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

One wonders why no one told the German High command how easy victory was if they didn't give that command to submarines.

Until reading this thread I never knew how one decision literally cost Germany the entire war.

Edit : so to answer the op how quick is the collapse of Italy, France and the UK?

A month after the OTL decision to start usw?
Two months?

After Germany marches into Paris what peace do they demand

Well it does seem possible to me that in an alternate 1917 without unrestricted submarine warfare, if the US sees the Entente on the brink of collapse the US might extend more credit. Either out of good feelings among the WASP elite towards "Merrie Olde England" or because having Germany totally dominate Europe isn't good for US interests in the long run.

I imagine Wilson would offer to mediate a compromise peace of some sort. And I could definitely see a mutual peace of exhaustion in 1918 happening. Nobody will be happy about it, but the governments will see Russia as an example of what happens when you fight on too long and the people get fed up.
 
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.

Of course in WWII the Axis was trying to commit genocide against a large chunk of the population and starve much of the rest of the population. In WWI the locals are more likely to cooperate. But yeah, Germany never really got the "agricultural wealth of the East" thing to work in either war.
 
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.

Well in WWII it's more like IOTL Team Allies lost the first half 1-2, but came back hard in the second half and won the game 12-3. Even without the 7 second half goals scored by the USA they would probably have won 5-3 unless Team Axis got a couple more goals from somewhere. But with the US in the game for the second half, Team Axis was doomed.

It's a weird metaphor, but basically even without the US involved the Nazis need massive amounts of luck to win. With the US involved they are just plain fucked.

Now WWI was a more balanced war, but the US comittment was also less and shorter than in WWII. So I don't think a CP victory is certain without the US getting involved. Once the US is heavily involved it's hard to see how the CP could win.
 

Deleted member 1487

Of course in WWII the Axis was trying to commit genocide against a large chunk of the population and starve much of the rest of the population. In WWI the locals are more likely to cooperate. But yeah, Germany never really got the "agricultural wealth of the East" thing to work in either war.
In WW2 they were willing to be a lot more brutal to get the food. Not sure locals were ever willing to part with their food for an occupier.
 

Medved

Banned
It's a weird metaphor, but basically even without the US involved the Nazis need massive amounts of luck to win.

Considered that by April 1941 the British were far worse of than in April 1917 - especially financially - it would have been Britain (and the USSR) that would have needed massive amounts of luck to win.

Your 12-3 score in the second half was only possible because half the team was replaced with fresh players. If the UK /USSR have to continue the game with the same team that got beaten in the first half, the score at the end would have been quite different.
 
Just to get this clear:
I - and I think most - who say that without USA involvment CP's win mean a negotiated peace in the west with minimal if any border changes. So no total victory and I surely dont expect the german army to have a parade in Paris or such.

The east depends largely if peace talks start before or after Russian collapse - IMO after -but its here and on the Balkans that real change will come. And maybe on the colonies.
 

Deleted member 1487

Just to get this clear:
I - and I think most - who say that without USA involvment CP's win mean a negotiated peace in the west with minimal if any border changes. So no total victory and I surely dont expect the german army to have a parade in Paris or such.

The east depends largely if peace talks start before or after Russian collapse - IMO after -but its here and on the Balkans that real change will come. And maybe on the colonies.
How do you figure? If the Entente can't push Germany off of the territory it holds, it has all the cards at the negotiation table in 1917 or 18. Colonies mean nothing compared to holding Belgium and the richest regions of France. On top of that Russia has lost a ton of territory, including some of their richest outside of Ukraine. What are the Entente going to give to get all that back? In fact what can they give? Germany wanted to control Belgium, change the borders with France, and control Poland and the Baltic states, which they hold.
 
The lack of US entry does not allow the central powers to win or even avoid losing by 1917. They simply do not gave the manpower or economy to stand against the Western Entente.

The Italians had 53 divisions at Piave to a grand total of 5 allied divisions (and no American) so that is not changed by anything that happens in France.
The British commonwealth deployed hundreds of thousands of Indian and ANZAC forces to the middle east and drowned the Ottomans in a sea of their bodies. This too is unaffected even in the unlikely event of a total French collapse, and certainly not altered by the US sitting out of the war.

Absent US intervention Germany may hope to get status quo ante bellum and acceptance of Brest litovsk, but her colonies are gone and her allies get thrown under the bus. More realistically I suspect Alsace Lorraine will get independence, or at least a plebiscite or autonomy, since France would accept nothing less.

Possibly Germany gets to annex Austria (sans South tirol and the littoral which go to Italy) in return for ceding Alsace Lorraine back to France.

In any case the war is probably over by 1919 at the latest.
 
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?
One might as well ask why it took so long for the USSR, Britain and US to win against Nazi Germany with such overwhelming advantage in strength.

The Entente was superior, certainly, but that does not make a war easy nor necessarily guarantee victory- but it does give an advantage, which together with naval supremacy has dire implications for the CPS chances.

Germany herself can probably endure but Austria and the Ottomans are not going to survive sustained british attention. Indeed Britain arguably entered the war at least in part to prevent Germany from threatening her position in the gulf via the ottomans- Britain is going to throw everything she has to containing German influence to Europe and also within europe itself, and that means focusing down Germanys allies if germany herself cannot be beaten. By 1917 Italy has reformed her army under more competent leadership and the Commonwealth is starting to turn the tide in the Levant, the outcome in both theaters is not IMHO in doubt regardless of what happens in France.
 
Again my question for those who think the Entente could continue until 1918 or even longer: How do they pay for any imports?
 
How do you figure? If the Entente can't push Germany off of the territory it holds, it has all the cards at the negotiation table in 1917 or 18. Colonies mean nothing compared to holding Belgium and the richest regions of France. On top of that Russia has lost a ton of territory, including some of their richest outside of Ukraine. What are the Entente going to give to get all that back? In fact what can they give? Germany wanted to control Belgium, change the borders with France, and control Poland and the Baltic states, which they hold.

If Russia has collapsed and a Brest-Litovsk like treaty has been signed than German has already won. I can see that the collapse of Russia and no USA help coming can convince the Entente to make peace. But this wont be an unconditional surrender and they can continue on the defense for a long while. Germany is very war weary as well. It lacks food though they hope the eastern victory will help with this. A-H is in a very bad shape and the Ottomans as well. What does Germany want in the west? Luxemburg - thats likely not to be contested. Liege? Longvy-Briey? Even if the germans want some border adjustment it wont be much. The only real issue could be Belgium.

My point is that they have won big in the east. The encirclement is ower especially if Russia went red - this is actually the most important one. For big changes in the west Germany would have to beat the Entente there because they wont accept those without a fight. And I dont think that Germany is prepared to continue the fight for 1-2 years and sacrifice hundreds of thousends (or more) of soldiers so they can get a bit better peace in the west. And the USA is still a factor. If it didnt explicitly state that it wont enter the war - hack even than - the chance of an intervention will always be there like the sword of Damocles ower the germans head. Mitteleurope exist, the encirclement is ower and they can get a favourable peace in the west. IMO they will see that the price for more in the west is simply not worth it and because of the USA still entails risks.
 
Last edited:

Medved

Banned
One might as well ask why it took so long for the USSR, Britain and US to win against Nazi Germany with such overwhelming advantage in strength.

Hence the question:If the combined industrial, financial and military capacity of the British Empire, the USSR and the US needed 3.25 years to secure victory - then without the US, how long would it have taken? How much less likely would it have been?

The same applies to WW1 - admittedly a little less than for WW2. The Entente was dependent on raw materials, fuel and food - a majority of which came from the US - without US entry it will not receive these things for free and financially the French and British are exhausted. That means they do a LOT worse than OTL - which will greatly affect their decision to negotiate by 1918.
 
Germany herself can probably endure but Austria and the Ottomans are not going to survive sustained british attention.

There was little British attention to Austria. Some British forces were sent there after Caporetto, but only modest ones. As for Turkey, she might lose Syria but once the front line fell back to the mountainous and thoroughly defensible Anatolia, any advance would soon bog down. Indeed, given that Syria was earmarked for France rather than GB, Britain may not even put much priority on conquering that.


The Italians had 53 divisions at Piave to a grand total of 5 allied divisions (and no American) so that is not changed by anything that happens in France.

It is very much changed by what happens in France.

If Germany is not as hard-pressed in Sep-Oct 1918 as OTL, she can send forces to Italy to shore up the Austrians. Ditto for Bulgarians and Turks. They will fall if and when Germany is on the ropes, but not before.
 
If Germany is not as hard-pressed in Sep-Oct 1918 as OTL, she can send forces to Italy to shore up the Austrians. Ditto for Bulgarians and Turks. They will fall if and when Germany is on the ropes, but not before.

Or rather than following the alternative to history line they will fall when a combination of Entente military pressure and German exactions in the case for the Austrians and Bulgaria becomes too much. The Ottomans are pretty much buggered already in 1917 it is a case of when and not if.
 
The Ottomans are pretty much buggered already in 1917 it is a case of when and not if.

When and if what exactly?

If you mean when and if they lose Syria, I've already acknowledged that possibility, though even if it does happen it has little bearing on the wider war. Once they reach their Anatolian homeland they will certainly fight on if Germany can still assist them.

As for German exactions these were no doubt unpopular but that in itself won't cause a surrender. Only outright military defeat will do that.
 
When and if what exactly?

If you mean when and if they lose Syria, I've already acknowledged that possibility, though even if it does happen it has little bearing on the wider war. Once they reach their Anatolian homeland they will certainly fight on if Germany can still assist them.

As for German exactions these were no doubt unpopular but that in itself won't cause a surrender. Only outright military defeat will do that.

Ah so the Germans who know they have in sufficient resources to maintain civilian morale since late 1916 are now able to further pare the cheese but in your telling the Entente who still in this very much towards worst case scenario, the assumption that US suppliers deny credit and stick to it, still have more resources than Germany cannot likewise allocate a portion of that to their allies.

And this is where your argument falls down. Not that Germany now has a much improved chance in World War 1 that would be valid but that you rely in all of your assumptions on the Germans being able to do things that you then then turn around and try argue the Entente cannot do with more resources.

The whole notion starts without USW, so Germany needs another something must be done in lieu. This means land offensives or a HSF death ride. Neither is likely to see to a reduction in German commitments. Remember the lack of US forces for a prospective 100 days does not release the German Army to attack it merely suggests there is a chance it can sustain the defence.

The German high command in World War 1 may have been idiots but they were also professionals with an entire machinery of government to assess where they were and they came to the conclusion they were losing as of late 1916. As we have demonstrated in this thread the only thing they gained from the fall of Russia was the ability to reallocate troops to other offensives. We know historically those offensives failed and the Germans were then crushed on the battlefield.

Here we have the essential difference that we expect the Germans to still have a functioning army and navy when they request an Armistice. Given that that we expect the Entente to be hurting as well it is generally accepted by those who are not committed to portraying the Kaiser Keptocracy as STRONK™ that the Germans might be able to parley an exaggerated impression of their strength. However we have less than one additional egg per person and the Hindenburg and Ludendorff clique need a win on the western front for political reasons.

Otherwise the Socialists will boot them out, organise a white peace and likely investigate their corruptions. Good for Germany, bad for wehraboos.
 
Ah so the Germans who know they have in sufficient resources to maintain civilian morale since late 1916 are now able to further pare the cheese but in your telling the Entente who still in this very much towards worst case scenario, the assumption that US suppliers deny credit and stick to it, still have more resources than Germany cannot likewise allocate a portion of that to their allies.

And this is where your argument falls down. Not that Germany now has a much improved chance in World War 1 that would be valid but that you rely in all of your assumptions on the Germans being able to do things that you then then turn around and try argue the Entente cannot do with more resources.

The whole notion starts without USW, so Germany needs another something must be done in lieu. This means land offensives or a HSF death ride. Neither is likely to see to a reduction in German commitments. Remember the lack of US forces for a prospective 100 days does not release the German Army to attack it merely suggests there is a chance it can sustain the defence.

The German high command in World War 1 may have been idiots but they were also professionals with an entire machinery of government to assess where they were and they came to the conclusion they were losing as of late 1916. As we have demonstrated in this thread the only thing they gained from the fall of Russia was the ability to reallocate troops to other offensives. We know historically those offensives failed and the Germans were then crushed on the battlefield.

Here we have the essential difference that we expect the Germans to still have a functioning army and navy when they request an Armistice. Given that that we expect the Entente to be hurting as well it is generally accepted by those who are not committed to portraying the Kaiser Keptocracy as STRONK™ that the Germans might be able to parley an exaggerated impression of their strength. However we have less than one additional egg per person and the Hindenburg and Ludendorff clique need a win on the western front for political reasons.

Otherwise the Socialists will boot them out, organise a white peace and likely investigate their corruptions. Good for Germany, bad for wehraboos.

For some reason you assume that absent USA militarily and materially not to mention the moral effect from the field for 1,5 years will barely change anthing in the western front. The germans will still stake everything on the Kaiserschlact and will still fail. The only effect is according to you that Germany wont be loosing as badly as OTL but will still seek an armistice about the same time. Wastly different circumstances somehow produce a very similar result - at least in your mind.

This is absurd and grossly downplays the impact the entry of the USA had on the war.
 
For some reason you assume that absent USA militarily and materially not to mention the moral effect from the field for 1,5 years will barely change anthing in the western front. The germans will still stake everything on the Kaiserschlact and will still fail. The only effect is according to you that Germany wont be loosing as badly as OTL but will still seek an armistice about the same time. Wastly different circumstances somehow produce a very similar result - at least in your mind.

This is absurd and grossly downplays the impact the entry of the USA had on the war.

No it recognises the changes. As I say there is a possibility that the Germans may even hold out the prospect of gains in the east. However no on the Western Front they are not changing the essential situation, they are not capable of a winning offensive.

The big difference is here the Entente are not likely capable of a war winning offensive. That is the difference the US made and that is huge. Now I understand that many folks refuse to accept the evidence the German Army was defeated on the battlefield. It happened but the Stab-In-The-Back myth has been repeated so many times. The thing is successful offesnives do typically rely on massive disparities in combat power. That is what the US provided.

The problem Germany had was it was under siege, it was cannibalising itself to sustain the war and cannibalising its allies. It could not long endure the additional stalemate. Now as to when the armistice is offered that depends. It might be offered in lieu of USW in January 1917, that one might be rejected by the Entente which ITTL would then likely be seen to be a mistake as Russia is probably on its last legs allowing for variable outcomes. The Germans might then try another armistice offer or just an offensive. An offensive probably, very probably I would argue, will not work. Germany does not have an abundance of resources over its enemies and by 1917 it no longer has a superior military. That said armistice might work. If it is rejected then offensive and that will fail. Even then if you have an armistice closer in time to OTL Germany is predicted in this scenario to still have a functioning Army and apparently a Navy.

That means something very different from Versailles of OTL.

In OTL Germany was down and out, hence the term a diktat peace. ITTL Germany likely has room to negotiate. The difference is the absence of America and thus is clearly huge.
 

Medved

Banned
The problem Germany had was it was under siege, it was cannibalising itself to sustain the war and cannibalising its allies. It could not long endure the additional stalemate.

And Britain + France can without US materials, food, fuel, troops ect ect ect? Considered that these two powers were living of the supplies delivered by the US in the years 1915/1916 (that they payed for them is besides the point) and that these supplies stop comming after May/June of 1917 because the British and French are broke, the British and French decide to continue the war anyway? " Listen up people! The Americans stopped supplying us with stuff because we are out of money and we just lost Russia, but allthough we are now in a much weaker position that we were 6 months ago, we will still continue the war because we are confident that the Germans will collapse any minute now!". Good luck with that "strategy".
 
No it recognises the changes. As I say there is a possibility that the Germans may even hold out the prospect of gains in the east. However no on the Western Front they are not changing the essential situation, they are not capable of a winning offensive.

The big difference is here the Entente are not likely capable of a war winning offensive. That is the difference the US made and that is huge. Now I understand that many folks refuse to accept the evidence the German Army was defeated on the battlefield. It happened but the Stab-In-The-Back myth has been repeated so many times. The thing is successful offesnives do typically rely on massive disparities in combat power. That is what the US provided.

The problem Germany had was it was under siege, it was cannibalising itself to sustain the war and cannibalising its allies. It could not long endure the additional stalemate. Now as to when the armistice is offered that depends. It might be offered in lieu of USW in January 1917, that one might be rejected by the Entente which ITTL would then likely be seen to be a mistake as Russia is probably on its last legs allowing for variable outcomes. The Germans might then try another armistice offer or just an offensive. An offensive probably, very probably I would argue, will not work. Germany does not have an abundance of resources over its enemies and by 1917 it no longer has a superior military. That said armistice might work. If it is rejected then offensive and that will fail. Even then if you have an armistice closer in time to OTL Germany is predicted in this scenario to still have a functioning Army and apparently a Navy.

That means something very different from Versailles of OTL.

In OTL Germany was down and out, hence the term a diktat peace. ITTL Germany likely has room to negotiate. The difference is the absence of America and thus is clearly huge.

So Germany is in a much better position than OTL without the USA in and the Entente in a much worse position: obviously the germans will seek terms much earlier than OTL. For some reason I dont really understand the logic behind this - the problem lies surely with me.

That aside the point was made already many times that the Entente cant last forever - end the USA cutting if not all but most of their import they are likely to have less lasting power than Germany. But I wont go in to the economic part as there are more qualified people who have debated that point in this very thread.
 
Top