Guys
The allies were producing a hell of a lot more than the Germans. You just have to read how the German offensive in 1918 sometimes stalled because the astonished Germans were busy stuffing themselves with allied food. Similarly with weapons. If they can no longer buy supplies from the US they have a lot of slack to take up. It will hurt but it's unlikely to be a killer. As noted Britain and its allies can buy 'on tick' from the dominions, generally at far more favourable terms than the US those things it can't do without, most noticeably food.
The US arrived pretty damned late and very few actually fought during the German spring offensive so their lack is likely to make little difference to this. Given a slightly better, or less bad, balance of force for the Germans they will do a little better and theoretically might break the allied forces. However the Germans are going to take pretty bad losses as well and their army was already seriously strained.
If France is forced to surrender then the key question is whether the British army gets out OK. I would presume it would as interaction between the allies was closer than in WWII and also with no real air power to affect naval action the bulk of the army could get away.
Its possible that, if Germany and Austria are still in condition for offensive action, they can attack Italy and make gains before Britain can get aid there. Possibly even either force an Italian armistice or occupy much of the Po valley before enough reinforcements can arrive but it means yet another unsettled area to occupy.
If the allies have to cancel offensives, or possibly limit them, it could also preserve a lot of allied manpower. Bringing Haig to heel over 3rd Ypers could do wonders for Britain's strength and manpower. Even just avoiding offensives elsewhere could save a fair number of men. Also if France is forced to make peace allied forces will be withdrawn from the Salonika bridgehead.
The fall of France would weaken the blockade but pressure from a distracted US, busy with its own quagmire, is unlikely to. Also this presumes that Germany has funds to buy items, much of which will still get intercepted. [The real solution to Germany's food problem is to restore some of the resources the military sucked out of agriculture but that's nit going to happen and would take some time].
There is likely to be some sort of negotiated peace but people are missing one thing with the talk on colonies. Britain would oppose Germany regaining its lost colonies is nothing to do with simply possessing them and a lot to do with seeking to keep possible bases, especially for raiders, out of German hands. They would also have some difficulty, going up to great, in getting colonies taken by S Africa, Australia and Japan to be returned. The other question is whether Germany would also want them back? Both because they were money sinks, of which Germany already has too many and in the event of another war, especially one in which Britain has no continental commitment, they would likely lose them quickly.
There are a number of other issues/points of importance.
a) How quickly would Britain introduce convoying? If it comes earlier it would save a substantial amount of resources. Possibly they could delay it even later, which would be very bad, but it seems unlikely.
b) Would Austria survive? Its already in a rocky state and with a lot of unrest. True Karl has a wiser viewpoint that Franz Joseph but this also puts him to a degree in conflict with Germany as he realises how much peace is required. I suspect the Austrians wouldn't accept much in the way of territorial gains given they have more unsettled minorities than they want, the best defensive borders against Italy already and a recognition that further gains would only weaken them. Possibly some small territorial gains but more likely to try and claim reparations [aka loot] from Italy and get friendly governments in the Balkan states. If so they might pull through.
c) How much would Germany seek to hold, both while in conflict with Britain and after any treaty? They already have a huge problem in the east and will need a large force in the west while the conflict lasts. Also, even if they can tear resources from the east how long can they maintain the forces required, especially once war is formally over and families want their men home? If 'victory' only brings more corpses and hardships then expect things to boil over very quickly.
d) I would expect a draconian peace against France, quite possibly even harsher than that against Russia. Both because the Germans will still try what they did in 1871, a punitive indemnity, but since they vastly underestimated what the French could manage to pay and since there will be much resentment that the French fought so long it will be a lot higher. Proportionality probably a couple of times harsher than OTL TOV. I don't expect the Germans to get more than a faction of this because France is in a much worse state than in 1871 but that won't be the intent. It will be to keep France weak and appease public feeling at home. It will likely be accompanied by the occupation of at least some areas. The question is when the French fail to make repayments will the Germans be wise enough not to seek to force the money out?
e) Would there still be another naval race? The US may be too distracted to start things off with their OTL 1916 programme. Germany might try but probably will be too weak. Hence probably relatively low level construction by Britain, Japan the US and possibly to a lesser level Germany. This is likely to be more than OTL however as its highly likely to see no naval treaties. Japan could be the big uncertainty here but without the stimulus from the US while they may build up I can't see them gambling on something like the OTL 8:8 programme.
f) Would the Ottoman empire survive? Probably in the short term but, despite removing the bulk of its Christian minorities its also been weakened by the conflict while also it might still have delusions of grandeur about expansion in the east. Also while it will suppress the Arabs for the moment seeds have been laid while can the Young Turk dictatorship successfully co-exist with the Sultanate?
We have a pretty unsettled situation. Germany and Britain are the two powers left standing but both are weakened and have problems. Britain will have to decide what to do about the situation in Ireland whereas Germany will have the much larger questions about the occupied lands and also the shadow of the Bolsheviks to the east, which is now their problem rather than that of the Entente OTL.
Steve
The allies were producing a hell of a lot more than the Germans. You just have to read how the German offensive in 1918 sometimes stalled because the astonished Germans were busy stuffing themselves with allied food. Similarly with weapons. If they can no longer buy supplies from the US they have a lot of slack to take up. It will hurt but it's unlikely to be a killer. As noted Britain and its allies can buy 'on tick' from the dominions, generally at far more favourable terms than the US those things it can't do without, most noticeably food.
The US arrived pretty damned late and very few actually fought during the German spring offensive so their lack is likely to make little difference to this. Given a slightly better, or less bad, balance of force for the Germans they will do a little better and theoretically might break the allied forces. However the Germans are going to take pretty bad losses as well and their army was already seriously strained.
If France is forced to surrender then the key question is whether the British army gets out OK. I would presume it would as interaction between the allies was closer than in WWII and also with no real air power to affect naval action the bulk of the army could get away.
Its possible that, if Germany and Austria are still in condition for offensive action, they can attack Italy and make gains before Britain can get aid there. Possibly even either force an Italian armistice or occupy much of the Po valley before enough reinforcements can arrive but it means yet another unsettled area to occupy.
If the allies have to cancel offensives, or possibly limit them, it could also preserve a lot of allied manpower. Bringing Haig to heel over 3rd Ypers could do wonders for Britain's strength and manpower. Even just avoiding offensives elsewhere could save a fair number of men. Also if France is forced to make peace allied forces will be withdrawn from the Salonika bridgehead.
The fall of France would weaken the blockade but pressure from a distracted US, busy with its own quagmire, is unlikely to. Also this presumes that Germany has funds to buy items, much of which will still get intercepted. [The real solution to Germany's food problem is to restore some of the resources the military sucked out of agriculture but that's nit going to happen and would take some time].
There is likely to be some sort of negotiated peace but people are missing one thing with the talk on colonies. Britain would oppose Germany regaining its lost colonies is nothing to do with simply possessing them and a lot to do with seeking to keep possible bases, especially for raiders, out of German hands. They would also have some difficulty, going up to great, in getting colonies taken by S Africa, Australia and Japan to be returned. The other question is whether Germany would also want them back? Both because they were money sinks, of which Germany already has too many and in the event of another war, especially one in which Britain has no continental commitment, they would likely lose them quickly.
There are a number of other issues/points of importance.
a) How quickly would Britain introduce convoying? If it comes earlier it would save a substantial amount of resources. Possibly they could delay it even later, which would be very bad, but it seems unlikely.
b) Would Austria survive? Its already in a rocky state and with a lot of unrest. True Karl has a wiser viewpoint that Franz Joseph but this also puts him to a degree in conflict with Germany as he realises how much peace is required. I suspect the Austrians wouldn't accept much in the way of territorial gains given they have more unsettled minorities than they want, the best defensive borders against Italy already and a recognition that further gains would only weaken them. Possibly some small territorial gains but more likely to try and claim reparations [aka loot] from Italy and get friendly governments in the Balkan states. If so they might pull through.
c) How much would Germany seek to hold, both while in conflict with Britain and after any treaty? They already have a huge problem in the east and will need a large force in the west while the conflict lasts. Also, even if they can tear resources from the east how long can they maintain the forces required, especially once war is formally over and families want their men home? If 'victory' only brings more corpses and hardships then expect things to boil over very quickly.
d) I would expect a draconian peace against France, quite possibly even harsher than that against Russia. Both because the Germans will still try what they did in 1871, a punitive indemnity, but since they vastly underestimated what the French could manage to pay and since there will be much resentment that the French fought so long it will be a lot higher. Proportionality probably a couple of times harsher than OTL TOV. I don't expect the Germans to get more than a faction of this because France is in a much worse state than in 1871 but that won't be the intent. It will be to keep France weak and appease public feeling at home. It will likely be accompanied by the occupation of at least some areas. The question is when the French fail to make repayments will the Germans be wise enough not to seek to force the money out?
e) Would there still be another naval race? The US may be too distracted to start things off with their OTL 1916 programme. Germany might try but probably will be too weak. Hence probably relatively low level construction by Britain, Japan the US and possibly to a lesser level Germany. This is likely to be more than OTL however as its highly likely to see no naval treaties. Japan could be the big uncertainty here but without the stimulus from the US while they may build up I can't see them gambling on something like the OTL 8:8 programme.
f) Would the Ottoman empire survive? Probably in the short term but, despite removing the bulk of its Christian minorities its also been weakened by the conflict while also it might still have delusions of grandeur about expansion in the east. Also while it will suppress the Arabs for the moment seeds have been laid while can the Young Turk dictatorship successfully co-exist with the Sultanate?
We have a pretty unsettled situation. Germany and Britain are the two powers left standing but both are weakened and have problems. Britain will have to decide what to do about the situation in Ireland whereas Germany will have the much larger questions about the occupied lands and also the shadow of the Bolsheviks to the east, which is now their problem rather than that of the Entente OTL.
Steve
