days offensive. Add in less supplies, and it is stalemate with some small fraction of OTL gains.