Could The Entente Win Without America?

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Let us assume for a while that the UK government and treasury was a bunch of imbecile morons.

Let us further assume that the fabolous knowledge of all the people who claim that somehow the UK would have been able to pay gets to those imbecile morons so they can pay for 100% of what they got OTL from the USA.

So assuming an ASB UK wank where is the Entente?

Russia is still in the ropes, the French army will no longer attack, the UK cannot beat the Germans in France and the political leadership knew perfectly well that a victory against Germany is not coming soon.

How do you motivatie your soldiers to fight on if a peace proposal as outlined already a couple of times comes up? You simply do not. The UK would jump for it being the big winner with all its waraims fulfilled, the French cannot fight alone.

So even ignoring economic facts a draw is the most likely outcome. But I am at a loss how to argue economic facts with people who insist that countries cannot go broke. That is like arguing with people about the fate of the Titanic who claim that ships cannot sink.

And those who do not understand that being low on dollar assets is not the same as being broke i.e without any assets, belong in the economic madhouse.

 

[Aphrodite]

Couldn't stop Moltke the Lesser from going West.
And the Kaiser had less and less control over the Military as the War went on. He didn't have the Power that his cousin Nicky had.

this is totally wrong

On August 1, 1914 the Germans got a message from their Ambassador in London that France and Britain wished to be neutral. Moltke considered the plan a trap. If the Germans went East, the French would let them deploy and attack in the rear. The Kaiser overrode Moltke and wrote to King George "that if France offers me neutrality" of course I will deploy my forces elsewhere but French neutrality had to be guaranteed by all of Britain's land and sea forces. This somewhat modified the Germans offer to France- that if France wanted to be neural, France had to turn over Verdun and Toul.

The orders were prepared to turn the German Army around once the British accepted

King George wrote back "there must be some mistake" Britain would never have agreed to these terms and neither would France. When he got this response, he told Moltke "Now you can do as you like"

No one in the German military high command had suggested going East in a two front war since 1886.

 

[ferdi254]

Eagle you have just claimed the the people running the government of the UK and the treasury oh and btw those on the French side as well belong into the (economic) madhouse.

I can only repeat myself here: I trust those guys’ economical judgement much more than those of anybody in an internet forum in 2020.

 

[ferdi254]

Oh and btw your definition of being broke is complete rubbish. You are broke if you cannot pay due invoices anymore.

 

[Aphrodite]

Sorry to jump into this thread so late but two glaring errors pop out to me:

First, if America is more isolationist the POD is not 1917 but rather 1915. Without American pressure, the Germans would have continued Unrestricted Submarine Warfare throughout the war. There would have been no break from Late 1915 to early 1917. Allied shipping losses would have been much s tronger. If the Allies went to convoying, the lost shipping capacity would have been significant. The purpose of USW was to get neutrals not to trade with Britain. How many lost ships before that happens is anyone's guess.

Second, America loaned the allies nothing before she entered the war Americans did. Would Americans continue to do so if the war was going worse for the allies? Some yes, others no.

 

[Belisarius II]

Coulsdon the only figures and statements provided here clearly show that the UK government and treasury did clearly think they had no means to pay after May 1917. All other statments were „somehow“ by posters they think they know better than the UK treasury.

They didn't think they could pay in Dollars.

 

[Aber]

I can only repeat myself here: I trust those guys’ economical judgement much more than those of anybody in an internet forum in 2020.

You are relying on partial quotes provided by someone else from a 45 year old book. You have no idea of what the Treasury officials actually thought at the time, but are relying on hearsay.

As to understanding how government funding, payment crises and FX crises work, I was working in Russia in the 1990s and have seen how bad things can get. Nobody has said that countries cannot go broke, just that it takes a lot eg in the war of 1812 the US was almost but quite broke - soldiers pay was 6 months in arrears but they were still fighting.

 

[marathag]

No one in the German military high command had suggested going East in a two front war since 1886.

Other than Aufmarsch I Ost from 1913, and that went back to the 1890s. Plans had been done

 

[marathag]

Without American pressure, the Germans would have continued Unrestricted Submarine Warfare throughout the war.

Not Proven.
USA was Isolationist in 1915, yet the Germans backed off, after the US did very minor sabre rattling

Why would there be no US Pressure applied in 1915?

 

[Darrenb209]

They didn't think they could pay in Dollars.

To add to this, we're not talking modern currencies here. The Gold Standard was still a thing, while some countries were starting to tie their currencies to other currencies, it was not the norm.

Not being able to pay in dollars didn't even actually mean that you were out of money or that your money's value had crashed back then. It just meant you were effectively unable to get more of them to pay with that currency.

The Entente could still pay directly in Gold, even if that was a risky proposition and the US could in theory refuse, or they could pay in colonial territories. The US has a history of that kind of thing. Considering the Monroe Doctrine and the fact that US was still utilising the 1800s interpretation, the Britsh Caribbean, British Honduras and British Guyana or however you spell it all had significant value to the US.

In short, there were other options than paying in dollars.

 

[HelloThere]

Let's say that the Entente would still achieve a "victory". What would it look like exactly? British-French troops in Berlin had already been excluded, and yet a "victory" would mean that there would be no peace of understanding. How would this victory peace be enforced? Would it be gentler because the Entente wouldn't have the backing of the United States? Or would he be harder because Wilson would be missing as a moderating power?

Would Europe be more stabilized than OTL in such a scenario? Or would the wave of revolutions from 1918 to 1923 be more successful?

 

[Aghasverov]

Other than Aufmarsch I Ost from 1913, and that went back to the 1890s. Plans had been done

Would've been difficult to switch the mobilization plans over between, say, Aug 1 and Aug 4, and von Moltke (and others) would've been furious had it been insisted upon. Still, could have been done though. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had the ball been placed in the French court like that. And then the question of "what would the UK do?"? Some parties were in favor of going to war in support of France regardless of whether Belgium's neutrality was violated or not.

 

[Aghasverov]

this is totally wrong

On August 1, 1914 the Germans got a message from their Ambassador in London that France and Britain wished to be neutral. Moltke considered the plan a trap. If the Germans went East, the French would let them deploy and attack in the rear. The Kaiser overrode Moltke and wrote to King George "that if France offers me neutrality" of course I will deploy my forces elsewhere but French neutrality had to be guaranteed by all of Britain's land and sea forces. This somewhat modified the Germans offer to France- that if France wanted to be neural, France had to turn over Verdun and Toul.

The orders were prepared to turn the German Army around once the British accepted

King George wrote back "there must be some mistake" Britain would never have agreed to these terms and neither would France. When he got this response, he told Moltke "Now you can do as you like"

No one in the German military high command had suggested going East in a two front war since 1886.

Aphrodite, do you know where I could find a copy of the "neutrality offer" to France on Aug 1? I have seen multiple references to it (on this post and elsewhere), but haven't been able to track down an actual text copy of it yet.
I like being able to go to the actual sources

 

[Belisarius II]

Aber that is not an answer. They were greedy but not stupid. Belisarius going broke happened to the Roman empire, the Habsburg empire and so on. All your post boils down to one thing: The people running the UK government and especially the treasury were a bunch of incompetent morons.

I rather think they were not and they thought it was game over for them. You tend to ignore that fact and as long as you do so your position starts not from facts but from wishful thinking.

Sorry but respectfully your analogies are off the mark. The Roman Empire wasn't dependent on foreign loans. It suffered from inflation caused by adulterating the gold content of it's coinage. It was weakened by internal conflicts, and lost it's Western Provinces to Barbarian Invasions. They were always able to maintain foreign trade. The Habsburg Empire broke up because it's continuant National components revolted against the central authority. None of those conditions applied to the UK in 1917. The UK Government, and Treasury weren't incompetent morons, they just ran out of Dollar Reserves.

Wishful thinking isn't believing the United States Government would guarantee loans to it's no 1 investment partner. Believing that nations facing internal conflicts, critical shortages of strategic materials, and are facing starvation are better off then ones facing a credit crisis is wishful Thinking.

 

[Sarthak]

The Habsburg Empire broke up because it's continuant National components revolted against the central authority

Even then, the Habsburg Empire was united until the Death of Franz Joseph who was beloved by the populace. After his death things started to spiral down for Austria.

 

[Belisarius II]

this is totally wrong

On August 1, 1914 the Germans got a message from their Ambassador in London that France and Britain wished to be neutral. Moltke considered the plan a trap. If the Germans went East, the French would let them deploy and attack in the rear. The Kaiser overrode Moltke and wrote to King George "that if France offers me neutrality" of course I will deploy my forces elsewhere but French neutrality had to be guaranteed by all of Britain's land and sea forces. This somewhat modified the Germans offer to France- that if France wanted to be neural, France had to turn over Verdun and Toul.

The orders were prepared to turn the German Army around once the British accepted

King George wrote back "there must be some mistake" Britain would never have agreed to these terms and neither would France. When he got this response, he told Moltke "Now you can do as you like"

No one in the German military high command had suggested going East in a two front war since 1886.

It was typical of the Germans to offer the harsh terms of a military defeat for the privilege of neutrality. Giving up fortress cities, and getting a British pledge to go to war with France if they failed to honor the agreement was the height of arrogance. Would the Germans surrender their fleet to the British, to guarantee they would give the fortress Cities back to the French?

 

[Sarthak]

Would the Germans surrender their fleet to the British, to guarantee they would give the fortress Cities back to the French?

They found it hard to do in 1919 when they had already lost nevermind 1914............

 

[Mikestone8]

Also I don't seem to understand why everyone of you are fixated on Germany?

Because Germany was the only one that mattered. Her allies would keep going as long as she was in a position to come to their aid at critical moments.

There's a reason why the other CPs, despite being in a far greater internal mess than was Germany, only collapsed a few weeks (Turkey and A/H only a few *days*) before Germany herself did.

 

[Sarthak]

Because Germany was the only one that mattered. Her allies would keep going as long as she was in a position to come to their aid at critical moments.

There's a reason why the other CPs, despite being in a far greater internal mess than was Germany, only collapsed a few weeks (Turkey and A/H only a few *days*) before Germany herself did.

Uh huh, Bulgaria collapsed because of its own military mistakes in the Vardar Offensive and Turkey collapsed because of Bulgaria's collapse. Those two collapsing left Austria exposed which collapsed which made Germany's rear vulnerable. There is a reason why the Vardar Offensive is called the overlooked Verdun of the Balkans, because that offensive set off a massive chain reaction.

 

[cjc]

The argument on here seems to be between people who think that "if the US had remained neutral in 1917, the Entente would still have won" and people who assert that "if alien space bats had made the US vanish from the face of the earth overnight in 1917, the Entente would have had trouble pusuing its war effort". And I understand it is hard to disprove the later point, as the logic of it is, indeed, airtight...

Well there also people who seem to think they are smarter then the people in the actual UK UK treasury, that also dosnt help.