AHC: World War One ended in draw

With great difficulty. The resource imbalance has gone from significant to unmanageable, and that tends to be decisive in coalition wars.

And US intervention meant that the Allies knew that they were bound to win if only they avoided defeat long enough, so they had little incentive to compromise.


Possibly, though I'm not familiar enough with the details of how much the US gave to figure out how much that would make France's position impossible.

As of April 1917, they had loaned the Allies (mainly Britain) abt $2.2 billion, all secured against property/investments in North America. However, such collateral had by then been pretty well used up, so any future loans would have to be unsecured - not an option unless America entered the war.

After entering the war, America loaned another $7.5 billion. These loans were unsecured, which would be a source of acrimony in the 1920s, when recipients started defaulting on them.


Besides money, there was also the problem of food. With so many men taken off the land for the armies, production in all the belligerant countries was way down, and the Allies were relying a lot on imports from the US. However, America's 1916 harvest was poor, more than 40% down on 1915, and 1917's would prove to be lower still. OTL, America was still able to supply the Allies by "Hooverisation", observing meatless, wheatless etc days, and forbidding the use of grains or other foodstuffs to manufacture alcoholic beverages. Needless to say, none of this would have happened in a neutral America, virtually all of whose food production would probably have been consumed at home.

So the Allies are likely to be in a bad way. No doubt there would have been attempts to produce or extract more food at home, but in France particularly, most farms were now being worked by the peasant soldiers' wives and kids, so any attempt to requisition more food from them might well have repercussions at the front when their menfolk got to hear about it. "First they throw away your lives, now they're taking your children's food as well". Agitators would have a field day, and the French Army, in 1917, already had severe morale problems without adding that as well. Of course, belts in Germany were even tighter, but few ordinary folk had any idea of conditions on the other side of the hill. In this situation, pressure to seek peace could have got very strong.
 
And US intervention meant that the Allies knew that they were bound to win if only they avoided defeat long enough, so they had little incentive to compromise.

Yeah. Knowing its not coming would have to have a similar (but of course opposite) effect. How much sacrifice can you ask for before the capacity to do so, will or none, is exhausted? If the war had kept up without the US being involved, some nations that didn't have to find out OTL would have found out in this timeline.

As of April 1917, they had loaned the Allies (mainly Britain) abt $2.2 billion, all secured against property/investments in North America. However, such collateral had by then been pretty well used up, so any future loans would have to be unsecured - not an option unless America entered the war.

After entering the war, America loaned another $7.5 billion. These loans were unsecured, which would be a source of acrimony in the 1920s, when recipients started defaulting on them.


Besides money, there was also the problem of food. With so many men taken off the land for the armies, production in all the belligerant countries was way down, and the Allies were relying a lot on imports from the US. However, America's 1916 harvest was poor, more than 40% down on 1915, and 1917's would prove to be lower still. OTL, America was still able to supply the Allies by "Hooverisation", observing meatless, wheatless etc days, and forbidding the use of grains or other foodstuffs to manufacture alcoholic beverages. Needless to say, none of this would have happened in a neutral America, virtually all of whose food production would probably have been consumed at home.

So the Allies are likely to be in a bad way. No doubt there would have been attempts to produce or extract more food at home, but in France particularly, most farms were now being worked by the peasant soldiers' wives and kids, so any attempt to requisition more food from them might well have repercussions at the front when their menfolk got to hear about it. "First they throw away your lives, now they're taking your children's food as well". Agitators would have a field day, and the French Army, in 1917, already had severe morale problems without adding that as well. Of course, belts in Germany were even tighter, but few ordinary folk had any idea of conditions on the other side of the hill. In this situation, pressure to seek peace could have got very strong.
Not good. The situation in terms of money might be changed with desperate policies (though the strain would be even worse than OTL - raising taxes higher and higher and such steps)...but there's only so much you can do about the food supply.

This, in a word, is bad.

Germany taking advantage of this to pressure for advantageous-but-realistic peace terms might go very far here, even if the home front isn't actually collapsing.

Might have gone far even in OTL, but here they're not necessarily the worst off of the belligerents.
 
Top