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

Deleted member 1487

See the crux of you argument is the automatic assumption of a 100% cessation of imports. This is not happening.
And that is where your argument falls apart. It has been clearly demonstrated by WW1 historians who deal with the finance issue that that would have been the case for the Entente due to their lack of collateral for more loans in collars. The US required dollar payments for goods and the Entente was out of the means of acquiring them. Hence end of imports.
https://www.amazon.com/Financing-First-World-War-Strachan/dp/0199257272
https://www.amazon.com/Britain-Fran...d+war+financing&qid=1562421843&s=books&sr=1-3
https://www.amazon.com/Too-Proud-Fight-Woodrow-Neutrality/dp/0192158074

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.
The Brits cashed in all that to pay for the war.

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.
Once the US entered things weren't going well for Germany, but until that point Germany was winning, they just screwed themselves by antagonizing the US to the point they declared war.
 

Zen9

Banned
Hmmmm....my debtors risk loosing the war and consequently may well be unable to pay up.....and I've lent them so much money!
What am I to do?
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmmmm....my debtors risk loosing the war and consequently may well be unable to pay up.....and I've lent them so much money!
What am I to do?
They collateralized all their loans, so all their assets are yours. The US banks weren't stupid, they hedged and made sure they possessed everything first before making the loans. They would only accept whatever assets that could be held in the US. So if the Entente losses they aren't out their money, they have all Britain's assets. Not only that, but before the resumption of USW and the ZT Wilson was furious with the Entente and was virtually ready to declare war on them. He wouldn't have, as it was politically unfeasible, but that was his attitude at the time. Even his pro-British advisor, Col. House, was warning the British about it. So unless the US government told US banks to issue the loans and the US government was going to secure them, no further loans were forth coming as of April 1917, even the very pro-British JP Morgan was cutting off their credit, seeing where the political winds were blowing and knowing about the entente financial situation. He was the last banker even willing to issue credit to the Entente.
 

Zen9

Banned
Moving the goalposts. Besides, money, arguably more money, can be made by trading with a hungry (in every sense of the word) Germany.
So switching sides to favour the Germans and run through the Anglo-French blockade?
Effectively triggering war with them.
 
So switching sides to favour the Germans and run through the Anglo-French blockade?
Effectively triggering war with them.
No, that is not what I was implying. I was implying that hedging and letting either side win was more favorable than joining the war on the Entente's side (as you have claimed) because America could also make quite a lot of money on the Germans if they won.
 
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.
We (wiking and I) have cited the opinions of several historians, including a British and an Australian. Opinions based on an expert reading and understanding of the facts at hand. It seems to me that you are the one clinging onto this "religious belief" and not us as you have not provided any sources, just your own (biased) disbelief.
 

Zen9

Banned
No, that is not what I was implying. I was implying that hedging and letting either side win was more favorable than joining the war on the Entente's side (as you have claimed) because America could also make quite a lot of money on the Germans if they won.
What loans had the US given to the Germans since 1914?
 
And that is where your argument falls apart. It has been clearly demonstrated by WW1 historians who deal with the finance issue that that would have been the case for the Entente due to their lack of collateral for more loans in collars. The US required dollar payments for goods and the Entente was out of the means of acquiring them. Hence end of imports.
https://www.amazon.com/Financing-First-World-War-Strachan/dp/0199257272
https://www.amazon.com/Britain-Fran...d+war+financing&qid=1562421843&s=books&sr=1-3
https://www.amazon.com/Too-Proud-Fight-Woodrow-Neutrality/dp/0192158074


The Brits cashed in all that to pay for the war.


Once the US entered things weren't going well for Germany, but until that point Germany was winning, they just screwed themselves by antagonizing the US to the point they declared war.

Except none of the books you want me to buy say that.
 
The unsecured loans after April, 1917 were a combination of the US government guaranteeing them (because the USA was in the war), and some hope that the money could be squeezed out of the defeated CP. If the USA does not enter the war in April, 1917, then the Entente won't be getting unsecured loans from private financiers in the USA as there will be no US government guarantee. This means that the only way the Entente powers can buy from the USA is with cash as their collateral (at least that in the USA) is used up. Now a private business supplying the Entente, for example a factory making uniforms, might sell on credit (with interest) but this is going to be limited as this factory needs cash to purchase raw materials, pay workers and so forth. At some point, especially if repayment is slow and the Entente keeps mumbling "refinance at higher rates" this will dry up, and in any case will never approach the level in aggregate of the major loans being made. To some extent collateral outside the USA might be accepted, but I expect limited in amount and at a significant discount as you can't count actually getting your hands on it, especially fixed assets.

As far as the Brest-Litovsk "bonus" for material, yes this is limited in 1918 but will be better in 1919. The ceded area has significant food exporting history, as well as coal and other needs. The Germans of 1918 are not the Nazis of 1941. The peoples of the ceded areas may (or may not) be pleased with the change of government, certainly some will find the Germans better than the Russians - the Balts, the Jews, the Poles will find life somewhat looser.

Without the 1 million Americans that came to Europe between April, 1917 and November, 1918 in not just combat units but support units that helped rebuild and expand French railways, upgraded ports etc all of those tasks - manning every inch of trench, repairing every miles of track, and much more needs to be done by Entente manpower. This means manpower for the Balkans, manpower for the home front (fewer men need be called to the colors) is much tighter for the Entente. It is worth noting the plans were for by Spring, 1919 for 2 million Americans to be in France. You also don't have the USN helping out in the Atlantic.

In this scenario, the Italian front is certainly not going to do A-H in and any Entente efforts in the Balkans are going to be reduced due to the demands of the Western Front absent American participation. By fall, 1917 Russia is out of the picture so A-H is looking at a defensible front in Italy, and a front in the Balkans with terrain in their favor and reduced Entente pressure. Since their situation is not as dire, yes they are shambolic and a weak reed but lasting longer is quite reasonable especially basically on the defensive.

The odds are neither side is going to be able to "win" on the decisive western front. If the Germans rationalize their lines and are in the sorts of fortifications they either made or planned (Hindenburg line complete) they can conserve resources and bleeds the Entente. Tanks are not where they need to be to be decisive for a serious breakthrough. The issue is the politics in Britain, how long before there is a push to get a fair peace - and one that restores most of the prewar lines in the west would be acceptable to the UK. The French are already bled white, and while the mutinies of 1917 DID NOT mean the French Army would not fight like tigers on defense, massive offensives with equally massive slaughter led by "les gros légumes" would, IMHO, rekindle mutiny on a much grander scale. The net result is Germany can most likely manage to keep on on the defensive, the British and French for a variety of reasons can't win and are exhausted. Sooner rather than later a peace not quite status quo antebellum is arrived at in 1919 or 1920 at the latest.
 

Zen9

Banned
The unsecured loans after April, 1917 were a combination of the US government guaranteeing them (because the USA was in the war), and some hope that the money could be squeezed out of the defeated CP. If the USA does not enter the war in April, 1917, then the Entente won't be getting unsecured loans from private financiers in the USA as there will be no US government guarantee. This means that the only way the Entente powers can buy from the USA is with cash as their collateral (at least that in the USA) is used up. Now a private business supplying the Entente, for example a factory making uniforms, might sell on credit (with interest) but this is going to be limited as this factory needs cash to purchase raw materials, pay workers and so forth. At some point, especially if repayment is slow and the Entente keeps mumbling "refinance at higher rates" this will dry up, and in any case will never approach the level in aggregate of the major loans being made. To some extent collateral outside the USA might be accepted, but I expect limited in amount and at a significant discount as you can't count actually getting your hands on it, especially fixed assets.

As far as the Brest-Litovsk "bonus" for material, yes this is limited in 1918 but will be better in 1919. The ceded area has significant food exporting history, as well as coal and other needs. The Germans of 1918 are not the Nazis of 1941. The peoples of the ceded areas may (or may not) be pleased with the change of government, certainly some will find the Germans better than the Russians - the Balts, the Jews, the Poles will find life somewhat looser.

Without the 1 million Americans that came to Europe between April, 1917 and November, 1918 in not just combat units but support units that helped rebuild and expand French railways, upgraded ports etc all of those tasks - manning every inch of trench, repairing every miles of track, and much more needs to be done by Entente manpower. This means manpower for the Balkans, manpower for the home front (fewer men need be called to the colors) is much tighter for the Entente. It is worth noting the plans were for by Spring, 1919 for 2 million Americans to be in France. You also don't have the USN helping out in the Atlantic.

In this scenario, the Italian front is certainly not going to do A-H in and any Entente efforts in the Balkans are going to be reduced due to the demands of the Western Front absent American participation. By fall, 1917 Russia is out of the picture so A-H is looking at a defensible front in Italy, and a front in the Balkans with terrain in their favor and reduced Entente pressure. Since their situation is not as dire, yes they are shambolic and a weak reed but lasting longer is quite reasonable especially basically on the defensive.

The odds are neither side is going to be able to "win" on the decisive western front. If the Germans rationalize their lines and are in the sorts of fortifications they either made or planned (Hindenburg line complete) they can conserve resources and bleeds the Entente. Tanks are not where they need to be to be decisive for a serious breakthrough. The issue is the politics in Britain, how long before there is a push to get a fair peace - and one that restores most of the prewar lines in the west would be acceptable to the UK. The French are already bled white, and while the mutinies of 1917 DID NOT mean the French Army would not fight like tigers on defense, massive offensives with equally massive slaughter led by "les gros légumes" would, IMHO, rekindle mutiny on a much grander scale. The net result is Germany can most likely manage to keep on on the defensive, the British and French for a variety of reasons can't win and are exhausted. Sooner rather than later a peace not quite status quo antebellum is arrived at in 1919 or 1920 at the latest.
How is Germany to sustain itself from 1917 to 1919?
 

Deleted member 1487

How is Germany to sustain itself from 1917 to 1919?
The Turnip Winter was caused by the Coal Crisis, which was caused by the Hindenburg Programme. Things were actually improving over the nadir in the winter of 1916-17 once Ludendorff et al realized how badly they screwed up, so stopped their unrealistic armaments plan. They were able to sustain themselves both through better management of the economy and the territories gained in 1918 in the East, which while not generating food for the home countries did allow the troops on the ground to feed themselves, while the lack of combat there meant they didn't have to supply those troops for the most part. Not supplying a million troops was a pretty substantial easing of the burdens they had faced up until the Russians exited the war. That said things weren't good in the Central Powers nations, worse in A-H, but they were sustainable until the US showed up with fresh armies and lots of weapons, which allowed for the smashing of German and Austrian armies in the 2nd half of the year, which when coupled with the general dissatisfaction with the war meant the system collapsed. Had the US not been a factor in 1917-18 the CPs, while in a bad spot would be overall in a better military one than the Entente especially if/when the Russians exit the war due to no US entry and loans to keep them going.

I am not going to buy them, is what I said.
You said they didn't say what I claimed:
Except none of the books you want me to buy say that.

But you know you could always cite the passages you feel support your contention.
Typing out paragraphs worth of finance text will take quite a bit of time, so if I choose to it will take some time.
 
Typing out paragraphs worth of finance text will take quite a bit of time, so if I choose to it will take some time.

Oh so my memory is not wrong and nowhere in any of them is there a line such "...and thus it can be seen that this equates to 100% of all UK (or France if you prefer) imports."

I rather thought so.
 

Deleted member 1487

Oh so my memory is not wrong and nowhere in any of them is there a line such "...and thus it can be seen that this equates to 100% of all UK (or France if you prefer) imports."

I rather thought so.
Desperate strawgrabbing again.
 
Desperate strawgrabbing again.

Well I would remind you, that you have a history of saying things like in spite of rather than because of the available evidence.

I mean just looking through a text I do have close to hand Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War (and he is another one trying to prove that statistically the Germans won World War 1) and he notes that Britain remained a net creditor at the end of the war.

"In March 1919 Britain's external debts, primarily to the USA, totalled £1,365 millions; but she was owed £1,841 millions by her Allies and the Dominions and Colonies, leaving a net balance of half a billion." Page 328.

The idea you put forward is the British had cashed in all of their overseas resources which is not actually true but again it might be worth drilling down into this in more detail.
 
Top