Versailles with no US

So if the US never enters WW1, but stays strictly neutral, what would happen at Versailles, Trianon, Neuilly, St Germain etc etc (or the ATL equivalents)? Presume the Allies win in spring 1919, with the Germans suing for peace as Belgium is fully liberated and the Rhine is reached.

Main points for consideration-

Germany - does she lose more territory? Is she dismembered? Are reparations harsher?

Austria-Hungary - Is she dismembered as in OTL? What different combinations of states might occur?

Ottoman Empire - Presumably the Entente powers still grab the ME, although perhaps without a LoN Mandate as excuse. Do the Ottomans still fall? Does the state retain more territory or lose more territory? Do the Greeks still launch their bid for Supergreece? And do the Entente support them more than in OTL?

Bulgaria - more territory lost?

Russia - still collapses in revolution and civil war, but what else? Do the Bolsheviks still manage to take control? Do they still beat the Whites?


Factors to consider - in many of these cases, there is no significant change - much will be slightly different simply because of the force of chance. The main things different are that the US is uninvolved. Attempts are made here and there to mediate by the US president (possibly Hughes?) but for the most part they are cold-shouldered by the Entente. There is no public support for active US intervention or involvement in foreign affairs (except in C/S America, of course). Japan is a closer ally, operating alongside Britain, and possibly contributing troops/ships to the fighting in late war, or at least to the Russian Civil War. Beyond that, not much is different.

Bear in mind that the idea of self-determination and the nation-state is given less support in this TL, except at a local level in places like Bohemia.

Ironically, without the US Supporting them, the Allies might have to make an "easy peace" that reflects that Germany has a pretty good potential to continue the fight. The Allies might eat crow on it, but think about it, the Germans have KOed Russia and stand some chance of doing it to Italy as well (They nearly did to Italy).

People like Clemenceau are hardly the people to undertake this kind of mission, and the Allies aren't going to get away with much of the crap they pulled in OTL. I would suspect that the treaty probably liberates Belgium, Luxembourg, and returns Alsace Lorraine to France. That's it--Germany keeps its spoils in Russia in exchange for conceding its gains on the western front.

Austria Hungary's domination of Serbia is approved, but the Allies are able to convince AH to accept this without yielding Italian territory (which could very easily have happened). Demands against the Dual Monarchy, where again they appear to be in a position of strength, have to reflect strength of arms that the Allies don't have.

The Ottomans get a piece of the Russian Caucasus, however they also lose control of Southern Arabia. They are probably the only member of the Central Powers to get a treaty that doesn't favor them.

Without the US, Versailles is negotiated, not forced. And the Central Powers, although asking for terms, can reject them. The outcome of the war is complex, but it also is less draconian than OTL and reflects a heavy dose of military analysis--that the Allies can't "Force their will" on a battered Germany. Indeed, the Central Powers probably decide to negotiate as a Bloc so that they can get as advantageous a peace deal as possible.

Or is this a German Surrender?

EDIT: This post no longer represents my views, read below. It is left for posterity.

I do not see how the Entente would win without American intervention. The militarily inferior British and French consistently had higher casualty rates than the Germans. Yes, America entered very late in the war, and did not fight as much, but US involvement tipped the balance. I am not saying that the Central Powers necessarily would have won, surely not decisively, in 1919, but absent US involvement, a stalemate would have likely resulted before then.

As for US neutrality do you mean genuine neutrality or non-involvement, or are you referring to no declaration of war or American troops but involvement in less direct ways. There is evidence that even before entry in 1917, the Americans lengthened the Great War by supplying the British and French with weapons and munitions and thus strengthening the Entente war effort. Also, this could have an impact on the Bolshevik Revolution. IOTL Woodrow Wilson bribed Kerensky's provisional government to continue fighting despite opposition from the Russian peasantry. Without funds, Kerensky would have been forced to sue for peace ASAP and the Germans would have no need to smuggle Lenin into Russia. The provisional government could then consolidate its power and defend the homeland against (leaderless) Bolsheviks.

Blue Max said:

Or is this a German Surrender?

Click to expand...

Calgacus said:

Presume the Allies win in spring 1919, with the Germans suing for peace as Belgium is fully liberated and the Rhine is reached.

Click to expand...

The Germans aren't surrendering exactly, but suing for peace with their backs to the wall. Revolution is breaking out in parts of Germany, the Poles and Ukrainians are setting up their own states, and the German army is falling to pieces. The Entente have got what they need, and stop at the Rhine. By the time the war comes to a close, no significant German military opposition exists, and thus the Entente have pretty much a free hand.

TemporalRenegade said:

I do not see how the Entente would win without American intervention.

Click to expand...

There are many, many threads on this, old boy. This ain't one.

TemporalRenegade said:

I do not see how the Entente would win without American intervention. The militarily inferior British and French consistently had higher casualty rates than the Germans. Yes, America entered very late in the war, and did not fight as much, but US involvement tipped the balance. I am not saying that the Central Powers necessarily would have won, surely not decisively, in 1919, but absent US involvement, a stalemate would have likely resulted before then.

Click to expand...

The German army was disintegrating. As I mentioned somewhere before, the Germans had morale problems during the Michel offensive when the overran British positions and discovered the Brits had real bread.

As for US neutrality do you mean genuine neutrality or non-involvement, or are you referring to no declaration of war or American troops but involvement in less direct ways. There is evidence that even before entry in 1917, the Americans lengthened the Great War by supplying the British and French with weapons and munitions and thus strengthening the Entente war effort.

Click to expand...

The war would have gone on even without American arms. The Brits and French both had native arms industries that were, at least, sufficient for their needs.

Also, this could have an impact on the Bolshevik Revolution. IOTL Woodrow Wilson bribed Kerensky's provisional government to continue fighting despite opposition from the Russian peasantry.

Click to expand...

The what?

Without funds, Kerensky would have been forced to sue for peace ASAP and the Germans would have no need to smuggle Lenin into Russia. The provisional government could then consolidate its power and defend the homeland against (leaderless) Bolsheviks.

Click to expand...

Kerensky was a nationalist who promised the allies he'd keep fighting. Wether or not the Russian Army was in any state to do anything at that point doesn't change the fact that he didn't want to give up.

TemporalRenegade said:

I do not see how the Entente would win without American intervention. The militarily inferior British and French consistently had higher casualty rates than the Germans. Yes, America entered very late in the war, and did not fight as much, but US involvement tipped the balance. I am not saying that the Central Powers necessarily would have won, surely not decisively, in 1919, but absent US involvement, a stalemate would have likely resulted before then.

Click to expand...

The blockade causes shortages and near-starvation in Germany. Morale collapses. The Entent do not need an absolute breakthrough - the Germans will simply collapse on their own. Anyway, that's not important - assume the Entente wins, for the purposes of the basic question.

TemporalRenegade said:

As for US neutrality do you mean genuine neutrality or non-involvement, or are you referring to no declaration of war or American troops but involvement in less direct ways. There is evidence that even before entry in 1917, the Americans lengthened the Great War by supplying the British and French with weapons and munitions and thus strengthening the Entente war effort.

Click to expand...

Genuine neutrality. US public opinion is solidly against involvement, and is much more anti-British than OTL (due to an "incident"), so no government action.

TemporalRenegade said:

Also, this could have an impact on the Bolshevik Revolution. IOTL Woodrow Wilson bribed Kerensky's provisional government to continue fighting despite opposition from the Russian peasantry. Without funds, Kerensky would have been forced to sue for peace ASAP and the Germans would have no need to smuggle Lenin into Russia. The provisional government could then consolidate its power and defend the homeland against (leaderless) Bolsheviks.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea. That might offer a possibility for a Republican Russia with no Red Terror and no Civil War....

There should be interesting repercussions in post-war Germany, with an emphatically defeated army damaging the prestige of all those chaps who complained IOTL about being stabbed in the back. Over in Vladivostok, the IJA did deploy c.70k men in conjunction with 5k Americans and a few other national contingents. The Yanks kept the railway running, so ITTL it might break down if nobody else picks up the slack, rendering the conquest of the "Yakutia" region a bit of a bugger.

I don't see Italy doing as badly, nor A-H as well as Blue Max does. IOTL the Italians managed a successful push once they knew the war was coming to a close. ITTL they have more time to accomplish the same thing. Basically, since the scenario posits military disintegration on the part of the Germans and their allies, I disagree with the suggestion that Germany can effectively reject clauses of TTL's peace treaties. I further strongly suspect the Ottomans are every bit as buggered* as IOTL, though we need AHP to give the definitive word on that.

EDIT: * In practical terms, that is. I dunno whether Ataturk would still pop up. Butterflies could kill him, anyway.

Hmmm.

Having not understood that Germany is really desperate and that Italy would make a hard push to increase their bargaining power ITL, I think my post not longer stands. Small differences, but important ones...

Short answer is that Versaillies is going to suck for the Central Powers.

Blue Max said:

Hmmm.

Having not understood that Germany is really desperate and that Italy would make a hard push to increase their bargaining power ITL, I think my post not longer stands. Small differences, but important ones...

Short answer is that Versaillies is going to suck for the Central Powers.

Click to expand...

You may still be able to edit it.

Calgacus said:

The blockade causes shortages and near-starvation in Germany. Morale collapses. The Entent do not need an absolute breakthrough - the Germans will simply collapse on their own. Anyway, that's not important - assume the Entente wins, for the purposes of the basic question.

Genuine neutrality. US public opinion is solidly against involvement, and is much more anti-British than OTL (due to an "incident"), so no government action.

Click to expand...

Define win... The problem is its not as cut and dry as you lay out. US entry drove German actions just as it drove Britsh / French actions. Do the Germans attack spring 1918 and if so is it in France? Italy was the weaker target.

If the US is a true neutral in the sense that Sec of State William Jennings Bryan wanted subtract 20% of war material from the allies and a great deal of loan money. This will have nasty effects for France and the UK in the winter of 1916. I am not saying defeat for the allies but it would be interesting in the Chinese sense of the phrase.

Also as to German collapse keep in mind that Germany was kept under strict blockade till after the peace was signed. I agree that Germany had massive moral and food problems; the history on the subject is most clear. France and Italy had problems of their own and AH was in very poor shape.

Only the UK would I suspect wasn't in danger of political collapse if the war was projected into 1919 or even 1920. All of the other nations had some problems of one degree or another.

None of the nations (political leadership) were interested in anything other than total victory in a crushing sense after the war enters 1915. If any other result were to occur it would have happened at anyone of several times during the war. It was all or nothing, victory or death. If the allies win with a clear battlefield advantage they will push it.

A peace of mutual exhaustion is possible but that’s not victory and no one is going to like it.

Michael

Well, without the 1918 offensives to take the wind out of the German army (which they won't run here, as it was done to win the war before the Americans could influence events in Europe), things could be negotiated from an equal stance. The allies recognize that they are now outnumbered on the West front and that the Germans have knocked out their largest ally and have noone to replace her. If the Germans offer terms before the revolts break out wholesale, then maybe we are looking at something sustainable in the peace department.

The CPs are still in the fight as of march. That is, all of them. Although setbacks have been experienced the collapse does not occur until later. Russia is gone, Italy nearly just collapsed, and the German army is now focused on France and Britain alone. Things are not looking good and before the major revolts on the homefront, germany looks unbeatable.

In an enviornment such as this, what would the allies do if given a chance to end the war?

Italy is in no position to claim anything, so no worries about that. The ottomans are definitely going to lose lots of land to the Brits. Germany though is still undefeated in the West, so losing AL is going to be difficult to sell at home. The French are weakened by the constant blood-letting and the mutinies. The Brits are still recovering from Paschendale. So, aside from losing her colonies and probably evacuating Belgium, how are the allies going to make Germany give them anything else? An offensive against a German army not strung out and weakened by 5 offensives is an entirely different animal to defeat than OTL german army in the 100 days.

I understand that France needs AL to demonstrate something for her sacrifices, but Germany views it just as much as hers. Without being forced off of it, it is unlikely to leave German control, much like luxembourg. Britain should be able to accept a peace at this point, as an offensive to get what France wants would likely be too bloody, but at the same time it would be a German win to accept the peace like this.

Germany:
Brest-Litovsk, AL, Luxembourg

Austria-Hungary:
Serbia as vassal, weakened Romania, rebuffed Italy; but likely collapsing under the strain of war

France:
nothing, maybe some german colonies

Britain: german colonies

Russia:
civil war

Chalk that one up to a German win. The key is whether or not the Brits have faith in continuing the conflict to wait out the blockade on the Germans. The Germans will lauch an assualt to force a peace, but it will be different than the one in OTL, as it was a hasty last throw of the dice to beat out the US. Perhaps we have a more cautious series of battles that strive to take out the allied armies, rather than an all out rumble?

miketr said:

None of the nations (political leadership) were interested in anything other than total victory in a crushing sense after the war enters 1915. If any other result were to occur it would have happened at anyone of several times during the war. It was all or nothing, victory or death. If the allies win with a clear battlefield advantage they will push it.

A peace of mutual exhaustion is possible but that’s not victory and no one is going to like it.

Click to expand...

If the French and Italians simply stop attacking and wait, the mutiny problems will ebb away, and not too long into 1919 the German economy will implode. When supplies stop reaching the front the French can advance at will.

I'd predict a French border on the Rhine, at least.

Holy crap. Why are you people incapable of taking a POD and working with it? I'm not asking for a discussion of whether the Entente could or could not have won without American help. I'm asking for what would have happened, assuming they had....

Calgacus said:

Holy crap. Why are you people incapable of taking a POD and working with it? I'm not asking for a discussion of whether the Entente could or could not have won without American help. I'm asking for what would have happened, assuming they had....

Click to expand...

I recommend acquiring a few people to tie them up in debate so that you can concentrate on the actual scenario.

Alratan said:

If the French and Italians simply stop attacking and wait, the mutiny problems will ebb away, and not too long into 1919 the German economy will implode. When supplies stop reaching the front the French can advance at will.

I'd predict a French border on the Rhine, at least.

Click to expand...

Italy's problems were not attacking. The key for Germany is the state of the railnet; the winter of 1917-18 was very bad. Also the Germans had started to take steps to correct it.

The best move for the CP was an offensive vs. Italy, good chance that Italy folds. The Italian army was still recovering from the Battle of Caporetto and the Hapsburg army hasn't been wasted in uncoordinated and ill planned attacks. The CP then stand in place and work to get the Ukraine actually producing food. Huge amounts of food rotted / were wasted in the Ukraine because of spoilage and general disorder winter 1917-18.

This stance would have allowed putting some more people into the factories and farms; perhaps enough to fix the rolling stock and railnet problms. AH I don't know... If they have an active front in 1919, that would be a problem they were shattered.

Calgacus said:

Holy crap. Why are you people incapable of taking a POD and working with it? I'm not asking for a discussion of whether the Entente could or could not have won without American help. I'm asking for what would have happened, assuming they had....

Click to expand...

Because what happens depends TOTALY on the how.

Michael

miketr said:

Italy's problems were not attacking. The key for Germany is the state of the railnet; the winter of 1917-18 was very bad. Also the Germans had started to take steps to correct it.

The best move for the CP was an offensive vs. Italy, good chance that Italy folds. The Italian army was still recovering from the Battle of Caporetto and the Hapsburg army hasn't been wasted in uncoordinated and ill planned attacks. The CP then stand in place and work to get the Ukraine actually producing food. Huge amounts of food rotted / were wasted in the Ukraine because of spoilage and general disorder winter 1917-18.

This stance would have allowed putting some more people into the factories and farms; perhaps enough to fix the rolling stock and railnet problms. AH I don't know... If they have an active front in 1919, that would be a problem they were shattered.



Because what happens depends TOTALY on the how.

Michael

Click to expand...

I told you how. Now if you have anything constructive to contribute, please feel free to do so. If not, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't drag the thread off-topic.

MrP said:

I recommend acquiring a few people to tie them up in debate so that you can concentrate on the actual scenario.

Click to expand...

Man, now I remember why I started avoiding the AH sections of the forum.

@Addressing the Military Situation: I think that Germany would have to make excellent use of conquered Ukraine to handle the food situation. That's quite possible, but we are assuming that it doesn't happen.

Indeed, I think the OP is assuming that through poor strategy and perhaps a harder fought war all-around, the CPs are still KOed even without the USA involved.

I think an all-out carveup is in the works. We are talking a French Rhineland here, as well as a French Baden-Wuttemburg. The Saar, AL, and Possibly the Rhineland and BW are all incorporated into France. Kiel is given to Denmark, and not only is there a Poland, it's given a huge piece of German Territory in the East, including East Prussia and perhaps Oppeln as well. Germany's government is dissolved, a "Allied Government in Force" is established to siphon the countries resources to the Allies.

France creates a vassal Bavarian state and merrily creates a Czech State, a Slovakian State, and destroys the Dual Monarchy. Italy gets huge gains at the expense of Austria Hungary, occupying the entire Tirol region and much of the Alps, plus its claims on Dalmatia.

Serbia and Montenegro survive, while Bulgaria is annexed by Greece, Serbia, and Romania.

The repercussions are that there would be no reason for the Allies not to smash Germany so badly that she would never stand again. The Allied Government of Germany would essentially serve as a puppet government for the Allies, and it would be bitterly resented by the Germans, many of whom are still going hungry at this point.

Finally, Greece is given the Western coast of Anatolia.

This is a world that's going to explode in 20 years. That's for sure...

Well, it seems like the essential scenario is this: the US doesn't enter WWI, Germany is in a relatively strong position, but wants out and the western allies are tiring of the fight. From the previous discussion, this seems eminently plausible.

The first key difference is that the allies are negotiating with Imperial Germany, but I don't think that will matter too terribly much to a peace conference. It does have huge effects on the outcome of the Peace.

Next, Germany demands a seat at the negotiating table. They may go as far as to propose that the Austrians and the Ottomans should be represented as well. The compromise may be that Germany will represent the Central Powers but the UK and France will jointly represent the Allies/Entente. I suppose the Austrians could be their too, but my presumption is that their views wouldn't be too different from the Germans anyway. So if they're present, things do turn out too differently.

The Germans' primary concern is to keep their gains from the Russian treaty (which I presume happens as OTL) without losing too much to the Allies. Their main bargaining chips are Ottoman lands and their own colonies. They easily assent to evacuate Belgium and Luxembourg. In my view, Britain has the fewest true demands (they don't much care for reparations and even colonies are only really drops in the bucket). Their favorite concesion are probably those colonies seized by the Dominions, Arabia, and Mesopotamia (in that order).

The big problem is between France's demand for Alsace-Lorraine and reparations and Germany's insistence on neither. One solution is that plebiscites are held in Alsace-Lorraine in exchange for no reparations; I doubt the Germans are very happy about the idea of allowing pesky things like plebiscites. Another is that Germany prefers to pay France off with colonies that might otherwise go to Britain (essentially Iraq). I think this is probably a decent outcome, since Britain is easily going to be the good-cop of the Allies and it presents the widest diplomatic opening to Germany (to sow discord amongst its enemies). Another wildcard may be for the allies to assent to the new Eastern states, but not to the imposition of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchies; if Germany is smart, this will make a good bone to throw their way.

Essential result is a German victory becuase of the preservation of its form of government and of its sphere of influence. The Ottomans are likely to be very pissed, but the Austrians are mildy okay with things, but nobody really got what they wanted.

I'm uncertain as to the outcome here because both sides can still decide to simply sit on their hands. Another scenario I find appealing is that the debate about which powers to include in the negotiations almost falls apart, which leads all parties to concede the need for a third-party negotiator...which is fairly obviously going to be the USA. However, I think it might not have been the President of the US: I'm rather fond of the idea that both sides think that calling on the Nobel Laureate, Theodore Roosevelt is the best way to settle things, but I may be enthralled by the notion. I think you'd probably still get something like outcome described above, but you need somebody to point out to the everyone that they all gain something very, very obvious: Peace.

The actual results of the war will then consist in the political reactions. Things get interesting when considering the political results in Germany and in Eastern Europe. If the Allies do get involved against the Reds in Russia, I have to imagine the Kaiser would be pretty keen to get in on stomping the communists. This probably means that no one intervenes (except maybe the Japanese in Siberia, with tacit consent from many).

Germany is probably going to have to deal with somekind of desire for genuine popular, civilian rule. Things are likely to be split between militarists trying to decide which is better, planning to attack France or Russia, while the civilian government deals with popular unrest. Given Kaiser Wilhelm's personality, things are likely to get worse before they get better. I'd expect political tension and possible reform, though, not outright revolution: there'll still be the need to resist Russia if nothing else.

Meanwhile Austria-Hungary is going to be seething with tension. Here civil war may become more likely, but I never discount the possibility of brute force repression (or reform). The fate of Austria is probably going to determine the course of European foreign policy for the next decade or so.