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

Deleted member 1487

Hum I think the issue here is that this all still falls below the level of reduction you were arguing for earlier.
I know you think that, doesn't mean your best case scenario factors in all the more than likely problems they'd face, including shipping losses given the increased distances and more hazardous routes.
 
The USA would still have sold wheat and probably have lent money to the Entente whether or not they entered the war, as they had been for years, not to do so hurts US farmers and banks as much as it does the allies.

Banks before 1917 issued collateralized loans. This notion that they'd have to issue unsecured loans to shore up secured loans...well, banks have a term for it. Throwing good money after bad. It's kind of a no-no.
 
Banks before 1917 issued collateralized loans. This notion that they'd have to issue unsecured loans to shore up secured loans...well, banks have a term for it. Throwing good money after bad. It's kind of a no-no.
indeed nevertheless the Federal Government would face a major problem if the Entente were to lose as the secured loans are likely to suddenly not be so secure. Of course it is possible the government would choose not to act rationally and allow the disaster to unfold....
 
indeed nevertheless the Federal Government would face a major problem if the Entente were to lose as the secured loans are likely to suddenly not be so secure. Of course it is possible the government would choose not to act rationally and allow the disaster to unfold....

How do you propose that happen? Would Entente collateral vanish into thin air if things got bad enough?
 

Medved

Banned
Well then it seems the US wasn't needed to win the fight - Britain and France had near infinite resources, capital, shipping space and morale at their disposal. Russia and its replacement the US were not needed.

It is strange thought - if the Entente was that superior, than why did it try so hard to get the US involved in the conflict? Why did it take more than 1.5 years to defeat the Germans even AFTER the US joined the fight?

If it took the combined forces of the British and French Empire and the United States 1.5 years to defeat the Germans - wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that without the US, victory would have taken another 3 years or more? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if it took another 1.5 years to end the war after a power boost from 100 to 135 or 140 - then without this boost defeat would have been likely for the Entente?
 
The banks in the USA that made collateralized loans had the collateral where they could get their hands on it. Now, as is often the case when loans are called against collateral, you may sell those assets at less than what you have loaned against them, especially if a lot of stuff goes on the market at the same time. That is a reasonable risk, you also (less likely) might get more for the collateral than the loan value. OTOH, an unsecured loan is just that. If the borrower says "I can't, or won't, pay" you really have no recourse especially when the borrower is a sovereign nation. Good luck getting a lien on the British Embassy in Washington. OTL the US government guaranteed the loans - this is a bet that the Entente will be able to pay them back by winning - only when the USA was in the war and "making sure" the Entente won. In reality most of those loans were never repaid, some in part some not at all, and the US government (and the taxpayer) covered the losses.

If the American banking system decides that massive unsecured loans to the Entente as a whole (even if they all flow through the UK) are too risky, the worst that happens is that some segments of the US economy that have been selling to the Entente take a hit, you may get a mild recession but nothing like the economic issues right after WWI with production much more ramped up and abruptly markedly reduced plus the issue of employment of the demobilized soldiers. Even if the USA is not joining the war the USA is building up their military in case something happens that drags the USA in on one side or another, so some of the military equipment purchases will continue.

If the US banking system makes massive loans to the Entente and the Entente ends up defaulting, that will be quite painful. You can argue as to how badly this cut off of most if not all loans will hurt the Entente, and how long it will take to bite, but the proposition that no US declaration of war means no government guarantee of unsecured loans is solid.
 
And without the US government behind you, you won't be able to get banks to hand out unsecured loans they don't want to be making just to keep Entente-friendly exporters afloat. The war has to end eventually, at which point those exports will inevitably flag regardless, so there's no rational basis for trying to postpone the inevitable like that.
 
The Allies could in response to the lack of German unrestricted warfare and a USA DOW could:

a) Evacuate Greece (as long as they figure out it before the Greek DOW June 30th 1917). Big increase in shipping available when done without need to supply this.
b) Cancel offensives on the western and Italian fronts, Bonus points if they figure this out before April 1917, might avoid French mutiny altogether. The lack of Italian offensives means the Austrians don't call for German reinforcements so no Italian collapse at Caporetto.
c) Allies wouldn't have the early 1917 heavy shipping losses and wouldn't have to convoy, so would have an increase in productivity based on that alone.

The above would reduce the need for Artillery shell production, as the Allies have to learn to live hand to mouth, the shipping increase would allow longer shipping from non American source of supply for oil, grain, nitrates etc.

The trickiest part for the Allies is there is no USA loans for Russia, and the Kerensky government would have to face some hard choices (perhaps there would be no Kerensky offensive and / or an earlier revolution, lots of butterflies here).

(And tricky for the Allies the Germans still have a USA blockade hole, at the very least Belgian relief shipments are still coming.)

The only good news for the Allies would be the fall of Baghdad in early 1917, and the almost complete control of German colonies which would be useful bargaining chips in some peace conference.

It could be the war settles down without much activity anywhere. Much would depend on what the Germans would still want to do, where they might strike if anywhere. Conditions seems favorable for a peace conference summer 1917.

I could see a central powers peace being like:
Before war 1914 borders and colonies restored, except:
a) Germany receives Belgian Congo and Portugese Angola.
b) Bulgaria receives border adjustments on Serbia, the rest of Serbia under Austrian occupation for 2 years.
c) French and Belgian private citizens can make claims against the German government, to be reviewed by the Swiss.
d) Germany to restrict Navy to 50% of British size across all types of ships (and for new construction).
 

DougM

Donor
As I said in a much earlier post that upset a number of people we now have a group of posters here that earthier are blatantly saying or heavily implying that France Britain and Co would do as well (or in some cases better) if the US stayed out of the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Allies could in response to the lack of German unrestricted warfare and a USA DOW could:

a) Evacuate Greece (as long as they figure out it before the Greek DOW June 30th 1917). Big increase in shipping available when done without need to supply this.
b) Cancel offensives on the western and Italian fronts, Bonus points if they figure this out before April 1917, might avoid French mutiny altogether. The lack of Italian offensives means the Austrians don't call for German reinforcements so no Italian collapse at Caporetto.
c) Allies wouldn't have the early 1917 heavy shipping losses and wouldn't have to convoy, so would have an increase in productivity based on that alone.

The above would reduce the need for Artillery shell production, as the Allies have to learn to live hand to mouth, the shipping increase would allow longer shipping from non American source of supply for oil, grain, nitrates etc.

The trickiest part for the Allies is there is no USA loans for Russia, and the Kerensky government would have to face some hard choices (perhaps there would be no Kerensky offensive and / or an earlier revolution, lots of butterflies here).

(And tricky for the Allies the Germans still have a USA blockade hole, at the very least Belgian relief shipments are still coming.)

The only good news for the Allies would be the fall of Baghdad in early 1917, and the almost complete control of German colonies which would be useful bargaining chips in some peace conference.

It could be the war settles down without much activity anywhere. Much would depend on what the Germans would still want to do, where they might strike if anywhere. Conditions seems favorable for a peace conference summer 1917.

I could see a central powers peace being like:
Before war 1914 borders and colonies restored, except:
a) Germany receives Belgian Congo and Portugese Angola.
b) Bulgaria receives border adjustments on Serbia, the rest of Serbia under Austrian occupation for 2 years.
c) French and Belgian private citizens can make claims against the German government, to be reviewed by the Swiss.
d) Germany to restrict Navy to 50% of British size across all types of ships (and for new construction).
No more Italian offensives and no Kerensky offensive would be massive butterflies and save A-H. The latter basically initiated the death kneel of the Habsburgs, who even if on the winning side would probably fall post-war. if Russian and then Italy bow out of the war it saves the British more shipping, but means A-H can effectively demobilize and rehabilitate itself, while serving as a resources farm to some degree for Germany. Bulgaria too could effectively demobilize and save themselves if the Entente evacuates Salonika. Not good for the Entente even if they could keep fighting to some degree, but without US steel the French can't produce artillery, tanks, and shells in any sort of quantity. Britain can be hand to mouth, but France is effectively out of the war without shells. Plus if Russia drops out early and Germany has no need to send troops to Italy and France can't attack for the rest of the war except for limited counterattacks, then Britain can't launch Passchenadele, France doesn't launch their successful late 1917 offensive against the Chemin des Dames, and Germany attacks hard in 1917 in the west against a quite weak Entente with a stronger offensive than even in 1918 due to having more men and being less worn down from the fighting on all fronts in 1917.
 
Any Central Powers scenario that gives them recognition of Brest-Litovsk and at least s.q.a. in the West is a win for them. Geographically speaking, No USA involvement in 1917 probably sees Italy going s.q.a. or more likely losing Belluno and/or Friuli Venezia Giulia.

Allied morale in 1917 was all but spent. Russia's surrender will generate interest in ending the war as OTL esp. as the US is no longer coming. Britain was considering a peace feeler from Germany and Austria that September/October, without the US this might be enough to make it stick. France and Italy could be left alone, and Italy would be quick to leave as well.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives
 
Hum I think the issue here is that this all still falls below the level of reduction you were arguing for earlier.
And what everyone is missing is that the primary supplier of fuel to the BEF was Royal Dutch Shell. Whose primary production facilities were in the Dutch East Indies, literally the other side of the planet from the Western Front. It was also the sole supplier of aviation fuel and supplied 80 percent of the British Army's TNT.
Moved almost entirely in the company's own fleet of tankers, there was little to no US impact here.
 
Starvation will.

If so, the German Chancellor doesn't seem to have noticed.

In his Memoirs, Prince Max of Baden refers to various problems, esp the loss of Rumanian oil due to he collapse of the Balkan Front, but his only comment on the food situation was that things were very bad in the poorer districts of Berlin.

Nor does Ludendorff mention the matter when seeking to justify the 1918 offensives, merely saying that his soldiers were "weary of endless defensive battles".

In short, if Germany was about to keel over from starvation, lack of lead for bullets, or any other non-military cause, not only the Entente but the Germans themselves seem to have been remarkably unaware of the fact.

The CPs fell due to plain old-fashioned military defeat. If that doesn't bring them down, nothing else is going to.
 
Last edited:
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.


Kiel happened when all Germany's allies had collapsed, her entire southern frontier was wide open, her armies in the west were in headlong retreat and her enemies were being reinforced by a steady 300,000 Americans every month - all this after being demoralised by the failure of offensives on a scale so vast as to make Nivelle's look like a local skirmish.

Hardly a surprise that the effect was correspondingly greater.
 
Last edited:
If you mean from Royal Dutch Shell, they kind of own 40% of the company.

First of all the owners of the other 60% might not be happy with the UK not paying and second how long can a company last if the biggest customer does not pay?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

And what everyone is missing is that the primary supplier of fuel to the BEF was Royal Dutch Shell. Whose primary production facilities were in the Dutch East Indies, literally the other side of the planet from the Western Front. It was also the sole supplier of aviation fuel and supplied 80 percent of the British Army's TNT.
Moved almost entirely in the company's own fleet of tankers, there was little to no US impact here.
The citation is the Shell company website and doesn't seem to be corroborated anywhere else.
 
No more Italian offensives and no Kerensky offensive would be massive butterflies and save A-H. The latter basically initiated the death kneel of the Habsburgs, who even if on the winning side would probably fall post-war. if Russian and then Italy bow out of the war it saves the British more shipping, but means A-H can effectively demobilize and rehabilitate itself, while serving as a resources farm to some degree for Germany. Bulgaria too could effectively demobilize and save themselves if the Entente evacuates Salonika. Not good for the Entente even if they could keep fighting to some degree, but without US steel the French can't produce artillery, tanks, and shells in any sort of quantity. Britain can be hand to mouth, but France is effectively out of the war without shells. Plus if Russia drops out early and Germany has no need to send troops to Italy and France can't attack for the rest of the war except for limited counterattacks, then Britain can't launch Passchenadele, France doesn't launch their successful late 1917 offensive against the Chemin des Dames, and Germany attacks hard in 1917 in the west against a quite weak Entente with a stronger offensive than even in 1918 due to having more men and being less worn down from the fighting on all fronts in 1917.

I would imagine France if faced with a future inability to fight as per wikings comment above, along with Russia in an no American money scenario, will before the $ runs out, ask the USA or the Pope or the Dutch to negotiate a peace. Likely the Germans don't know the true extent of Allied weakness, and are worried about their own problems. In which case a compromise peace is possible, probably slightly Central Powers favorable, with the Germans taking Belgian and Portuguese colonial possessions (and maybe Liege or Luxemborg if the Germans are confident and press things), and Austria ends up with defacto control over Serbia (well worth it for the Germans+Austrians and politically acceptable enough for their Monarchies to survive).

The interesting part about such a peace conference is how much the main players would be willing to sell out their Allies for their own benefit.

Would France(+Britain) be willing to give the Belgian Congo AND/OR Portuguese Angola to get Northern France and Belgium liberated? (I would think so)
Would Russia be willing to give Austria defacto control over Serbia and Bulgaria, in exchange for getting territory back? (I would think so)
Would Germany be willing to give up their puppet government in Poland for peace? (I would think so).
Would German be willing to trade stuff to get the Ottomans Baghdad+the Hejaz back? (I would think not)
Would France+Britain be willing to give up Russian territory to get French territory back? (One would think, but the French will still need Russia in some form as an Ally)
With most of the German colonies in hand and some of the Ottoman empire, how much is Britain willing to give back to liberate French and Russian lands?
Even if Britain is willing to give back colonies is Japan, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand going to give up the colonies in their possession?
 
Here's a possible map of Balkanized France after World War I and a potential reverse-Versailles in 1917. Milder than one might think, especially in the West, but then the West was still in stalemate and 'victory' would be costly.

For the Treaty map, border changes are in color, dark blue is for later entrants to MittelEuropa/European Union in the later 20s. France would still be recuperating by then hence why it was not given a color and its founding members of Germany and AH were similarly left blank.

For real terror you could leave France prostrated and combine a violent global decolonization movement with a World War II scenario sometime in the later 40s to early 60s...
 

Attachments

  • France 1921.png
    France 1921.png
    277.9 KB · Views: 89
  • CP wins Treaty of Versailles 1917.png
    CP wins Treaty of Versailles 1917.png
    429.6 KB · Views: 93
Top