I think before the Balkans become that, the question is how Russia acts in these new circumstances. Afaik they held on as long as OTL, because they hoped that they get a good deal with the entry of the USA. Here that will be much different. My prediction is that they seek peace faster and the CP are able to pull back earlier. Saving them all the OTL hassle from later on.It really depends on what financial institutions in the USA do. If they are still unwilling to back unsecured loans to Britain and France then its only a matter of months before both are unable to continue prosecuting the war. The Central Powers still face the same growing issue, the Balkans. The Macedonian front was not going to get any better unless significant resources were devoted there and if the Entente breaks through there Germany will still face the fears of an Austrian collapse.
If they can forestall a collapse there I tend to feel Germany could have held on long enough to force the West to come to the table. I disagree however with the "Peace without victory" since any ending of the war following Russia's collapse will be a German Victory even if nothing changes in the west.
I think before the Balkans become that, the question is how Russia acts in these new circumstances. Afaik they held on as long as OTL, because they hoped that they get a good deal with the entry of the USA. Here that will be much different. My prediction is that they seek peace faster and the CP are able to pull back earlier. Saving them all the OTL hassle from later on.
Another point for the CP is that the USA is very unlikely to strangle them circumventing the Blockade by Neutrals. Maybe in this case, the Entente running out and Germany still sitting on colateral entices the USA to demand free trade with Neutrals... that is then transshiped to Germany.
So we could find that the CP has some reserves to spare for the Balkan and also Italy. Could we see another domino falling with Italy as the Entente is strugeling to find new money and resources to sustain their economy and reshuffles their whole transportation arangement in the Atlantic as the USA drasticaly cut back.
Possible, but remember that the arrea was mostly in the Baltics and Poland. So Russia would loose nothing from its "core". Also important to remember, in the first round of talks in Brest-Litowsk, the Russians were treated as a fully empowered side. So they were able to talk and influence the proceedings. (Something the "look at Breast-Litowsk" faction seems to forget sometimes...)Once Hindenburg and Ludendorf are in charge there wont be peace until Russia hands over Ober Ost.
OTL Russia was so reluctant for talks and in them, because first the USA entered and promised massive material and monetary gains. And second the Bolsheviks were a very driving force in how the first part of the talks was handled. So I think we have a good chance to see talks begin before the OTL date and be handled not withg the "World Reovlution" in mind.Russia is still going to be as reluctant as OTL, however the Communists may be willing to accept the original offer this time.
It really depends on what financial institutions in the USA do. If they are still unwilling to back unsecured loans to Britain and France then its only a matter of months before both are unable to continue prosecuting the war. The Central Powers still face the same growing issue, ...
Maybe you could point out some of these adverse effects for the CP? Because as I see it, without antagonising the USA they will be much less willing to strangle German trade through neutral countries and as such Germany overall should be able to better (at least against OTL) weather 1917 and comming.nobody in this thread seems to have even vaguely considered that there might be some adverse effects for the Central Powers.
snip
Maybe you could point out some of these adverse effects for the CP?
I agree with you on the malnutrition point, but if it didn't bring Germany to its knees in OTL, it won't ITTL.
The first point is right to a degree, as you yourself acknowlege. And I think the loans will dry up to a big degree as the Entente is unable to secure them. And as all other loans until now were secure, the "fear" of the Entente loosing is Imo often overblown. At least if the bankers valued the securities in a real way. Otherwise all is open, but would the USA at this time hurry to secure them?The British and the French can import food, ammunition, explosives unhindered, while the German and the Austro-Hungarian civilians keep eating turnips and wild fruits. I think I already mentioned this, and von Holtzendorff seems to have noticed it.
Of course, as mentioned, that depends on the US continuing to provide iffy loans. That's not a given at all, but it's not to be ruled out either.
For me, there is a multitude of possible explanations as to why not to restart USW. Maybe Falkenhayn on his way out could still influence the Kaiser / Governement to not do it. Maybe a bureaucrate has compelling arguments because he tracked the volume of trade the Entenete did and calculated the monetary burden it would place on them. Could also happen in the USA directly by diplomatic staff. Or maybe Hindenburg and Ludendorff affront the Kaiser somehow and he sells them short on their ideas.Save that in OTL it did. Well, not directly to its knees in the spring of 1917 (though certainly so by the fall of 1918), but it brought it to consider a desperate measure. Again, why do you think the Germans decided they had to resume with unrestricted submarine warfare? For a thread that hypothesizes "let's not do A", I find very little thought seems to be spent on "why did we decide to do A in the first place, again?"
Again, why do you think the Germans decided they had to resume with unrestricted submarine warfare?
Maybe you could point out some of these adverse effects for the CP? Because as I see it, without antagonising the USA they will be much less willing to strangle German trade through neutral countries and as such Germany overall should be able to better (at least against OTL) weather 1917 and comming.
On the other hand, as opposit to the CP self reliance forced by the Blockade, the Entente was running out of colateral for loans and buying. So they also will face a worsening of their supply situation.
And as such I think the Germans could have relatively the same impact with a "sharpend" U-Boot use that is not in the face of the neutrals. Because the British will have to prioritise what they do for a chance in this war. Alos add to that that the Russians are Imo more likely to tap out without the USA in, that would free up a large amount of manpower to feed into the various other needs of the CP.
Save that in OTL it did. Well, not directly to its knees in the spring of 1917 (though certainly so by the fall of 1918), but it brought it to consider a desperate measure. Again, why do you think the Germans decided they had to resume with unrestricted submarine warfare? For a thread that hypothesizes "let's not do A", I find very little thought seems to be spent on "why did we decide to do A in the first place, again?"
Realistically this probably means changing the broader context of the war such that 1916 is wholly different- say Italian neutrality or the British blockade being weaker somehow due to naval differences.
Simplest way might be if President Wilson (or a President Marshall or President-elect Hughes) makes a speech declaring that he killing by U-boats of Americans travelling on unarmed ships will lead to war - a broad hint that armed ships are fair game. Germany could then have declared USW against armed ships only. Since by this date most British merchantmen were either armed or in process of being, this would in practice differ little from full-blown USW as far as they were concerned - and the US would have swallowed it. Indeed, President Wilson had tacitly already done so, taking no action over the sinking of the armed merchantmen Marina and Arabia. But he never made the change explicit as it represented a backtracking from his earlier notes.
The problem with this is it forces a submarine to get close enough to tell if a ship is unarmed - which will cause losses from British Q-ships.
Can be sure. But I think there was enough discussion in OTL about the resumption of USW that it could have happend either way with little groundwork. As said, maybe keep Falkenhayn in a little longer while also getting some economic prognosis in from what the Entente is doing. I do not think that that would break the course of OTL until then and is also a little nudge as to way USW is not done. Another point, I do not think that the economic data has to be accurate either, simply show a trend and approximation cost, colateral and usage that points to somewhere in 1917 reaching the bottom.The problem is more that USW happened as a consequence of the starvation. Something needs to change in the context of the war and/or the broad er context of the German political scene for USW not to be resumed (something else that needs to be noted- Hermwny had done USW once before, it was not done a second time on a whim, the turnip winter already being mentioned).
Realistically this probably means changing the broader context of the war such that 1916 is wholly different- say Italian neutrality or the British blockade being weaker somehow due to naval differences.
I don't think Wilson would go for that, the others maybe. On the other hand, what will happen when the Germans "wise up" and show pictures of British vessels flying the Stars and Stripes? Because if the British are caught red handed, Germany could realisticaly try to shift some blame to them. Would Imo also further the rising USA annoyance with the blockade of neutrals that was going on.Simplest way might be if President Wilson (or a President Marshall or President-elect Hughes) makes a speech declaring that he killing by U-boats of Americans travelling on unarmed ships will lead to war - a broad hint that armed ships are fair game. Germany could then have declared USW against armed ships only. Since by this date most British merchantmen were either armed or in process of being, this would in practice differ little from full-blown USW as far as they were concerned - and the US would have swallowed it. Indeed, President Wilson had tacitly already done so, taking no action over the sinking of the armed merchantmen Marina and Arabia. But he never made the change explicit as it represented a backtracking from his earlier notes.