What if the US never joined World War 1?

[History Learner]

Read what I posted, you claims haven't changed, and I'm not rehashing anything (and no I don't know your right even if you clearly think you are right)

The claims haven't changed because the evidence is all the more compelling with new evidence. As I said, your rehashing of the "Communist Britain" argument shows you're more than willing to do so in general, but are not conspicuously in this case for reasons that are blatantly obvious. Case in point:

So it still a curious bit of reality that doesn't match esp with the narrative being presented here by some. That Germany was holding out fine but the entente were on the verge of collapse from any point in 1917 onwards.

If you wish to be steadfast in your beliefs, that is fine, but you're continued engagement with others in this thread while conversely ignoring the overwhelming evidence presented is not. It's just not in good faith.

No I was using it as an example of an established pattern it's an example that you never let reality get in the way of a good assertion that Britain was doomed if anything changes from OTL. (Also whataboutism is when you compare two different groups behaviour)

In other words, whataboutism. And no, that's not how it works:

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

 

[BooNZ]

Unless I've read the situation wrong the Entente powers still have funds at the bottom of the barrel to scrape while negotiations tick over into 1918. Until an actual, Capital 'P' Peace Treaty is signed everyone is still at war so yes, the blockade remains in place (as it did OTL until the Treaty of Versailles was signed).

The British can probably survive until 1918, but from April 1917 the British are going to struggle to afford the services Russians, Italians and Frenchmen, or for that matter continue to enhance the existing blockade through buying up neutral trade.

I founded my assumptions on the idea that without American support, regardless of actual economics or resources, both sides will feel equally vulnerable and at-risk if the war continues, encouraging the negotiations before something breaks like both sides fear it will. That equality in perceived vulnerability is what I based the ideal of both sides being willing to accept an equally and mutually unsatisfying peace on.

OTL the CP continued to fight 18 months after the US became an active belligerent - in this scenario the CP powers will instead be witnessing at that point in time, the wheels coming off the Entente war wagon.

 

[BooNZ]

Because honestly a lot of this was covered in the last thread!

After all this handwaving and talk of "the last thread", I trawled through about a third of the disaster-piece and was thoroughly unimpressed. If there are any zingers in that mess you are proud of or found particularly compelling, FFS please restate them on this thread. I only joined that thread late and did not have an opportunity to address some of the nonsense before the thread was closed.

 

[TDM]

After all this handwaving and talk of "the last thread", I trawled through about a third of the disaster-piece and was thoroughly unimpressed. If there are any zingers in that mess you are proud of or found particularly compelling, FFS please restate them on this thread. I only joined that thread late and did not have an opportunity to address some of the nonsense before the thread was closed.

So you want me to go back and sift though all that to restate what already been said to the same points that have been slightly reformulated here?
But on top of this you've already pretty much indicated you are unlikely to find it compelling, (despite also not having actually read all of it).

Yeah l'm good thanks


also a couple of post ago you seemed to imply that you had found my specific posts in that thread that referenced Horn? If so I suggest you start there.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Honestly I think a moratorium on variations of this topic might be a good idea. Nothing new or useful will come from this discussion.

Also it's the same people saying slight variations on old arguments. This isn't productive.

 

[TDM]

Ok, so here we have to clarify the situation. As I see it, if you accept that Britain was totally and hopelessly broke by 1915, or 1917 by the latest, then there are two possible outcomes:
1. The Entente submit to a negotiated settlement with the US as a mediator as Wilson was aiming for. In this situation, reparations, if they come, are not going to be in the amounts that Germany is looking for. Germany has not won in this scenario. Not the way it was banking on.

2. The Entente continues the War and collapses economically allowing Germany to win. In this scenario Germany will face the same problem that the Entente faced in OTL. Their opponents will not have the money to pay them reparations. They can take it in material but they will face the same problems that came from France taking German Coal and occupying the Ruhr in OTL.

Germany's entire financial strategy hinged on getting reparations from their enemies. If they cannot get that, with inflation already very much a problem, they are in serious trouble. And they are going to have limited options.

This is all true, but it still puts Germany in an easier economic position that it found itself in after teh war!

 

[BooNZ]

So you want me to go back and sifts though all that to restate what already been said to the same point that have been slightly reformulated here? But on top of this you've already pretty mush indicated you are unlikely to find it compelling, (despite also not having actually read all of it).

Yeah l'm good thanks

also a couple of post ago you seemed to imply that you had found my specific posts in that thread that referenced Horn? If so I suggest you start there.

That's the thing, the most compelling reference you have provided (i.e. Horn) does not support your position. If you could provide some material that actually supports your entrenched position, that would be swell.

Honestly I think a moratorium on variations of this topic might be a good idea. Nothing new or useful will come from this discussion.

I don't recall this subject being particularly onerous historically, but having just revisited the last thread I can certainly empathise. I can remember when I was fearful to post on the boards without a couple of reliable references at hand - and Wiki did not count. Folks are certainly more empowered to participate in recent times...

 

[TDM]

.....

You are overlooking the fact Britain was not fighting Germany single handed. Imperial Russia was on the brink of collapse and both France and Italy were in an even worse financial position than Britain. Britain itself was facing an economic crisis and was certainly not in a position to carry an even greater share of the Entente financial burden. With the benefit of hindsight we know the CP powers continued to fight until late 1918, despite the tightening of the blockade and the massive opposing material and financial contributions of the US following its entry into the war.

No I'm well aware that Britain was toa large extent financially carrying the rest of the entente (and it's not like Germany wasn't carrying AH)

EDIT: in fact I'm pretty sure I made reference to this already in this thread?

By the end of 1916 it was readily apparent Britain had already lost its prewar financial position to the USA and was in jeopardy of being on the losing side of the war. In contrast, the Germans were about to knock the Russians out of the war and continued to fight for another 18 months.

Britain didn't lose it's dominant position in global finance until after the war (although the war certainly accelerated what was IMO an inevitable swap over). As I said earlier this was one irony here for the British because one of the side effects of trying to tie the US financially to the entente and the war meant that when the entente won that in turn boosted US in terms of becoming the global financial powerhouse! This kind of goes to my point about the British trying to have it's cake and eat it too, having to make compromises on that as the war went on.

Also you want to talk about comparative economic positions, the UK economy managed to grow during WW1 even with all the constraints, war activity and importing from the US, the German economy however shrank by 27%. And once again actual food riots in Germany from 1915 onwards,

Also how does it look like Britain is in jeopardy of losing the war in late 1916? The end of 1916 is the end of Verdun offensive a German failure.

Falkenhayn had underestimated the French, for whom victory at all costs was the only way to justify the sacrifices already made; the French army never came close to collapse and triggering a premature British relief offensive. The ability of the German army to inflict disproportionate losses had also been overestimated, in part because the 5th Army commanders had tried to capture Verdun and attacked regardless of loss. Even when reconciled to the attrition strategy, they continued with Vernichtungsstrategie (strategy of annihilation) and the tactics of Bewegungskrieg (manoeuvre warfare). Failure to reach the Meuse Heights left the 5th Army in poor tactical positions and reduced to inflicting casualties by infantry attacks and counter-attacks. The length of the offensive made Verdun a matter of prestige for the Germans as it was for the French and Falkenhayn became dependent on a British relief offensive being destroyed to end the stalemate. When it came, the collapse in Russia and the power of the Anglo-French attack on the Somme reduced the German armies to holding their positions as best they could.[101] On 29 August, Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who ended the German offensive at Verdun on 2 September.[102][g]

Also in late 1916 the German were not "about to knock the Russians out of the war" that didn't happen until late 1917 with the armistice in Dec 1917 and treaty in march 18

what was happening in the eastern front in 1916? The Brusilov offensive, (the CP turn it around in 1917 though!)

Earlier on you have the battle of Jutland that was certainly a German win /British loss in terms of men and ships lost (and embarrassing day for the RN), but the German strategic goals were not achieved and they remained bottled up in the Baltic and the blockade continued.

 

[Paragon]

Also you want to talk about comparative economic positions, the UK economy managed to grow during WW1 even with all the constraints, war activity and importing from the US, the German economy however shrank by 27%. And once again actual food riots in Germany from 1915 onwards,

An economy which is contingent on American imports. How will Britain manage this once the spigot is turned off (as it will be in Spring of 1917) and the Germans continue to sink ships faster than Britain can build them? Britain had long lost its economic self-sufficiency as an island nation in the name of empire. Would Britons accept the same food shortages for French land?

 

[BELFAST]

An economy which is contingent on American imports. How will Britain manage this once the spigot is turned off (as it will be in Spring of 1917) and the Germans continue to sink ships faster than Britain can build them? Britain had long lost its economic self-sufficiency as an island nation in the name of empire. Would Britons accept the same food shortages for French land?

Germany never launched unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917, so ships might not be lost so fast.
Without American troops arriving in Europe the Spanish flu might be nixed or delayed or reduced.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

An economy which is contingent on American imports. How will Britain manage this once the spigot is turned off (as it will be in Spring of 1917) and the Germans continue to sink ships faster than Britain can build them? Britain had long lost its economic self-sufficiency as an island nation in the name of empire. Would Britons accept the same food shortages for French land?

That spigot will not be "turned off". The American government was not going to cut off the Entente in 1917, it just would not have happened.

But here's the division. Some here believe that the Americans would cut the Entente off when they ran out of dollar reserves. Others including myself disagree.

 

[Cuirassier]

Germany never launched unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917, so ships might not be lost so fast.

But USW was a hollow dream. WW1 era subs did not carry enough reliable torpedoes to make it useful.

Also you want to talk about comparative economic positions, the UK economy managed to grow during WW1

A worthless piece of information without further breakdown.

 

[BELFAST]

But USW was a hollow dream. WW1 era subs did not carry enough reliable torpedoes to make it useful.

What is USW?

 

[Help]

What is USW?

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, I think.

 

[Mikestone8]

Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, I think.

Though it was "unrestricted" in name only.

Their limited supply of torpedoes meant that, in practice, most sinkings were still done by gunfire or demolition charges, the same as before USW.

 

[GrahamB]

OTL the CP continued to fight 18 months after the US became an active belligerent - in this scenario the CP powers will instead be witnessing at that point in time, the wheels coming off the Entente war wagon.

Absolutely correct, but they had to fight all the way to that point because the Entente didn't give them the choice to deescalate because everyone was still (at least publicly) fighting on 'as long as they break first, we win'/'anything short of total victory is a total defeat' nonsense sauce. If the other side publicly declares they will refuse to stop fighting unless your nation as a whole comes to an end, you keep fighting. For Germany to be the one to throw in the towel first, even after the win against Russia, shows how desperate Germany's situation really was, essentially betting the survival of the nation itself on the hope that Wilson's 14 Points would form the basis of negotiations (which, if I recall correctly, was explicitly mentioned in their request for armistice).
The scenario I proposed just supposed that at some point, without the reinforcement of the United States, both sides will be willing to say 'victory isn't worth this' and come to the negotiating table instead of doggedly maintaining the war in an all-or-nothing game of national chicken because the assurance the Entente had that 'as long as we can just hold out another summer...' wasn't there. How many times did Germany offer one country or another peace talks between 1914 and 1916, rejected every time because the other side still thought they could win it all?

Honestly I think a moratorium on variations of this topic might be a good idea.

Either that or a Mod to step in and establish a proper POD future discussion in this thread must conform to. These last two threads have gotten hung up on arguing over which month the British gold reserves run out and whose sources trump whose, not on 'what happens next' like @Admiral Bloonbeard asked in the OP (who, it bears mentioning, has not engaged in this thread since opening it). I know the results of the war will depend on which month the breaking point happens in, but please just pick one and run with it!

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

@TDM @History Learner So basically the Entente was doomed to defeat due to its finances and inability to achieve its own supplies without the Americans? Okay, this answers my question decisively, thank you!

 

[BELFAST]

The next question is what is the peace settlement after the war like?

 

[BooNZ]

No I'm well aware that Britain was toa large extent financially carrying the rest of the entente (and it's not like Germany wasn't carrying AH)

EDIT: in fact I'm pretty sure I made reference to this already in this thread?

You referenced material, which upon closer inspection indicated the Entente financial crisis would prevent Britain from keeping its allies in the war, but I don't believe that was your intent.

Britain didn't lose it's dominant position in global finance until after the war (although the war certainly accelerated what was IMO an inevitable swap over). As I said earlier this was one irony here for the British because one of the side effects of trying to tie the US financially to the entente and the war meant that when the entente won that in turn boosted US in terms of becoming the global financial powerhouse! This kind of goes to my point about the British trying to have it's cake and eat it too, having to make compromises on that as the war went on.

By late 1916 it was evident the British would lose its traditional dominant financial position - the war had pushed the British economy off a cliff, but it had not yet to landed. By late 1916 British decision makers became increasing aware their ability to continue the war was increasing dependent on the good graces of the US.

As has been pointed out by numerous independent references in this thread, the British had not tied the US financially to the Entente war, aside from JP Morgan. The formal rationale for Wilson and the Fed triggering the Entente financial crisis was to ensure the US was not bound to the Entente cause. By the end of 1916 the US had become an economic powerhouse - war spending and advancing unproductive loans for the same increase US influence, but were not prudent investments.

After initial hesitancy, the British war effort was not prone to economic compromise (i.e. it spent like a drunken sailor), as evidenced by its precarious financial position by the end of 1916. The entry of the US meant the British faced no consequences for their reckless spending and instead enjoyed dramatic increases in available finance and resources. The US entry to the war meant the British were not required to make compromises. It should be noted that even with unfettered British spending habits, there were a number of impending crises that were not resolved until after the US entered the war.

Also you want to talk about comparative economic positions, the UK economy managed to grow during WW1 even with all the constraints, war activity and importing from the US, the German economy however shrank by 27%. And once again actual food riots in Germany from 1915 onwards,

No I didn't, because the circumstances of UK and Germany were so very different. The German economy purportedly shrank, which was logical given the diversion of manpower and the blockade limiting its access to external resources. Essentially Germany was fighting the war within its means.

In contrast, Britain's initial financial reserves and access to global resources enabled it to significantly increase spending until it could spend no more - then the US joined the war and Britain further increased spending to the next level, resulting in an increase in GDP by 7% over the course of the war. Without the US entering the war, the British and the Entente would not have access to sufficient finances or credit to continue to purchase the materials to continue the war. Instead of the OTL vast increases in finance and resources, the Entente war effort would be cut to the bone. Due to greater dependence on imports, the Entente financial crisis would have a far greater impact on Britain, than the British blockade had on the Germany, while the OTL British blockade itself would likely be weakened.

Also how does it look like Britain is in jeopardy of losing the war in late 1916? The end of 1916 is the end of Verdun offensive a German failure.

Falkenhayn had underestimated the French, for whom victory at all costs was the only way to justify the sacrifices already made; the French army never came close to collapse and triggering a premature British relief offensive. The ability of the German army to inflict disproportionate losses had also been overestimated, in part because the 5th Army commanders had tried to capture Verdun and attacked regardless of loss. Even when reconciled to the attrition strategy, they continued with Vernichtungsstrategie (strategy of annihilation) and the tactics of Bewegungskrieg (manoeuvre warfare). Failure to reach the Meuse Heights left the 5th Army in poor tactical positions and reduced to inflicting casualties by infantry attacks and counter-attacks. The length of the offensive made Verdun a matter of prestige for the Germans as it was for the French and Falkenhayn became dependent on a British relief offensive being destroyed to end the stalemate. When it came, the collapse in Russia and the power of the Anglo-French attack on the Somme reduced the German armies to holding their positions as best they could.[101] On 29 August, Falkenhayn was sacked and replaced by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who ended the German offensive at Verdun on 2 September.[102][g]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Verdun

I understand independent references have already been provided by others regarding increasing dependency on US support. The reference you provided the British could probably muddle through, but the war would be lost because French finances would not cope. After 40+ pages revolving around the Entente financial crisis, I hope you are merely being disingenuous...

Also in late 1916 the German were not "about to knock the Russians out of the war" that didn't happen until late 1917 with the armistice in Dec 1917 and treaty in march 18

what was happening in the eastern front in 1916? The Brusilov offensive, (the CP turn it around in 1917 though!)

Yes the Russians were on the ropes and without the entry of the US, the Russia and the Romanians are likely to have tapped out by mid-1917, soon to be followed by Italy.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

@TDM @History Learner So basically the Entente was doomed to defeat due to its finances and inability to achieve its own supplies without the Americans? Okay, this answers my question decisively, thank you!

Not quite that simple- If you mean to change that 1 thing, and holding all else constant, than yes. However, people are not petri dishes. They react to new information, however imperfectly. Take this example, where the only POD is no USW, so Jan 31, 1917. The UK is running out of gold and dollars. Easiest way to start saving them is by using less in the war (no more/smaller offensives, so no Nivelle offensive, so no French mutinies, Italy is better off, etc) as well as introducing rations in Great Britain a year earlier (voluntary was begun Feb 1917, TTL it is involuntary). The CP are better off in term of casualties, but that POD is after the Hindenburg Program/Turnip Winter so the German home front is under a time restriction. The Entente was working on tanks, so a Cambrai like action will happen by 1918 (if not being the sole offensive in 1917). There are more things which could change, which can tilt the balance in either favor.

So, I guess the question is, do you mean "all else constant" or "if this thing only changes, then what?"