I'm going to leave the outcome entirely up to you, but assuming there is no Zimmerman Telegram/unrestricted submarine warfare to provide an excuse for American involvement, when was World War I most likely to end? How would the lack of American involvement have effected the long-term plans of Foch, Ludendorff, etc?
Most likely end date for World War I without American involvement?
- Thread starter A Piece of History
- Start date
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
Late 1918/ early 1919.
Germany was starving and things were getting worse. OTL, there were over 1 million dead through malnutrition and disease, and this was on an escalating curve.
Food from the recently taken lands in the east weren't coming through, due to a variety of reasons, and wouldn't start arriving until autumn 1919 at the earliest.
Either Germany wins by then (good luck with that), or it loses by then.
Germany was starving and things were getting worse. OTL, there were over 1 million dead through malnutrition and disease, and this was on an escalating curve.
Food from the recently taken lands in the east weren't coming through, due to a variety of reasons, and wouldn't start arriving until autumn 1919 at the earliest.
Either Germany wins by then (good luck with that), or it loses by then.
Bulgaria and the Ottomans wont last out late 1918. This brings the Entente to the brink of the Hungarian heartland, Austria will soon follow. All this without American assistance. Without the 14 Points on the table, the Germans may hold out for another 9-10 months as the Summer 1919 campaign pushes into Germany proper.
If lack of access to US finances hits the Entente badly enough, then it seems credible that the Spring Offensive might achieve something significant.
But when that translates into peace is hard to say. Might well need a further offensive, aimed at Paris.
But when that translates into peace is hard to say. Might well need a further offensive, aimed at Paris.
Where are the allies going to get soldiers to replace the Americans. I know not all of them saw heavy combat, but just the presence of them war on the German morale.
They will as long as Germany has the means to prop them up.
Once Germany is "on the ropes" in France/Belgium and can no longer support her allies, they will fall away, but not before.
There were nearly a million British and French troops on their way back from Salonika when the war ended, plus the British had several hundred-thousand troops in Britain, so not having American troops would make little difference.
Colonies, and war would end likely at 1920 - 21s with Entente being victorius and Germany having bigger reparations and teritorial concessions and punishments because the war had became more devastating than IOTL
Still 1918, or at latest early 1919, depending how the German offensive goes.
If it succeeds, then the continental[1] war is over by Summer 1918. If it fails, then abt the same time as OTL or slightly later. In the latter case, and if the US trops have been replaced by more British ones, then Haig has a far bigger voice irt the Armistice terms, which means they are likely to be more lenient than OTL.
[1] A naval war might drag on for a while longer.
Last edited:
ferdi254
Banned
Well, the real important point here is, how would the economy of the Entente hold out. Or to be more precise, will the USA supply the Entente as it did after the entry into the war?
If yes then the Entente might have a chance to fight on as long as needed. But still has a serious problem with the moral of the French army.
If the USA does not do that the CPs win latest March 18.
If yes then the Entente might have a chance to fight on as long as needed. But still has a serious problem with the moral of the French army.
If the USA does not do that the CPs win latest March 18.
It won't be supplying on the same *scale* as OTL, since that depended on unsecured loans which won't be forthcoming if the US is neutral. But GB can still buy some, though it may well have to cut back on subsidies to its allies.
ferdi254
Banned
Mikestone GB had nothing to buy anything with. It needed unsecured loans. The only possible way to keep trade going was land against weapons. Not a really viable solution.
And how do you keep France in the war with less supplies and no hope for US soldiers?
How does Italy stay in the war with 70% of steel less?
And how do you keep France in the war with less supplies and no hope for US soldiers?
How does Italy stay in the war with 70% of steel less?
kham_coc
Banned
Yeah, with no US involvement, who is handing the Karensky a few billion to not drop out of the war? And even if they stay, what is keeping the French army in the trenches if the Americans aren't coming?