If no new countries joined WWI after the opening stage of the war, who would have won?

Who would have won WWI

  • Germany+Austria-Hungary

    Votes: 73 48.7%
  • Russia+Britain+France+Belgium+Serbia

    Votes: 77 51.3%

  • Total voters
    150

BooNZ

Banned
In regards to the issue of manpower. I'll repost my content from a previous thread on the topic of British Empire manpower during the war:
Interesting. I also understood there was a recommendation by the War Office in late 1916 to extend conscription to age 55. With reference to the content you provided, the austerity resulting from a lack of finance would not only restrict efforts to provide/purchase/produce mechanical assets (e.g. tanks and aircraft), but British manpower would also need to be further diverted from the front lines to either generate foreign exchange and/ or facilitate the production of materials no longer able to be imported.

Prima facie, the British manpower crisis would be earlier and far worse than OTL and there would be no expectation of the US coming to the rescue. The British would have no choice but to incorporate african troops among the European ranks and lean even more heavily on Indian troops, but that is unlikely to have much impact before 1918 - because why would the British contemplate taking action before the crisis has already manifested?

Let me know if I have missed or misinterpreted anything?

Posters talking about the Italians closing the Suez. That’s as good as a DoW to the British. I was pointing out how unlikely this would be, owing to the position Italy was in.
Thanks, I would agree and tend to think a neutral Italy would have been the sweet spot for the CP powers - and Italy.
 
Posters talking about the Italians closing the Suez. That’s as good as a DoW to the British. I was pointing out how unlikely this would be, owing to the position Italy was in.
I agree, it's not ASB (for a while) but it's utterly suicidal.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
One difference making factor here is whether the Germans are doing unrestricted U-Boat warfare.

If the Germans get to have their cake, ie US neutrality, and eat it too, ie total U-Boat blockade of Britain, then I don't see how they do not win the war.

Before we say it's impossible, keep in mind that something like the Gore-McLemore resolution could have excluded Americans on foreign ships in war zones from the protection of US law.

By the way, somebody mentioned it upthread I think, there was an Entente contingency plan to invade Dalmatia? Really? And was it, or was it not predicated on Italian participation on the Entente's side?
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
One difference making factor here is whether the Germans are doing unrestricted U-Boat warfare.
The Entente shipping losses leading into (i.e. the months before) the unrestricted U-boat campaign were already unsustainable - if the implementation of the convoy system is delayed several months (probable without US resources, naval assets, co-ordination and advocacy) the Entente tanker shortage likely extends to all shipping.

The above may be academic, since in this scenario the Entente (down to only Britain and France) would lack the funds and/or access to credit, to spend their way to victory.
 
The above may be academic, since in this scenario the Entente (down to only Britain and France) would lack the funds and/or access to credit, to spend their way to victory.

The Entente don't have to finance Italy or use resources against the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, so funds are greater ITTL

By the way, somebody mentioned it upthread I think, there was an Entente contingency plan to invade Dalmatia? Really? And was it, or was it not predicated on Italian participation on the Entente's side?

There was a plan (more an idea/proposal) and Italy initial demand for a Dow against the CP was a simultaneuous landing in Dalmatia...but between the not very favorable terrain and the experience at Gallipoli it was quickly shot down; without the OE in the war and the Gallipoli disaster, the plan can go forward.
 

BooNZ

Banned
the 50m were spent by early 16, there were more lot more
We can scarcely burden the Italians with the blame for British fiscal malfeasance - at best, the British liquidity crisis hits a few months later than OTL without the need to prop up the Italian war economy.
 
We can scarcely burden the Italians with the blame for British fiscal malfeasance - at best, the British liquidity crisis hits a few months later than OTL without the need to prop up the Italian war economy.

And without the need of the entire ME front, better remember that
 
So the balance here seems to be:

For the Central Powers:
No Italy in the war frees up dozens of Habsburg divisions to be used against Serbia and Russia. Possibly no US war loans to the Allies (depending on how strict we are with neutrality). No Portugal/Greece/Romania are nice bonuses.

For the Entente:
Ottomans keeping the Straits open significantly benefits both Russia's domestic economy and the West's ability to supply it. ANZACs can be sent to the Western Front, though some would help mop up Africa.

IMO this all hinges on Russia; how much does Black Sea trade end up benefiting their war effort?
 

BooNZ

Banned
And without the need of the entire ME front, better remember that
How bad do you think my memory is?
So the balance here seems to be:

For the Central Powers:
No Italy in the war frees up dozens of Habsburg divisions to be used against Serbia and Russia. Possibly no US war loans to the Allies (depending on how strict we are with neutrality). No Portugal/Greece/Romania are nice bonuses.

Serbia's is still going to be screwed by General Typhus, so from late 1915 A-H can focus on one front war, being Imperial Russia. If the US government provides unsecured loans to the beligerents, the US is simply not neutral. Private US creditors are not going to advance significant unsecured funding to broke beligerents. US suppliers are not going to provide goods and services to broke beligerents without a realistic expectation of payment.

Without the OTL vast quantities of materials from the USA, it is unlikley the Anglo-French forces will have enough rocks to both throw and eat...

Meanwhile, the CP can trade strategic materials through Italy, a notional neutral US means a far more porous British blockade with goods not being cut off at source by the US from 1917, a strictly neutral US might means no blockade at all from 1917, while Romania and the Balkan states can focus on food production and other domestic goods.

For the Entente:
Ottomans keeping the Straits open significantly benefits both Russia's domestic economy and the West's ability to supply it. ANZACs can be sent to the Western Front, though some would help mop up Africa.

IMO this all hinges on Russia; how much does Black Sea trade end up benefiting their war effort?
In the first instance, it is still possible a neutral Ottomans empire might fetter traffic through the Dardenelles, but assuming this is not the case...

From a Russian importing perspective, the western Entente powers were struggling to equip thier own military in the early years of the war with both weapons and munitions, while Russian weapons orders for rifles with the USA in the opening months of the war only starting to be fulfilled in the months prior to the Russian revolution. From 1916 the military production of the western powers likely has surplus weapons and muntions available to export to Imperial Russia, but by that time the Russian war industry had started to turn the corner.

From a Russian exporting perspective, it is doubtful if the Imperial Russian war economy is capable of producing sufficient surpluses in trade goods, it is questionable if the wartime Russian rail network can effectively transport such goods to the Black Sea ports, it is not clear where the spare shipping for those trade goods might come from and without Italian naval assets and bases, such shipping might be very vulnerable.
 
Top