January 1917, Kaiser balks at USW, and implications?

If it was a 'genocide' it was a self-inflicted one - the German government had a choice - it could feed its people or it could feed its army & it chose the latter making food a 'contraband of war'

The traditional clasification of 'food as a contraband of war' was to a fortress or city under blockade not an entire nation. Also the traditional definition of a blockade was within 3 miles of the coast. In both cases the British Government rewrote the rules and then got away with it.
 

Deleted member 1487

Nor, probably, will South Africa, Australia or NZ. In fact, the only German territory under direct British control in 1917 was Togoland.



And when it comes out that the Entente is offering peace on such terms, the morale of their troops is liable to collapse. After all, if peace is being made, after they've done three years of hell, seeing hundreds of thousands of their mates killed or maimed, on terms which could probably have been negotiated back in 1914, they are likely to be pretty furious - and probably unwilling to fight on just to determine the ownership of this or that fortress or colony. Once they give up hope of defeating the enemy, they are liable to prefer to avoid him altogether, and concentrate on just surviving the war now that they've been told that there's no hope of winning it.
What do you think they'd do in the face of a major German offensive like in 1918 then?
 
What do you think they'd do in the face of a major German offensive like in 1918 then?

Well, given what a close call that was even OTL, imho the smart money would have to be on the Germans, despite Ludendorff's best efforts to get things wrong.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, given what a close call that was even OTL, imho the smart money would have to be on the Germans, despite Ludendorff's best efforts to get things wrong.
If what you say is true Entente soldiers wouldn't want to die for a lost cause we could see then a Riga 1917 situation in the West if there is a major German offensive. But unlike OTL there won't be the 1917 offensive after the failure of Nivelle to really wear down the Entente defenders. Perhaps then the CPs would go after the weak links to try and pick apart the Entente negotiating bloc by taking out Italy as per OTL and then going after Russia again. Russia might not do the Kerensky offensive if their allies aren't really capable of attacking in the West and are talking negotiation.
 
If what you say is true Entente soldiers wouldn't want to die for a lost cause we could see then a Riga 1917 situation in the West if there is a major German offensive. But unlike OTL there won't be the 1917 offensive after the failure of Nivelle to really wear down the Entente defenders.


Is that certain?

If Britain has serious doubts about how much longer France can last, won't that make an offensive all the more likely, in the hope of getting that elusive knock-out blow before our continental allies fold, or at least of improving our bargaining position in any talks?
 

Deleted member 1487

Is that certain?

If Britain has serious doubts about how much longer France can last, won't that make an offensive all the more likely, in the hope of getting that elusive knock-out blow before our continental allies fold, or at least of improving our bargaining position in any talks?
The relies on them thinking they could get a knock out blow on their own.
 
The relies on them thinking they could get a knock out blow on their own.

OTOH, not doing so depends on them thinking they have an alternative.

If they just go into negotiations, they do so with no bargaining chips except some worthless colonial territory (most of which is not theirs to give back) and two miserable corners of the OE, compared with the far more valuable territories held by Germany. If they just just stay on the defensive in the hope that something will turn up, they face seeing their allies get gradually weaker and finally having to talk on even less favourable terms. So the temptation to "give it one more go" by another offensive will be pretty strong, if only because the other options are even worse. .
 
Last edited:
The problem for the Entente is that they have some serious blows to take or have already taken them.
Those are the Russian Revolution that signals an out of them is probable, the financial and following supply problems will be serve without the USA to loan and last but not least the Nivelle Offensives brought French morale down to the breaking point.
So all in all the Entente without the USA in is in dire straits, if they know it or not. Same for the Germans, they may not realize the precarious situation the French and British, here it is the loss of oil for the fleet coupled with the lenghtening of supply routes, are in.
So what can the French and British do? Another offensive is Imo not realy in the cards, as the French morale will probably be worse then in OTL, no USA morale boost here. So what can they do? The situation in France may detoriate rather fast, the naval situation is not to roosy, Escorts need oil and the Battlefleet too, couple that with more and more preasure to reopen neutral Europe to trade and that will likely flow through to Germany to lessen the blockade. And suddenly a fast peace may be the "best" they can hope for, before the French (may or may not) collapse and the British face too much deprevations on their merchant marine to supply the civilians. Here the Admirality saw the limit at 400.000 tonnes per month and the Germans were doing that an more AFAIK.

So would they chance a repeat of 1871, with revolution in France for the long shot of one last hurray? I doubt it but it could happen.
 
So would they chance a repeat of 1871, with revolution in France for the long shot of one last hurray? I doubt it but it could happen.

Point taken, but is the danger of revolution (or at least collapse) any less if they seek peace?

There isn't a hope in Hades of getting Alsace-Lorraine back, and indeed the Germans are pretty certain to demand Longwy-Briey as well. Not to mention that Belgium will remain a German satellite, putting France at a serious disadvantage. Once it is known that their government is talking along those lines (and the Germans have no reason to keep it secret - quite the reverse) how are the French, in or out of uniform, liable to react?
 
TBH I do not realy know the situation for the civilians in France at that time. But the political dissatisfaction could be, Imo, rather like the beginning Weimar time. So I suspect a number of Putsche and civil unrest. I could very well see fringe movements of the left and right gain strength. And AFAIK France was not that stable after 1871 either... so who knows.

The important point Imo would be that the rank and file had his fill of war and bloodshed in the trenches. So they probably would welcome the peace talks. How they react to the less then positive position and success? Imo the best example would again be Weimar. Well, without the "benefit" that the Army could claim to be unbeeten...
 
Top