Road Less Traveled: WW1 negotiated peace in 1916/17

[Catspoke]

Just to clarify, does the Turnip Winter definitely still happen if Falkenhayn remains Chief of Staff?

Are we thinking the Hindenburg economic plan helped caused the Turnip Winter???? Or was there some particular thing that made that worse OTL???

 

[Catspoke]

That is more or less the thrust of Zelikow’s book.

Also, pretty hard to justify dismantling neutral Portugal’s colonial empire in a peace conference.

If your not picking on these small countries then your pretty close to a white peace, that seems a hard sell for a pretty optional war on the Germans part after a what a couple million dead. The Germans can claim the encirclement, we had to back Austria, etc.. Its an easier sell to your people that it wasn't an optional war when Germany is getting something. Plus the Japanese are occupying a bunch of German stuff, along with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, Germany needs a lot of compensation if those people aren't giving that stuff back. Seems tricky even if everyone is somewhat agreeable.

 

[Old1812]

I listened to an interview Philip Zelikow gave for the Woodrow Wilson Center. In his view, Wilson failed to put in the legwork to actually schedule a peace conference, instead just giving his "Peace Without Victory" speech.

As a minor matter, could it be assumed that the conference would be held in Washington, when it happens?

 

[cjc]

Wilson did instruct the Reserve to discourage unsecured loans to foreign interests, which did close that avenue of finance to the entente, and damaged the confidence of borrowers in general in lending to entente interests. From what I can tell, this was indeed an attempt to force the European powers to the negotiating table. He was very convinced of the American destiny of bringing the squabbling European powers to civilized discourse in a similar fashion to getting children to play nicely with one another. However, the move said nothing specifically about secured loans. This would depend on the ability of the Entente to come up with suitable collateral (American or neutral securities and gold mostly).

It is also true that the British Treasury's report on the financial situation at the time was somewhat bleak. However, we have gone over this issue a few times on this forum and a couple things do look different on closer inspection of the British situation. Specifically, the Treasury report shows the situation to be unsustainable under the current rules. IOTL after the US entered the war, the British government more actively pursued, and eventually sequestered, American securities held by British citizens. They were able to find enough that they likely could have funded the war for some time if they could achieve anything close to the collateral-to- capital rate that they had received thus far. They also had a considerable amount of gold in the vaults of a section of the private banks that did not really need it for the discharge of their (now mostly domestic) business. France still had a very considerable amount of gold that they were loath to touch as they believed it was important to securing the Franc post-war (not an unreasonable belief but they did not end up needing all of it by far AIUI).

In short, the ability of the Entente to continue the war, even in the environment that Wilson's instructions to the Fed had created, was still significant. It would have required more disruption than was preferred to the financial institutions of Britain and France but not necessarily more than they could handle. However, it is possible that even with this reserve there to be found, the belief in the impossibility of continuing could have brought the combatants to the table. The success of the negotiations would then depend on the willingness of those involved to compromise and, to a smaller degree, the Entente not realizing that they have more in the tank then they thought.

On the whole, I think the idea of diplomatic talks occurring is at least plausible, but I am not so sure that even if they did, they would be successful.


I am not sure if TR would take the same path as Wilson when it came to trying to force the Entente to the table. If he was trying to reach a negotiated end of the war it seems like he would work more by personal and presidential appeal to the warring powers and offers to mediate. Its also possible he simply commits the US to making as much money off the conflict as it can while trying to stay out of it and improving their own forces as insurance should he fail.

Have we though, because I have not seen anything that has shown me that Britain could financially survive past July 1917, hell I have never even hired of this new revenue source manly because I'm pretty sure Britain has been doing that sense September 1914 and that was running out leading to that crisis.

The reality is the US is already financially committed to the entente, if the entente loses or even doesn't win it likely defaults or force a restructure and that hurts the US as well.

This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that. No bank in America was stupid enough to be exposed to a war time nation spending unforcen amount of money on a war. Hell if Britain goes bank rupt after the war then the banks are payed back by the American tax payers, at no point was the American banking system at risk against Britain. Wilson and the banking industry didn't even like each other, he's more likely then not to crow about American banks breaking the law (sense unsecured loans are liligal) then he is to do anything to help them.

 

[Lexijag]

Are we thinking the Hindenburg economic plan helped caused the Turnip Winter???? Or was there some particular thing that made that worse OTL???

Hindenburg plan caused havoc with the agriculture industry, supply chain, wiking did a whole thing on that before.

 

[ferdi254]

The best figure I have seen is that the Entente could have raised 2.8 billion. OTL they imported for 8.5 billion.

And all the money raised in 1918 does of course not help at all in April to June 1917.

And as the Entente knew that the USA could squeeze them out anytime and Germany early 17 was desperate enough… without USW and Zimmermann and the USA pushing a bit more… hard but not impossible.

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly a smart move by the CP would be if Austria gave up all or part of Galicia to the newly independent Poland against Poland getting a Habsburg king. It would make it look like a CP concession, but de facto such a Poland would be a CP ally (even without a Habsburg king).

 

[TDM]

This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that. No bank in America was stupid enough to be exposed to a war time nation spending unforcen amount of money on a war.

Only a lot of those assets are still deriving value from British financial well being and sucess (if you look at what those who in the US argued against providing funding even under those conditions said, they realise this).

One of the big differences between the UK and Germany was the UK & Co economy was embedded internationally to a far greater extent and in many more ways than the German one. . But what that also means is the UK economy being that much more integrated internationally it much harder for the international community to extract and isolate itself from the UK economy if it takes big hits, or has to do extreme stuff due to no other options being available (German war finances by comparison is a list of doing extreme stuff but most of it happens within Germany).

anyway good summary of it here

One of the terms the article uses is "financial war of attrition", and I think it's an apt one. But with wars of attrition your comparing your position to your opponent's not to some abstract good position.

I.e. the point is often made that UK finances were suffering as the war went on, and yes that is undoubtable true, and yes it's also true they would have got worse if the US hadn't gone all in in 1917. But that point is not relevant alos without looking at the CP finances as a point of comparison because it's that comparison that matters. I.e. no one is claiming the UK's financial position in WW1 was long term sustainable, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be sustainable for longer than that of the CP's

Hell if Britain goes bank rupt after the war then the banks are payed back by the American tax payers, at no point was the American banking system at risk against Britain. Wilson and the banking industry didn't even like each other, he's more likely then not to crow about American banks breaking the law (sense unsecured loans are liligal) then he is to do anything to help them.

You overextending what I said, I never said the US banking system was at risk. But to address what you said here you get that if the American banks are being refunded by US tax payers that is negative consequence, right?

 

[ArtosStark]

Have we though,

We have:

Could The Entente Win Without America?

Uh huh, Bulgaria collapsed because of its own military mistakes in the Vardar Offensive Only because Germany was no longer in a position to rescue it from the consequences of its mistakes.

www.alternatehistory.com

No Zimmermann Telegram, how soon does America join WW1 without it?

The matter of the UK no more having the ability to buy, the overdraft they were not able to pay back, their governments thinking they could not go on after summer 17 has been sourced ad infinitum in the threads we had about this topic in the past couple of months. So either how exactly does the...

www.alternatehistory.com

Now you may not have been convinced by the arguments, that is certainly your prerogative. The fact that we have had these discussions is not.

because I have not seen anything that has shown me that Britain could financially survive past July 1917, hell I have never even hired of this new revenue source manly because I'm pretty sure Britain has been doing that sense September 1914 and that was running out leading to that crisis.

You responded to me on that second one, so you have obviously seen some of this before:

British War finance was somewhat handicapped by the perceived need to maintain the high value of the Pound. This led the British government to go to great lengths to fund the war while also propping up the Pound. One of the methods they used was to transfer gold and American securities for sale in New York or as collateral for loans. These securities were held privately, and the government needed to buy or acquire them. They did this first by voluntary action but in May 1916 they started to add an addition to income tax for every Pound of Securities that someone possessed. This encouraged sale and the Government already held monopoly on buying such securities. Most important to this discussion, is the fact that they had not yet hit the bottom of the well. Of the estimated $4.5 Billion in American Securities in Britain before the war, about $2 Billion had been acquired by January 1917.

When people say that Britain was broke by the middle of the Great War they are actually exaggerating slightly. The National debt was certainly enormous by British Standards of the day, and their position had very much deteriorated from their pre-war position, but they were broke in the same way that a man is that has to sell his penthouse apartment to buy a house in the suburbs. Certainly a step down, but never in danger of starving. If the American market does not open up in the way it did with the US entry into the war Britain will certainly have to prioritize its wartime programs more than they have done so far, but they will not collapse into defeat from that alone and will almost certainly be able to continue to support their allies. More likely they would put a fine comb through their current programs to see what they think they can do without. That is a far cry from throwing in the towel.

The problem being where your getting your numbers, because the treshury itself didn't think it had enough to last untill April. Especially sense thos numbers are wrong, the total alide security was 4.5 billion, Britain never had more then 3 billion, France had about 1 billion (and had already run out and was leaning heavily on the British by 1917) and russia had about 450 million.

"World War 1 and Its Effects on British Financial Institutions" by Benjamin H. Higgins from the book "Lombard Street in War and Reconstruction" by the National Bureau of Economic Research

World War I and Its Effects on British Financial Institutions

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Might I ask for where you found your own numbers?

Perhaps now we can compare sources, since it seems you didn't get a chance to answer in that one?

 

[ferdi254]

TDM the collaterals were USD backed papers sitting in the USA. If an ASB had the UK vanish from the earth they would still have their nominal value.

Also to the ever upcoming fact that the CP‘s had trouble. Yes they had but we knew they did fight on until Oct 18. So the question is, could the Entente continue this long.

And fun fact: No one has been able to bring up any source by any competent person in power at the time that claimed they could. All temporary sources say unanimously that they thought they would have to make peace in summer 17.

So even for allowing that they underestimated their ability by a whopping 75% it would still mean game over Summer 18.

 

[Catspoke]

A big factor in this new world is that we would still have large German and Austrian armies around, against French, Russian, etc...

With everyone kind of broke, Germany and Austria (and France and Russia) aren't going to be spending money navally, they are going to spend on essentials. Tirpitz and the Kaiser will try to spin Jutland and the Goeben and the cruiser raids of 1914, but hard looks are going to be taken and realize a couple more corps and a few less Battleships might have won the thing for Germany in 1914.

(On the other hand the Germans did have the successful cruises of the merchant submarine Deutschland in their recent memory so I suspect the Germans may subsidize 5 or so of these, which would be unprofitable in peacetime, but just to have them around for the next war).

In this TL the tank revolution will have just started, might be viewed as expensive eccentric oddities by more people than OTL.

In this time line the Zeppelin was still the strategic bomber of choice, the Gotha raids haven't happened yet, perhaps strategic bombing as a concept wont be as fore front.

 

[Mikestone8]

This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that.

And of course it was entirely possible that even a *victorious* Britain might still default. Propping up the Entente wouldn't necessarily help the US bankers.

All temporary sources say unanimously that they thought they would have to make peace in summer 17.

Grant and Temperley [1] who were contemporary with the events, expressed the view that Britain could have found "expedients" to maintain her credit up to about March 1918. They did conclude, though that "without America the Entente could not have been victorious and might have been defeated."

[1] Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 1789--1950 Sixth Edition, Ch xxix.

 

[Catspoke]

Grant and Temperley [1] who were contemporary with the events, expressed the view that Britain could have found "expedients" to maintain her credit up to about March 1918. They did conclude, though that "without America the Entente could not have been victorious and might have been defeated."

[1] Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, 1789--1950 Sixth Edition, Ch xxix.

Germany can't know this and with the Russians really hurting without USA loans, and after the April 1917 offensive fizzled out, The major opportunity for a peace is May 1917. I would think the Allies would try this April 1917 offensive for the win before settling. At that point the Germans and Allies both feel they have weaknesses and an opportunity for peace can happen.

After that if the Russian revolution happens and Caparetto happens peace becomes a lot less probable because the Germans are starting to feel a win coming.

 

[kham_coc]

Germany can't know this and with the Russians really hurting without USA loans, and after the April 1917 offensive fizzled out, The major opportunity for a peace is May 1917. I would think the Allies would try this April 1917 offensive for the win before settling. At that point the Germans and Allies both feel they have weaknesses and an opportunity for peace can happen.

After that if the Russian revolution happens and Caparetto happens peace becomes a lot less probable because the Germans are starting to feel a win coming.

I'd say with the US not in the war, Russia should see the war as unwinnable, and the price for getting out of it insurmountable (mostly lands that are poor and troublesome).
So provided they have a bout of induced rationality their peace feelers might see the war end there and then - but I agree if the Russian revolution happens, Germany will think its winning.

 

[TDM]

TDM the collaterals were USD backed papers sitting in the USA. If an ASB had the UK vanish from the earth they would still have their nominal value.

Only a lot of them were based in areas that were making a lot of money selling stuff to the entente. Which is the other side of this, the entente were basically funnelling a lot of the credit they received from the US back into US producers. This has the inevitable effect of drawing the US into and being invested into an entente win (something the UK and Wilson were well aware of).


Seriously read the link I gave earlier Britain is relatively OK financially compared to other in WW1, and in big way WW1 is the biggest financial game in town.

Much is made of Wilsons crack down on lending at the end of 1916, but you have at look at why he did it:

1). To try and pressure a peace, but as per this thread that's not going to happen. But again the reason why he wanted peace was because the war was tying in larger and larger amounts of the global economy.

2). He knew that the US was getting more and more financially tied in to the entente and that it was looking like the US was going to go in and he wanted to do that on his (as in the US govt's) financial terms not just through US markets. For example J P Morgan was about to broker a $1.5bn loan in spring 1917!

Also to the ever upcoming fact that the CP‘s had trouble. Yes they had but we knew they did fight on until Oct 18. So the question is, could the Entente continue this long.

And fun fact: No one has been able to bring up any source by any competent person in power at the time that claimed they could. All temporary sources say unanimously that they thought they would have to make peace in summer 17.

So even for allowing that they underestimated their ability by a whopping 75% it would still mean game over Summer 18.

No its the other way round what gets cited is that in 1917 the treasury is weighing up options it doesn't really like and doesn't want to take but well that's war! It's especially fully mobilised industrialised total war after 2-1/2 years. But there is a point of comparison on bad options here

Even in 1917 the British's treasury were still obsessing about the sterling/USD exchange rates (because it was still enticing US loans), Germany on the other hand was dealing with serious inflation, collapse of internal markets and actual starvation and their economy has shrunk by a quarter despite massive amounts of internal fund raising and spending!

So actually show me a source here it says that Britain would be forced to make peace by summer 17! Because I'm betting what you'll we see is it's some version of "by spring 1917 Britain was worried that if the current situation went on it would be forced to do X or Y financially' and that's really not the same thing

There seem to be this meme that while Germany will always fight to the death no matter what, for some reason the British will stop once things get a bit uncomfortable.

 

[ferdi254]

TDM please go on and show one contemporary source from a politician, military or treasury guy that claims that without the USA backing the Entente it will last longer than summer1917.

After 6 or 7 threads in which I have demanded to see such a source you and nobody else has been able to.

But I am giving you that theses guys are all (!) of them so incompetent that the war can be fought 5 times longer than they thought (even though we know at least the Russian estimate was pretty correct) and I will give you that without the USA entering the CP and with the Entente needing to cut down the war by a large percentage Germany will not fight a day longer than it did OTL.

But even under those assumptions the Entente will be out September 18 and Germany did last October 18.

Just to get this one clear. Unless somebody from the Entente group either backs up the claim that there are poeple with power who thougt the Entente could win

or comes down with a detailed plan what exactly could the UK use for the repayment of the 400 million overdraft (if not the UK is broke) where to get the 1,000 million that were needed to keep Russia going, and what exactly are the means to pay for all the war material April to June and please not somehow….

We are talking some guys from the internet against every single guy in the Entente who was running the war.

 

[ferdi254]

TDM the sources have been brought up 4 times in other threads. If you feel they are misunderstood well bring up you own.

And the discussion of the German situation clearly shows that there is a lack of arguments that can be used to back the Entente will win claim. Germany fought until Oct 18. Historical fact.

One can even make a very good case that with the blockade far less tight, the moral issues and the Entente seriously having to curtail the war effort (I am yet to see anything other than somehow to answer the question how, if large parts of steel, copper, food and oil will suddenly no longer be there the Entente will be able to fight on as OTL) Germany could have lasted longer.

And of course no US troops in France.

But again, ignoring all those perfectly valid points and assuming every leader of the Entente is underestimating the ability of the Entente to continue by 5…. at best it is a draw.

 

[kham_coc]

Realistically speaking, with no US involvement, what will fix French morale?
How will the Entente counter the Kaiserschlacht with poorer morale, and much less manpower?
And that's presuming that the UK (can) wants to continue underwriting the war effort for everyone.

 

[TDM]

TDM please go on and show one contemporary source from a politician, military or treasury guy that claims that without the USA backing the Entente it will last longer than summer1917.

Again actually show me a source where it says that Britain would be forced to make peace by summer 17! Because I'm betting what you'll see is it's some version of "by spring 1917 Britain was worried that if the current situation went on it would be forced to do X or Y financially and they didn't want to' and that's really not the same thing.

and that why there's not lots of sources addressing what you claim as true at the time, because what you claim wasn't true at the time.

The problem is you are doing this thing were any difficulty for the side you are arguing against is magnified into a war ending problem. But also ignoring the economic reality Germany faced, because once again apparently Germany can endure anything and commit to total war but not Britain and France they're not committed enough.

After 6 or 7 threads in which I have demanded to see such a source you and nobody else has been able to.

But I am giving you that theses guys are all (!) of them so incompetent that the war can be fought 5 times longer than they thought (even though we know at least the Russian estimate was pretty correct) and I will give you that without the USA entering the CP and with the Entente needing to cut down the war by a large percentage Germany will not fight a day longer than it did OTL.

But even under those assumptions the Entente will be out September 18 and Germany did last October 18.

Just to get this one clear. Unless somebody from the Entente group either backs up the claim that there are poeple with power who thougt the Entente could win

or comes down with a detailed plan what exactly could the UK use for the repayment of the 400 million overdraft (if not the UK is broke) where to get the 1,000 million that were needed to keep Russia going, and what exactly are the means to pay for all the war material April to June and please not somehow….

We are talking some guys from the internet against every single guy in the Entente who was running the war.

Read the article I linked to it goes into depth about how Britain was actually in a better financial position than the CP and the rest of the entente (Britain having lent out a lot of what it had burrowed, basically playing the middleman between US and France/Italy/Russia)

Repayment of a 400m overdraft, J P Morgan's group was working on a new round of loans of $1.5bn for the spring 1917 offensives alone! Wilson didn't try to clamp down on that because he thought they wouldn't raise it, he tried to clamp down on it because he knew they were going to get it! And see my previous post as to why that was a concern for him.

 

[TDM]

Realistically speaking, with no US involvement, what will fix French morale?
How will the Entente counter the Kaiserschlacht with poorer morale, and much less manpower?
And that's presuming that the UK (can) wants to continue underwriting the war effort for everyone.

The French morale issue is overblown or misunderstood. the mutinies weren't about "we don't want to fight the Germans any more" it was about "we don't like the kind attacks you sending us out for". For instance they didn't desert or strike in mass numbers, and they continued to man and defend positions. It was orders to attack that were refused. Ironically the US not instantly arriving at the front in their millions days after declaring war was also a cause! (that's not a criticism of the US it was never going to happen like that but the come down from the euphoric reaction to the US declaration and the result of the Nivelle offensive coming so quickly on top of each other was double whammy here).

Less manpower during the spring offensive without the US troops. The US troops didn't start hitting the front in big numbers until after the spring offensive (US numbers are far more in effect in the following 100 days offensive).

Also the US not declaring war doesn't mean the US markets not lending money and that money being spent on US goods, the UK is more acting as conduit for US money anyway. Plus yes after 3 years and a lot of dead the UK will stay in.

With no direct US involvement the 100 days certainly couldn't go off like it did OTL, but you have to remember what state Germany was in during and after the spring offensive and Brest-Litovsk isn't going to save them.