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

Exactly - and they did so only when the Monarchy's position had become patently hopeless in purely military terms.

This is the key to victory/defeat. One side or the other (or at least its soldiers) have to become convinced that they can never win, and that any future deaths will be essentially for nothing. The French were in danger of this in May 1917, and it did happen to the CPs after July-Aug 1918.

On threads like this I sometimes get the impression (apologies if I misunderstand anyone) that the battlefield victory somehow wasn't essential - ie that the Entente could have stayed on the defensive and waited patiently for the other side to collapse due to the blockade or internal troubles of some kind. Needless to say it could never have worked. With the CPs sitting on Entente territory everywhere in Europe, such inaction would have been seen as a confession of defeat, and morale would have evaporated.

The funny thing that which you accuse others of is exactly how the German victory is sought in this thread. Oh but what about the handwaved German field victories you say, there has been a lot of CP handwaving. The importance of logistics has been handwaved away, the lack of ability to actually penetrate the front lines of the Entente defences, yes even at Caporetto gets handwaved away, Ukrainian food deliveries to Germany get handwaved into abundance. Yes I get all that is going on.

The thing is there is, even without the US becoming directly involved and hell even within the US, as has been made abundantly clear, actively own gaoling itself to help the CP rise as future economic challenger, there is still lacking a clear path to CP victory. The only solution is to handwave a moral collapse among the French. The French when they mutinied made clear they were still available in case of attack by the Germans, the French when they mutinied negotiated with their officers, the French when they mutinied even agreed to hand over some of the ringleaders of the mutiny knowing full well some would be shot and the French when they mutinied returned to the offensive.

The issue for the French in this scenario is not a lack of will. It is the lack of the overwhelming superiority of arms required to prosecute a successful offensive against a competent opponent. The problem for the CP is they have the exact same problem.

So what happens when neither side can crush the other on the battlefield? Well the lessons of the 18th and 19th teach us that one side comes to terms. Normally it has to be said, before, they collapse. A lesson which does actually suggest a CP offer of terms in 1917. On the other hand maybe, and it is a stretch, maybe you will see an Entente offer of terms at some point following a Russian collapse, if and it is an if because crucially failed Russian offensives might not have been launched without the submarine offensive. Then again you may see the Germans hold on and hold on and still lose because yes the home front matters and people can only endure for so long and they have been enduring a lot harder for a lot longer.

So yeah battlefield is not historically essential. However for CP victory all their ducks must align in a row while for Entente victory only enough ducks need even show up.
 
Folks sorry all this talk about 1918 is sort of ...

If the US stops selling to the Entente in May 1917 the war stops latest in December 1917.

Yes the UK population may live with a hard rationing but 30% less artillery tubes and shells in France and 70% less in Italy simply translate to „war is over“. And that does not even consider the other economic problems.
 
In terms of A-H one must ask, if things go differently after 1917 (no CP military collapse) with a negotiated peace in 1918, does this buy A-H enough time to attempt to deal with the nationalities issues and keep things together? In a sense, whether or not A-H is a long term survivor or not is irrelevant. If A-H breaks up in some fashion a few years AFTER WWI ends, so what. OTL there was a lot of fighting and rearranging going on after the major powers had settled things. IMHO it is perfectly reasonable to expect A-H to survive until the end of the war where the USA does not enter and you have a negotiated but more CP positive peace. The Ottomans, OTOH were even more shambolic than A-H in 1914, and in 1917 they have already suffered defeats losing territory and things are looking worse (Jerusalem, Baghdad, Arab Revolt, etc). In 1917 A-H has gained territory and Russia and the eastern threat is gone or will be soon, and potentially Italy may be out. The overthrow of the Sultan and the replacement of the OE by the Turkish Republic is still likely, but even the OE in a severely amputated form might survived in the no USA scenario.
 
No more than a year, tops. Both sides were suffering from their own issues (the Germans had just gone through the Turnip Winter, the French military was still putting down mutinies from the Nivelle Offensive, etc), so I think it'd be a objective of both sides to end the war before the end of 1918. The Germans may seek a negotiated peace with the Entente. This could divide the Entente, since the British would want to negotiate with the Germans, but the French would not. The British would probably tell the French that since there is no chance of the war being own by either side, so it's worth listening to the Germans. The Germans propose a return to the status quo ante bellum, since there is no way the Germans could establish a political monopoly over all of Europe (looking at you, Kaiserreich) with the beating that it's taken, both on the home and military fronts. Britain accepts the terms, France throws a hissy fit, but agrees to the terms anyway. The war ends in a draw.

(Question: Did the Entente ever have a policy regarding surrenders from the Central Powers ala Casablanca?)
I wonder, might that butterfly the second disagreement away? Especially if there are no reparations imposed upon Germany.

That would result in a very different 20th century indeed.
 
Last edited:
In terms of A-H one must ask, if things go differently after 1917 (no CP military collapse) with a negotiated peace in 1918, does this buy A-H enough time to attempt to deal with the nationalities issues and keep things together? In a sense, whether or not A-H is a long term survivor or not is irrelevant. If A-H breaks up in some fashion a few years AFTER WWI ends, so what. OTL there was a lot of fighting and rearranging going on after the major powers had settled things. IMHO it is perfectly reasonable to expect A-H to survive until the end of the war where the USA does not enter and you have a negotiated but more CP positive peace. The Ottomans, OTOH were even more shambolic than A-H in 1914, and in 1917 they have already suffered defeats losing territory and things are looking worse (Jerusalem, Baghdad, Arab Revolt, etc). In 1917 A-H has gained territory and Russia and the eastern threat is gone or will be soon, and potentially Italy may be out. The overthrow of the Sultan and the replacement of the OE by the Turkish Republic is still likely, but even the OE in a severely amputated form might survived in the no USA scenario.
I I'm always confused why people seem to think the ottomans where close to colaps in 1918, becuse the loss of the southern taratorys was bad but that was never the Hartland of the ottoman Empire, it was turkey, and in a peace like this then they are probably hating that land back, becus a the Turkish republic was able to fight off the alises in a much wars strategic positions not long after, the ottomans only brok after Germany did and not for long.

As for the th A-H it think nationalism was worse late war then the ottomans, and I don't think it will servive long after ww1, it was gust to stressful to both the nation as a hole and between individual nationalities, and whith out Russia to be a threat then Germany has really no reason to keep such a week and dysfunctional alliy when it can have smaller but much more stable nations it will control anyway.
 
So what happens when neither side can crush the other on the battlefield? Well the lessons of the 18th and 19th teach us that one side comes to terms. Normally it has to be said, before, they collapse. A lesson which does actually suggest a CP offer of terms in 1917. On the other hand maybe, and it is a stretch, maybe you will see an Entente offer of terms at some point following a Russian collapse, if and it is an if because crucially failed Russian offensives might not have been launched without the submarine offensive. Then again you may see the Germans hold on and hold on and still lose because yes the home front matters and people can only endure for so long and they have been enduring a lot harder for a lot longer.
I am not sure why Germany would ask for terms sooner; or are you considering those '1917 terms' basically an offer for the Entente to surrender? It would seem like a way for the Russian government to survive, so I can see the possibility I guess.
 
Exactly - and they did so only when the Monarchy's position had become patently hopeless in purely military terms.

This is the key to victory/defeat. One side or the other (or at least its soldiers) have to become convinced that they can never win, and that any future deaths will be essentially for nothing. The French were in danger of this in May 1917, and it did happen to the CPs after July-Aug 1918.

On threads like this I sometimes get the impression (apologies if I misunderstand anyone) that the battlefield victory somehow wasn't essential - ie that the Entente could have stayed on the defensive and waited patiently for the other side to collapse due to the blockade or internal troubles of some kind. Needless to say it could never have worked. With the CPs sitting on Entente territory everywhere in Europe, such inaction would have been seen as a confession of defeat, and morale would have evaporated.

Exactly. "If even high command thinks this war is hopeless, why are we still being miserable in these goddamn trenches?" That would be the question being asked among the rank and file. Better hope that the officers have a DAMN Good reason because "Lets just sit in the trenches for another two years waiting for the Germans to *Maybe* collapse" is not going to be a winning answer.
 
So yeah battlefield is not historically essential.

It is not the battlefield victory per se that is essential, but the conviction on one side that they can never achieve one. Once that conviction spreads, morale will crumble.

Of course, the collapse of morale may well result in a battlefield victory for the other side. The collapse of the Balkan Front was not a direct military defeat for A/H, which had relatively few troops there. But by rendering the Monarchy's position untenable, it made clear as noonday to kuk soldiers that their position was hopeless, so made Vittorio Veneto a foregone conclusion. Indeed had the Balkan front held it is doubtful whether VV would have been fought at all.
 
Last edited:
It is not the battlefield victory per se that is essential, but the conviction on one side that they can never achieve one. Once that conviction spreads, morale will crumble.

Of course, the collapse of morale may well result in a battlefield victory for the other side.

^

"We're going to lose anyways, why should *I* throw away my life?!?"
 
I`d bet on it lasting longer. No more than 1919 though

[continued American neutrality presupposes no USW ,with no USW there is no Zim. telegram]

Italy would hold out in 1917 , as would the Balkan front .

In 1918 if Germany does not launch its spring offensive , a result would be the germans not pulling
their forces out of the Italian front . Italy would very likely pull out of the game in 1918
Austria could then focus only on the Balkans , the allied forces would retreat from Greece in the autumn of 1918 or later.
Britain and France can not afford to give Germany a greater numerical superiority on the western front by pulling troops from there to stabilize these fronts.
In this scenario the pressures on the Austrian monarchy will significantly decrease.

The pro CP Hetman of Ukraine would not be supported by the inevitable losers in this timeline, and could cement his regime then provide greater food relief to Germany. With Ukraine in the fold the eastern gains could be consolidated. However with the Ukrainian reds and greens defeated the Bolsheviks would lose in southern Russia and eventually the civil war itself, though at his point in the scenario the reds have Moscow and Petrograd.

The British forces in Mesopotamia could find capable allies in the southern whites for the race to Baku. Britain or the Brit-allied whites would take Baku. The Ottoman Empire will be knocked out of the war.

In the aftermath of the Italian exit , Britain and France launch a joint offensive which Germany will endure.

At the start of 1919 the only front would be the western front, Germany could replenish their losses from the 1918 allied offensive with troops form the now consolidated East and allied Hapsburg forces.

The CP breaks the allied lines in the spring or summer of 1919 and an armistice is signed in the west.

The question is whether Germany can penetrate the Anglo-French line or not with the other fronts settled. I believe YES they could, there will be a huge economic cost to Germany and the Hapsburg monarchy with longterm negative socio-political consequences.


The settlement reached in a war concluded like this is up to debate .
 
Top