How long can WWI be prolonged before a mutual collapse occurs?

[Colonel Levnekov]

Exactly as the tin says.

I'll define 'mutual collapse' as being a situation where both sides' main powers and/or countries simply cannot sustain hostilities, even with outside help (ie; the United States).

 

[Wendell]

It's easier if the U.S. stays out of the war.

 

[darthfanta]

Not possible to have mutual collapse if the US is aiding one side,considering entente already has massive materiel and manpower advantage without American aid.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

The Entente would have collapsed shortly after the Spring Offensive if not for the USA.
Germany would have collapsed sometime in early 1919.

- BNC

 

[Matteo]

The Entente would have collapsed shortly after the Spring Offensive if not for the USA.
Germany would have collapsed sometime in early 1919.

- BNC

In fact, Germany was collapsing in october 1918.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

In fact, Germany was collapsing in october 1918.

Their economy was failing, but their army was still combat-worthy for a bit after the armistice.

- BNC

 

[TRH]

I mean, there's plenty of contingent battles/decisions that could have conserved a ton of resources for one side and thereby staved off national collapse by months or longer, most of them in 1914. The issue is getting the war to last until 1918 even with, say, Austria-Hungary holding the line in Galicia at the start of their campaign and not getting so much of the country's rolling stock destroyed at the outset.

 

[The Gunslinger]

In fact, Germany was collapsing in october 1918.

If the Americans aren't backing the Entente to the hilt there's a good chance that 1917-18 goes better for the Germans.

 

[Mikestone8]

The real problem with this is the word "mutual".

In real life one side is likely to collapse (or at least despair of victory, which in practice would probably come to the same thing) before the other. Having both sides give up is a bit like getting a tossed coin to stand on edge, ie not totally ASB but highly improbable.


BTW isn't this thread in the wrong forum?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

If the Americans aren't backing the Entente to the hilt there's a good chance that 1917-18 goes better for the Germans.

America didn't really start to make a big impact on the war until 1918. 1917 and the first part of 1918 would probably go pretty much as IOTL even without American involvement.

 

[King Augeas]

America didn't really start to make a big impact on the war until 1918. 1917 and the first part of 1918 would probably go pretty much as IOTL even without American involvement.

The American influence in 1917 and 1918 is mostly financial rather than military. If the US stays out (which is tricky because certain influential Germans were just desperate to unleash the U-boats, but is certainly possible) then the Entente has an industrial crisis in 1917. Their offensives will fail as OTL and they will have to choose to continue the war on the defensive with greatly weakened resources while hoping for Germany to collapse or the US to come in after all, or ask for terms. They will choose the former.

Then in spring 1918 Germany has a chance to win on the field, taking advantage of reduced Entente fighting power. This would probably be easier if there was an actual strategy to the Spring Offensive and the logistics weren't quite so terrible... but it's possible. However, if they fail roughly as OTL, then the German response to such a failure is likely to be to listen to the people promising that the U-boats will win the war in a few months, having just seen those saying that the war can be won on land be thoroughly discredited, which will probably draw the US in after all and doom Germany. However, assuming that this doesn't happen, then both sides are basically screwed, lacking the combat power to win a decisive victory.

But even that doesn't equal mutual collapse. It just means grinding, low intensity warfare until one side has had enough and asks the US to arbitrate a peace. By 1919 the other side would be similarly so fed up that a deal becomes possible. Then they'll probably spend another six months arguing about the details, while flu and blockade grind away...

 

[Mikestone8]

The American influence in 1917 and 1918 is mostly financial rather than military. If the US stays out (which is tricky because certain influential Germans were just desperate to unleash the U-boats, but is certainly possible) then the Entente has an industrial crisis in 1917. Their offensives will fail as OTL and they will have to choose to continue the war on the defensive with greatly weakened resources while hoping for Germany to collapse or the US to come in after all, or ask for terms. They will choose the former.

Then in spring 1918 Germany has a chance to win on the field, taking advantage of reduced Entente fighting power. This would probably be easier if there was an actual strategy to the Spring Offensive

Will there even need to be a Spring Offensive. With no US intervention,, the Germans aren't racing against time before US troops arrive in force. All they have to do is hold their (no doubt extending and reinforcing the Hindenburg Line while thay do so. They are standing on enemy territory almost everywhere, so a stalemate is in effect a German win.

and the logistics weren't quite so terrible... but it's possible. However, if they fail roughly as OTL, then the German response to such a failure is likely to be to listen to the people promising that the U-boats will win the war in a few months, having just seen those saying that the war can be won on land be thoroughly discredited, which will probably draw the US in after all and doom Germany. However, assuming that this doesn't happen, then both sides are basically screwed, lacking the combat power to win a decisive victory.

That's the point, though. The Germans don't need a decisive victory, since the facts on the ground are so much in their favour. The Entente does. For them a draw is a defeat.

But even that doesn't equal mutual collapse. It just means grinding, low intensity warfare until one side has had enough and asks the US to arbitrate a peace. By 1919 the other side would be similarly so fed up that a deal becomes possible. Then they'll probably spend another six months arguing about the details, while flu and blockade grind away...

The blockade doesn't matter all that amount. It makes life miserable for a lot of German civilians, but isn't even remotely likely to bring about a collapse in any foreseeable future.

As for the flu, does it even happen in this situation? Isn't it supposed to have started up in US training camps, which TTL won't exist?

I don't really see how a peace arbitrated by the US (or by anyone else) can possibly happen. The Germans have virtually all the bargaining chips, and won't give them away just because some arbitrator asks them to. At some point the Entente has to go back on the offensive to dislodge the Germans from their conquests. If the offensives fail (the way to bet going by past form) then Germany wins.

 

[Alexander the Average]

What if the US's entry is delayed long enough for the Central Powers to consolidate their position, whilst the Entente are weaker, perhaps have an earlier Brest-Litovsk? Maybe if the Zimmermann Telegram wasn't intercepted by the British. Whilst it is highly unlikely that Mexico would accept the deal (they lacked the military might to fight the US, the means to integrate the new territories, would ruin their relations with much of Latin America, etc.) it might make the case for war harder for Woodrow Wilson to sell to the American people and Congress.

 

[Mikestone8]

What if the US's entry is delayed long enough for the Central Powers to consolidate their position, whilst the Entente are weaker, perhaps have an earlier Brest-Litovsk? Maybe if the Zimmermann Telegram wasn't intercepted by the British. Whilst it is highly unlikely that Mexico would accept the deal (they lacked the military might to fight the US, the means to integrate the new territories, would ruin their relations with much of Latin America, etc.) it might make the case for war harder for Woodrow Wilson to sell to the American people and Congress.[/QUOTE


Best bet is probably to have the Russian Revolution come a bit sooner - say in Oct-Nov 1916. That gives Bethmann a stronger argument against USW, which may well be delayed. It's also possible that Russia drops out more quickly, as the Revolution has come soon after the failure of the Brusilov Offensive, so that the troops are in a more negative mood, and the Revolution is immediately followed by the onset of winter, so that soldiers and civilians alike are more miserable and discontented than they were OTL between March an Nov 1917. In short, the Provisional Government has a harder row to hoe, and probably collapses quicker. If Russia is clearly leaving the war by say March 1917, then you may well not get USW at all, so no US intervention.

 

[King Augeas]

Will there even need to be a Spring Offensive. With no US intervention,, the Germans aren't racing against time before US troops arrive in force. All they have to do is hold their (no doubt extending and reinforcing the Hindenburg Line while thay do so. They are standing on enemy territory almost everywhere, so a stalemate is in effect a German win.

Germany certainly holds an advantage, but to realise it the war must be ended. Simply holding ground is not good enough; the war must actually end.

To end the war, Germany must either attack and defeat the Entente in the field, or sit there and wait for the Entente to come begging. A stalemate is a stalemate in an ongoing war; a win requires the war to have ended.

The Entente would be delighted if Germany just sat there doing nothing. It would give them time to reorganise and adjust to their new, straitened circumstances without the fear of military defeat. The politicians will put their faith in blockade and future American support, while the troops will be glad of the respite too. Meanwhile in Germany there'll be a lot of confusion about their new strategy which appeared to consist of doing nothing, while certain officers keep mentioning that the U-boats can give victory quickly and cheaply...

So not attacking is absurd. The exact timing might change - a summer offensive in drier weather might allow time for additional training, for example, or to develop an actual plan, which would considerably improve German chances.

 

[Wallet]

Wasn't the entire French army on the brink of mutiny?

Wasn't a communist revolution about to break out in Germany? The allies wanted to stop the war so that the German army could put down any revolts

 

[TRH]

Wasn't the entire French army on the brink of mutiny?

Wasn't a communist revolution about to break out in Germany? The allies wanted to stop the war so that the German army could put down any revolts

No and no, honestly. There was a French mutiny in 1917, but we're not sure of the scale (I think we may get more documents unsealed next year), and it was put down then. And Germany only saw its upheaval in response to the loss of the war, which was a massive shock to everyone since it contradicted years of propaganda. Lowering the tempo of operations without a decision of the war one way or another probably means more stability than OTL, at least in the short term.

 

[King Augeas]

AIUI the mutiny was a refusal to attack and a demand for better conditions, rather than "we're fed up and we're going home", partially in response to the massive overconfidence before the Nivelle Offensive and the disappointment at its bloody failure. The French seemed to deal with it quite well, promising better conditions, an end to stupid attacks and "to wait for the Americans".

Here, the Americans wouldn't be coming at that point, which appears to be a driver for the Entente to sit on the defensive, although they may well take the opposite view that they only have one attack left in them without US support. After that attack fails, they'll have go on the defensive or admit defeat, and the politicians will put off the latter for as long as possible.

 

[Drizzt]

America didn't really start to make a big impact on the war until 1918. 1917 and the first part of 1918 would probably go pretty much as IOTL even without American involvement.

Actually they made a big impact, just not with troops. We've discussed this several times before, but the gist is that when the U.S. joined the war the Entente was about to run out of being able to secure it's loans and even the most pro-Entente members of the US cabinet were against extending unsecured loans to the Entente. So they were going to feel the squeeze resources wise soon as well.

Now, there's one point that's not been mentioned in the thread yet. Unfortunately it's one were I must admit ignorance how big an impact it would make: With Russia throwing the towel in an ATL WW1, where the U.S. hasn't joined the war, then Germany would definetly be SEEN as winning the war. This opens more options than a simple dispassionate number-crunching of both sides resources would show.
1st: The Entente might conclude they have to lauch a "Final War Winning Offensive" before "massive amounts" of German Troops are transferred to the Western Front. Result being that instead of an ALT-Michael, which is marginally more successful than OTL, but fails. You have failed Entente offensive, followed by a muchmore-ALT-Michael against depleted and demoralized Entente lines.
2nd: It's not just the Entente and the Central Powers, where Germany would be percieved as "clearly winning". Also neutrals who in OTL didn't see Germany as the winning horse to bet on with the U.S. having already declared war, might be tempted to jump in on the CP side now.

 

[Mikestone8]

Germany certainly holds an advantage, but to realise it the war must be ended. Simply holding ground is not good enough; the war must actually end.

To end the war, Germany must either attack and defeat the Entente in the field, or sit there and wait for the Entente to come begging. A stalemate is a stalemate in an ongoing war; a win requires the war to have ended.

The Entente would be delighted if Germany just sat there doing nothing. It would give them time to reorganise and adjust to their new, straitened circumstances without the fear of military defeat.

No Spring Offensive does not mean doing nothing - just nothing on the scale of Michael et al.

They can still do lots of smaller attacks, similar to what Petain did OTL to restore the morale of his army. And the morale of the German army had held up well enough over the last three years without any need to do offensives on the scale of 1918

The politicians will put their faith in blockade and future American support.

On this TL they have no expectation of American support - ever.

As to "putting their faith in blockade", I'm not sure what you mean. As late as August 1918 the Imperial War Cabinet was still expecting the war to last through 1919 and even into 1920. There was no suggestion that the blockade would bring Germany down at any foreseeable date.

With the Germans standing on their soil almost everywhere, the Entente powers have to attack sooner or later. The Germans only need to hold their own until the other side's troops despair of ever dislodging them. They may well, of course, attack at that point, but it is likely to be in response to a failed Entente attack, after the enemy have been demoralised by that failure - pretty much what happened the other way round in the 1918 of OTL.