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

Venocara

Banned
Stabilise the front sure. That is not at all the same thing as knocking Austria out.

The front was stabilised at First Monte Grappa (an excellent Italian victory against the odds) and won at Vittorio Veneto, which was nearly a year later.

Not as long as Germany is in a position to prop them (and the Bulgarians) up.

All the Central Powers were defeated in France and Belgium, when Germany became so hard-pressed there that she was unable to send forces to aid the others . Had she been less hard-pressed she would have been able to do this, and so keep them in the war. The Entente might overrun an Austrian (or Turkish) province or two, but there was no way any of the CPs could be knocked out unless/until Germany herself was on the ropes.

Not all. The Ottomans were not defeated on that front. And the Austrians would have been knocked out by the Italians. The Germans would have had to send an unreasonably large force to stop that from happening.

There was much fantasising in Entente circles about "knocking away the props", but this was based on a false premise. It was in fact Germany who propped her allies up, not vice versa. If/when she collapsed, they would of course go down with her - but only then. There was no way they could be detached from Germany while she was still holding her own.

But all of Germany’s allies fell out of the war before Germany did...

Captures generally come after an army gives up a battle as lost. Why would the KuK be nearly so pessimistic without the context of a failed Spring Offensive, and against a worse-supplied enemy? Actually, that's the one word that sums up what's off about your argument, context. You assume Vittorio Veneto was the default of what must have come of an Italian offensive in 1918, and ignore all the external factors that brought about that victory besides improvements in Italian leadership.

70% of artillery is still enough to win such a battle, as I said, maybe not as decisively (or completely) and maybe it would have taken longer, but it still would have happened.

And in any case, the battle might not have ever been fought if (like predicted) peace negotiations began in July/August/September 1918.
 
But all of Germany’s allies fell out of the war before Germany did...

But after the failure of the Spring Offensive, and after the German army started unraveling in earnest during the Hundred Days. Absent those factors, the Central Powers had roughly equal if not superior numbers on the Italian and Macedonian fronts, and had been holding the Entente successfully before Ludendorff's big gamble. The conservative projection would be a continuation of the pre-Kaiserschlacht state of affairs, not an abrupt convergence with OTL in spite of external factors being more favorable than OTL.

Also, 70 percent was a conservative estimate assuming the supply pinch would affect all fronts equally. If I'm right in guessing that the Entente would prioritize France, then Italy could expect even sharper reductions in their supplies. As it is, 70 percent effectiveness lowers the KIA/WIA ratio at Vittorio Veneto from 40k-80k to 40k-56k. Add in the morale factor, potentially add in butterflies relating to Russia and Romania which we haven't discussed much, and lower the 70 percent figure just a little more and you approach parity or worse pretty quickly.
 

Deleted member 1487

The front was stabilised at First Monte Grappa (an excellent Italian victory against the odds) and won at Vittorio Veneto, which was nearly a year later.
Huh? It was a heavily fortified mountain, Cadorna was out and Diaz was in charge, fresh Italian reserves were used while the CPs were using troops that had been fighting and marching for weeks already, and the CPs were at the end of their supply lines and the Italians much closer to their own. The odds were in favor of the Italians and against the CPs, especially with the US in the war and sending them effectively unlimited supplies.
 

Venocara

Banned
Huh? It was a heavily fortified mountain, Cadorna was out and Diaz was in charge, fresh Italian reserves were used while the CPs were using troops that had been fighting and marching for weeks already, and the CPs were at the end of their supply lines and the Italians much closer to their own. The odds were in favor of the Italians and against the CPs, especially with the US in the war and sending them effectively unlimited supplies.

But look at the man disadvantage: the conventional wisdom stated that at least a 2-1 advantage was needed and the CP had more than that, with more arms.
 
But look at the man disadvantage: the conventional wisdom stated that at least a 2-1 advantage was needed and the CP had more than that, with more arms.

Conventional wisdom says a 3-1 advantage is needed on level ground. They had less than that, were exhausted, and fought uphill.
 

Venocara

Banned
Conventional wisdom says a 3-1 advantage is needed on level ground. They had less than that, were exhausted, and fought uphill.

But the Italians were exhausted as well, low on arms and had just had the crushing defeat at Caporetto. The CP had that massive moral boost.
 

Deleted member 1487

But after the failure of the Spring Offensive, and after the German army started unraveling in earnest during the Hundred Days. Absent those factors, the Central Powers had roughly equal if not superior numbers on the Italian and Macedonian fronts, and had been holding the Entente successfully before Ludendorff's big gamble. The conservative projection would be a continuation of the pre-Kaiserschlacht state of affairs, not an abrupt convergence with OTL in spite of external factors being more favorable than OTL.

Also, 70 percent was a conservative estimate assuming the supply pinch would affect all fronts equally. If I'm right in guessing that the Entente would prioritize France, then Italy could expect even sharper reductions in their supplies. As it is, 70 percent effectiveness lowers the KIA/WIA ratio at Vittorio Veneto from 40k-80k to 40k-56k. Add in the morale factor, potentially add in butterflies relating to Russia and Romania which we haven't discussed much, and lower the 70 percent figure just a little more and you approach parity or worse pretty quickly.
The numbers that were given were for British reductions, not Italian or French. The Italians were going to use ALL their US imports as the Brits were to economized and only conduct their own ordering and some French. The Italians were entirely on their own in terms of explosive production. They had their own stockpiles of course, but then they'd probably face a massive reduction in production without US steel (they made less than 1 million tons per annum on their own in 1914).

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_italy
Their finances were entirely screwed by 1917 too and that alone would have kicked them out of the war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I#Italy
Italy joined the Allies in 1915, but was poorly prepared for war. Loans from Britain paid for nearly all its war expenses. The Italian army of 875,000 men was poorly led and lacked heavy artillery and machine guns. The industrial base was too small to provide adequate amounts of modern equipment, and the old-fashioned rural base did not produce much of a food surplus.[61]
Francesco Galassi and Mark Harrison, "Italy at war, 1915–1918," in Broadberry and Harrison, eds. The Economics of World War I (2005) ch. 9
 

Deleted member 1487

But look at the man disadvantage: the conventional wisdom stated that at least a 2-1 advantage was needed and the CP had more than that, with more arms.
3:1. Arms don't mean a thing if you don't have the supply lines to supply them. The advance had been so rapid that they had fallen behind. Also they were attacking a fortified mountain, which doesn't really fit into the 3:1 figure for trenches in relatively open terrain.
 
The numbers that were given were for British reductions, not Italian or French. The Italians were going to use ALL their US imports as the Brits were to economized and only conduct their own ordering and some French. The Italians were entirely on their own in terms of explosive production. They had their own stockpiles of course, but then they'd probably face a massive reduction in production without US steel (they made less than 1 million tons per annum on their own in 1914).

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_italy
Their finances were entirely screwed by 1917 too and that alone would have kicked them out of the war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I#Italy

Well, I was trying to be generous here. But I guess they were even more screwed than the back of the envelope calculations would suggest. Any thoughts on the effects on Russia and Romania? Because that also seems like it'd be significant.
 

Venocara

Banned
The numbers that were given were for British reductions, not Italian or French. The Italians were going to use ALL their US imports as the Brits were to economized and only conduct their own ordering and some French. The Italians were entirely on their own in terms of explosive production. They had their own stockpiles of course, but then they'd probably face a massive reduction in production without US steel (they made less than 1 million tons per annum on their own in 1914).

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_italy
Their finances were entirely screwed by 1917 too and that alone would have kicked them out of the war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I#Italy

But the Austrians were facing civil disintegration and economic collapse, whereas the Italians only had one of those things.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, I was trying to be generous here. But I guess they were even more screwed than the back of the envelope calculations would suggest. Any thoughts on the effects on Russia and Romania? Because that also seems like it'd be significant.
Russia not as much since they got the lowest priority for orders. Romania was conquered in 1916, so is effectively out of the war anyway. Russia though without the morale boost of US entry is pretty much going to leave anyway on an accelerated TL.

But the Austrians were facing civil disintegration and economic collapse, whereas the Italians only had one of those things.
Not in 1917.
 
Russia not as much since they got the lowest priority for orders. Romania was conquered in 1916, so is effectively out of the war anyway. Russia though without the morale boost of US entry is pretty much going to leave anyway on an accelerated TL.

But they didn't formally tap out until mid-1918, so I was thinking an earlier exit might help the CP food situation a bit. How much did the Germans loot IOTL?

Not in 1917.

Hell, the Czech nationalists didn't really get rolling until May 1918, IIRC.
 
But the Austrians were facing civil disintegration and economic collapse, whereas the Italians only had one of those things.

I think we are the stage that to achieve the CP desired end goal something else that must happen has been identified and so there is going to be a lot of claiming that Italy will collapse, not merely go on the defensive or reduce its tempo of offensives but collapse will definitely happen.

While I can in a USA stays out see a range of scenarios from CP dictated peace to Entente dictated peace with a negotiated settlement of some sorts (and there are a range of those with people who truly hate the Germans wanting them to get territories in the east...that would be fun for them), there is this assumption based only on whimsy that the Italian, French and British people and institutions do not have the staying power of the mighty Germans.

Not in 1917.

Very much so in 1917 but as with anything on a national scale the whole thing takes at least a year to play out.

Even in your much preferred Entente capitulates completely scenario you are not likely looking at an end to the conflict until sometime in 1919. A 1920 end date is possible save for the odds being against the CP lasting that long.
 
Supposing the Lusitania sinking is avoided and the Zimmerman telegram somehow believed a British fake:
*French morale totters even more than OTL
*US supplies loans and arms with 'advisors' while maintaining her own colonial backyard adventures
*Germans still secure Brest-Litovsk but can release some soldiers for field work or turn the Ukraine into a giant granary
*Italians will grow more desperate while the Ottomans likely lose more land in the Middle East though the Balkan front is still more favorable to the CP
*Romania still surrenders per OTL and Italy calls on her Allies that she is all but spent
*MP18 and French RSC-18 emerge but overall benefits cancel each other out
*War negotiated to conclusion at end of 1918 with lines at approx. positions in West as end of 1917
*Germany loses all colonies save Tanzania as Germany still has an intact army there and withdraws to pre-war borders
*Belgium becomes an economic satellite of Germany and its new European Union rrade bloc (as do much of the Balkans and Eastern Europe)
*Italy loses much of Veneto and Trentino but keeps Venice itself. It will pay minimal war reparations.
*Austria-Hungary initially devolves into the United States of Austria but ultimately forms a bloc of independent nations tied by common currency and free trade agreements. The term 'Balkanization' refers to similar alignments of nations in the future.
*Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Lithiania, and Livonia all gain independence
*Serbia becomes a satellite of Austria-Hungary but does not join the resulting trade bloc until 1933
*Bulgaria gains Western Thrace, Macedonia, and much of the Danubian riverfront. They begin to emerge as a disproportionate economic power.
*UK suffers a pair of Communist revolts, one in 1919 and another in 1926, both successfully contained. Her economy suffers but her pride recovers as the Germans and Americans keep her on her toes.
*France suffers humiliation but does not have to pay reparations, instead she fractures into a civil war with territiries under the Orleanists, Bonapartists, proto-Fascists, Republicans, Communists, a Catholic hardliner group complete with Inquisition, a near-xenophobic equivalent, a pro-British faction, a pro-German faction, and a Technocracy. Their twelve-year civil war leaves them in no shape to dealnwith anyone though other powers use them as a proxy for arms/weapons testing.
 

Venocara

Banned
Supposing the Lusitania sinking is avoided and the Zimmerman telegram somehow believed a British fake:
*French morale totters even more than OTL
*US supplies loans and arms with 'advisors' while maintaining her own colonial backyard adventures
*Germans still secure Brest-Litovsk but can release some soldiers for field work or turn the Ukraine into a giant granary
*Italians will grow more desperate while the Ottomans likely lose more land in the Middle East though the Balkan front is still more favorable to the CP
*Romania still surrenders per OTL and Italy calls on her Allies that she is all but spent
*MP18 and French RSC-18 emerge but overall benefits cancel each other out
*War negotiated to conclusion at end of 1918 with lines at approx. positions in West as end of 1917
*Germany loses all colonies save Tanzania as Germany still has an intact army there and withdraws to pre-war borders
*Belgium becomes an economic satellite of Germany and its new European Union rrade bloc (as do much of the Balkans and Eastern Europe)
*Italy loses much of Veneto and Trentino but keeps Venice itself. It will pay minimal war reparations.
*Austria-Hungary initially devolves into the United States of Austria but ultimately forms a bloc of independent nations tied by common currency and free trade agreements. The term 'Balkanization' refers to similar alignments of nations in the future.
*Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Lithiania, and Livonia all gain independence
*Serbia becomes a satellite of Austria-Hungary but does not join the resulting trade bloc until 1933
*Bulgaria gains Western Thrace, Macedonia, and much of the Danubian riverfront. They begin to emerge as a disproportionate economic power.
*UK suffers a pair of Communist revolts, one in 1919 and another in 1926, both successfully contained. Her economy suffers but her pride recovers as the Germans and Americans keep her on her toes.
*France suffers humiliation but does not have to pay reparations, instead she fractures into a civil war with territiries under the Orleanists, Bonapartists, proto-Fascists, Republicans, Communists, a Catholic hardliner group complete with Inquisition, a near-xenophobic equivalent, a pro-British faction, a pro-German faction, and a Technocracy. Their twelve-year civil war leaves them in no shape to dealnwith anyone though other powers use them as a proxy for arms/weapons testing.

It started off promisingly then just devolves into implausibility.

  • Italy won’t fall
  • The Austro-Hungarian Empire will collapse
  • None of those states will gain true independence; and Western Poland will be annexed by Germany, as will the Ukraine (probably). The rest will probably be organised into a “Congress Lithuania”
  • Serbia will still go on to form Yugoslavia
  • The UK won’t be having any Communist anything. A soft, more Salazar-like fascism is far, far more likely
  • And France isn’t having any type of civil war. More likely is a Nazi-esque takeover of France by an extremist group (possibly even more extreme and vile than the Nazis) and possibly with a Bonaparte as a figurehead.
 
It started off promisingly then just devolves into implausibility.

  • Italy won’t fall
  • The Austro-Hungarian Empire will collapse
  • None of those states will gain true independence; and Western Poland will be annexed by Germany, as will the Ukraine (probably). The rest will probably be organised into a “Congress Lithuania”
  • Serbia will still go on to form Yugoslavia
  • The UK won’t be having any Communist anything. A soft, more Salazar-like fascism is far, far more likely
  • And France isn’t having any type of civil war. More likely is a Nazi-esque takeover of France by an extremist group (possibly even more extreme and vile than the Nazis) and possibly with a Bonaparte as a figurehead.

I really want to see the 10 sided French Civil War that lasts 12 years, and then somehow leaves a "country" that could threaten anyone anymore than Bhutan could threaten China or America.

The casualties from 10 sides all fighting would destroy France's population.
 
I really want to see the 10 sided French Civil War that lasts 12 years, and then somehow leaves a "country" that could threaten anyone anymore than Bhutan could threaten China or America.

The casualties from 10 sides all fighting would destroy France's population.

He's right that that, at least, is implausible. I doubt you'd see more Bonapartes, though, and the idea that the Germans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians would all tolerate Serbian aggrandizement on the scale of Yugoslavia seems really unlikely. Hell, even the Italians probably wouldn't like it much.
 

Venocara

Banned
He's right that that, at least, is implausible. I doubt you'd see more Bonapartes, though, and the idea that the Germans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians would all tolerate Serbian aggrandizement on the scale of Yugoslavia seems really unlikely. Hell, even the Italians probably wouldn't like it much.

I didn't say that Yugoslavia would form immediately, I just said that it was likely to form. Probably much much slower than in OTL.
 
He's right that that, at least, is implausible. I doubt you'd see more Bonapartes, though, and the idea that the Germans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians would all tolerate Serbian aggrandizement on the scale of Yugoslavia seems really unlikely. Hell, even the Italians probably wouldn't like it much.

It'd make a very interesting short story imo. As long as it doesn't go down the path of "this is so implausible, let's just add Sci-Fi to it" and actually make it totally ASB. (I personally could see some form of French Civil War arising, definitely not between 10 different sides, and likely not a monarchist one, but some form of one is atleast possible. (In the sense that it could happen, albeit very unlikely, so it's not ASB, but extremely unlikely)
 

Venocara

Banned
3:1. Arms don't mean a thing if you don't have the supply lines to supply them. The advance had been so rapid that they had fallen behind. Also they were attacking a fortified mountain, which doesn't really fit into the 3:1 figure for trenches in relatively open terrain.

Battles have been won with greater odds before, and you can't underestimate the morale boost.
 
Top