Hypothetical: Germany wins WWI in the period after US entry and arrival of American troops in Europe

[Glass Onion]

Admittedly, this is probably impossible. If this is better suited to the ASB forum I apologize. I'm not as much interested in how this happens but what Wilson and the German Empire do in the aftermath.

The United States finds that the nation is at war with a victorious-but exhausted German Empire.

Neither the United States nor Germany have much of an ability to directly attack their military opponent. This being a late war victory-Germany is near or at the point of exhaustion. Not in much of a position to attempt an invasion of the United States.


What-would happen in this scenario: Would either side be willing to enter into negotiations with the other? Germany has just won the war and presumably will not be in much of a compromising mood. At the same time the United States has not experienced military defeat and the US probably will not agree to any terms that look like a defeat. We all know how stubborn Wilson can be.

Under those circumstances would either side be willing to back away from the conflict or avoid making the kinds of demands that would prolong hostilities?

If Wilson and the German leadership cannot reach an agreement what shape would the German-American war take if the war is between those two countries alone? What kind of military strategy-if any-can either side take in this context?

Presumably the German terms for The UK and France would include provisions to harm Germany's last remaining enemy. But would those terms be enough to force the US to accept unfriendly terms?

Admittedly this may be Sealion impossible-but for the moment presume whatever needs to change in the period between 1914 and 1917 to create this scenario happens. What would be the endgame of the War between Germany and the US alone in this context?

Edit: As the thread makes clear there's supposed to be a "between" in the thread title.

 

[Historyman 14]

Yes.

Many in America was against the war very much. Unlike WW2, the US enter the Great War kicking and screaming.

The fairly large scale German-American populace didn't help matters.

The Freach would be giving the US evil eyes for not showing up in time. The UK would be 'Its over. We got a good deal with Berlin."

So really, they no reason for war with Germany at this point and they nothing Berlin can force on America, like the United Kingdom.

Basically it would be they stop fighting (Not that they did much fighting) and go back to how things was like before the war or something like that.

 

[Roland Traveler]

Yes.

Many in America was against the war very much. Unlike WW2, the US enter the Great War kicking and screaming.

The fairly large scale German-American populace didn't help matters.

The Freach would be giving the US evil eyes for not showing up in time. The UK would be 'Its over. We got a good deal with Berlin."

So really, they no reason for war with Germany at this point and they nothing Berlin can force on America, like the United Kingdom.

Basically it would be they stop fighting (Not that they did much fighting) and go back to how things was like before the war or something like that.

Plus Wilson just got his political career ruined by jumping onto a sinking ship. Though I wouldn't be surprised by a lingering anti-German sentiment, the Isolationists just won big time.

 

[Glass Onion]

I would not underestimate Wilson's stubbornness or the possibility of the Germans making excessive demands that no American Government can agree to.

Wilson will want some kind of face saving settlement with Germany to address the issue that brought America into the war in the first place. But Germany just won the war and probably will not be humble enough to agree to that. Neither side is likely to have the humility needed to propose terms the other side will accept. Even if Wilson swallows his pride and offers status quo antebellum the Germans might demand some sort of further penalty for American entry into the war-which no President would accept.

If such a settlement is off the table that either means some kind of phony war or a largely naval conflict. Perhaps I'm underestimating the ability of the American military of finding some way to engage with the Germans on land. Hard to see how though with France out of the war.

 

[Historyman 14]

I would not underestimate Wilson's stubbornness or the possibility of the Germans making excessive demands that no American Government can agree to.

Wilson will want some kind of face saving settlement with Germany to address the issue that brought America into the war in the first place. But Germany just won the war and probably will not be humble enough to agree to that. Neither side is likely to have the humility needed to propose terms the other side will accept. Even if Wilson swallows his pride and offers status quo antebellum the Germans might demand some sort of further penalty for American entry into the war-which no President would accept.

If such a settlement is off the table that either means some kind of phony war or a largely naval conflict. Perhaps I'm underestimating the ability of the American military of finding some way to engage with the Germans on land. Hard to see how though with France out of the war.

Germany is not dumb. They knew fighting the US would be the end of them, so they did everything they could to knock the allies out of the war before the Americans soldiers show up OTL. In this case, they did it. So they won't do something and go on demanding some further penalty, or excessive demands.

They is no way to fight. France and the UK just lost nearly a whole generation of men. They both was near total bankruptcy (Something only US money saved them from.) Everyone was sick and tried of the fighting and just wanting it to end. They not goign to let America come in and restart the fighting, not after it just ending. And don't even get started with Russia, or some place else.

They nothing really nothing to do, but call it off. No American soldiers fought and died unless they was with another nation. Germans would go for status quo antebellum with the US. A 'Peace with Honor', much like they would do with the UK.

The UK fought and lost well over 1 million. But the Germans can't force anything on them. (Unlike the French, but it would be much better then Versailles. ) The UK would go for a Peace with Honor. Germany might ask for it's colonies back, but besides the United Kingdom accepting the outcome and can go on living with it, that's it.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It is impossible to get a victory before US troops arrive, but it isn't impossible to get a victory in early 1918. In the event of say defeating France and forcing the US and Britain off the continent it is likely that the US and UK negotiate with Germany for peace, because they know they cannot really reinvade the continent and sustain war indefinitely and Germany will look too powerful to challenge.

 

[Glass Onion]

It is impossible to get a victory before US troops arrive, but it isn't impossible to get a victory in early 1918.

I admitted initially that I was thinking of something that might belong in the ASB forum. I wanted to consider a scenario where no one can reasonsably say the US actually lost the war after entering the war. If France is defeated after American troops arrive that probably involves at least the perception of an American military defeat.

The basic idea here is less about timing and more about creating a situation where Germany wins after America enters the war without there be either an international or local American perception that the U.S. has been defeated. I admitted in the opening of the thread that might not be possible-hence the use of the term "hypothetical"in the title.

In the event of say defeating France and forcing the US and Britain off the continent it is likely that the US and UK negotiate with Germany for peace, because they know they cannot really reinvade the continent and sustain war indefinitely and Germany will look too powerful to challenge.

What form would those negotiations take? Where would the negotiations be held? Who would represent the three countries? What would Germany be willing to offer? What would the US counteroffer be? What form would the eventual agreement take?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What form would those negotiations take? Where would the negotiations be held? Who would represent the three countries? What would Germany be willing to offer? What would the US counteroffer be? What form would the eventual agreement take?

No idea really about the form of the negotiations. They'd likely be held in the Netherlands or Scandinavia. Whomever it would be that did the negotiations would be impossible to say due to not knowing what form the negotiations would take and whether it would start as a secret deal via Swiss embassies or something. In terms of what Germany would be willing to offer...peace with the status quo of Germany dominating the continent and the Allies recognizing separate treaties between Germany and the conquered continentals. Likely they'd have to acknowledge the colonies were gone. The US really has nothing to offer but seized German property back. No idea what both sides would end up hammering out.

 

[docfl]

How long would it take Germany to start getting food and other supplies from Russia? It seems like what really killed the Germans was the blockade.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How long would it take Germany to start getting food and other supplies from Russia? It seems like what really killed the Germans was the blockade.

The bigger problem was the mismanagement of the economy by Ludendorff in the winter of 1916-17, which resulted in the Turnip winter. Germany was still able to spend a lot of money despite the official blockade on purchases from neutrals, but it was the Hindenburg Program that created the coal and food shortages, plus antagonized labor to the point that from 1917 on they launch a series of strikes that radicalized them to the point of the 1918 Spartikist Revolt.

 

[ben0628]

I'm sorry but I'm a little skeptical that the US and Britain would give up immediately after France's fall.

A couple things we need to realize that prevents a central power victory, even with the fall of France.

1) Italy is still alive, so the idea that America and GB would have to re-invade Europe isn't true. It would just be a matter of diverting American reinforcements elsewhere. If US and GB troops are in Italy and the Italians receive military and economic aid from their allies, then the Alps become impenetrable and a Allied presence remains in Europe indefinitely.

2. One word. Blockade. It's still occurring, and it's not going away anytime soon.

3. German allies are still falling apart. In 1918, the Ottomans will still lose the Middle East, and the Bulgarians and Austrians still lose the Southern Balkans.

4. Home Fronts of Central Powers. Bulgarias economy is a train wreck (literally 20 percent of their population was fighting the war), Austria's minorities are angry and want peace, Germany ain't looking to good, and the Ottomans are about to become a Greek colony.

5. The US still has a shit ton of manpower to release overseas. The Germans are spread thin garrisoning bother the Eastern and Western occupied areas.

I seriously doubt the Central Powers can win, they might last into 1920 at the latest but their not gonna win.

 

[Riain]

The BEF and AEF are wholly dependent on France as the host country. If France sues for peace in late 17 early 18 then the BEF and AEF will be told to leave France in short order. The only choices Britain and America will have then is to leave or to defy this order and occupy France in order to keep fighting Germany. Which of these options is the most likely?

However they could still fight the CP in other theatres like Italy, Salonika, Palestine and Mesopotamia if they wanted to, but why would they want to?

 

[Mikestone8]

The BEF and AEF are wholly dependent on France as the host country. If France sues for peace in late 17 early 18 then the BEF and AEF will be told to leave France in short order. The only choices Britain and America will have then is to leave or to defy this order and occupy France in order to keep fighting Germany. Which of these options is the most likely?

Nor can I see Italy being able to carry on once France is down. OTL, just the release of some German troops from Russia was enough to produce a Caporetto. With the Western Front gone, expect Caporetto on steroids.

However they could still fight the CP in other theatres like Italy, Salonika, Palestine and Mesopotamia if they wanted to, but why would they want to?

And could they really? With the French and Italian navies out of the game, can they control the Mediterranean?

Also, weren't the Entente troops in Macedonia mainly French? Presumably these would be pulling out or surrendering under the terms of an armistice.

 

[ben0628]

French troops can and will be replaced by American troops, fresh American troops.

If they keep fighting on, Austria will have to pull out by 1919 because of major issues on the home front as will Bulgaria. Once Bulgaria pulls out, Constantinople is under threat. Combine that with the military situation in the Middle East and they will also drop out.

In the end that means US (that's just getting started), Italy, and GB versus an exhausted Germany with problems on the homefront and a potential Bavarian front opening up in 1919.

 

[Mikestone8]

French troops can and will be replaced by American troops, fresh American troops.

The United States was not at war with either Bulgaria or Turkey. And even if it declares war on them, the fall of France has eliminated all the AEF's supply dumps etc, so that all of its logistical support has to be replaced from scratch.

If they keep fighting on, Austria will have to pull out by 1919 because of major issues on the home front as will Bulgaria. Once Bulgaria pulls out, Constantinople is under threat. Combine that with the military situation in the Middle East and they will also drop out.

Who would Austria be fighting on against? With France and Italy gone, there's only Macedonia left and she'll have ample German support there - as indeed against any internal trouble - and the mountainous country and lack of rail communications makes any major offensive on that front impractical. That of late 1918 was only possible because Bulgaria was unsupported (due to German commitments on the Western Front) and after her collapse Entente forces were virtually unopposed, which TTL would not be the case.

 

[Tibi088]

French troops can and will be replaced by American troops, fresh American troops.

If they keep fighting on, Austria will have to pull out by 1919 because of major issues on the home front as will Bulgaria. Once Bulgaria pulls out, Constantinople is under threat. Combine that with the military situation in the Middle East and they will also drop out.

In the end that means US (that's just getting started), Italy, and GB versus an exhausted Germany with problems on the homefront and a potential Bavarian front opening up in 1919.

Why would they continue the war after loosing France and Italy. Most of their allies would give up - I expect that after the fall of France and Italy the only two power really in the game against CP's is Brittain and USA. And at this point Germany too can redirect troops to the Balkans for example.

But the point is: why would the USA fight? Yes they could most likely outlast and finally beat the germans - but what would they gain? Its not worth it. So that France gets back Alsaice? Or so Italy can get Trento? To get back their money? It would cost them much more - not worth it.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm sorry but I'm a little skeptical that the US and Britain would give up immediately after France's fall.

No one said they would immediately quit, eventually though it is going to become very apparent the war cannot be continued to be waged successfully.

A couple things we need to realize that prevents a central power victory, even with the fall of France.

1) Italy is still alive, so the idea that America and GB would have to re-invade Europe isn't true. It would just be a matter of diverting American reinforcements elsewhere. If US and GB troops are in Italy and the Italians receive military and economic aid from their allies, then the Alps become impenetrable and a Allied presence remains in Europe indefinitely.

If France goes down Italy will quit, because Germany can turn on them much more quickly than the Americans and Brits can recover from evacuating the continent and leaving their heavy equipment behind. The Italians nearly quit IOTL in 1917 when Germany and A-H launched Caporetto. Another attack like that and Italy will quit regardless of their allies since Russia and France are already out of the war. Since territory is not what the CPs want from Italy, they can offer her a decent peace that Italy would be willing to take, even though the social consequences will hurt.

2. One word. Blockade. It's still occurring, and it's not going away anytime soon.

Rendered irrelevant by the defeat of France and the subsequent looting that would happen. Germany was already improving it's food situation in 1918 and without a major front like in France demands on German resources will be much less than IOTL by mid-1918.

3. German allies are still falling apart. In 1918, the Ottomans will still lose the Middle East, and the Bulgarians and Austrians still lose the Southern Balkans.

The Ottomans will lose, but the Balkans is a different story is the Germans can then turn and knock out Italy and shift forces and free up A-H forces for the Balkans. A-H had 4 divisions in France, very high quality ones, that would end up in the Balkans if France is out of the war.

4. Home Fronts of Central Powers. Bulgarias economy is a train wreck (literally 20 percent of their population was fighting the war), Austria's minorities are angry and want peace, Germany ain't looking to good, and the Ottomans are about to become a Greek colony.

Victory in France in 1918 changes the game. Germany is in a much improved situation, especially supply-wise and that trickles down to Austria, who in turn improves when Italy is knocked out. Then the Balkan situation can be shored up with all the freed up resources.

5. The US still has a shit ton of manpower to release overseas. The Germans are spread thin garrisoning bother the Eastern and Western occupied areas.

Where can they land? This isn't WW2 they don't have the ability to form and expand landings very easily, at best they're looking at another Gallipoli if they reinvade. But due to an evacuation from France they lack heavy weapons, they'd like to have to abandon most of their existing stuff in the retreat to the coast while without French factories, which produced the vast majority of US heavy weapons (tanks, planes, artillery), then the ability to form combat effective divisions from that manpower pool is virtually nil for years; Britain cannot help them as a retreat off the continent from France puts them into the same situation and they need all their own production to replace most of their heavy equipment from scratch.

I seriously doubt the Central Powers can win, they might last into 1920 at the latest but their not gonna win.

After clearing up some misconceptions the CPs have the whip hand after the fall of France in this scenario and the US and British publics aren't going to want to wait 18-24 more months to start another several years long conflict to liberate Europe. Especially given than Britain is being bombed at night by Germany and stopping the night bombing hasn't really been possible even in 1918. Plus the Brits would be freaked out that the Germans now have French ports on the English Channel and on the Atlantic for naval vessels. The German navy of WW1 was larger than in WW2, so the Brits will be very scared by that, especially as using the English Channel for shipping is not likely going to be possible and the Dover Patrol/Barrage is now rendered moot.

 

[ben0628]

Wiking, thank you for the well defined argument, I concede.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Wiking, thank you for the well defined argument, I concede.

I'm just making an argument, I may well be wrong, but my read on the situation in WW1 was that despite the serious problems Germany had by 1918 the defeat of France and retreat from the continent (in terms of the areas outside of Italy and the Balkans) would effectively break British and US morale such that they would negotiate rather than hold out for victory. Meanwhile the defeat of France would break Italian morale and boost Germany's enough to hold out until negotiations played out. A big problem for the Allies post-evacuation is how do you reinvade without WW2 style air power and communication technologies? Especially in the age of chemical weapons like Mustard Gas.

A significant question though is what would post-war Germany look like? Would they have a military dictatorship with the Kaiser as figurehead?

 

[Dave Howery]

If we have a scenario where France is down, the UK is seeking peace, and the US hasn't sent any troops yet, then the US response is likely to be along the lines of 'shrug shoulders, say that they accept that the Allies and CP are seeking peace terms, so back down'. It's not as if Germany can actually do anything to the US beyond submarine warfare (and that's iffy)... basically, if the US steps back, Germany will be happy to accept it...