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

Germany has been doing it since the start of war basically and the Entente sits in great bargain position with the USA. If USA doesn't continue to leans them money they might lose the war and default on there American loans. Which isn't really what you want to happen if you are the US.

Wishful thinking. Historically (IIRC), the United States was unwilling to commit to unsecured loans a whole month after the United States entered the war. With the Americans out and the Germans in an even better position, more American loans are not guaranteed.
 
How? They now have the resources of Eastern Europe to call bring to there side. The Central Powers where not in the best place to be but they were not in a war losing place either. Remember in Jan 1918 the idea of losing to Germany was very real in the minds of political leaders in England.

Seriously? Eastern Europe's resources are irrelevant, even if they were a net plus short term ( which in 1918/9 is a big stretch given effects of the previous fighting, current unrest etc ). Germany, as I stated, is collapsing logistically. To keep the Army fighting they have robbed Peter to pay Paul since 1914. By 1918 rail track , train engines etc are getting worn out to the point of uselessness. Horses have gone to the Army so horse drawn transport is in an even worse state. whilst they control Romania , Ploiești was trashed, so oil and hence motor transport is out. They were having serious and increasing difficulty getting food from even German farm to German city, resources in the East might as well be on the moon.

Germany's offensive in 1918 was not just because the Americans were coming , it was because Germany was not going to get through the winter of 1918 without either surrendering or facing a revolution/civil war. It was the last roll of the dice regardless. Just because in Jan 1918 the Entente underestimated how bad it was in Germany might only help with peace terms when Germany asks for them, nothing more.
 
Wishful thinking. Historically (IIRC), the United States was unwilling to commit to unsecured loans a whole month after the United States entered the war. With the Americans out and the Germans in an even better position, more American loans are not guaranteed.

Why can't the British:

1) rely more on imperial goods;
2) tighten rationing?
3) sell British assets or use them as collateral?
 

Deleted member 1487

Why can't the British:

1) rely more on imperial goods;
2) tighten rationing?
3) sell British assets or use them as collateral?
Shipping problems, because the empire is 400% further than the US. Ireland and Canada were already tapped out. Relying on the empire means effectively cutting shipping tonnage down to 25% of what it was vs. importing from the US. Also that doesn't help France.

Rationing to German levels would really hurt domestic morale, which was already not so hot as of 1917. Basically it would really bring home how badly the war was going. Plus tighter rationing at home doesn't get the military the oil and other materials it needs to fight.

Britain had already used up all their collateral that the US would accept and in fact was financing the entire Entente war effort as France was basically tapped out of collateral in 1914 due to worse finances already (they were heavily leveraged in loans to Russia), while Russia was relying on the Brits already to borrow for them due to their poor finances (they were relying on French loans to industrialize). So that avenue is already used up. This is all covered in the Hew Strachan book I linked earlier and a couple others I could list if you want.

Germany's offensive in 1918 was not just because the Americans were coming , it was because Germany was not going to get through the winter of 1918 without either surrendering or facing a revolution/civil war. It was the last roll of the dice regardless. Just because in Jan 1918 the Entente underestimated how bad it was in Germany might only help with peace terms when Germany asks for them, nothing more.
The way the OTL offensives were planned and run was entirely because of the US coming with it's fresh manpower and material. It is repeatedly cited in the historical record. The situation you're talking about was OTL 1918 after the German offensives had failed, there was serious planning for a naval suicide run, and because it was clear the war was lost given the success of the Allied 1918 offensives. That wouldn't be TTL with the US out, the Entente broke, and no clear signal that the Central Powers were beaten in the field. Besides the lack of financing to continue the war from the Entente was already coming to a head in April 1917 and it was only US entry and immediate provisions for unsecured loans that kept the war going, so by 1918 ITTL the war would likely be over or at least heavily in the CP's favor, as the key supplies for the Entente that enabled them to fight was gone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

J.D.Ward

Donor
Rationing to German levels would really hurt domestic morale, which was already not so hot as of 1917. Basically it would really bring home how badly the war was going.

By 1917. the British popular press were already well aware of this. See this cartoon from Punch:

WW1-Great-War-Cartoons-Punch-Magazine-Raven-Hill-1917-05-16-315.jpg
 
You are forgetting that in the winter of 1917 German almost knocked Italy out of the war, have a few more lucky breaks there and you see Italy also forced to leave the war.
Germany had all the lucky breaks already, at Caporetto and successive events. So much, in fact, that the High Command itself was already expecting to have and retreat behind Venice - or, god forbid, under the Po. But all the parts of the Italian army that were going to shatter, were shattered; the Germans were at the extreme tail end of their supply train; and as for morale, you couldn't go lower than General Luigi "The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves" Cadorna.

Caporetto was an absolute and unmitigated disaster. There were a lot of ways for the battle to go better for the Italians; not so for the Germans.
 
Some amazing answers to wake up too. So if the US never enters, the Entente faces financial collapse if they don't negotiate for peace with the CP?
 

Deleted member 1487

Some amazing answers to wake up too. So if the US never enters, the Entente faces financial collapse if they don't negotiate for peace with the CP?
Not exactly. It wouldn't be financial collapse per se, but the end of US imports. Those imports were vital for feeding the Entente populations, supplying the armies, and of course keeping the navies fueled (the US was on the only near enough source of oil at the time, the other being Persia, which was about 4x as far from Britain). So while not facing a financial collapse, they'd face a war economy collapse, which forces them to negotiate or face defeat in battle.
 
If USA doesn't continue to leans them money they might lose the war and default on there American loans. Which isn't really what you want to happen if you are the US.

All loans prior to US entry into the war were secured on collateral located in North America, so out of reach even of a victorious Germany. So US lenders could not lose their money. Unsecured loans were made only after the DoW, and hesitantly even then.

There would of course be a recession when war orders ceased, but this would happen whatever the war's outcome.
 

DougM

Donor
Don’t you understand modern historians? The US NEVER did anything useful in its whole history. They were irrelevant to WW2 and even more so in WW1. All those boatloads of materials, food and Men and all the money they loaned was nothing. The mighty British, French and Russians would have inevitably won the war without it. And probably faster then when they were saddled with the pathetic Americans...
That is inevitable the answer.

Of course Britain being basically broke. And the French army in open mutiny is beside the point. The German Army was inevitably going to collapse... Because in this kind of topic nothing changes except the US does not steal the glory of the victory.
 
Don’t you understand modern historians? The US NEVER did anything useful in its whole history. They were irrelevant to WW2 and even more so in WW1. All those boatloads of materials, food and Men and all the money they loaned was nothing. The mighty British, French and Russians would have inevitably won the war without it. And probably faster then when they were saddled with the pathetic Americans...
That is inevitable the answer.

Of course Britain being basically broke. And the French army in open mutiny is beside the point. The German Army was inevitably going to collapse... Because in this kind of topic nothing changes except the US does not steal the glory of the victory.
Nice shitposting that has nothing whatsoever to do with what anyone posted here, and a superb example of strawmanning.
 
Shipping problems, because the empire is 400% further than the US. Ireland and Canada were already tapped out. Relying on the empire means effectively cutting shipping tonnage down to 25% of what it was vs. importing from the US. Also that doesn't help France.

Rationing to German levels would really hurt domestic morale, which was already not so hot as of 1917. Basically it would really bring home how badly the war was going. Plus tighter rationing at home doesn't get the military the oil and other materials it needs to fight.

Britain had already used up all their collateral that the US would accept and in fact was financing the entire Entente war effort as France was basically tapped out of collateral in 1914 due to worse finances already (they were heavily leveraged in loans to Russia), while Russia was relying on the Brits already to borrow for them due to their poor finances (they were relying on French loans to industrialize). So that avenue is already used up. This is all covered in the Hew Strachan book I linked earlier and a couple others I could list if you want.


The way the OTL offensives were planned and run was entirely because of the US coming with it's fresh manpower and material. It is repeatedly cited in the historical record. The situation you're talking about was OTL 1918 after the German offensives had failed, there was serious planning for a naval suicide run, and because it was clear the war was lost given the success of the Allied 1918 offensives. That wouldn't be TTL with the US out, the Entente broke, and no clear signal that the Central Powers were beaten in the field. Besides the lack of financing to continue the war from the Entente was already coming to a head in April 1917 and it was only US entry and immediate provisions for unsecured loans that kept the war going, so by 1918 ITTL the war would likely be over or at least heavily in the CP's favor, as the key supplies for the Entente that enabled them to fight was gone.

Austria-Hungary was going down by the end of 1918 regardless, the Germans just beat them to hitting the armistice button.

While you have a point on transport the 400% is a wild exaggeration for most Imperial goods, further the British were still paying up front for at least a portion of their supplies. Thus assuming that the US was determined on a recession the supply of US resources is unlikely to be entirely denied the Entente. As for the morale hit we are talking about the Entente being reduced to a slightly better domestic situation than the Germans had endured for the best part of 4 years. This would tend to lead to the assumption that the people of France and Britain could endure at least a goodly portion of 4 years.

This is not good for the Germans who are about to lose an ally and a key supplier of food and raw materials by the end of 1918.
 

Deleted member 1487

Austria-Hungary was going down by the end of 1918 regardless, the Germans just beat them to hitting the armistice button.

While you have a point on transport the 400% is a wild exaggeration for most Imperial goods, further the British were still paying up front for at least a portion of their supplies. Thus assuming that the US was determined on a recession the supply of US resources is unlikely to be entirely denied the Entente. As for the morale hit we are talking about the Entente being reduced to a slightly better domestic situation than the Germans had endured for the best part of 4 years. This would tend to lead to the assumption that the people of France and Britain could endure at least a goodly portion of 4 years.

This is not good for the Germans who are about to lose an ally and a key supplier of food and raw materials by the end of 1918.
IOTL with the US in the war. Without that the Entente doesn't have the resources to push into the Balkans, nor eject the Austrians from Italy, nor even remove the Germans from France/Belgium.

As to the 400% distance part, we are talking about oil, steel, and food. Canada was close, but they were economically quite limited in WW1 as to what they could provide and couldn't provide anything like what the US did, as they were already maxed out in contributions to Britain. The rest of the empire with potential surplus to export was much further. Neutrals who would sell aren't going to if the US stops.

I'd read up on US political thought about the recession that would come from not providing unsecured loans. Hint: Wilson thought it was better to let it happen in 1917 than to provide unsecured loans. But please, keep grasping at straws.
 
IOTL with the US in the war. Without that the Entente doesn't have the resources to push into the Balkans, nor eject the Austrians from Italy, nor even remove the Germans from France/Belgium.

As to the 400% distance part, we are talking about oil, steel, and food. Canada was close, but they were economically quite limited in WW1 as to what they could provide and couldn't provide anything like what the US did, as they were already maxed out in contributions to Britain. The rest of the empire with potential surplus to export was much further. Neutrals who would sell aren't going to if the US stops.

I'd read up on US political thought about the recession that would come from not providing unsecured loans. Hint: Wilson thought it was better to let it happen in 1917 than to provide unsecured loans. But please, keep grasping at straws.

The Austrians had spent the last of their political capital with their subject peoples, they were being looted to sustain their allies and the resources used in the ongoing offensives against were already in place.

Further but steel came from places like Spain and Sweden among others, it would be a while before the US was the great net exporter of the metal it would become. Food came again from a variety of sources some additional sources being realised rather closer to home. The leading financial centre of the world is London at this time and a lot of people simply cannot afford to stop selling to the British. Oil was a big impact because the US was so much closer than anywhere else that could supply the required volume but again the US sources would be reduced not cut off entirely.

Finally we both know you know I am right when you start accusing me of grasping at straws.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Austrians had spent the last of their political capital with their subject peoples, they were being looted to sustain their allies and the resources used in the ongoing offensives against were already in place.
And? That won't matter in April 1917 when the Entente can't import anymore and they're unable to launch offensives. November 1918 is a LONG ways away. Too long without US entry.

Further but steel came from places like Spain and Sweden among others, it would be a while before the US was the great net exporter of the metal it would become. Food came again from a variety of sources some additional sources being realised rather closer to home. The leading financial centre of the world is London at this time and a lot of people simply cannot afford to stop selling to the British. Oil was a big impact because the US was so much closer than anywhere else that could supply the required volume but again the US sources would be reduced not cut off entirely.
Sweden was supplying Germany. Spain's output was a drop in the bucket for Britain at this time. The US was the largest steel producer in the world by 1900, same with oil and food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steel_industry_(1850–1970)#US_Steel

London was broke in 1917, see the British historian Hew Strachan's "Financing of the First World War" for details. NYC was the world financial center by 1916 because of all the loans they were issuing to Britain based on collateral. The US went from a net debtor to net debtee by 1916. US sources of oil would be entirely cut off if the Brits couldn't pay in dollars, per US laws, which they were out of as of April 1917. Look you can try and wiggle all you want, but you're not going to be able to avoid the hard facts of the matter, which especially British WW1 historians have demonstrated.

Finally we both know you know I am right when you start accusing me of grasping at straws.
If there ever was a grasping at straws statement this is it.
 
And? That won't matter in April 1917 when the Entente can't import anymore and they're unable to launch offensives. November 1918 is a LONG ways away. Too long without US entry.

See the crux of you argument is the automatic assumption of a 100% cessation of imports. This is not happening. The fact is American non-entry into the war is still a long way from the US continuing to sell on customary conditions of credit and then even if we steel man beyond that the British and yes the French were still paying for some American good up front. Further but interestingly as regards US entry into the war the Entente were coming to the end of their arms contracts and not looking to renew them because they had a surplus of of actual weapons (including enough to supply the American Expeditionary Force as it happened in OTL. Thus while there was an ongoing need for a lot of duel-use products plus explosives and yes indeed raw materials, the US was looking at lower demand as was.

The you have the rest of the world, much of which owes the British and French money as is and that debt can be exchanged for a start if need be.

You whole argument falls down at the first hurdle. The Entente are not going to be reduced to zero imports. Any other state than that and Germany is in a world of trouble.
 
If the US never entered the war, say unrestricted submarine warfare never went into effect, how much longer would WW1 have lasted? I know both sides were facing morale and supply difficulties so I dont see it lasting much longer, but I'm unsure on the length. Also who would end up winning or would it be a large scale white peace?
Apologies if this question has been asked before, I mostly like viewing the maps and graphics section, so I don't keep up with what has been asked.

Depends how it works

If the US doesn't enter but still MIGHT that is one thing, but if they don't enter and it's obvious they never will that is another

The whole "when will America come to help" was a morale sustainer. If it's delayed then Allied morale still has hope. If it's clear it will never happen then Allied morale will collapse

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Zen9

Banned
Lots of wishful thinking here about the state of the CP, by 1918 its clear that Germany was going to collapse logistically in 1919. Whilst the French were not going to be attacking as much in 1919, they did not have to and there are no real indications the French Army would not defend like a bunch of trapped wolverines. Ottomans are already out and A-H is in worse shape than Germany. As long as the blockade holds, Germany has to fold in 1919, its just a matter of if it surrenders or collapses into civil war. America joining the war just made it finish a year earlier mainly, but not solely, by morale impact
Let's just add they dug up the lead pipes in Berlin's gas main to melt down for bullets.
Nothing more striking than a state literally eating itself to sustain the war.
While food shortages prevailed in Germany, the UK was able to draw in supplies from around the world and France could as well.
There are some pretty telling accounts of German POWs in the UK being amazed at all the food available.
 
Let's just add they dug up the lead pipes in Berlin's gas main to melt down for bullets.
Nothing more striking than a state literally eating itself to sustain the war.
While food shortages prevailed in Germany, the UK was able to draw in supplies from around the world and France could as well.
There are some pretty telling accounts of German POWs in the UK being amazed at all the food available.
At this point, if some people want, a century later, to believe that the war was going well for Germany in 1917/1918, I don't think any argument can convince them. It's more of a religious belief, IMO.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Don’t you understand modern historians? The US NEVER did anything useful in its whole history. They were irrelevant to WW2 and even more so in WW1. All those boatloads of materials, food and Men and all the money they loaned was nothing. The mighty British, French and Russians would have inevitably won the war without it. And probably faster then when they were saddled with the pathetic Americans...
That is inevitable the answer.

Of course Britain being basically broke. And the French army in open mutiny is beside the point. The German Army was inevitably going to collapse... Because in this kind of topic nothing changes except the US does not steal the glory of the victory.
Ease back.
 
Top