USA doesn't join WW1 but Germany still loses?

Capbeetle61

Banned
Oh, and one more thing, have the Fascist March on Rome in Italy fail and Mussolini flee into exile abroad in its aftermath.
 

Riain

Banned
Even if Germany by some miracle took France in 1918 they still have the British empire in the war and now have even more people to feed.

If that miracle did occur Britain would be under a direct siege with long range guns bombarding Kent and uboats operating from French Channel and Atlantic ports. This is not a good scenario, certainly not one that provides many options for an acceptable peace deal for Britain.
 

kham_coc

Kicked
The February Revolution in Russia was not an inevitability by any means in 1917. Imperial Russia, or its successor state the Russian Provisional Government, could potentially have survived in order to continue the war as part of the Entente even in the event of the US not joining the war on the side of the Allies. Again, the Russian Revolutions could possibly have started earlier, so the domestic situation in Russia could really have gone either way during this touch-and-go times.
Otl, the US entry made the provisional goverment think they would win.
With no us entry, they exit the war.
 
OP, we really need more details.

OTL, the Germans were able to hold on and prop up their allies even with the Americans opening up the money spigot, reinforcing the blockade, and propping up Entente morale - ITTL, none of that happens.

The Russian Provisional Government stayed in the war partially because they thought it was winnable with the Americans inbound - a dedicated Neutral America means they peace out earlier, and with much more lenient terms than the Soviet Union faced. Less losses, less need to garrison, but less plunder - a net win for Germany, but how much?

The British were running low on money they were willing to spend, and had to mix two options: cut back the spending (Russia making peace helps!) and cracking open a piggy bank they really didn't want to touch. The British aren't short on manpower - they can bring in effectively limitless troops from India if they're willing to pay the piper down the line - but they are running short on shipping; keeping the homeland fed was becoming more difficult.

The French morale has been shot and left for dead, and OTL mutinies were only settled by agreeing to hold on the defensive and wait for the Americans to arrive. Without that promise, how well can France keep going before "We won't attack!" turns to "We won't fight!"?

A Central Powers victory isn't assured - Germany and Austria-Hungary are both dealing with severe food shortages , for example - but without details, it's hard to avoid concluding that a peace of exhaustion is the most likely result.
 
Without the US troops, which began conducting Corps and Army level engagements from mid 1918, the Entente without Russia will lack the strength to defeat the CP, I'm afraind I find the scenario implausible, but that's just me, if anyone else thinks it's plausible have at it!

I agree. Especially since the British would be more willing to make a deal where they keep their empire intact and then quit from the war.
 
That would be the American forces that, in OTL, were largely equipped and supplied by Britain and France.
In some ways (mostly because of how the logistics work and what America actually made) for example most of the artillery was made in Britain, more then half of the explosives used in those shells were made in America. I would like to be more clear but this is message forum and not a thesis paper, its hard to disentangle everything at the best of times and I would prefer not to clutter this forum with hundreds of pages of trade data inorder to find out what was holy British made, what was made in America but moved to the UK for full asmbaly and what was gust strate up continued production and sent to the UK despite ultimately ending up in American unites because of production contracts made before April 1917.
 
Without the US troops, which began conducting Corps and Army level engagements from mid 1918, the Entente without Russia will lack the strength to defeat the CP, I'm afraind I find the scenario implausible, but that's just me, if anyone else thinks it's plausible have at it!

I think too many people have been playing Kaiserreich and have confused that scenario for reality. By 1917 providing the Entente held Paris the Central Powers were destined loose because they were starving. Brest-Litvosk may have assigned vast territories to the Central Powers and the collapse of Romania had added another grain surplus region but in OTL it proved impossible to get sufficient food out of the Ukraine and Romania and into Austria and Germany proper to prevent serious hunger over the winter of 1917 and spring of 1918 and the 1918/19 was going to be much, much worse. Industrial production was also declining to raw material shortages. In the field the German Army had no answer to the combined arms, mechanised warfare that British Empire forces utilised in the 100 days offensive. With no US involvement the Kaiserschlacht is slightly more successful and the 100 days slightly less successful without the Meuse-Argonne to draw in German forces. But the material shortages still cripple Germany and in the absence of a Gestapo revolution still breaks out and it's all over by December 1918.
 
n contrast the Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George withheld 400,000 men from conservative favorite general Hauge in early 1918

But by Summer 1918 US troops were arriving at about 300,000 per *month*.

That was what cracked German morale - the knowledge that the Entente was now getting reinforcements faster than they were losing casualties. It made clear to the blindest that the situation was hopeless. A one-off gain of 400,000 would be useful, but nothing comparable to that.


I do like how we're so far off topic that not one of the past ten responses really even engages with the premise of the initial post. But that's unfortunately normal for WW1 threads.
It is a shame.

Yes, but also difficult to avoid.

It's kinda hard to discuss the results of a no-US Entente victory, w/o first deciding what *kind* of victory we are talking about. A win where the Entente barely staggers past the winning post, forcing Jerry out of France and Belgium and making him write off his lost colonies, in return for leaving him a free hand in the East, is very different from an OTL-type knock-out and a peace similar to Versailles, and the results will differ enormously.
 
Last edited:
It's kinda hard to discuss the results of a no-US Entente victory, w/o first deciding what *kind* of victory we are talking about. A win where the Entente barely staggers past the winning post, forcing Jerry out of France and Belgium and making him write off his lost colonies, in return for leaving him a free hand in the East, is very different which produces an OTL-type knock-out and a [eace similar to Versailles, and the results will differ enormously.

I think the least plausible kind is a "Entente barely staggers past the winning post" ending. The reality is by 1916 too much blood had been spilt and too many promises made so there are only two plausible routes out of the war for any party, first is the route that Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia took i.e. collapse into internal revolution , second the Serbian/Romanian route with military defeat and your country being overrun. Either Germany somehow punches through the Allied Armies in the field, cuts the B.E.F. off from the French and forces them to retreat to the Channel ports and then drives on to Paris or the blockade bites, Germany starves and the Kaiser's government collapses. Either way and exhausted victor dictates terms to a prostrate loser.
 
Germany starves

Isn't this being overblown a bit?

Ludendorff never mentions it as a justification for his 1918 offensive, though it would have been a perfect alibi. And Prince Max, even writing about Oct 1918, just mentions in passing that life was very hard in the poorer parts of Berlin. His main worries were American manpower, tanks and the imminent loss of Rumanian oil due to the collapse of the Balkan front - all purely military considerations.

If Germany was on the brink of keeling over from starvation, her leadership, military and civilian, reactionary and liberal, seem to have been remarkably oblivious to the fact
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Isn't this being overblown a bit?

Ludendorff never mentions it as a justification for his 1918 offensive, though it would have been a perfect alibi. And Prince Max, even writing about Oct 1918, just mentions in passing that life was very hard in the poorer parts of Berlin. His main worries were American manpower, tanks and the imminent loss of Rumanian oil due to the collapse of the Balkan front - all purely military considerations.

If Germany was on the brink of keeling over from starvation, her leadership, military and civilian, reactionary and liberal, seem to have been remarkably oblivious to the fact
Well, the Russian leadership seemed oblivious to the last. I daresay the tables of the ruling classes were better stocked than those of the workers. Might have a different story if they spoke to the Socialists.

Interrogation of POW's saw a clear thread in the return of soldiers from leave in Germany telling their comrades that their families at home were on a fraction of the meagre military rations. This played a role in lowering morale, made worse when the first British supply dumps were overrun in March 1918. Propaganda that the U-boats were starving Britain out were given the (apparent) lie by the sheer volume of foodstuffs available at the front.
 
Isn't this being overblown a bit?

Ludendorff never mentions it as a justification for his 1918 offensive, though it would have been a perfect alibi. And Prince Max, even writing about Oct 1918, just mentions in passing that life was very hard in the poorer parts of Berlin. His main worries were American manpower, tanks and the imminent loss of Rumanian oil due to the collapse of the Balkan front - all purely military considerations.

If Germany was on the brink of keeling over from starvation, her leadership, military and civilian, reactionary and liberal, seem to have been remarkably oblivious to the fact

Official rations were down to 1,000 calories in 1917 and even that was overly optimistic as in some areas there wasn't enough food to even meet that level of provision. Furthermore somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 Germans died of starvation or starvation induced diseases. The situation in Vienna was even worse. As I said the only way for Germany to win the war is either to capture/gain access to the Ukraine with it's infrastructure INTACT or a battlefield victory. My personal opinion is that post 1914 a battlefield victory in the West is impossible and while taking Ukraine and Romina with their infrastructure in sufficiently good condition that massive food exports into Central Europe is possible it needs to be done quickly. The issue is the same process of behind the lines infrastructure collapse in Russia that led to the February 1917 Revolution also stymied the German attempts to exploit their new conquests. If you butterfly the Russian infrastructure collapse so it's intact for the Germans to take over, you probably butterfly the Germans beating the Russians.
 

ferdi254

Banned
So I think it is time for the OP to clear things up a bit.

One thing here though. Germany ITTL would be in a very different situation and the Entente as well. So using the OTL situation to claim that Germany was toast is simply ignoring the POD.
 
So I think it is time for the OP to clear things up a bit.

One thing here though. Germany ITTL would be in a very different situation and the Entente as well. So using the OTL situation to claim that Germany was toast is simply ignoring the POD.

The point is that Germany wouldn't be in a different situation. No Zimmerman telegram and the USA remaining neutral isn't going to make the Royal Navy disappear and unless the Royal Navy disappears the economic blockade is going to remain in place. An economic blockade that resulted in the collapse of first Austria-Hungary and then Germany.
The Entente will be a different situation, without American troops and American resources they will be weaker, they will have fewer shells, less men, less everything. But they still have a large industrial advantage, still have a deeper manpower pool, still have access to 4/5ths of the worlds resources.
So long as the Entente avoids defeat on the battlefield, i.e. the B.E.F. being split from the French Army and retreating to the Channel ports the Central Powers will collapse. Now as I said upthread I don't think post Marne the German Army can pull that off. The technological constraints meant they simply couldn't advance far enough, fast enough from their railheads to do it. I know in past threads Wiking aka Deleted Member 1487 certainly believed so but then he had a lot of beliefs about the abilities of German Armies.
 
In addition to adding the Indian Army manpower and equipment (and experience), there was also the potential for using greater manpower from the British African colonies, and for the increasing use of mechanisation on the Western Front. I’ve posted this before, but is relevant here:
If it was clear that US manpower was not going to arrive (for whatever reason) then I believe the solution would be two-fold, and were recognized at the time by the British - and both were things the French were already doing albeit slightly differently. But it was lessons shared between allies that led to these discussions.

The first being the use of colonial manpower - be it Indian or African. In the case of the latter, even by OTL's 1916 the War Office was pressuring for the greater use of African manpower in 'non-combat roles' but the Colonial Office demurred. By the end of 1916 and into 1917 there were different calls to raise a large field force from African manpower (mostly West African) to free up British forces in other theaters than France.

Even in OTL, GHQ wrote in 1918 "[akin to French practices] provide contingents of black troops for incorporation in the British divisions" - however the Colonial Office squashed the idea outright. However after the War Cabinet rejected the idea, the War Office continued to press for the idea and was supported by the Army Council. If the wider situation was dire enough I believe the Colonial Office would bow to pressure over greater use of African sourced manpower, even in France. Which could free up manpower for the Western Front in preparation for the proposed 1919 offensives.

Most of that is sourced from the article: The Idea of a British Imperial African Army, David Killingray, The Journal of African History, Vol 20, No. 3 (1979).

In addition to this, the British were also increasingly coming to the same French conclusions - that the traditional emphasis on manpower was not going to be successful in the largely defensive and rebuild plans for 1918 and the planned offensives in 1919.
" It appears that two basic alternatives emerged, which might be termed the mechanical means of warfare, versus the traditional means of warfare. On the one hand the mechanical supporters advocated the use of "new" technology (particularly tanks and planes, but also innovations such as mobile trench mortars, gas and smoke) which would be more efficient and would replace man- power; meanwhile, the other school of thought stressed the use of man- power (infantry) in the traditional manner and advocated using more of the "traditional" technology (such as rifles, machine guns, and artillery), yet it saw the "new" technology as an auxiliary tool.

The underlying causes of this debate were the recommendations of Cabinet and Supreme War Council committees in late 1917 and in January and February 1918 to deny manpower to the Western Front, and the order- ing of priorities so that shipbuilding, planes, tanks, and food production came ahead of men for France."

If we extrapolate this out, then the it could be argued that the mechanical school gains influence and supremacy earlier.
"Then, on 13 March 1918, the Supreme War Council at Versailles, under the signature of Rawlinson, produced a memo entitled "Notes on Economy of Manpower by Mechanical Means." This expected that the Allies would be on the defensive in 1918 and so advocated a series of very large raids, utilizing plenty of tanks and low flying aircraft, which would clear the way for the
infantry, and thus economize on manpower. This saving of manpower would be even greater because ground was not to be held; rather, the raiders would withdraw to their original lines. Apart from the withdrawal suggestion, this mechanical scenario was evidently the basis for Rawlinson's future attacks at Hamel in July and at Amiens in August."

Most of that is sourced from the article: The Evolution of British Strategy and Tactics on the Western Front in 1918: GHQ, Manpower, and Technology, Tim Travers, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Apr., 1990)
 
The point is that Germany wouldn't be in a different situation.
I'm sorry but this sentence here already is suspect. If such a massive change occures at such a critical time, then it will change the situation for all parties. It has to as in OTL Germany certainly had to change its actions to account for this.
Some points at the top of my mind,
- The Entente will have to reshuffle its economy without the USA entering and allowing them much more borrowing the before the DoW. Add that the British were entering the end of their availeble capital, how that would impact is debated here but it would need actions from them. So they have reduced imports and a, Imo, much harder time keeping the Blacklist going by buying everything.
- The prior point then leeds to more trade with the neutrals of Europe. But that then can move on to Germany. So instead of making the Blockade tighter, because the USA needed much more itself for the war, the flow into Neutrals and the CP strengthens.
Please note that I do not specify how much, as that would again start the debate on how much room the Entente still had financialy. But there were OTL concerns about how they would finance the war going forward.
But they still have a large industrial advantage, still have a deeper manpower pool, still have access to 4/5ths of the worlds resources.
And here is my problem, the industrial advantage, and the growth of the British economy in OTL, are often cited. And while true, my problem is that it needed feeding with recources and those may not come in at the rate of OTL. That will have reprecussions going forward. So how much can the Entente compensate if the USA, the biggest and, very important, nearest supplier falters? What would be the impact of having to find new sources rapidly that are there, able and willing to step in.
That leads into the next problem, how will the Entente fill the shortfall in transport? Because longer routes take more ships and will rise the pressure to do something. Add that the a little less of everything at that moment and it could spiral from there.
The manpower is the colonial one, I assume... that would have to be drafted, trained and transportet to Europe... at the same time that the above mentioned problems are happening.

Add in the big moral impacts of no USA troops versus OTL and the situation chages dramatically to OTL.

In my mind, I could see the Entente in the OTL CP situation to have to do something ala "Kaiserschlacht" to keep in the game. Because while the situation for the CP was bad, it was one that was slowly changing. Wheras the Entente, Imo, is looking at "shocks" to the system such as the financial cutback and (probable) earlier Russian withdrawl from the war.

So as a ininformed internet person I rate it at 60% mutual exhaustion with maybe 25% CP and 15% Entente win chances because of the OTL situation of the CP and changes for the Entente.

But to say the situation for one side would not change? Sorry that is implauseble.
 
Official rations were down to 1,000 calories in 1917 and even that was overly optimistic as in some areas there wasn't enough food to even meet that level of provision. Furthermore somewhere between 400,000 and 600,000 Germans died of starvation or starvation induced diseases. The situation in Vienna was even worse. As I said the only way for Germany to win the war is either to capture/gain access to the Ukraine with it's infrastructure INTACT or a battlefield victory. My personal opinion is that post 1914 a battlefield victory in the West is impossible and while taking Ukraine and Romina with their infrastructure in sufficiently good condition that massive food exports into Central Europe is possible it needs to be done quickly. The issue is the same process of behind the lines infrastructure collapse in Russia that led to the February 1917 Revolution also stymied the German attempts to exploit their new conquests. If you butterfly the Russian infrastructure collapse so it's intact for the Germans to take over, you probably butterfly the Germans beating the Russians.
I agree 1st Ypres was probably the last point where Germany could have forced a decision in the West and a short victorious war (shades of 1870) which is what Germany needed was possible.

After that its basically a siege with the 2 Empires holding all of the advantages with access to the entire worlds resources, coupled with a monopoly on international trade and coal even with the Collapse of Russia.
 
It would be interesting to see how the lack of US intervention would affect the peace settlement with the Ottoman Empire. Assuming Russia is also out, Britain, France and Italy lack the ability to impose the originally arranged settlement. IOTL, Armenia and the Straits were originally promised to Russia - the Russian collapse forced the Entente to turn to the US as a replacement. This failed, because Congress wasn't interested, but in this scenario it will never even be attempted. The Treaty of Sevres, for instance, would probably not be anything like it was IOTL - the Entente would have to take a wholly different approach to the Turks, knowing that they could not impose a settlement in Anatolia itself without the Russians or their substitute.

I imagine that Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine would all go to Britain and France as was historically the case, but the economic zones originally agreed would not be enforceable. I doubt that Greece would be offered Smyrna - instead, it's likely that the whole of East Thrace except Constantinople would be ceded to Greece, without Wilson's obstruction over his bizarre insistence that Bulgaria receive land from the Turks. Venizelos could probably spin that as a win to the Greek people - Adrianople, and a border close to 'The City', are probably prestigious enough to offset any upset at the inability of Greece to claim Smyrna. There would be no 'Greater Armenia', as envisaged IOTL, but whether some sort of independent Armenian polity could survive in eastern Anatolia/southern Caucasus would depend on the internal situation in Russia and Turkey.

The Ottomans probably survive, without a devastating Sevres treaty to illegitimise them in the eyes of Turkish nationalists. The nationalists will still not be happy, and there's likely to be irredentism and revanchism from the OTL supporters of Mustapha Kemal, but it's very possible that the Sultanate and Caliphate survive. There would probably be no 1923 population exchange without the bad blood produced by the Greco-Turkish War, so the Greek and Armenian community in Constantinople and Anatolia could survive, perhaps indefinitely, assuming no Turkish government decides to revive a genocidal policy, along with all the apparatus of their respective churches.

Probably Italy gets more of what it wanted in Dalmatia without the US to object. Possibly also extra reward in Africa, as they can't hope for Adalia (or, for that matter, Smyrna) in this scenario. Would have interesting repercussions on Italo-Yugoslav relations post-war, with greater tension over the disputed territory. Assuming, of course, that Yugoslavia comes into being.
 
Thanks for the compressive reply.
I wonder did the Spanish flu do more damage to the German side or the entente?

Honestly I can't remember but given Germany already suffered 500k-750k deaths due to malnutrition and diseases outside of the Flu in this scenario Germany will be on short rations for longer I don't think they will do well.
 
Top