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

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.

Things get worse because the Germans could not realise as much food from the occupied territories. The level of resistance and now it is not just myself who has made note of it actually went up over time towards the German extraction efforts...this on top of the issues of bad roads and rail links which had plagued Russia enough in peacetime.

As for Wilson he was not merely saying the Government would not secure the loans he was egging the faction of the Fed trying to scare investors off from bond purchases. That is spending political capital. The declaration of War against Germany on the other pleased numerous groups, not just bankers, not just Anglo-Franco and Italo-philes but also manufacturers, farmers, mining interests, shipping interests and others who were by now heavily committed to and reliant on British et al orders. The war is going to go on into 1919 if you have the CP win, barring any kind of miracle, actually if American assessments of Entente gold reserves are accurate it is likely going on till 1920 (except for the fact the CP cannot).

Thus Wilson gets the hit and also the recovery does not happen until the world economy picks up to take up the slack and without Entente war forcing this will take awhile just as it did OTL so again 1918 will be rolling around with a depression.


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.


Tell you what go look up the world's major coal exporters in the period.

Edit: Look I realise you are not merely grasping at straws but perhaps do not understand the significance of the numbers we are discussing....also I am going to admit my head canon was wrong, I thought the population of Germany in 1914-18 fluctuated around 57 million, in fact if the Wikipedia source is correct then it in fact fluctuated around the 65 million mark (heading downwards in fact which gives you an idea of how horrific the war was the years prior and post that see high six figure growths). Thus the 1 million men not being fed represent less than 2% (even allowing for frontline rations being higher than workers' allowance) of German ration requirements.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

But I did say that the Turks would win more, especially after the War of Turkish Independence.
The point I was making was that there wouldn't need to be a war for independence. There would just be a smaller Ottoman Empire post-WW1, as much of the lands beyond Turkey would still be held but for some areas on the periphery.
 

Venocara

Banned
The point I was making was that there wouldn't need to be a war for independence. There would just be a smaller Ottoman Empire post-WW1, as much of the lands beyond Turkey would still be held but for some areas on the periphery.

There would be though, because of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916.
 
The problem is that if the USA is not in the war the pressure on the Germans to roll the dice and do the Spring Offensive(s) before a lot of American combat troops are there and on line (there were already a lot of logistic forces working away, and significant combat forces training in France) does not exist. An offensive, or several smaller ones perhaps but the big "all in" turn the cards offensive, no way. OTL it was really no secret that the USA was on track to have at least 1 million men in France by fall 1918, and 2 million for spring, 1919 for the "final" offensive planned to go in to Germany proper. The influenza epidemic had not arrived when the spring, 1918 German offensives started and there was no way for the Germans to know how this would affect both the movement of US forces and their readiness for combat.

Roughly 1 million US forces of all sorts arrived in France between April, 1917 and fall, 1918, not counting US Naval forces at sea or based in Britain. Those troops were not sitting around in lounge chairs, they were performing various vital functions from unloading ships to occupying quiet sectors, as has been mentioned numerous times. A portion of the logistical functions were more or less only benefiting US forces, but all of the combat troops on any bit of trench, and some of the logistic forces were performing duties that might not have otherwise been done at all, and example being the timber operations/sawmills the US troops ran, or would have to have been done by other Entente forces such as manning trenches in quiet sectors. This represents a net functional gain of at least 500,000 men in uniform and probably closer to 750,000. Extra warships to patrol the sea lanes is also a gain.

Throw in the financial aspects and the USA not in the war represents a very significant negative for the Entente, and a positive for the CP. Italy's commitment to the war was, frankly, weak - not their sacrifices or the courage of their troops, but they were in it for the highest bidder. With their terrible losses, and their support drying up (the UK can't give them what the UK cannot afford to buy), and Russia bailing out, no USA white knight if they get a relatively white peace with no major losses offered IMHO they will jump on it. With Italy now neutral, it represents yet another potential conduit for goods to the CP and therefore more work for the RN to try and enforce the blockade. The A-H Navy may not be great shakes, but now it represents more of a threat than with Italy in the war.

If Italy is out, and Russia is out, the pressure on A-H is pretty minimal and any German support can go to the one front remaining in the Balkans, a front which the Entente is going to have to short because resources are needed in the west.

I don't see the Germans taking Paris, and I don't see the British and French achieving the sort of military victory on the western front they did OTL. A negotiated peace of exhaustion is something both sides will want, if only to prevent civil disorder at home. IMHO in the west the result will be some small gains for Germany, perhaps including a forma renunciation of claims to Alsace-Lorraine by France. As far as the rest of the world, I expect mostly a "if you got it keep it" settlement. Neither side is going to pay reparations, you only get those with a Diktat.
 
Throw in the financial aspects and the USA not in the war represents a very significant negative for the Entente, and a positive for the CP. Italy's commitment to the war was, frankly, weak - not their sacrifices or the courage of their troops, but they were in it for the highest bidder. With their terrible losses, and their support drying up (the UK can't give them what the UK cannot afford to buy), and Russia bailing out, no USA white knight if they get a relatively white peace with no major losses offered IMHO they will jump on it. With Italy now neutral, it represents yet another potential conduit for goods to the CP and therefore more work for the RN to try and enforce the blockade. The A-H Navy may not be great shakes, but now it represents more of a threat than with Italy in the war.

If Italy is out, and Russia is out, the pressure on A-H is pretty minimal and any German support can go to the one front remaining in the Balkans, a front which the Entente is going to have to short because resources are needed in the west.

Have you considered the more likely Italian move is to reduce the tempo or even cease their offensives against the A-H rather than keel over? A premature surrender without their allies gains them nothing more than being a loot sack for the CP. Hanging on may be painful but the less painful option on the menu. Less offensives mean less loss of resources and stopping German and Dual-Monarchy offensives is still a far less resource intensive move.

I don't see the Germans taking Paris, and I don't see the British and French achieving the sort of military victory on the western front they did OTL. A negotiated peace of exhaustion is something both sides will want, if only to prevent civil disorder at home. IMHO in the west the result will be some small gains for Germany, perhaps including a forma renunciation of claims to Alsace-Lorraine by France. As far as the rest of the world, I expect mostly a "if you got it keep it" settlement. Neither side is going to pay reparations, you only get those with a Diktat.

This idea I can somewhat see happening, though to be honest not hating the Germans I have no urge to hand them the poisoned chalice that the eastern territories will become unless they are smart enough to them independence tout suite.
 

Deleted member 1487

This idea I can somewhat see happening, though to be honest not hating the Germans I have no urge to hand them the poisoned chalice that the eastern territories will become unless they are smart enough to them independence tout suite.
Depending on when the Russians quit, Brest-Litovsk may well not happen, leaving the Germans Poland and part of the Baltics, perhaps even with the Russians being required to turn over x-amount of food stuffs as part of the peace settlement. That would only be a net boon.
 
I expect that that Germany will expand somewhat in to the Russian bits of Poland. The Baltic states may be semi-autonomous but under the Hohenzollerns in a personal union, with foreign affairs managed by Berlin. The Ukraine/Belarus very possibly have some German prince or two as heads of "independent" countries but closely tied to Germany. In Germany at this time there was no cry for Lebensraum and the Generalplan Ost concept to replace the locals.

In a peace of exhaustion, the side that is a little less exhausted has a bit of an upper hand. Also, while the British (primarily) have snatched most of the German colonies away Germany holds most of Belgium and key areas of France. Thus Germany has a better bargaining position in terms of horse trading. Germany can't, and won't stick out its neck to prevent some sort of Ottoman implosion, and France especially is not going to risk losing territory in order to try and undo Brest-Litovsk. Bottom line is the CP throw Ottomans under the bus, and the entente does likewise to Russia.
 
I expect that that Germany will expand somewhat in to the Russian bits of Poland. The Baltic states may be semi-autonomous but under the Hohenzollerns in a personal union, with foreign affairs managed by Berlin. The Ukraine/Belarus very possibly have some German prince or two as heads of "independent" countries but closely tied to Germany. In Germany at this time there was no cry for Lebensraum and the Generalplan Ost concept to replace the locals.

In a peace of exhaustion, the side that is a little less exhausted has a bit of an upper hand. Also, while the British (primarily) have snatched most of the German colonies away Germany holds most of Belgium and key areas of France. Thus Germany has a better bargaining position in terms of horse trading. Germany can't, and won't stick out its neck to prevent some sort of Ottoman implosion, and France especially is not going to risk losing territory in order to try and undo Brest-Litovsk. Bottom line is the CP throw Ottomans under the bus, and the entente does likewise to Russia.

So the Bolshevik fly in the room, do the Entente leave the Germans the joy of trying to squash that?

Serious question because the reason for keeping the Bolsheviks down OTL perversely grew out of efforts to keep them in the war and then Entente minds changing to backing the Whites.
 

Deleted member 1487

Things get worse because the Germans could not realise as much food from the occupied territories. The level of resistance and now it is not just myself who has made note of it actually went up over time towards the German extraction efforts...this on top of the issues of bad roads and rail links which had plagued Russia enough in peacetime.

As for Wilson he was not merely saying the Government would not secure the loans he was egging the faction of the Fed trying to scare investors off from bond purchases. That is spending political capital. The declaration of War against Germany on the other pleased numerous groups, not just bankers, not just Anglo-Franco and Italo-philes but also manufacturers, farmers, mining interests, shipping interests and others who were by now heavily committed to and reliant on British et al orders. The war is going to go on into 1919 if you have the CP win, barring any kind of miracle, actually if American assessments of Entente gold reserves are accurate it is likely going on till 1920 (except for the fact the CP cannot).

Thus Wilson gets the hit and also the recovery does not happen until the world economy picks up to take up the slack and without Entente war forcing this will take awhile just as it did OTL so again 1918 will be rolling around with a depression.
Worse than OTL? How?
As it was the RRs were how the CPs and everyone else primarily ran things, the native Panje wagons/horses were fine on the roads and the CPs knew how to deal with it at the time, this wasn't 1941. Not only that, but the RRs actually were fine once the war stopped on that front and they didn't have to deal with the enormous war material traffic.

Wilson's impact on the Fed wasn't public, so I'm not sure what sort of political capital is being expended. The OTL DoW against German was only popular due to the impact of USW and the ZT, in 1916 it was not popular at all, hence Wilson winning reelection on the platform of 'he kept us out of the war'. The pro-war group was a minority of the country and even those that voted against Wilson did so base on more than being pro-war. Besides they were Republican voters anyway, which wasn't a group that Wilson needed to service to maintain his political standing.

I don't know why you think the war was going to continue into 1919 ITTL without US finance. You and others keep asserting that without any rational supporting argument or evidence.

Tell you what go look up the world's major coal exporters in the period.
Yes, the US was the largest in the world. More than double British production. German coal production was even higher than British coal production in 1917:
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/raw_materials

Edit: Look I realise you are not merely grasping at straws but perhaps do not understand the significance of the numbers we are discussing....also I am going to admit my head canon was wrong, I thought the population of Germany in 1914-18 fluctuated around 57 million, in fact if the Wikipedia source is correct then it in fact fluctuated around the 65 million mark (heading downwards in fact which gives you an idea of how horrific the war was the years prior and post that see high six figure growths). Thus the 1 million men not being fed represent less than 2% (even allowing for frontline rations being higher than workers' allowance) of German ration requirements.
1 million people is still 1 million people not needing to be fed, especially given that the food requirements for women, children, and the elderly is quite a bit less than a grown man engaged in heavy labor.
 
That would only be after the Entente fell apart though.

Nope. Remember this is Alternate History not alternative to history.

The most that British imports for example will decline ITTL is 37.4% and that is based on OTLs 1918 figures which were inflated by the British gearing up to support most of the equipment for the Entente and US's planned 1919 offensive. An offensive on that scale just is not happening.

However let us assume the Entente spend no extra gold and the impact of resource imports is raised so that the Entente population is being exposed to the same level of hardship as the CP populace. Even then if we assume the Entente weaklings can endure that pain for no more than 30% as long as the CP then we have World War 1 end in early 1919. Now if we assume that CP morale is magically raised by events they do not know about not happening then the CP are in quite a strong position. If we assume morale remains about equal, "oh great Russia is down but the war is still going on" we are definitely looking at a compromise peace.

If we assume the Entente can bear the same level of pain for 40% as long then we are looking at towards the end of 1919 and the CP being in definite trouble.

It really is that simple.
 

Venocara

Banned
The problem is that if the USA is not in the war the pressure on the Germans to roll the dice and do the Spring Offensive(s) before a lot of American combat troops are there and on line (there were already a lot of logistic forces working away, and significant combat forces training in France) does not exist. An offensive, or several smaller ones perhaps but the big "all in" turn the cards offensive, no way. OTL it was really no secret that the USA was on track to have at least 1 million men in France by fall 1918, and 2 million for spring, 1919 for the "final" offensive planned to go in to Germany proper. The influenza epidemic had not arrived when the spring, 1918 German offensives started and there was no way for the Germans to know how this would affect both the movement of US forces and their readiness for combat.

Roughly 1 million US forces of all sorts arrived in France between April, 1917 and fall, 1918, not counting US Naval forces at sea or based in Britain. Those troops were not sitting around in lounge chairs, they were performing various vital functions from unloading ships to occupying quiet sectors, as has been mentioned numerous times. A portion of the logistical functions were more or less only benefiting US forces, but all of the combat troops on any bit of trench, and some of the logistic forces were performing duties that might not have otherwise been done at all, and example being the timber operations/sawmills the US troops ran, or would have to have been done by other Entente forces such as manning trenches in quiet sectors. This represents a net functional gain of at least 500,000 men in uniform and probably closer to 750,000. Extra warships to patrol the sea lanes is also a gain.

Throw in the financial aspects and the USA not in the war represents a very significant negative for the Entente, and a positive for the CP. Italy's commitment to the war was, frankly, weak - not their sacrifices or the courage of their troops, but they were in it for the highest bidder. With their terrible losses, and their support drying up (the UK can't give them what the UK cannot afford to buy), and Russia bailing out, no USA white knight if they get a relatively white peace with no major losses offered IMHO they will jump on it. With Italy now neutral, it represents yet another potential conduit for goods to the CP and therefore more work for the RN to try and enforce the blockade. The A-H Navy may not be great shakes, but now it represents more of a threat than with Italy in the war.

If Italy is out, and Russia is out, the pressure on A-H is pretty minimal and any German support can go to the one front remaining in the Balkans, a front which the Entente is going to have to short because resources are needed in the west.

I don't see the Germans taking Paris, and I don't see the British and French achieving the sort of military victory on the western front they did OTL. A negotiated peace of exhaustion is something both sides will want, if only to prevent civil disorder at home. IMHO in the west the result will be some small gains for Germany, perhaps including a forma renunciation of claims to Alsace-Lorraine by France. As far as the rest of the world, I expect mostly a "if you got it keep it" settlement. Neither side is going to pay reparations, you only get those with a Diktat.

I agree. Neither side can bare it much longer. The war will end with a negotiated treaty by the end of 1918.
 
Ok. Then why would the Spring Offensive succeed?

I wrote a timeline on one way this might happen though it is a stretch. I believed the key question was the speed at which the Allied line could reorganize afterwards - failure to hold their momemtum by either side meant defeat IMO.
 

Venocara

Banned
I wrote a timeline on one way this might happen though it is a stretch. I believed the key question was the speed at which the Allied line could reorganize afterwards - failure to hold their momemtum by either side meant defeat IMO.

I don't think defeat but a stalemate.

As for France they came close to a multi-factional civil war in February 1899. Add more factions and voila. As someone pointed out it neutralizes any threat of France becoming a Fascist powerhouse in the near-term

And where did this come from?
 
But what would have been the trigger for war?

Losing the First World War, even in a relative sense, means France suffers the deaths of millions to essentially break even or be broken. It would be seen as an irreconcilable stain on the honor of the country and violent outbreaks in Paris et al are almost certain. Now add in the lingering anti-semitism/Dreyfus concerns, add some myths about why they may have lost, and the lingering monarchist sentiments in some parts of the country. Riots emerge, foreign adventurers descend, you get the worst of the Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War all at once. It may avert the former altogether.
 
What if Russia wants peace the war ends?

With no USA on the horizon why not have everyone peace out together.

The only reason anyone is in the war is because of Russia. If Russia leave there's no reason for France to be defending her Russian ally.

So how about with the butterflies whenever is in charge of Russian peace does so with the full Entente instead of nonsensical separate peace.
Without the USA France and Britain have no reason to stay. Germany doesn't care about Alsace that much and can get their colonies back if they're nice to Russia.

Austria gets Serbia
 
Top