AHC: No U.S. belligerency in WWI, but Entente dictates peace very similar to OTL Versailles

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How can we meet this challenge:

A) No U.S. belligerency against Germany in WWI
B) Russia has a Bolshevik revolution and makes a separate peace before the war is done
C) The Allies still beat the CP and dictate a peace resulting in a similar map of European successor states (borders do not need to be exactly as OTL, but there should be a Polish Corridor separating East Prussia)
D) The peace includes a German war guilt clause, reparations (amounts can vary from OTL) and Allied occupation of the Rhineland and bridgeheads over the river.
 
I think the best way to do this would be a massive breakthrough on the Western Front caused by some colossal German screwup and an earlier Russian collapse (say Germany gets the idea to cattle car Lenin earlier). A more East-focused campaign could do the trick, but it would likely be a bang-bang type peace with Russia and then collapse of the German system.
 
There is no German guilt clause OTL, why would there be one in your timeline ?

It’s amazing to read how some pieces of Nazi propaganda keep living on....
 
There is no German guilt clause OTL, why would there be one in your timeline ?

It’s amazing to read how some pieces of Nazi propaganda keep living on....

Yes, article 231 was about Germany accepting responsibility to pay for damages. In hindsight, instead of "reparations", term "indemnities" should've been used.
 
How can we meet this challenge:

A) No U.S. belligerency against Germany in WWI
B) Russia has a Bolshevik revolution and makes a separate peace before the war is done
C) The Allies still beat the CP and dictate a peace resulting in a similar map of European successor states (borders do not need to be exactly as OTL, but there should be a Polish Corridor separating East Prussia)
D) The peace includes a German war guilt clause, reparations (amounts can vary from OTL) and Allied occupation of the Rhineland and bridgeheads over the river.
Very much a hatchet job PoDs:
  • Lusitania not sunk, US remains pro-allied neutral.
  • German 1918 offensive not as successful, not as big a shock, fewer gains (less pressure to attack as US entry seen as unlikely, Entente not planning on strategic offensive in 1918, scaled logistic issues similar to OTL)
  • Haig removed from command and mechanization advocate faction in the ascendancy at GHQ.
  • ITTL version of Plan 1919 implemented in June (possibly in combination with the plans for increased Chemical warfare in 1919)
  • German army decisively defeated in the field (TTLs 100 Days Offensive)
B-D dpends on the wings of butterflies...
 
Yes, article 231 was about Germany accepting responsibility to pay for damages. In hindsight, instead of "reparations", term "indemnities" should've been used.
Exactly, ‘responsibility’ and not ‘guilt’. A clause that was inserted in all the treaties with other CPs, where it did not lead to the same kind of hysteria as in Germany.
 
Exactly, ‘responsibility’ and not ‘guilt’. A clause that was inserted in all the treaties with other CPs, where it did not lead to the same kind of hysteria as in Germany.

Well, the Turks had more relevant objections than just the wording of their treaty, the Hungarians went red, the Austrians wriggled out of reparations payments, and the Bulgarians spent the next five years teetering on the edge of military coup. All in all, it seems like most of them had bigger problems.
 
Well, the Turks had more relevant objections than just the wording of their treaty, the Hungarians went red, the Austrians wriggled out of reparations payments, and the Bulgarians spent the next five years teetering on the edge of military coup. All in all, it seems like most of them had bigger problems.
You’re proving my point. Germany was the best treated CP in the treaties following WWI
 
You’re proving my point. Germany was the best treated CP in the treaties following WWI

Excepting the one that didn't have reparations payments, you mean? Otherwise, yes, how beneficent of the Triple Entente to not completely destroy Germany like they attempted to with the Turks. Truly, the greatest humanitarians since Leopold.
 
My Take

POD 1915, some rumors published in US papers start that Carranza was responsible for the attacks of the Plan of San Diego, outrage in US, US gets stuck in nasty intervention in Mexico until 1918. Germany thus does not need to send Zimmerman note, USW on its own remains insufficient for the US to enter war with Mexico going on

1916 General Evert is forced to comply with STAVKA and launches his offensive on schedule, Germany forced to divert more troops to bail out A-H, has to withdraw earlier and farther than OTL, and can't assemble the reserve of OTL

1917, Russia leaves the war at about the OTL time (morale boost of 1916 countered by lack of US entry morale boost), but does more damage to A-H in the process. Germany is pressed harder on Western Front, cannot spare troops for Caporetto, the offensive fails, Italy takes 200k fewer casualties, stays at roughly pre battle position, Romania is in good enough position to hold out

1918, Italy launches Spring offensive, Austro-Hungarian lines collapse, Balkan front collapses. Ottomans front collapses as OTL. Germany forced to transfer forces to keep A-H in the war, British summer offensive pushes back Germans, France is able to follow British success. Bulgaria out of war by end of October, Austria-Hungary disintegrates during November, Germany throws in towel in December, in roughly same straits as OTL
 
Either have Turkey be a pro-Entente neutral, or have the Gallipoli Campaign succeed in "decapitating" the empire by a swift strike and occupation against Constantinople. That way, British and French supplies would be better able to reach Russia from the south, without relying too much on the port of Murmansk, which could result in Russia not bailing out in the middle of the war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Without the 14 points I'm not sure how well you can attain a "similar map of European successor states".

I think this is too Americo-centric. Poles, Czechs and South Slavs, Balts and Finns all thought of having an independent state before Wilson delivered any of the 14 points. Most of those groups had nationalist advocates in London, Paris and St. Petersburg as well as at home.

It is the "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy at work.
 
I think this is too Americo-centric. Poles, Czechs and South Slavs, Balts and Finns all thought of having an independent state before Wilson delivered any of the 14 points. Most of those groups had nationalist advocates in London, Paris and St. Petersburg as well as at home.

It is the "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy at work.
Having advocacy groups in other countries isn't the same as having their ear and honest support. After all Russian revolutionaries also had organizations in Paris. The 14 Points absolutely did represent a shift the conversation amongst the Entente Powers, let's just take a look at what Loyd George had to say just three days before the 14 points speech,
"Similarly, though we agree with President Wilson that the break-up of Austria-Hungary is no part of our war aims, we feel that unless genuine self-government on true democratic principles is granted to those Austro-Hungarian nationalities who have long desired it, it is impossible to hope for the removal of those causes of unrest in that part of Europe which have so long threatened its general peace.


"On the same grounds we regard as vital the satisfaction of the legitimate claims of the Italians for union with those of their own race and tongue. We also mean to press that justice be done to men of Roumanian blood and speech in their legitimate aspirations.


"If these conditions are fulfilled Austria-Hungary would become a power whose strength would conduce to the permanent peace and freedom of Europe, instead of being merely an instrument to the pernicious military autocracy of Prussia, which uses the resources of its allies for the furtherance of its own sinister purposes.
Seems that the British were planning on Austria-Hungary emerging from the war somewhat intact (also seems that Wilson had similar ideas at some point).

Also, at least in Austria-Hungary the matter was up in the air until the very end, which lead to some very odd things like the proclamation of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs including a statement that it would have a Habsburg king. With a PoD like America not joining the war, then the fate of Austria Hungary is a lot less certain than you'd think.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
With a PoD like America not joining the war, then the fate of Austria Hungary is a lot less certain than you'd think

Well I am not certain that Austria-Hungary would have to have the same fate as OTL. But your initial post seemed highly certain that you could not attain a similar map of Europe without the 14 points.

Point 10 of the 14 Points, on Austria-Hungary, does not propose or promise independence or even refer to sub-nationalities, just the people of Austria-Hungary, so it does not seem any more far-reaching than Lloyd George's statement:

X. The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

--If there is proof that America and Wilson were the decisive drivers of European successor states and their borders, it is not to be found in either speech. I think to attribute the successor states more to one Entente member than another, we would need to look at evidence later in 1918 than the 14 Points, closer to the point of no return.

Of course with US non belligerency you could have something other than the collapse of the Habsburg and Ottoman empires occur. But that is only because a lot of things could go differently. I don't find it implausible that the process of a Central Powers defeat, even with changes in detail like US non belligerency, might also end up with increased national consciousness, tensions and ultimately independence in the defeated multiethnic empires.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@Colonel Grubb & @RamscoopRaider - nice ideas, I like 'em.

How about this option-

a) There is a Japanese Expeditionary Force that deploys to European of up to half a million men in total. The first Japanese ground contingents get to Europe in late 1915, and the full complement is active in Europe from the summer of 1916. [The Japanese force gets paid for by Entente cash, free gear, extra concessions in China and Siam or something else, I don't really care what exactly]. This increment added to Allied power in Europe through the end of the war stretches Germany a bit more than OTL, but slowly and cumulatively.

b) The Germans decide not do USW, and that is the basis for the U.S. not getting into the war. They do not face the whole AEF, but also don't get any benefits of increased sinking that the unrestricted U-Boats allowed in OTL, and the British are not forced to introduce convoys.

c) To avoid any question of an Allied credit collapse, the U.S. administration and Congress and business are sufficiently sympathetic to the Entente and sufficiently fearful of an Entente credit crunch causing a Depression in America, and not only Entente countries, that they allow unsecured credit/loans or some sort of early version of Lend-Lease to the Entente.

d) The effect of A, B and C above is that the Western Allies and Japan are able to keep pressing Germany through the end of 1917. But, this does not save Russia from its revolution in 1917 and an eventual Brest-Litovsk separate peace in early 1918.

e) After Russia drops out, the opportunity to redeploy forces west to force a decision, plus the tightening blockade, encourage Germany to do their Kaiserschlachts,but they get halted in midsummer and that's their last bolt, so they fold to Entente counterattacks on the western front and a breakthrough against the Bulgarians in the Salonika Front.
 
I think it would be more likely @raharris1973 that Britain and France would deploy more colonial and empire manpower to the western front (or to other theatres freeing up divisions used there IOTL) than a Japanese force, especially on the western front. Britain had considered the use of significantly more African manpower, but didn’t see the need for it in OTL. With US entry not occurring and manpower shortages cropping up as OTL, it’s likely those plans will overcome the obstacles it faced. It’s been a while since I read it, but the article was
Killingray, David. "The Idea of a British Imperial African Army." The Journal of African History 20, no. 3 (1979): 421-36.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think it would be more likely @raharris1973 that Britain and France would deploy more colonial and empire manpower to the western front (or to other theatres freeing up divisions used there IOTL) than a Japanese force, especially on the western front. Britain had considered the use of significantly more African manpower, but didn’t see the need for it in OTL. With US entry not occurring and manpower shortages cropping up as OTL, it’s likely those plans will overcome the obstacles it faced. It’s been a while since I read it, but the article was
Killingray, David. "The Idea of a British Imperial African Army." The Journal of African History 20, no. 3 (1979): 421-36.

Thanks for the recommendation, interesting article.
 

TheTuck

Banned
completely destroy Germany like they attempted to with the Turks. Truly, the greatest humanitarians since Leopold.
I don't think they intended to exterminate or enslave millions of Turks and while the borders drawn would leave many Turks in foreign countries, a lot of the territory contained minorities that the Turks tried to ethnically cleanse or would later ethnically cleanse, so comparing the Entente to Leopold is quite unfair.
 
Top