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

Russia is going to withdraw from WW1 sooner or later. Maybe no US entry speeds that up or it doesn’t. For myself I expect no US entry to not have a massive impact on Russia; they are already falling apart.

As to the rest no US entry has no material impact on any of the central powers. I dont know who suggested USA would trade with Central Powers but that is a fairly unlikely outcome in my opinion. First while USA was unhappy with being restricted over trade they were not going to go to war over hunger blockade or even give very much diplomatic support to the European Neutrals like Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden being squeezed by the British. No US entry is going to push the US economy into a recession as all of the war orders dry up. The entente has no leverage with USA as all of the loans were secured by entente investments in North / South America so if the entente defaults the US banks take over the assets and thats about it. What it does is make things worse for UK as a source of foreign exchange is lost and reduced the ability of UK to buy war materials on current accounts even harder.

Now no US entry and no US secure loans doesn’t mean an end to trade it does mean a massive reduction in trade. Entente will have to focus what trade they do first on food stuffs and then raw materials to keep their economies going. No more US loans is going to see a fairly quick and massive collapse of the Pound Sterling as the British have used up most of their gold reserve and historically US treasury was supporting the Sterling. A collapse of the Sterling is going to make imports out of the sterling zone even more expensive and there for less. London was the financier and trade center for the entente powers so all the bad things that happen to UK follow the rest.

Now does this equal revolution and collapse of Western Entente? No it means reduced imports, reduced economic activity and big increase in stress on home front with run-up of inflation and decrease in standing of living. Said stress Central Powers had been under for last 4 years.

How does Italy weather Battle of Caporetto after 6 months of decreased imports? Reduced ability of France and UK to send troops? The French / British troops didn’t stop the Austro-German offensive but the troops did help prop up Italy. Does Italy exit the war in 1917?

Without US entry what happens during and after the French Army mutinies? US entry was a big help for Entente moral and we dont have that here combined with reduced economic activity and more stress on home front. A strong case can be made that Italy and perhaps France are going to be incapable for major offensive activity in 1918.

What does no US entry mean for Central Powers? As I said above from a material point of view, nil. The Germans aren’t going to be under the extreme pressure of trying to knock France / British out before USA arrives. Most likely move is a pair of offensives. One in France and one in Italy rather than a series of repeated offensives in France. The Germans did look at an offensive but felt the pay off of going into France would be higher over another offensive in Italy. Would Italy be able to survive another offensive in early 1918? I tend to doubt it but opinions will be different. As to France would they collapse? Unknown.

The real question people are asking is what happens in the Central Powers. Maybe if the Dynamic Duo (H-L) dont smash the German army with offensives in France they can avoid the historic collapse. The winter of 1918-19 should be better than the historic one and certainly better than winter of 1917-18 but thats not the same as normal. German should get some real exports out of the Ukraine for fall 1918. Historic things were so disorganized that food rotted in field and at rail depots plus the Russians moved lots out to feed cities before Germans took over. They did little more than feed the occupation divisions, which was a major bonus but it wasn’t the huge haul the Germans were expecting. Romania provided more grain than Ukraine did in 1918.

Michael
 

Deleted member 1487

So what is being said here is. ..?

That the US would stop all loans to the Entente by 1917, cutting Entente supply by upto 30%. Forced to scale back, Italy and Russia would unable to sustain any war effort?
No. Britain's imports would be cut by at least 1/3rd, which is mostly oil, food, steel/finished products with still like artillery munitions, and explosive materials. Italy and Russia would be cut off entirely to save money for Britain, with France in about the same position as they refused for whatever reason to meet British demands of more gold for imports (Britain was placing the orders for everyone, as their credit was the best and they were able to get the best rates with bulk orders). So Britain could theoretically still import at a much reduced rate, but Italy, Russia, and France are effectively cut out entirely. France less so than the others, as they were able to borrow a bit on their own still, but they had a much higher need for US steel and food, as well as explosives, due to the loss of their own sources domestically of arable land, iron deposits, and limited explosives production. It means losing all offensive capacity on the western front at a minimum and with that any reason to continue the war, especially if Russia drops out early.

Crucially this would not impact Entente-US relations at all.
Oh it would, but Wilson was furious at the Entente for bailing on his last peace negotiation effort and it got to the point he was even considering provoking a war with them; note though that that wouldn't happen, but he was so angry he had swung from being pro-Entente to fantasizing about war with them (there was other stuff going on over the British black list to maintain the blockade and freedom of the seas).

In fact magically the British and French would suddenly allow US shipping to the CP, along with new US loans to the CP?
Absolutely not. I don't know who suggested that, but it ain't happening. Wilson did talk about forcing the blockade and freedom of the seas issue with the US navy escorting vessels if need be, which the Entente couldn't prevent without starting a war with the US, but most historians consider that unlikely to have happened even without German stupidity vis a vis the USW issue.

While the CP would continue at the extreme rates of production?
AH would not fall apart?
And Germany would not suffer severe food shortages and not canabalise it's infrastructure to sustain the rates of production of arms and ammo?

Apparently the Western European Empires would suddenly collapse without US support.
Collapse causing global chaos and the US would be completely unaffected by this or the effective declaration of war on the Entente?
The CPs would still have their OTL production numbers, nothing is changing for them.
A-H didn't fall apart until late 1918 as Germany did. That timeline would be no different here, but the Entente would implode first ITTL due to lack of US loans and Russia and Italy being cut off entirely so that Britain could save money for her imports. Since the Entente had based so much of their war effort on the ability to import to the point they were at risk of destabilizing their currencies, they were in a position to collapse their ability to fight without it. The US would be impacted by the curtailing of orders, which it knew, and decided to go ahead with anyway, because the war was going to end eventually as it was and those war orders would end naturally one way or the other and cause a recession. Officials in the US understood that was coming and it was better sooner rather than later when things would be even worse.
Besides exports wouldn't entirely be gone, but given that the US had gobbled up the markets in Latin America that the Europeans could not longer export to due to their war economies consuming the vast majority of their productive capacity, the US wasn't going to deal with much more than a limited recession while the Euros made peace and things got back to relative normal in terms of trade patterns.

The Entente facing their war economy grinding to a halt isn't going to cause global chaos, especially if it means the war ends in 1917 before things got really bad IOTL in 1918; the US and Europe survived the much worse mess IOTL caused by the imploded German economy, end of the A-H economy and free trade zone in the Balkans, the rise of communism in Russia, etc. War ending in 1917 actually prevents the worst the globe faced IOTL after WW1.

Have I read this right?
Nope, I've clarified above.
 
What I've gathered, from wiking and others points, is that the Entente would essentially lose it's ability to have a winning offensive. The French would no longer have the "the American's will soon be here" boosting morale, so the Mutinys will hold and still prevent any major attacks, meaning Italy and the Balkan fronts are the focus. Italy likely wouldn't survive further offensives if Germany and Austria-Hungary are not in a race against time, either getting a seperate peace or stabilising a frontline somewhere. The Balkan has horrible terrain for an offensive, and the other Fronts will need all the troops to prevent a swift strike. It would do little good to liberate Belgrade if the troops sent from the West cause the Germans to be able to take Paris.

In regard to the Central Powers being under blockade and full war pressure, we have to remember that over time things are going to be getting better. As the Ukraine and other B-L countries start getting together, the food issue steadily improves, and there is no "we must hurry up before the American's join and add millions of fresh troops".

Something that @Zen9 brought up, German and US trade, is what Wiking said would happen after the war. The US would profit with trading a victorious Germany, so they don't "lose" if the Entente loses, as the Entente already paid everything the US would accept. Not once was the US trading during the war mentioned, except by Zen (and I think a few others arguing against Wiking).

The other persistent claim that someone made, that the Germans were totally stupid for USW, since the war likely becomes a stalemate, leaning Entente but shifting over time to slightly CP, ignores that at the time they didn't know the U.S. was only willing to trade the Entente for immediate payment, and was not going to provide any loans (as people have stated, the US government wouldn't secure them, so banks didn't want to give them.)

In short: It'd last longer because the Entente would not really be able to get a successful attack, due to morale loses from France's offensives doing nothing, (leading to the "we will defend but not attack"), Russia's seperate peace, and the realisation that there is no one else who will join the war to lend troops (US lessening support, essentially saying they are neutral).
 

Deleted member 1487

In short: It'd last longer because the Entente would not really be able to get a successful attack, due to morale loses from France's offensives doing nothing, (leading to the "we will defend but not attack"), Russia's seperate peace, and the realisation that there is no one else who will join the war to lend troops (US lessening support, essentially saying they are neutral).
Not sure how you got to that conclusion if the Entente couldn't attack, especially in 1917; they'd have to quit the war because they had no hope for victory without the ability to attack and with additional reinforcements on the way, while their means of sustenance is gone. If Italy and Russia drop out in 1917 due to the lack of imports and no US in the war as well as successful CP offensives, then the Entente is going to want to negotiate as a bloc to avoid the inevitable disastrous treaties that would come if the negotiated separately, which means peace in 1917 or at latest early 1918 on the eve of a major offensive on the Western Front against them.
 
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.

Lack of hindsight and fog of war, no one really knows how desperate (or not) the other side was at the time. On the flip side the Entente expected the Central Powers to last longer than they actually did...

In other words, it was a good idea (well, more like least bad idea) at the time... although the Zimmerman Telegram is still pure stupid.
 

DougM

Donor
With no US entry and assuming strict enforcement of cash and carry type rules then you get a few things. Some direct such as no US Loans and no US Troops and you get a few indirect things. Such as changes in moral and perhaps Germany not being in a rush to end the war befor the US gets truly mobilized.

It is the indirect changes that are hard to predict. For instance if the US refuses loans and England (and France) are all but out of cash and collateral what does that do for other countries, the old supply and demand argument. If I am a neutral country and the US has stopped or cut back selling to a Britain that means I am not competing for the sale and can drive a harder bargain. So potentially the US slowing or stopping sale means what little Britain has available to buy with elsewhere is now going to buy less as costs go up.

Also with out the US entry what happens to French Morale? Not only was the US entry used to keep the troops happy thus without the US you have an increased potential for future mutinies and potentially worse mutinies but you have also put increased stress on the French command. It is one thing to have to deal with minor mutinies especially if you think that assistance is on the way but if the mutinies become more common or bigger and you KNOW you are not getting any help the stress will increase and the potential for handling it badly increases. Pretty soon you are in a bad force feedback loop were everything just make the situation worse. Having been in personal situations where no help was coming I can tell you that you are often your own worse enemy in those cases. And the French Government And high command is going to have a worse morale problem then original and be much more stressed about it.

So I think that any one or two issues can be dealt with but with the compounding effect it may get to be to much.
No US help means (potentially) worse French morale. It means the troops in the front will have to stay there longer as the US will not take over any part of the line so less troops thus those you have have to work harder. It also means less French and British troops available to send elsewhere. This could effect the outcome of the Italian campaign. And a bad result in Italy could put more pressure on the high command at the same time the troops are getting Thier morale damaged by the bad result in Italy,
Thus the snowball starts rolling.

Frankly I give this (assuming Germany adjusts what it did to reflect no US involvement) a pretty good chance that the war ends about on schedule but that it will be a truly negotiated peace not the dictated peace that Germany got in the original timeline. If Germany holds up a bit better then they did (possible if they don’t press to end the war before US troops arrive in mass) then you could get a treaty that basically resets to prewar. If Germany is doing badly then perhaps they give up A-L.

But either way I think it turns out much better for Germany
 
My best guess would be that Italy goes for a separate peace after Caporetto. If they get a status quo ante offer they will take it. Russia might then decide to cut its losses and accepts something along the lines that Poland is gone.

Then it is F,GB against G, AH and the Ottomans.

And France without US imports and the GB in heavy food rationing.

Even if they continue a 1918 German offensive with 1.000k troops more would break the lines of the Entente.

If you wonder where so many troops come from? The 99 divisions that were historically in Russia in 1918, the AH and German troops from the Italian front plus the lower losses 17/18 due to less artillery ammunition produced by F and GB and the avoided losses in Italy and Russia 17/18.

Of course assuming Germany goes for good peace contracts.
 
Not sure how you got to that conclusion if the Entente couldn't attack, especially in 1917; they'd have to quit the war because they had no hope for victory without the ability to attack and with additional reinforcements on the way, while their means of sustenance is gone. If Italy and Russia drop out in 1917 due to the lack of imports and no US in the war as well as successful CP offensives, then the Entente is going to want to negotiate as a bloc to avoid the inevitable disastrous treaties that would come if the negotiated separately, which means peace in 1917 or at latest early 1918 on the eve of a major offensive on the Western Front against them.

I don't think it'd be permanently can't attack, just in that in the immediate aftermath of things being cut off. I don't think a German attack would necessarily break them, so they would view it as a "we need to devise a good plan for a knockout blow".

Much like the previous years of the war.
 
I would say a bit longer. The American impact, as noted, was less on the battlefields of France (although important contributions were made during Meuse-Argonne) and much more so in the logistics and financing of the war. The Balkan and Italian fronts were collapsing for the Central Powers, but presumably, with no American entry, more of the divisions freed up from the end of the Eastern Front, might have been used to stabilize those sectors.

Still, Austria-Hungary and Germany were both starving in 1918 and it was only going to get worse.

My guess? The German Spring Offensive goes marginally better, the Hundred Days (new name would be needed) goes marginally worse, and the war drags on into spring 1919 before mutinies start up in Germany and bring the war to an end.
 
Still, Austria-Hungary and Germany were both starving in 1918 and it was only going to get worse.

So, it will get worse because they have they have new sources for food in the east that aren't blockadable?

Not sure I see that being the case.
 
So, it will get worse because they have they have new sources for food in the east that aren't blockadable?

Not sure I see that being the case.

Agree having Ukraine under CP control for longer would make a difference. Poland got more productive each year it was under control; not prewar but better.

Michael
 
Agree having Ukraine under CP control for longer would make a difference. Poland got more productive each year it was under control; not prewar but better.

Michael

I mean, as far as I know, every month with Poland and Ukraine they become more productive than they were during war occupation*

(As in they aren't active battlefields)
 
Just want to say that unlike today the president cant just declare war whit out congress aprovel like we have seen today. And lets remember that the democrats hade a slim majorety in the congress and that the republicans acutally hade more seats than the democrats but the democrats hade support from socalist and progressives(1916) and in 1918 the democrats lost their majorety in both the houses . I guess in this timline the us is not as provoked by germany. What i want to know from the people who day the us would enter anyway is 1 how do widrow willson justify the war 2 how does he get it through Congress
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't think it'd be permanently can't attack, just in that in the immediate aftermath of things being cut off. I don't think a German attack would necessarily break them, so they would view it as a "we need to devise a good plan for a knockout blow".

Much like the previous years of the war.
How can they attack without their main source of oil, explosives, and steel?
 
Just want to say that unlike today the president cant just declare war whit out congress aprovel like we have seen today. And lets remember that the democrats hade a slim majorety in the congress and that the republicans acutally hade more seats than the democrats but the democrats hade support from socalist and progressives(1916) and in 1918 the democrats lost their majorety in both the houses . I guess in this timline the us is not as provoked by germany. What i want to know from the people who day the us would enter anyway is 1 how do widrow willson justify the war 2 how does he get it through Congress

Especially given he didn't want to join at the time, prior to provocation.
 
So switching sides to favour the Germans and run through the Anglo-French blockade?
Effectively triggering war with them.

Not without getting past the British and French, the act of which is explicitly hostile.

If the British and French fire on a single American vessel in this scenario, thus summoning in the last, untouched Great Power to the side of their enemies... they're even stupider then whoever thought that Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a great idea. The best move is to admit that the war is lost at this point and seek the best peace terms they can, not look at the US and go "We can totally take them, double or nothing!"
 
How can they attack without their main source of oil, explosives, and steel?

Presumably they would spend a period of time trying to gather resources and assess. I don't think they'd just go "WHELP, THAT'S IT. ALL HAIL THE KAISER!" Instead they'd try to get a last ditch effort, I doubt they'd go for an attack right away. Thus they would spend time assessing, have a major attempt if that's their deduction.

I don't expect it to be longer than 6 months to a year before they decide if they need to negotiate or if they can get alternatives.
 
So, it will get worse because they have they have new sources for food in the east that aren't blockadable?

Not sure I see that being the case.

Because they had eaten the seed corn and slaughtered the meat animals in the East, it would take many years even without a civil war (which of course made it all much worse OTL) to recover from that.

The other big issue is the great transport requirements of overland travel and the road and rail capacity just was not there for what Germany needed. They could take the stuff of the peasants but getting it to the Fatherland was whole magnitude more difficult.
 
If the British and French fire on a single American vessel in this scenario, thus summoning in the last, untouched Great Power to the side of their enemies... they're even stupider then whoever thought that Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was a great idea. The best move is to admit that the war is lost at this point and seek the best peace terms they can, not look at the US and go "We can totally take them, double or nothing!"

America is not going to look to break the blockade and let German goods flood into their markets. They were worried enough OTL about the rise of local manufactures in Asia for example as it was.
 
Because they had eaten the seed corn and slaughtered the meat animals in the East, it would take many years even without a civil war (which of course made it all much worse OTL) to recover from that.

The other big issue is the great transport requirements of overland travel and the road and rail capacity just was not there for what Germany needed. They could take the stuff of the peasants but getting it to the Fatherland was whole magnitude more difficult.

Certainly, the advantage is they don't need to rush, as any improvement (even a very minour one) is an improvement.

It definitely wont be an instant remedy, but it won't be doomsday.
 
Top