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

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

The French still wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, the British still wanted Belgium restored/France to win/to weaken the German navy/colonies, and Italy wanted Italia Irredenta. They simply weren't ready to fold at the same time Russia was. And while Germany might not care a ton about Alsace specifically, they certainly wouldn't countenance surrendering territory in a war they don't think they've lost. Much less a war they haven't lost.
 
The French still wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, the British still wanted Belgium restored/France to win/to weaken the German navy/colonies, and Italy wanted Italia Irredenta. They simply weren't ready to fold at the same time Russia was. And while Germany might not care a ton about Alsace specifically, they certainly wouldn't countenance surrendering territory in a war they don't think they've lost. Much less a war they haven't lost.


Right but at the peace conference they'll trade Russian territory and colonies and Serbia for Belgium

Lots of people gave up territory for acknowledgement of territorial gains elsewhere

The French know they aren't winning if the USA doesn't join so they have no choice if Britain wants out
 
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.
Nazi France doesn't really work that well..., for starters the "stab in the back" myth in Germany worked so good because the army was fighting far inside enemy territory when the war ended, here in turn it's obvious to everyone how and where the war ended. Can't stab the unbeaten army at the dawn of final victory in the back if they're not victorious at all.
 

Zen9

Banned
Nazi France doesn't really work that will..., for starters the "stab in the back" myth in Germany worked so good because the army was fighting far inside enemy territory when the war ended, here in turn it's obvious to everyone how and where the war ended. Can't stab the unbeaten army at the dawn of final victory in the back if they're not victorious at all.
Considering the reasons suggested, they'd blame the UK.
 
actually if American assessments of Entente gold reserves are accurate it is likely going on till 1920 (except for the fact the CP cannot).


Field Marshall Haig did not believe that either side could. On receiving a letter from Winston Churchill anticipating "the decisive struggles of 1920" he scrawled in the margin "What rubbish; who will last till 1920? Only America?"
 

Medved

Banned
WW1 and WW2 discussions:"Germany has lost once the US enters the war".

Also WW1 and WW2 discussions where the US doesn't enter - or participates in a greatly reduced version:" You know the US wasn't THAT important.... "

This is the equivalent of claiming: Sports team 1 won over sports team 2 with 2 points - sports team 1 would have won or managed a draw even with 1/3 of its players missing.....

When one looks at the performance of the Central Powers and the Entente - and takes away US involvement from April 1917 onwards - or reduces it greatly - the only possible conclusion is that the war ends in 1918. Much much more favorable for the Central Powers than OTL.
 
When one looks at the performance of the Central Powers and the Entente - and takes away US involvement from April 1917 onwards - or reduces it greatly - the only possible conclusion is that the war ends in 1918. Much much more favorable for the Central Powers than OTL.

I'm inclined to agree - though I suspect (impossible though it is to quantify) that the moral effect may have been even greater than the economic.

The key to victory was to convince the enemy soldiers (soldiers, not generals) that the fight was hopeless. This was what made the Nivelle mutinies so dangerous, when soldiers came back from the line muttering "C'est impossible". They were becoming convinced that the German line was impregnable and that attacking it was merely throwing their lives away. If that frame of mind could not be reversed then France was headed for defeat, probably sooner rather than later - or at best to a "compromise peace" where she did most of the compromising.

This is where I see US entry as crucial. It provided an alternative course of action - to hang in until American manpower gave the Entente overwhelming strength. It wasno longer necessary to break through, but merely to stop the enemy from doing so. Thus Petain was able to hold things together.

Much the same went for the Germans. I saw an interesting graph (not sure if it's online anywhere) of prisoners taken in the British sector during 1917/18. Up to Ausust 1918 save for a couple of blips, it basically "flatlines" at about 200 per day. But from then on it soars to several thousand every day, and continues thus right to the end. Quite simply, the failure of their 1918 offensives had convinced German soldiers that it was hopeless, and they increasingly started to focus on surviving rather than winning. And a big factor in this (as revealed in letters home) rested on the knowledge that no matter how many enemies they killed these would be replaced by Americans before the month was out. And they, of course, had no fresh ally to save their bacon. So morale crumbled. Haig noticed this and observed that he would not have risked attacking the Hindenburg Line had the Germans been fighting as stubbornly as last year. And absent US intervention they very likely would have been.
 
When one looks at the performance of the Central Powers and the Entente - and takes away US involvement from April 1917 onwards - or reduces it greatly - the only possible conclusion is that the war ends in 1918. Much much more favorable for the Central Powers than OTL.

When you look at the Home Fronts the only conclusion is the War ends in the Winter of 1918/19 and the Peace is even harsher to the Central Powers.
 

gurgu

Banned
I'm not totally sure, but i guess the war would end in favor of germany and it's allies.
Without the American intervention Germany might be able to reach Paris since it haves full superiority on the western front and as said by many the french army was nearly collapsed due to mutinies. without the russian front IF AH and Bulgaria manage to resist enough until the french capital.
A possible peace outcome would be:
-Germany keep Alsace and Lorraine and france renounces every claim on it
-Brest-litovsk treaty acknowledged from entente
-AH keeps gets control over Serbia and starts it's federalist reforms( or else explodes few years later)
-Bulgaria gains control over Macedonia,pirot(from serbia with bulgarian pop), takes back dobruja from Romania with almost all the sea coast( control of southern river of danube, Romania northern) and occupies Salonika from greece
-OE takes Dodecanese from Italy and the libyan colonyback
-since england hasn't been touched on any territory it would basically whitepeace.
-france would pay partially or all the German debts, this would probably lead to communist france
-Italy loses the colonies( all freed while dodecanese and libya to OE) and pays debts to AH, thus leading to Mussolini or another commie nation
-Serbia loses the gains from the balkan wars and becomes part of AH
-Greece loses the north but keeps it's mainland since the minor partecipation
-Romania for it's betray( gifted with bucovina from AH) would give back Bucovina, Deminilitarize and pay the bulgarian debts while losing almost all the sea access and it's ploiesti oil deposits would be controlled from CP
-Russia as OTL
-Japan keeps some of the island taken from germany

with this outcome the worst scenario would be a french commune join comintern and helping the spanish civil war( no franco ?) while AH doesn't reform and explodes ( germany is busy recovering so it doesn't help) and Bohemia,AH( literally austria and hungary), Serbia, Bosnia,Croatia,Transilvania are formed while poland(german king) takes something. Italy gets Benito as OTL but no colonies or ethiopian war but perhaps joins the CP with apologies for betray to kaiser willy.UK faces a de facto defeat and struggles to recover, maybe oswald mosley could gain more popularity but it's difficult.
it's similar to kaiserreich but Instead it might end with a germany with CP(italy, bulgaria, OE, what is left of AH and the puppets) against spain,france,ussr.
 
When you look at the Home Fronts the only conclusion is the War ends in the Winter of 1918/19 and the Peace is even harsher to the Central Powers.

Misery on the home front won't bring them down as long as they think they are in with a chance of winning.
 
Some points:
1. In 1919 the victory in the east will finally bring in food for the CP's as the first post war harvest comes in - and that would negate one of the worst effect of the blocade.
2. Does the USA not entering also mean that they will stop financing the Entente war effort? If yes the Entente is likely beaten.
3. The Balkans can do in Austria and that could result in a CP collapse in 1918. However that victory might be butterflied.
4. We simply cant gauge the moral effect of american war entry - on both side. Especially if the USA made it clear it wont enter. It will surely bolster the CP and hammer the Entente.
5. No USA means no Wilson's points. These played a crucial part in the destruction of Austria as they ignited a false hope in a lot of nationalities and vastly eroded their loyalties to their regimes.
6. The germans also wont have to win before american troops arrive which could drastically change or even butterfly the Kaiserschlacht. If they dont have to win in France fast they can use the extra troops from the East on other fronts first - they could win the Balkans or try to win Italy.
 
Misery on the home front won't bring them down as long as they think they are in with a chance of winning.

Starvation will.

1. In 1919 the victory in the east will finally bring in food for the CP's as the first post war harvest comes in - and that would negate one of the worst effect of the blocade.

The War ended in November 1918, they were in charge in the East for harvest 1918 and could not get useful amounts of food out of Ukraine because a. civil order had almost entirely broken down and b. the harvest was poor because of a. and c. what grain surplus there was had trouble getting to Germany because the transport network was wrecked by the war.

Now things might have been better by harvest 1919 but Germany didn't have the food to get through to February 1919 never mind September 1919.

2. Does the USA not entering also mean that they will stop financing the Entente war effort? If yes the Entente is likely beaten.

No it won't. US loans were a force multiplier but they weren't a war winner by 1918. The British Empire alone was out producing Germany in 1918 add in France and there was a comfortable material superiority. Not sufficient to drive to Berlin but they didn't need to. They just needed to hold the line until starvation did the job for them.

3. The Balkans can do in Austria and that could result in a CP collapse in 1918. However that victory might be butterflied.

Austria was tapped out, so was Italy to be fair but by 1918 AH was in even worse straights than Germany and civil order was breaking down.
 
Some points:
1. In 1919 the victory in the east will finally bring in food for the CP's as the first post war harvest comes in - and that would negate one of the worst effect of the blocade.
2. Does the USA not entering also mean that they will stop financing the Entente war effort? If yes the Entente is likely beaten.
3. The Balkans can do in Austria and that could result in a CP collapse in 1918. However that victory might be butterflied.
4. We simply cant gauge the moral effect of american war entry - on both side. Especially if the USA made it clear it wont enter. It will surely bolster the CP and hammer the Entente.
5. No USA means no Wilson's points. These played a crucial part in the destruction of Austria as they ignited a false hope in a lot of nationalities and vastly eroded their loyalties to their regimes.
6. The germans also wont have to win before american troops arrive which could drastically change or even butterfly the Kaiserschlacht. If they dont have to win in France fast they can use the extra troops from the East on other fronts first - they could win the Balkans or try to win Italy.

  1. There is no way the war will last that long. In 1918, German socialists were gaining prominence and eventually began inciting socialist riots in the German Navy. Even without a 100 Days Offensive, I don't see that changing
  2. No, it doesn't. Woodrow Wilson was a pure Anglophile (he had written positively of Britain's parliamentary system in his days as a historian). He wouldn't stop supporting Britain, just because there were no troops in Europe
  3. Maybe, but that would require an Entente offensive into the heart of Austria-Hungary itself, maybe a version of the Italian offensive at Vittorio Veneto, though with no Americans taking part, it would be a lot more bloody for the Italians and French.
  4. I agree 100%. The Kaiser would be in stitches as he realizes the Americans aren't coming to save his dreaded foes, but then again, his empire isn't in much better shape.
  5. A world without the Fourteen Points would arguably be a better one. Those points utterly wrecked the post-war settlement of borders in Italy and gave the Germans false hope of a settlement based on equal terms. Not to mention the failure of the League of Nations. After the war, the failure of the Treaty of Versailles to match the Fourteen Points even gave the Nazis some good propaganda material.
  6. I don't see the Kaiserschlacht being butterflied. As I've said before, it's highly likely that both sides would want to end the war before the end of 1918. But, there would be slight differences. In our timeline, the Allies suffered severe losses, but these casualties were easily replaced by the Americans. In our world, the Allies would be struggling to find manpower. On the other side, the situation is the same as in our timeline. In our world, the Germans lost many men during the battles in the Spring of 1918. It has been estimated that the strength of the German army had fallen from just over five million in March 1918 to just over four million by the Autumn of 1918. The offensive would fail for the same reasons as in our timeline-

    Failure of Ludendorff to set our clear objectives.

    Overreliance on the Stormtroopers. Their numbers had been depleted throughout the war and the Germans oculd not find enough quality troops to replace them, hence why the stormtroopers failed to breakthrough the Allied lines in the Second Battle of the Marne

    A critical lack of supplies. The German army was often hungry, and its advances were often slowed as hungry troops pillaged captured allied supply depots. There was also a critical shortage of fuel for tanks and the German planes. This allowed the Allies to retain air superiority during the offensives. Then as the German-made rapid advances, their supply lines were unable to keep pace, and this results in shortages of everything that slowed the advance. On several occasions, the Germans simply stopped their progress

    So in this timeline, the Germans have made their situation even worse by proceeding with the Kaiserschlacht. The only difference is that the Germans would inflict more grievous losses on the Entente, losses which they would be hard pressed to replace. Without American manpower, there wouldn't be a 100 Days Offensive or if there is, it proceeds slowly than in our timeline.
 
I'm inclined to agree - though I suspect (impossible though it is to quantify) that the moral effect may have been even greater than the economic.

The key to victory was to convince the enemy soldiers (soldiers, not generals) that the fight was hopeless. This was what made the Nivelle mutinies so dangerous, when soldiers came back from the line muttering "C'est impossible". They were becoming convinced that the German line was impregnable and that attacking it was merely throwing their lives away. If that frame of mind could not be reversed then France was headed for defeat, probably sooner rather than later - or at best to a "compromise peace" where she did most of the compromising.

This is where I see US entry as crucial. It provided an alternative course of action - to hang in until American manpower gave the Entente overwhelming strength. It wasno longer necessary to break through, but merely to stop the enemy from doing so. Thus Petain was able to hold things together.

Much the same went for the Germans. I saw an interesting graph (not sure if it's online anywhere) of prisoners taken in the British sector during 1917/18. Up to Ausust 1918 save for a couple of blips, it basically "flatlines" at about 200 per day. But from then on it soars to several thousand every day, and continues thus right to the end. Quite simply, the failure of their 1918 offensives had convinced German soldiers that it was hopeless, and they increasingly started to focus on surviving rather than winning. And a big factor in this (as revealed in letters home) rested on the knowledge that no matter how many enemies they killed these would be replaced by Americans before the month was out. And they, of course, had no fresh ally to save their bacon. So morale crumbled. Haig noticed this and observed that he would not have risked attacking the Hindenburg Line had the Germans been fighting as stubbornly as last year. And absent US intervention they very likely would have been.

Kiel Mutinies

Compare and contrast.

On the one hand the troops maintain during they are available for defensive duties, they agree to hand over selected men for trial by military courts and they return to full military discipline.

On the other hand they spark a full blown revolution that results in a new head of state.

And it was not the French.

Kiel however rarely gets a look in on threads like these. It should.
 

Medved

Banned
When you look at the Home Fronts the only conclusion is the War ends in the Winter of 1918/19 and the Peace is even harsher to the Central Powers.

Look at the home front of the British +French+Italians. Substract all the material, fuel, food, troops they received in the April 17 to November 18 period from the US - or reduce it by 80 - 90 %. And then marvel at how wrong your assessment is.
 
Look at the home front of the British +French+Italians. Substract all the material, fuel, food, troops they received in the April 17 to November 18 period from the US - or reduce it by 80 - 90 %. And then marvel at how wrong your assessment is.

The only thing that is going to be missing by that proportion is the troops. Hence the consensus of no 100 Days style offensive. However Entente funds already banked in America would last beyond April, not long maybe assuming a complete cessation of credit which is not a given and no dipping into Entente gold reserves...both of which are absolute pre-requisites for the CP victory scenario. Even then what we see is not even close to 80-90% reduction in other material goods supplies even in 1918 when the Entente was building up surpluses.

It is worth noting in 1917-1918 the French had enough spare artillery to equip a 2 million man expeditionary force while German and KuK artillery was wearing out.
 
If Italy is offered a total white peace - a complete status quo ante bellum - then it's probably going to run with it.

The issue is, it's not going to be offered a total white peace. Even OTL, the parts of Veneto occupied after Caporetto were looted quite thoroughly, and I can't see A-H changing their hat so fast. Italy, on the other hand, is still (positively) reeling from the "did we really do that" of the defense on the Piave, and Cadorna being kicked out was a huge morale boost on top of that.

There's going to be no Vittorio Veneto, not without American supply (American manpower contribution on the Italian front was laughably small, enough to safely ignore its absence, and the smallish British and French reinforcements mostly took care of rear echelon matters to free Italian bodies for the front); but when a peace of exhaustion is signed, Italy is still going to be there. Barely, but there.
 
When someone says something about "in 1918 *thing*" it's worth nothing that this is a year after the USA entered the war and committed itself to unconditional support of the allies and evryone on both sides got the message that this drudgery is not going to end anytime soon with different effects on morale of the soldiers an home front.

but when a peace of exhaustion is signed, Italy is still going to be there. Barely, but there.
Winning was enough to push Italy over the edge, what's a white peace going to do to them?
 
Top