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

Over a year and in part due to the returning radicalized PoWs from Russia in 1918. The situation with A-H was very complex and even with all the problems they had it took defeat on all fronts and of German collapse to make A-H actually start to fall apart.


Based on? Italy was entirely dependent on British loans, which were going away as of April 1917 per the scans I did and another source I provided today. Russia was not likely to keep fighting without the US in the war to keep up their morale and belief in victory (hard to do when the trans-atlantic trade is cut), so are likely out in 1917. France is in a slightly better situation, but won't be able to go on the offensive anymore, so why continue the war? Britain can survive defensively, but are without allies who can help them, have lost half the alliance, and now will face Germany effectively alone. 1918 is the latest the war will last especially once the pro-negotiations French PM is elected and Lloyd George is in power. Just going with OTL series of events into 1918 and ignoring the material effects of limited US supplies the Spring offensives and their success will be irreversable unlike OTL with American help (materially, in terms of morale, and in terms of men).


You can't count on that, especially given the material situation in the context.

Your source actually says Italy is entirely dependent on the British for their economy

Basic energy needs were, however, covered by English coal, which was imported, along with many other commodities unloaded at Italian ports, and carried by ships sailing under the British flag. The problem of the steep rise in freight charges had already had negative consequences for the economy during the phase of neutrality.

War Finance (Italy), 1914-1918 Online.

It then discusses the effort involved in fulfilling all the terms of the British-Italian Alliance and the efforts of Woodrow Wilson to try and force a compromise peace and after British efforts to offload the cost of support for the Italians onto the US.

However this is not the same as immediate and total cessation of British support nor does it suggest that Italy would eagerly seek the right to be looted by a pair of Central Powers who cannot remotely make good its energy needs nor do anything to pluck it out of the British blockade. Remember all claims to the contrary Italy was then and still remains in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, a sea whose both ends are controlled by the British and whose departure from the alliance would remove the need to send convoys to Italy.

There was a reason that Churchill reputedly considered it only fair the Italians went on the other team next time. Not for want of courage which they displayed in spades (I did mention the 18 suicide charges up into the Alps already) but because of her precarious strategic situation if pitted against the British.
 
Last edited:
If for no other reason that freeing up labor and horses.
Not sure what they managed to take IOTL off hand, I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to my personal library.


For stuff looted from Russia and actually delivered to Germany

How long could WW1 have lasted if the US never entered? post #110

Or again

"The official history of the war claims that 52 000 tons of grain and feed, 34 000 tons of sugar, 45 million eggs, 39 000 cattle, 53 000 horses and 48 000 hogs and sheep were removed from former Russian territories by October 1918"

The First World War, Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918, Holger H. Herwig page 386

Who got his numbers from the German official history of the War

Took a look at how much they got from Romania per Herwig page 222

1 million tons of oil, 2 million tons of grain, 300,000 cattle, pigs and goats, 200,000 tons of timber. That I think is the sort of loot people have in their head as the expectation of what ought to be being realised from occupied Russia and clearly was not OTL.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The German offensives had failed before the Americans had arrived in force:
Except for all that American money that kept them in the war and explosives and other materials that enabled the successful defense and morale holding up. Though it is disengenuous to say that US forces didn't have important impact. The American 1st division was on the line in October 1917 and as each US division was the size of a three division French corps they freed up a large number of French troops by Spring 1918 to counter the German offensives. In April 1918 the US 1st division then also counterattacked German forces advancing on Paris and stopped them.

Only in this timeline, there would be no Hundred Days Offensive. Instead, there would be a negotiated peace settlement.
Best case scenario for the Entente. And they'd not be getting great terms.

Ok. Then why would the Spring Offensive succeed?
Broken Entente morale, lack of American materials they got IOTL, lack of manpower (including those units which held quiet sectors to free up Allied troops to defend and attack during the spring offensives, not just those that participated in stopping the offensives), and so on. The French had experienced civil unrest in 1918 as it was and were well passed their manpower peak, so lack of American troops even in quiet sectors is going to be extremely painful, not to mention the morale impact of Russia being out of the war, no US in to balance them out, Italy probably also being out, likely no Clemenceau in charge without the US in, etc.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Venocara

Banned
Except for all that American money that kept them in the war and explosives and other materials that enabled the successful defense and morale holding up. Though it is disengenuous to say that US forces didn't have important impact. The American 1st division was on the line in October 1917 and as each US division was the size of a three division French corps they freed up a large number of French troops by Spring 1918 to counter the German offensives. In April 1918 the US 1st division then also counterattacked German forces advancing on Paris and stopped them.

What was wrong with Painlevé? After all, he went on to be responsible for the Maginot Line...

And the Americans did not make a big impact militarily until the Hundred Days Offensive. Up until then they were there, but simply not as important.
 
I checked Hew Strachan ‘Financing the First World War.’ Italy had run out its foreign exchange even before they entered the war. They had been living off French and British Loans, their own attempts to borrow from US were a failure and in 1918 like the British Pound the Italian Lira was being supported by the US Treasury Department. What is interesting is that the British were restricting the amount that Italy could buy from the USA, some of the war material had to be bought form UK. No detail on percentage.

Michael
 

Deleted member 1487

Your source actually says Italy is entirely dependent on the British for their economy

Basic energy needs were, however, covered by English coal, which was imported, along with many other commodities unloaded at Italian ports, and carried by ships sailing under the British flag. The problem of the steep rise in freight charges had already had negative consequences for the economy during the phase of neutrality.

Ok? Not sure how that refutes my point. Just because Italy sourced coal from Britain doesn't mean anything else was.

War Finance (Italy), 1914-1918 Online.

It then discusses the effort involved in fulfilling all the terms of the British-Italian Alliance and the efforts of Woodrow Wilson to try and force a compromise peace and after British efforts to offload the cost of support for the Italians onto the US.

However this is not the same as immediate and total cessation of British support nor does it suggest that Italy would eagerly seek the right to be looted by a pair of Central Powers who cannot remotely make good its energy needs nor do anything to pluck it out of the British blockade. Remember all claims to the contrary Italy was then and still remains in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, a sea whose both ends are controlled by the British and whose departure from the alliance would remove the need to send convoys to Italy.

There was a reason that Churchill reputedly considered it only fair the Italians went on the other team next time. Not for want of courage which they displayed in spades (I did mention the 18 suicide charges up into the Alps already) but because of her precarious strategic situation if pitted against the British.
If they got a deal from the CPs to leave the war ASAP with a white peace, why wouldn't they given that other than coal they were dependent on the US? Continued fighting isn't going to improve their strategic position, economy, or civil unrest. Since the CPs had already made such an offer to the Russians in 1915, they were willing to do such a thing to peal apart the Entente. Without war expenses they could source coal from the US and it isn't like the British trying to leverage them with access to the Mediterranean would go over well with Wilson, who was already furious to the point of forcing the issue with the USN over freedom of the seas. Plus I don't think Britain would want to make more enemies by threatening Italy.
 

Deleted member 1487

For stuff looted from Russia and actually delivered to Germany

How long could WW1 have lasted if the US never entered? post #110

Or again

"The official history of the war claims that 52 000 tons of grain and feed, 34 000 tons of sugar, 45 million eggs, 39 000 cattle, 53 000 horses and 48 000 hogs and sheep were removed from former Russian territories by October 1918"

The First World War, Germany and Austria-Hungary 1914-1918, Holger H. Herwig page 386

Who got his numbers from the German official history of the War

Took a look at how much they got from Romania per Herwig page 222

1 million tons of oil, 2 million tons of grain, 300,000 cattle, pigs and goats, 200,000 tons of timber. That I think is the sort of loot people have in their head as the expectation of what ought to be being realised from occupied Russia and clearly was not OTL.
As I recall that is what was sent home, no what was consumed by the armies actually in the field, who were able to supply themselves from occupied territories, which saved Germany alone from supplying 1 million men with food. Plus 1 million men to hold the Brest-Litovsk territory weren't really enough to manage those territories and take what they wanted.
 
Not all. The Ottomans were not defeated on that front. And the Austrians would have been knocked out by the Italians. The Germans would have had to send an unreasonably large force to stop that from happening.

Would they have had to send any force?

The battle of VV wasn't initiated until Oct 23, three weeks after the surrender of Bulgaria and the German appeal for an armistice - in short, when the CPs were through and everybody knew it. TTL such would not have been the case. In the doubtful event that it was launched at all, the Germans need send only enough to stop the Italians crossing the Piave, which shouldn't require an inordinate force.


But all of Germany’s allies fell out of the war before Germany did...

Only twelve days before in the case of Turkey, and eight days in the case of Austria-Hungary. IOW, when it had long been clear that Germany had irretrievably lost the war and could do nothing for them.

The Bulgarians had surrendered a few weeks earlier, but even they did so only after the Hindenburg Line had been stormed and Germany's position was getting too desperate for her to come to their rescue. All the CPs were effectively conquered in France.
 
As I recall that is what was sent home, no what was consumed by the armies actually in the field, who were able to supply themselves from occupied territories, which saved Germany alone from supplying 1 million men with food. Plus 1 million men to hold the Brest-Litovsk territory weren't really enough to manage those territories and take what they wanted.

Well for the purposes under discussion, of raising the moral in the CP while lowering it sufficiently in the Entente, it is what is sent home that counts.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well for the purposes under discussion, of raising the moral in the CP while lowering it sufficiently in the Entente, it is what is sent home that counts.
Since not having to feed 1 million men is saving food for the home front, that means there is a net savings of food that goes beyond what was sent home. The army rations for 1 million men can instead go toward the public or improving rations for the rest of the army.
 
As I recall that is what was sent home, no what was consumed by the armies actually in the field, who were able to supply themselves from occupied territories, which saved Germany alone from supplying 1 million men with food. Plus 1 million men to hold the Brest-Litovsk territory weren't really enough to manage those territories and take what they wanted.

See my post some place up thread, the Germans issue in Ukraine was the farmers refused to cooperate. Another article I read on JSTOR mentions the Germans having to concentrate their units as anything smaller than company size risked being attacked. Which greatly reduced number of villages they could garrison.

Will look into Hapsburg situation in Ukraine as they had their own occupation force.

Michael
 

Venocara

Banned
Would they have had to send any force?

The battle of VV wasn't initiated until Oct 23, three weeks after the surrender of Bulgaria and the German appeal for an armistice - in short, when the CPs were through and everybody knew it. TTL such would not have been the case. In the doubtful event that it was launched at all, the Germans need send only enough to stop the Italians crossing the Piave, which shouldn't require an inordinate force.




Only twelve days before in the case of Turkey, and eight days in the case of Austria-Hungary. IOW, when it had long been clear that Germany had irretrievably lost the war and could do nothing for them.

The Bulgarians had surrendered a few weeks earlier, but even they did so only after the Hindenburg Line had been stormed and Germany's position was getting too desperate for her to come to their rescue. All the CPs were effectively conquered in France.

The Ottoman front was totally different from the others. No matter what, the Ottomans were always going to lose here. It could have happened as early as 1915, but by 1918 with the Arab Revolt well in its stride and the French motivated by the promise of some lovely new colonies (sorry, mandates), the Ottomans had no hope.
 

Deleted member 1487

See my post some place up thread, the Germans issue in Ukraine was the farmers refused to cooperate. Another article I read on JSTOR mentions the Germans having to concentrate their units as anything smaller than company size risked being attacked. Which greatly reduced number of villages they could garrison.

Will look into Hapsburg situation in Ukraine as they had their own occupation force.

Michael
That is what I recall about the situation. 1 million men was not near enough to administer the territories taken during Brest Litovsk, even with A-H help. During WW2 the Axis had issues doing the same, but had many millions more men on that front including the Axis minor allies.
 
Since not having to feed 1 million men is saving food for the home front, that means there is a net savings of food that goes beyond what was sent home.

So no change from OTL and things are super better in Germany how?

As mentioned now by other posters who are beginning to come across the same actual history I already tried to point out, things did not improve for Germany in the newly occupied territories in fact they got worse.

Seriously at one point I did sort of understand where you were coming from because my head canon had figures (initially) rather closer to the Romanian loot box being delivered but looking at what is actually delivered OTL you have Germany under incredible pressure as per OTL...and it does back up why the General Staff took it they were losing the war...

So let us say Wilson can manage to muster enough political capital to keep talking down British credit and let us say that investors did believe the Fed and let us say he holds his line as America's economy begins to suffer (for make benefit Germany no less), then we have a worsening situation on the Entente side which see Italy slip sliding towards becoming the Entente's AH, the only problem is that the Entente is some 2.5 years behind the CP on the curve there.
 
Where did this come from?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Félix_Faure

One of history's wackier and forgotten episodes. Felix Faure, President of France, dies of apparent heart attack with possible amorous activity induction in February 1899. With the Dreyfus affair underway, a proto-Fascist block in place, the Republicans who would try to preserve the government, the Orleanist faction, and a Bonapartist faction, French politics of that time was quite complicated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_in_France

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor,_Prince_Napoléon

So the stage was set for a multi-faction civil war. Add a random pro-British faction, a pro-German faction, Communists, radical Catholics and/or Protestants (yes it's a stretch), and a Technocracy faction given the time frame for a potential Balkan equivalent with a resulting war zone neutralizing France and premitting potential outcomes from horror incarnate to a bigger Switzerland that decolonizes early and becomes a tech leader via a Third French Empire under Bonapartist-Orleanist (Bonapleanist?) rule.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Ottoman front was totally different from the others. No matter what, the Ottomans were always going to lose here. It could have happened as early as 1915, but by 1918 with the Arab Revolt well in its stride and the French motivated by the promise of some lovely new colonies (sorry, mandates), the Ottomans had no hope.
Depends on what you mean by lose. Collapse as badly as IOTL late 1918? Probably not because the British won't have the material resources to continue their drive in 1918. But what they had taken say by mid-1917 would stay theirs and the Arab Revolt was likely to ensure their independence at least in the Arabian peninsula. Likely the dividing like would be somewhere in the Palestine area, while the areas east of the Jordan river remained Ottoman. Iraq might well end up split. Baghdad was probably their limit of advance, as that was where they stalled in summer 1917 right when the material issues would hit due to lack of US imports.
 
Ok? Not sure how that refutes my point. Just because Italy sourced coal from Britain doesn't mean anything else was.


If they got a deal from the CPs to leave the war ASAP with a white peace, why wouldn't they given that other than coal they were dependent on the US? Continued fighting isn't going to improve their strategic position, economy, or civil unrest. Since the CPs had already made such an offer to the Russians in 1915, they were willing to do such a thing to peal apart the Entente. Without war expenses they could source coal from the US and it isn't like the British trying to leverage them with access to the Mediterranean would go over well with Wilson, who was already furious to the point of forcing the issue with the USN over freedom of the seas. Plus I don't think Britain would want to make more enemies by threatening Italy.

Coal is dependent on the UK...that and other good arrives in British ships...your own choice of sources pointed this out.
 

Deleted member 1487

So no change from OTL and things are super better in Germany how?

As mentioned now by other posters who are beginning to come across the same actual history I already tried to point out, things did not improve for Germany in the newly occupied territories in fact they got worse.

Seriously at one point I did sort of understand where you were coming from because my head canon had figures (initially) rather closer to the Romanian loot box being delivered but looking at what is actually delivered OTL you have Germany under incredible pressure as per OTL...and it does back up why the General Staff took it they were losing the war...

So let us say Wilson can manage to muster enough political capital to keep talking down British credit and let us say that investors did believe the Fed and let us say he holds his line as America's economy begins to suffer (for make benefit Germany no less), then we have a worsening situation on the Entente side which see Italy slip sliding towards becoming the Entente's AH, the only problem is that the Entente is some 2.5 years behind the CP on the curve there.
For starters there is less pressure on various fronts, so casualties aren't as high, which means less replacements required for the military and more for other things like producing food. How did things get worse for Germany with the occupied territories? They saved having to supply 1 million men with food and in fact sent some home. The food situation improved compared to 1917.

Wilson didn't need political capital to tell the banks that they would be on their own if they offered Britain unsecured loans; his only role in finance was to tell the banks that the government was not going to get involved if they got in over their heads. He'd have to spend political capital to get the government to side with Britain and underwrite loans from US banks for the Entente, which was only done IOTL after US entry in the war. Besides the bankers were already Republicans and anti-Wilson, while Wilson just won the 1916 elections, so it is no skin off his ass to say he was staying out of it, especially since he ran his 1916 election on exactly that premise. He isn't doing anything to help Germany, he's just not doing anything to prolong the war by intervening in private industry to ensure Britain continues getting loans. The lack of additional orders is simply a function of Britain/the Entente running out of money to buy things, something coming when the war is over anyway. Since the next elections aren't until 1918 anyway, that is plenty of time to take the economic hit and recover. Since most Americans were more than happy to stay out of the war, Entente problems are their own making, especially as Wilson had tried in 1916 to get them to negotiate and they said no, while Germany tried to engage with Wilson.
 

Deleted member 1487

Coal is dependent on the UK...that and other good arrives in British ships...your own choice of sources pointed this out.
Not exclusively unless the UK shuts down any and all shipping to Italy, which is going to cause a lot of problems for the British beyond just Italy being a drain on them.
 

Venocara

Banned
Depends on what you mean by lose. Collapse as badly as IOTL late 1918? Probably not because the British won't have the material resources to continue their drive in 1918. But what they had taken say by mid-1917 would stay theirs and the Arab Revolt was likely to ensure their independence at least in the Arabian peninsula. Likely the dividing like would be somewhere in the Palestine area, while the areas east of the Jordan river remained Ottoman. Iraq might well end up split. Baghdad was probably their limit of advance, as that was where they stalled in summer 1917 right when the material issues would hit due to lack of US imports.

But I did say that the Turks would win more, especially after the War of Turkish Independence.
 
Top