How much longer can the Great War be?

Rubicon

Banned
Or have Sweden and Norway join the Central Powers as Sweden would want Finland back. This could lead to an peace in 1920.
What? Wait what? No! Sweden didn't want Finland back. What existed was alot of sympathies for the Finns, but having Finland becoming again a part of Sweden I doubt anyone but the most ardent ultraconservative nationalists dreamed about. Particulary since it's only a decade since Norway disolved the Union with Sweden, and hardly any Swedish politician would want a repeat of that fiasco.
 
What? Wait what? No! Sweden didn't want Finland back. What existed was alot of sympathies for the Finns, but having Finland becoming again a part of Sweden I doubt anyone but the most ardent ultraconservative nationalists dreamed about. Particulary since it's only a decade since Norway disolved the Union with Sweden, and hardly any Swedish politician would want a repeat of that fiasco.

The idea that Sweden would join WWI to retake Finland seems to come up time and time again. I think it would be prudent to remember that in 1914 Finland had not been a part of Sweden for over a century and in that period, Finnish nationalism had risen to create a separate Finnish national identity in the context of the Finnish Grand Duchy, an entity that had a significant degree of autonomy within the Russian Empire by the late 19th century. The Swedes knew this quite well, having good contacts with the Finns. Also Swedish attitudes had changed from the early 19th century, and like you said, the unravelling of the union with Norway was a very recent event. As a consequence, it was almost as likely for Sweden to seriously consider joining a war to reconquer Finland in the 1910s as it would have been for Britain to actually ally with someone with the view of reconquering the US in the 1890s. In other words, not likely at all.
 
Sweden has only one reason to join the Central Powers and that would be because it was forced to do so by a Russian attack - which almost happened. Their war goal would probably be an independent Finnish state with which they'd like to sign trade and cooperation treaties. Definitely not annexation.
 
Key for Germany - AH staying in the war is food its the point of failure for their economies. Only major place to get food is east so you need some POD where Central Powers go east harder and sooner such that they rip off Congress Poland first and then western Ukraine. Not only do these locations need to be taken but order needs to be restored to them such that they can produce food. If this happens then Central Powers could fight on much longer. Otherwise I figure 6 more months is about the best you could reasonable expect to extend the war.


Michael
 
As other's have said even in the absence of US involvement the Entente could keep fighting though at a lower tempo, the Central Powers were going to face a serious famine over the winter of 1918-9 and would probably collapse by the spring without a single Entente solider advancing a step. While the Germans were hoping for food from the East to save them thanks to the breakdown of civil order due to the 1917 Revolution and the destruction of the war it was never going to be sufficient.
 
Realy, isn' that iggnoring the French roblems in 1917? They were rather out of morale at that time, not helped by the Russian situation.
And AFAIK got a realy big boost from the USA entry. So how would they keep an offensive stance when the French soldires did not want to attack further.

As to the blockade, that got only realy tight after the USA entry as well.
So maybe Germany / CP could keep up well into 1918.

But on the other hand, the Entente had no fast fix for the losses of USA economic help which dependet on Dollars, ones they no longer had an abundance of.

So Imo the war may go into 1918, but both sides are tethering on the brink. And Imo without the USA in, the CP has the better cards... when you can call them that with both sides exausted to the degree they were.
 
I'm sorry but that is just completely wrong.

Realy, isn' that iggnoring the French roblems in 1917? They were rather out of morale at that time, not helped by the Russian situation.
And AFAIK got a realy big boost from the USA entry. So how would they keep an offensive stance when the French soldires did not want to attack further.

French morale did go through the floor during the Nivelle offensive, however the mutinies only involved a small number of the worst hit divisions and unlike the German Army in late 1918 there were no mass surrenders and troops maintained their defensive positions. They simply refused to continue with suicidal attacks, furthermore the French Army rapidly recognised the specific triggers including lack of leave and rotations and resolved them relatively quickly. The French Army wasn't in great shape but it was certainly in much better condition than the AH or Russian Armies and wasn't going to collapse any time soon and in fact it was already carrying out limited offensives again in the late 1917 and was fully operational again by 1918.

As to the blockade, that got only realy tight after the USA entry as well.

The Blockade was pretty airtight right from 1914 at least as far as food and raw materials were concerned.

So maybe Germany / CP could keep up well into 1918.

Well they did in OTL but I assume you mean 1919 and if you look at the food situation no they couldn't. One of the problems during the Kaiserschlacht was the habit of the Sturmtruppen, the most elite and well cared for elements of the German Army and thus the entire Central Powers to stop and loot British supply depots for such unheard of luxuries as real bread made from 100% wheat and new boots. That tells you how bad the situation was.

But on the other hand, the Entente had no fast fix for the losses of USA economic help which dependet on Dollars, ones they no longer had an abundance of.

The British stock of dollar assets to pay for US munitions was beginning to run low (though not out) and in the absence of US entry imports would probably have to decline, however even in the absence of the US the Entente still had the production advantage, to use a illustrative example in 1917 Germany produced 144,000 tons of high explosive, Britain alone produced 186,000 tons with the rest of the British Empire and the US on top of that. Now quite a lot of that was then exported by Britain to France, Italy and Russia and the British Army only going about 60% of the British shell production but by 1918 even in the absence of any US production (and there still would be imports from the US to the entente) the Industrial War was being won by the Entente.

So Imo the war may go into 1918, but both sides are tethering on the brink. And Imo without the USA in, the CP has the better cards... when you can call them that with both sides exhausted to the degree they were.

The only card the CP had was the superior starting quality of the German Army that managed to keep fighting for 4 years and achieve some remarkable feats despite being completely outweighed in industrial terms. But by 1918 the British Army had caught up and surpassed the Germans in terms of equipment and when you consider the development of combined arms operations and artillery tactics probably tactically and operationally as well.
 
The Blockade was pretty airtight right from 1914 at least as far as food and raw materials were concerned.

Blockade leaked horribly the first year of the war through secondary entry points like Denmark and Netherlands. It took till 1916 to close those down.

The British stock of dollar assets to pay for US munitions was beginning to run low (though not out) and in the absence of US entry imports would probably have to decline, however even in the absence of the US the Entente still had the production advantage, to use a illustrative example in 1917 Germany produced 144,000 tons of high explosive, Britain alone produced 186,000 tons with the rest of the British Empire and the US on top of that. Now quite a lot of that was then exported by Britain to France, Italy and Russia and the British Army only going about 60% of the British shell production but by 1918 even in the absence of any US production (and there still would be imports from the US to the entente) the Industrial War was being won by the Entente.

UK was going to run out of foreign exchange in 1917 and then be limited to current accounts as US Banks refused to lend more without US treasury backing. No US entry, no backing. US production accounted for roughly 20% of Entente war production counting raw materials and finished goods. Biggest deal was the million plus troops that flooded into the line 1918 and the hope they represented. No telling what the Germans do if no US entry smart money says they still attack. This said I doubt they push it as hard. By same virtue I doubt the UK / French counter attack as hard, everyone was tired by 1918.

If only POD is no US entry then in theory the Anglo-French mechanized assault brakes the line spring of 1919. Assuming the Germans just don't throw in the towel that winter as without some other change Austria-Hungary is still going to implode and the German position is rather hopeless at that point. Hence why I suggested 6 months is longest you can draw out the war without changing the food situation.

Michael
 
Blockade leaked horribly the first year of the war through secondary entry points like Denmark and Netherlands. It took till 1916 to close those down.

And then in large part because of US intervention, which allowed US exports to the Northern Neutrals to be controlled at source rather than intercepted. The blockade would be a good deal leakier without it.

I don't see the war going much beyond 1918. Everyone is worn out by then and as soon as the troops on one side or the other become convinced that they aren't going to win, their morale will fold. OTL this happened to the Germans after July 1918, when their offensive had clearly failed. But had this offensive gone better due to the Entente going without billions of dollars worth of imports from the US) it could just as easily have been the other way round. After all, Petain could hardly promise to wait for the Americans if they weren't in the war.
 

tenthring

Banned
They don't have to invade Britain and America. If Russia and France surrender, the war is over.

Like how when France surrendered in WWII and the USSR was still at peace with Germany the war still wasn't over...

My point isn't that I think the war would continue. I think Britain would sue for peace under those circumstances. That's just the thing though. The ball is in Britain's court. Germany can't compel them to do anything as long as the Grand Fleet is around. And unlike WWII they can't really launch an air attack either.

It would be in the best interest of both to reach peace at that point, but it would require reasonable men on both sides and can't be forced by either.
 
Like how when France surrendered in WWII and the USSR was still at peace with Germany the war still wasn't over.

Though it probably soon would have been if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia - or if Russia had collapsed as it did in WW1.

My point isn't that I think the war would continue. I think Britain would sue for peace under those circumstances. That's just the thing though. The ball is in Britain's court. Germany can't compel them to do anything as long as the Grand Fleet is around..

Britain's naval superiority was even greater in WW2 - yet that didn't stop the Battle of the Atlantic being a hard fight for her - and by no means a foregone conclusion. .
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I agree -- 1919 is probably the latest. Germany is VERY exhausted, but France and UK both have significant issues too. If it goes later than early 1919 it can probably only do so as a "cold" war, with little but desultory efforts
There is also the "Spanish Flu".
 
French morale did go through the floor during the Nivelle offensive, however the mutinies only involved a small number of the worst hit divisions and unlike the German Army in late 1918 there were no mass surrenders and troops maintained their defensive positions. They simply refused to continue with suicidal attacks, furthermore the French Army rapidly recognised the specific triggers including lack of leave and rotations and resolved them relatively quickly. The French Army wasn't in great shape but it was certainly in much better condition than the AH or Russian Armies and wasn't going to collapse any time soon and in fact it was already carrying out limited offensives again in the late 1917 and was fully operational again by 1918.
Yes French morale was down. That is what I said. Nothing more and nothing less. But that they did mutiny so that the senseless offensives were called off, should show that they themselves had doubts about their ability to break the German lines.
That the Americans then entered allowed the French leaders to suspend offensives for a time as they had “fresh meat” for the grinder, they just had to wait for it to arrive. And that Imo was a very important fact that held the French in the field. Without them, maybe they too would break…

The Blockade was pretty airtight right from 1914 at least as far as food and raw materials were concerned.
No, as others have said, it was far from “airtight”. It was important, that is without doubt. But it was not all encompassing. And in late 1916 / early 1917 before USW the USA was getting fed up with the unilateral way the British blocked access to European neutral.

Well they did in OTL but I assume you mean 1919 and if you look at the food situation no they couldn't. One of the problems during the Kaiserschlacht was the habit of the Sturmtruppen, the most elite and well cared for elements of the German Army and thus the entire Central Powers to stop and loot British supply depots for such unheard of luxuries as real bread made from 100% wheat and new boots. That tells you how bad the situation was.
Yes and that would be OTL. But to have a chance for a longer war, the USA would have to stay out. Not giving such nice things as unsecured loans and millions of fresh troops to the Entente. Here the Entente would not have been able to totally block Germany of from imports. But to a degree the situation would still be bad. Just not as bad as in OTL.
On the other side of the coin, that what the Entente loses will not be present here. So they may also feel the pinch. Not that bad, but still.

The British stock of dollar assets to pay for US munitions was beginning to run low (though not out) and in the absence of US entry imports would probably have to decline, however even in the absence of the US the Entente still had the production advantage, to use a illustrative example in 1917 Germany produced 144,000 tons of high explosive, Britain alone produced 186,000 tons with the rest of the British Empire and the US on top of that. Now quite a lot of that was then exported by Britain to France, Italy and Russia and the British Army only going about 60% of the British shell production but by 1918 even in the absence of any US production (and there still would be imports from the US to the entente) the Industrial War was being won by the Entente.
The problem is that the British had to beg with the beggars bowl for loans. That situation was beginning in late 1916. A thing when you finance the war effort for everyone on the international market. So yes, the British themselves feared the loss of international goods as they allowed them, on the manpower cheap, to economize their production.

The only card the CP had was the superior starting quality of the German Army that managed to keep fighting for 4 years and achieve some remarkable feats despite being completely outweighed in industrial terms. But by 1918 the British Army had caught up and surpassed the Germans in terms of equipment and when you consider the development of combined arms operations and artillery tactics probably tactically and operationally as well.
Yes the British and French caught up. But they did so for a bloody price. And that was beginning to tell.
The French were bleed so bad, that the soldiers did not attack! That should tell you something. And yes the German Army folded in 1918. But the Americans were there with “unlimited” money and manpower. That is not happening here.

Coincidently, late 1916 and in the beginning of 1917 the tonnage sunk was reaching alarming numbers. Some 400.000 tons per month and more and that was a critical line for the British to have crossed. As they needed approx. 2 million tons of food imported per month. Not to mention the fuel for the RN. And without the USA in and their resources readily available (round 85% of oil came from there), the Entente will also feel the pinch of “blockade”.

Well they did in OTL but I assume you mean 1919
So no, I did really mean 1918. Something had to give on either side. And I personally rate the chances of Germany and the CP rather better then OTL to bring the Entente to the table.
 

tenthring

Banned
Though it probably soon would have been if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia - or if Russia had collapsed as it did in WW1.



Britain's naval superiority was even greater in WW2 - yet that didn't stop the Battle of the Atlantic being a hard fight for her - and by no means a foregone conclusion. .

If Hitler doesn't invade Russia, how does that change his ability to invade London? Again, Germany can't FORCE Britain to surrender. It can only create circumstances where the British might decide they want peace. It can't force it on them the way by marching through Berlin like the allies did in WWII (or could have done in WWI if they wanted to spend another year at war).

The Battle of the Atlantic in WWII honestly wasn't that hard. The spring of 1917 was actually a scarier u-boat war until they got it under control.
 
Like how when France surrendered in WWII and the USSR was still at peace with Germany the war still wasn't over...

do you see any difference between the situations? like the level of "goddamn are we fucked up"?
No germany can't physically force Britain to end the war. Neither can britain do this to germany at this point.
Most wars manage to end without anyone being in this position.
 
Like how when France surrendered in WWII and the USSR was still at peace with Germany the war still wasn't over...

My point isn't that I think the war would continue. I think Britain would sue for peace under those circumstances. That's just the thing though. The ball is in Britain's court. Germany can't compel them to do anything as long as the Grand Fleet is around. And unlike WWII they can't really launch an air attack either.

It would be in the best interest of both to reach peace at that point, but it would require reasonable men on both sides and can't be forced by either.
1) How are they going to get back on the continent with France and Russia defeated?

2) Britain can't force Germany to do anything either. Not without a first rate continental ally.
 
Last edited:
Like how when France surrendered in WWII and the USSR was still at peace with Germany the war still wasn't over...

My point isn't that I think the war would continue. I think Britain would sue for peace under those circumstances. That's just the thing though. The ball is in Britain's court. Germany can't compel them to do anything as long as the Grand Fleet is around. And unlike WWII they can't really launch an air attack either.

It would be in the best interest of both to reach peace at that point, but it would require reasonable men on both sides and can't be forced by either.

Well, yes. The ball's in Britain's court in that situation because they're the losers. When they come with a halfway reasonable deal, Germany will take it not because they have to, but because as the winners, they want to, to legitimize their victory. Britain's the one with a choice to make, namely when to accept that they have been defeated. But timing's the only real question, they're still defeated and must make peace with that.
 
Top