How long could WW1 have lasted if the US never entered?

[ToxicStorm22]

If the US never entered the war, say unrestricted submarine warfare never went into effect, how much longer would WW1 have lasted? I know both sides were facing morale and supply difficulties so I dont see it lasting much longer, but I'm unsure on the length. Also who would end up winning or would it be a large scale white peace?
Apologies if this question has been asked before, I mostly like viewing the maps and graphics section, so I don't keep up with what has been asked.

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

It could have lasted anything from 1 year less
to couple more years. The main thing USA entery to the late war did was to replace French and English divisions in quiet sectors for American ones. It wasn't the high point of US Army history. It was fighting with 1914 tactics against 1918 tactics army.

The French soliders were promised that no major offensive would happen until American soliders where in the field. Without the Americans even in the war there would a different French mutiny in 1917. The Germans might have a different political situation in early 1918 leading to a negotiate peace in West, giving up all conquered land in France and Belgium in exchange for recognizing there settlement in the East. This would not be unacceptable to the British and the French will not be able to fight against the Germans alone and except to win.

 

[A Piece of History]

It wasn't the high point of US Army history

The Battle of Belleau Wood is a celebrated event in the annals of the US Marine Corps, so much so that Marines fighting in the regiments which fought at Bellau Wood are authorized to wear the Fourrragere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

One success doesn't change the whole army's story. The American generals where like those of pre 1914 Europe. They have abnormaly big division as well.

 

[A Piece of History]

No more than a year, tops. Both sides were suffering from their own issues (the Germans had just gone through the Turnip Winter, the French military was still putting down mutinies from the Nivelle Offensive, etc), so I think it'd be a objective of both sides to end the war before the end of 1918. The Germans may seek a negotiated peace with the Entente. This could divide the Entente, since the British would want to negotiate with the Germans, but the French would not. The British would probably tell the French that since there is no chance of the war being own by either side, so it's worth listening to the Germans. The Germans propose a return to the status quo ante bellum, since there is no way the Germans could establish a political monopoly over all of Europe (looking at you, Kaiserreich) with the beating that it's taken, both on the home and military fronts. Britain accepts the terms, France throws a hissy fit, but agrees to the terms anyway. The war ends in a draw.

(Question: Did the Entente ever have a policy regarding surrenders from the Central Powers ala Casablanca?)

 

[Rufus Shinra]

People tend to forget the Balkans front in favour of the more famous Western one. Even without any push on the Western front, keeping it defensive there without US reinforcements so as to not get more trouble, the Entente would still end up pushing Austria-Hungary out of the Balkans, which OTL was a critical factor in the German need for an armistice, as their underbelly suddenly became incredibly exposed. The biggest change would be a much more passive behaviour in the Western front.

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

It doesn't matter if the allies won the Balkan front if the lose the western front. The most strategically important front of the war was France.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

It doesn't matter if the allies won the Balkan front if the lose the western front. The most strategically important front of the war was France.

Though there is no reason for the Western front to be lost. The mutinies in France were extremely limited in scope and were finished after it was made clear there wouldn't be more stupid pushes. Meanwhile, the British and French militaries were churning out tanks. Playing it defensively in 1917 and 1918 without pushing would keep the Western Front in one piece. Then as before, the most important US contribution was economic rather than military. Hell, the US military back then had to be equipped by the Entente in most heavy equipment.

Not to dismiss the sacrifice of the Dough Boys, who shall be remembered with honour, but the situation was becoming increasingly desperate for Germany, particularly with the British blockade.

 

[Jellico]

The Battle of Belleau Wood is a celebrated event in the annals of the US Marine Corps, so much so that Marines fighting in the regiments which fought at Bellau Wood are authorized to wear the Fourrragere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood

The Americans entered WWI with the opinion that they would show the Europeans everything that they had been doing wrong for the last four years.

Remember that American institutional know how consisted of beating up some central American nations and chasing off the Spanish. And then they expanded the army tenfold diluting any knowledge they had.

The entente tried to get US unit posted with existing troops for training purposes. This basically worked but...
The US command wanted their troops operating separately to the rest of the entante so that they couldn't be used and abused. This was probably wise. But it meant that they couldn't use the entente's experience and the end result was a lot of unnecessarily dead Americans.

There was a lot of European commentary comparing American behavior to 1914 with a similar sense of tragedy.


In any case 1918 wasn't America's year. That was to be 1919. 1918 was the year the Commonwealth (knowing it had American reserves for next year) unleashed everything it had learned over four years and destroyed the German's will and ability to fight so 1919 wasn't necessary.

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

The draft eveasion was at 11% for all those called up in 1918 . Who know what it would have been in 1919. But remember the USA wasn't producing any of it own guns or ammunition. The French were doing that. Have a collapse of the French the Entente be able to effectively wage the war.

The blockade wasnt hurting the war necessary populace so they could have easily gone for another year or two.

The Americans were the most effective in telling the German soliders that there manpower is infinite. Which the German was basically also, they never lost more men then they couldn't replace, with the ineffective Entente offensives.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Except that the French weren't collapsing. Without US entering the war, there wouldn't have been actual large-scale offensives in the West, but that's pretty much it. The Balkans remain as they are, with Austria-Hungary getting the boot and Germany suddenly discovering it has to redeploy its already weakened forces to a whole second frontline. It's easy and classical to overstate the importance of the US troops in 1918, when the US' actual war-winning contribution was financial and economic.

 

[ferdi254]

That‘s exactly it. Without the USA entering the Entente runs out of money in May/June 1917.

How long can they hold on without the imports?

 

[pjmidd]

Lots of wishful thinking here about the state of the CP, by 1918 its clear that Germany was going to collapse logistically in 1919. Whilst the French were not going to be attacking as much in 1919, they did not have to and there are no real indications the French Army would not defend like a bunch of trapped wolverines. Ottomans are already out and A-H is in worse shape than Germany. As long as the blockade holds, Germany has to fold in 1919, its just a matter of if it surrenders or collapses into civil war. America joining the war just made it finish a year earlier mainly, but not solely, by morale impact

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The core question here is political. Within each of the major powers was there a chance of the government entering negotiations, or a new 'peace' government taking over? To put it another way would the near dictatorship of Hindenburg survive past 1918? Would the Austro-Hungarian government completely lost control? We can clearly assume the Russians negotiate a separate peace as OTL. What happens in France & Britain in Parliament & the Deputies? any chance a 'peace faction gains strength there?

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

Except that the French weren't collapsing. Without US entering the war, there wouldn't have been actual large-scale offensives in the West, but that's pretty much it. The Balkans remain as they are, with Austria-Hungary getting the boot and Germany suddenly discovering it has to redeploy its already weakened forces to a whole second frontline. It's easy and classical to overstate the importance of the US troops in 1918, when the US' actual war-winning contribution was financial and economic.

Sending men away from the Western front towards any other front is a massive mistake and will absolutely lose you the war. For the Western Entente any other front was a dangerous destraction that could lose you the war. You are forgetting that in the winter of 1917 German almost knocked Italy out of the war, have a few more lucky breaks there and you see Italy also forced to leave the war. Freeing up allot more troops. The war was lost in 1918 because the Great Spring Offensives didn't knock anyone out of the war and it sold as the war winning offensive. It made the Central Powers moral sink to such lows where they didn't want to fight the war. The Balkan front is completely irrelevant in the grand scope of things.

If you aren't going to have offensives in the West to force the Germans to surrender but instead you are going to take troops, which are vitally needed there, and send them to Balkans. Where the logistical network isn't as well develop and will need allot of effort in making it capable of marching to Belgrade,Vienna or Sofia with any type major resistance. The German will launch an offensive is Northern France and win the War. The French don't have enough manpower to reinforce all of the Western division and raise new good divisions to fight in Balkans. Sure they might make some good progress but what's the point of you lose where it really matter.

That‘s exactly it. Without the USA entering the Entente runs out of money in May/June 1917.

How long can they hold on without the imports?

Germany has been doing it since the start of war basically and the Entente sits in great bargain position with the USA. If USA doesn't continue to leans them money they might lose the war and default on there American loans. Which isn't really what you want to happen if you are the US.

In any case 1918 wasn't America's year. That was to be 1919. 1918 was the year the Commonwealth (knowing it had American reserves for next year) unleashed everything it had learned over four years and destroyed the German's will and ability to fight so 1919 wasn't necessary.

The US didn't have enough of anything to fight in the type of war they enter the draft evasions was only grow at a massive rate and the amount badly trained and bad tactics is mind melting. They believed together with the rest of the Entente that you had to blow the Germans away with artillery, aka 1916 type of battle. The Commonwealth is in no position to attack in early 1918 after Passendale that why they were the targets of ludendorff offensive.

Lots of wishful thinking here about the state of the CP, by 1918 its clear that Germany was going to collapse logistically in 1919.

How? They now have the resources of Eastern Europe to call bring to there side. The Central Powers where not in the best place to be but they were not in a war losing place either. Remember in Jan 1918 the idea of losing to Germany was very real in the minds of political leaders in England.

 

[sloreck]

Germany, absent the need to try and win before large numbers of Americans arrive, does not do the Michael offensives, can shorten lines to prepared positions doing away with salients and maintain on the defensive on the Western Front. Absent the limited American support, and also the effects of the failed Michael offensive the Italians don't finally succeed at the 84th Battle of the Isonzo (or whatever number they get to) and the front there remains more or less as it has been and it may be a race to see who folds first, A-H or Italy. A-H no longer has the Eastern Front as a resource suck and threat and while it is still shambolic the static Balkans/Italy and lack of Russian threat may be enough to keep it together. The collapse of the Ottomans doesn't help - opening the Dardenelles to supply Russia no longer matters, and frankly the number of troops that can be redirected to the Western Front is limited as the Entente needs to maintain military/occupation forces to keep a lid on things with the Ottomans collapsing. Germany has all of the Brest-Litovsk territory to supply food and other materials and will be steadily increasing food supplies and other items from there.

Everybody is short of manpower, and the reality is that the iron and coal areas of France are still occupied by Germany as well as some agricultural areas. If the Americans are not in the war, the question is how long will they continue to finance the Entente, especially in light of the probability of a stalemate at best, meaning where will the UK, France, and others, get the money to repay the USA if they don't squeeze it out of Germany/A-H/Ottomans.

IMHO you may see Michael in reverse with the Entente trying to win on the Western Front before Germany can properly exploit eastern territorial gains. Like Michael, there may be gains but it will bleed out the remaining strength of the French and British armies. The net result being a negotiated peace. In the east and Balkans, Brest-Litovsk and the A-H gains (no Serbia) will stand, the Entente has no levers to change this. I expect the border between Italy and A-H remains more or less at the prewar level unless the Italians folded, in which case A-H may get some relatively small gains. In the west, I expect Germany will have to give up most of what it occupied in Belgium and France however I would expect some gains for Germany mostly small to adjust borders along some natural lines. I expect some of the European territorial give backs might be "purchased" by some of Germany's colonies being returned - overall expect the bulk of Germany's colonies to be lost to them but not all. The Ottomans pretty much meet the same fate as OTL, details of dismemberment may vary.

The war ends in 1919 or 1920 at the latest.

 

[Jellico]

Sorry. I must have imagined the 100 days. I guess that was in the second half of 1918. Not early in 1918.

And I guess the Commonwealth was in such a bad way that they couldn't stop Ludendorff.

Sorry to be snarky but come on. Ludendorff rolled his dice to try and win before the Americans showed up. The Entente scrambled and stopped it. Then they (specifically the Commonwealth) were though the Hindenburg Line by October before the Americans were fully operational.

The Americans were militarily important. They would have been more important in 1919. But when they have fewer casualties than New Zealand it shows just how much they did at the pointy end.

 

[SpicyJuan]

Britain was running out of money much faster than Germany was running out of food. In the words of Christopher Clark in Kaiser Wilhelm II: A Life in Power

Of course, it could be argued that Germany had no other choice, because in the long run the odds in a continental war of attrition were stacked against Germany. But was this true? It is open to doubt, to say the least. In January 1917 Germany had just succeeded in crushing Romania and victory in Russia was not far off, though the Germans could not know that. The morale of the French army was close to collapse and Britain was fast running out of money, indeed it was much closer to financial collapse than the Germans knew. During the autumn of 1916 American exasperation at the British blockade against Germany was rising and Anglo-American relations were at their nadir. Without American participation and the comprehensive aid that came with it, Britain may well have sued for peace in the summer or autumn of 1917, at around the time that the Italian front was beginning to collapse under the Austro-German pressure.

In other words: if Germany had not embarked on unrestricted submarine warfare against merchant shipping and the United States had stayed out of the war, a German defeat at Allied hands seems highly unlikely. Germany’s best chance -- seen in retrospect -- lay in ‘simply waiting for the paralysis of [Allied] shipping, finances and military collapse on several fronts’. Wilhelm himself appears to have glimpsed this possibility. During a visit to Vienna late in November 1916, he predicted ‘revolution in Moscow and St. Petersburg’, and a French army worn down ‘to the last man’. Wilhelm’s interlocutors greeted this outburst with weary scepticism, but as a vision of a ‘virtual future’, it was less implausible than they thought.

 

[SpicyJuan]

The Entente scrambled and stopped it. Then they (specifically the Commonwealth) were though the Hindenburg Line by October before the Americans were fully operational.

The Entente were able to commit much more reserves and be not nearly as careful as they were in previous years because they knew that almost limitless American manpower was coming.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The core question here is political.

No. It was economic. The Entente economies depending on US food, oil, steel, and gun cotton, which was only available if they paid in dollars, which was gone by April 1917. Without that France is totally unable to import and the UK is basically down to very limited hand to mouth purchasing, which sustains them on the defensive, but no offensive levels of purchasing. US unsecured loans in 1917 after their entry kept the Entente fighting and Russia in the war until they collapsed. This is all covered very well by Hew Strachan's "Financing of the First World War". Among other books.