PC: Is an Entente Victory in WWI still possible without an US entry?

Hmm, interesting question.

I would say the war becomes a long, drawn-out, and bloody stalemate. Even if Germany knocks out France, the UK has the entire Empire behind her and at best likely negotiates an armistice that doesn't really favor either side.

If the war drags into the 1920s, the effect on European civilization could be even more traumatizing than OTL. With so much of the continent so thoroughly devastated, you might see a more powerful League of Nations analogue and a genuine attempt to make "never again" a reality.
 
IF France and Russia are out of the war, then most certainly Italy is as well. At this point Britain has no skin in the game. Germany can't do much against the strength of the RN, on the other hand Britain can't invade continental Europe without allies and they have none. Furthermore the blockade against Germany is unsustainable - the entire coast of Europe from North Cape to Greece is open to any goods being transferred further on, and Germany is getting food and raw materials from Russia and whatever bits of Eastern Europe Germany has occupied. Also, France has ceded more territory to Germany and/or will be paying reparations/providing food, coal, etc. At this point the British have nothing to gain by continuing the war, and much to lose.
 
Hmm, interesting question.

I would say the war becomes a long, drawn-out, and bloody stalemate. Even if Germany knocks out France, the UK has the entire Empire behind her and at best likely negotiates an armistice that doesn't really favor either side.

If the war drags into the 1920s, the effect on European civilization could be even more traumatizing than OTL. With so much of the continent so thoroughly devastated, you might see a more powerful League of Nations analogue and a genuine attempt to make "never again" a reality.

Imho any prolongation into the 1920s is ASB. Both sides were getting worn out. As Haig himself observed when someone talked about campaigns in 1920 "What nonsense! Who is going to last until 1920? Only America?"

The question is who loses hope first. Do the German soldiers despair of holding their lines in France and Belgium, or do the British and French ones despair of ever breaking through? The answer to that will decide the outcome.
 
Of course I suppose there's always the possibility that a personality like that might do it anyway, but he doesn't need to. He need only "hang in" until French and even British soldiers start to despair of ever being able to break through
IMO he would, partly because he wanted to, but mostly because of the political pressure resulting from the blockade. Quietly drinking Schnapps in trenches in France whilst German civilians were starving back home, world-spanning Entente colonial empires were mobilizing and the Turks, Bulgarians and Austrians were collapsing was simply not an option at that point, US entry be damned.


Germany did NOT lose all its colonies. German East Africa was still under German control at the end of the war.
Actually it did. Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck was running around in Portugese Mozambique, having been forced to abandon German East Africa.
 
IMO he would, partly because he wanted to, but mostly because of the political pressure resulting from the blockade. Quietly drinking Schnapps in trenches in France whilst German civilians were starving back home, world-spanning Entente colonial empires were mobilizing and the Turks, Bulgarians and Austrians were collapsing was simply not an option at that point, US entry be damned.

Life was miserable for a lot of German civilians, but iirc things had improved somewhat since the Turnip Winter, and there was certainly no danger of the blockade causing the CP to collapse in any foreseeable time frame. And as has been frequently pointed out in various threads on this point, the blockade itself would have bee less watertight without American participation.

And a defensive strategy does not necessarily mean "quietly drinking schnapps". It does not preclude limited attacks such as Petain used to boost the morale of the French Army, nor perhaps a mini-offensive toward Belfort to regain the only bit of Germany under enemy control - which would be a useful propaganda coup.

As for "colonial empires being mobilised", I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly GB and France had Indian and Senegalese etc troops, but the numbers involved were modest. Bringing mass armies of them to Europe would be a logistical nightmare given the Entente's shipping problems, and the limited supply of officers able to speak native languages would also be a bottleneck. Were the Entente to seek new sources of manpower, the obvious place to look would be Ireland, and imposing conscription there in 1918 could have been distinctly counter-productive.

Nor were Germany's allies likely to collapse as long as Germany herself was in a position to bail them out. The Turks had lost Jerusalem in December, but its strategic importance was slight, while Austria, with some German support, had just beaten the Italians at Caporetto. It was only with German defeat on the Western Front that things began to fall apart. - and that was a result of the 1918 offensives and their failure.
 
Remember, the British launched an offensive late in the war against the Turks that pushed all the way to Aleppo and destroyed an entire field army. Turns out they were on the point of launching it in the spring, but had to divert troops to France due to the Spring Offensive, and then had to painstakingly build the force back up. Delay the spring offensive and the Ottoman front collapses in spring 1918.
 
Remember, the British launched an offensive late in the war against the Turks that pushed all the way to Aleppo and destroyed an entire field army. Turns out they were on the point of launching it in the spring, but had to divert troops to France due to the Spring Offensive, and then had to painstakingly build the force back up. Delay the spring offensive and the Ottoman front collapses in spring 1918.

Unless the Germans reinforce it with troops not now needed for the Spring offensive. And even if Syria were lost, the Taurus Mountains would be perfectly defensible.
 
Its funny some people neglect butterflies - America declared war in Spring 1917 - and some think a year or so is unaffected...

If the US is not declaring war on Germany the there must have happened something in Germany - And that is Germany does no longer believe that it can starve Britain (NO USW)

Even if the US gives loans to Britain and France (and Russia) after collateral has dried up (likely sometime 1917) this will likely decline if not stop AFTER Russia drops out (likely to happen as it happened OTL when the US DID join). Britain and France must du what A-H and Germany did - finance the war domestically - , but thats probably no game changer.

The French mutinies were ended with the promise of no offensives until the Amercans arrived - OK what to give them instead? At one point soooner or later the French will have to resume offensive actions.

The Russians - I assume Kerensky will want to fight on as OTL, so the likelyhood of the October revolution is also likely. OTL the Soviets stalled the peace negotiations - I assume mostly due to the hope of World revolution, but also because in hoping that the Entente wins before (Soviet) Russia must give up too much. You can also assume that Russia WILL actually make peace a little bit faster.

Germany - assuming that they will not be as active as OTL (instead of a big spring offensive make that some smaller offensives with limited goals). But this leaves some units free to fight at other fronts: support the Turks - the British offensives will not be that sucessful (at least not more than OTL) - German good troops and more supplies will probably prove invaluable. Even IF Britain iss more sucesful, the supply lines grow longer while the Germano-Turkish ones will be shorter - guess the lines will go back and forth for some time. Support A-H vs Italy and Bulgaria on the Balkans...

Basically Germany must not act in the west and spend its last strength in the spring offensive, while France and UK in a much weaker position (no US troops) wil likely have to attack (Germany is holding large parts of France and Belgium while theres only little of Germany held by France.

In addition if Italy is out (by mid/late 1918 latest) A-H can free men (Slavs probably first) to return home and produce and grow... and stil have the more loyal and efficient Austrian and Hungarian troops free to support Germany (And Bulgaria and Turkey)

Self determination of people - well it was Wilsons idea - imagine that the idea will have less impact on A-H if America is still out;)

Colonial troops - why did the Brits not mobilize India earlier - well they could have from 1914 on, but the did not because they feared that meant to lose India in the long run... This fear might not go away - after all India is worth more to them than A-L...

With the US out of the equation the situation of the CPs is going to improve while that of the Entente is worsening in comparison. As the CPs were in quite a good situation early 1917 - even improvening a bit during the year, its hard to imagine that they can't take the war into 1919 - well I assume that both sides will be exhausted by then (morally) and they will likely make a somewhat white peace with both sides get and lose something (to prepare the stage for act two ;))

BUt is a White peace (west) a white peace?

I think not - as said the french and Brits have taken much money from they US they will have to repay (Without reparations) - wile the CPs have finaced the war domestically - the CPs will recover much faster than the Entente...
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Brusilov offensive could be a good PoD, Brusilov didn't get much support from the armies supposed to contain Germany in the North, which contributed to Germany being able to reinforce the struggling Austro- Hungarian army. If Brusilov had knocked out Austria- Hungary the war is a s good as won for the Entente.
 
Brusilov offensive could be a good PoD, Brusilov didn't get much support from the armies supposed to contain Germany in the North, which contributed to Germany being able to reinforce the struggling Austro- Hungarian army. If Brusilov had knocked out Austria- Hungary the war is a s good as won for the Entente.

Or if Rumania had entered the war sooner.

Interestingly, when the Kaiser got the news of the Rumanian intervention, his immediate reaction was to declare hat the war was lost and that Germany must seek peace. OTL, Falkenhayn was able to calm him down and point out that this wasn't an option as the Entente would demand peace terms unacceptable to Germany. But if Wilhelm had acted as Ludendorff would two years later (when he demanded and immediate request for armistice, against Prince Max's advice) the war might conceivably have ended then.

The other intriguing one is if US intervention is delayed, or the Russian Revolution brought forward, by a few months. Either way there could be a Russian government which takes up President Wilson's "peace without victory" proposal. That puts the Entente, and especially France, in a real bind, as France dare not talk about negotiated peace while her army is in such a fragile condition.
 
The French mutinies were ended with the promise of no offensives until the Amercans arrived - OK what to give them instead? At one point soooner or later the French will have to resume offensive actions.

Indeed. There is no obvious way out.


BUt is a White peace (west) a white peace?

I think not - as said the french and Brits have taken much money from they US they will have to repay (Without reparations) - wile the CPs have finaced the war domestically - the CPs will recover much faster than the Entente...

Not to mention the Entente troops, when they learn that after three years of hell, peace is being discussed on terms little if any better than could probably have been obtained in 1914. They will be out for somebody's blood.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Or if Rumania had entered the war sooner.

Interestingly, when the Kaiser got the news of the Rumanian intervention, his immediate reaction was to declare hat the war was lost and that Germany must seek peace. OTL, Falkenhayn was able to calm him down and point out that this wasn't an option as the Entente would demand peace terms unacceptable to Germany. But if Wilhelm had acted as Ludendorff would two years later (when he demanded and immediate request for armistice, against Prince Max's advice) the war might conceivably have ended then.

The other intriguing one is if US intervention is delayed, or the Russian Revolution brought forward, by a few months. Either way there could be a Russian government which takes up President Wilson's "peace without victory" proposal. That puts the Entente, and especially France, in a real bind, as France dare not talk about negotiated peace while her army is in such a fragile condition.
I also heard that after Romania declared war the Hindenburg and Ludendorf became worried that Denmark would join the war, not because they feared Denmark, but because they feared the Entente strategy was to stretch the German army thin by opening too many fronts for Germany to handle.
 
With regard to the Ottomans, even if the British continue on and take Lebanon and Syria (exact lines of demarcation TBD), and do better in Iraq, this still leaves the Anatolian heartland untouched. Getting from where the British forces in the Middle East might be ITTL to the Anatolian heartland is a logistical nightmare and Turkish resistance will be quite stiff in protecting Anatolia. Obviously forcing the straits is out. Germany here can supply more assistance to the Turks to keep the Entente at bay, so an Ottoman collapse is unlikely, even if much of the pre-1914 Ottoman territory will be lost. As far as A-H goes absent a Russian threat, and with Italy tottering or out they can devote a lot of effort to putting their house in order, and can divert some resources to helping the Turks or even sending some units to the western front.

The piling on that occurred towards the end of the war won't happen here as Germany/A-H won't be seen as ready to collapse. One result of a white peace with relatively few territorial changes, colonial swaps, or reparations at least in the west, is that France and the UK will be much worse off financially than OTL. Essentially all of their loans will be secured, unlike all the unsecured money they got after the DoW by the USA. Once the fighting stops at some point these loans will need to repaid or the collateral will be seized. You may see the sort of inflation in France you saw in Postwar Germany, some of this in Britain but they are in a stronger financial situation and they have essentially no physical damage from the war to repair. Remember the Dreyfus Affair was only 20 years earlier, and antisemitism was widespread in France, a number of the large banking houses that gave the loans (now being called) are Jewish led (though by no means the majority of them), you may see the "stab in the back" in postwar France similar to what happened in Germany.
 
You may see the sort of inflation in France you saw in Postwar Germany, .

From reading Tooze (and elsewhere) I gather that this came close to happening even OTL. The inflation wasn't as extreme as in Germany but the Franc nosedived in value.
 
From reading Tooze (and elsewhere) I gather that this came close to happening even OTL. The inflation wasn't as extreme as in Germany but the Franc nosedived in value.

Would you care to cite some sources to read on this? Not saying you're wrong, I just would like to read up on this because it really hammers home how utterly pointless the Great War was in a way.
 
Would you care to cite some sources to read on this? Not saying you're wrong, I just would like to read up on this because it really hammers home how utterly pointless the Great War was in a way.


I first ran across it in Ch 11 of William L Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic. He mentions that by June 1928 the Franc had tumbled to 50 to the dollar (prewar rate 4.72) and was still dropping. The Poincare government managed to stabilise it at about twice that level so that Frenchmen did a bit better than Germans by only losing four-fifths of their savings instead of 100%. I wonder how happy they were.


Tooze has similar information in Chs 19 and 25 of The Deluge. I always thought Britain had a bad time economically between the wars, but we seem to have got off lightly compared to much of the Continent.
 
Top