This is the same Italy that experienced Caporetto in 1917 and thereafter saw the infusion of numerous French, British and American divisions in order to fortify it? Seems odd to call the Austrians dregs when there Army remained firm until the political situation collapsed in October of 1918 and criticize them for German support when Italy was doing the exact same thing.

No one has yet to offer any reasonable explanation, either, of how the Italians, the British and the French survive 1917 once the Americans cut off credit.


...and which came back under Armando Diaz and broke the kuk more or less in its own, 2nd Piave was 52 Italian divisions to 3 French and 2 British. Italians in wwi do not deserve their reputation (imo tainted, like the French, by wwii). The stalemate on the Izonzo was hardly worse than verdun especially given the terrain, and the disaster at caporetto was accomplished with heavy German backing, the Italians were "winning" (onsofar as they wwre attacking and tskijg austtian territory rather than the other eay around) against Austria or at least stalemating her before that. The disaster at caportetto is also overstated- the Veneto region is peripheral to Italy, and the Germans didn't even take the best parts of it either.

Which brings me back to my original point. Gemrany has imo the ability to knock France out of the war, or to prop up her allies. Not both at once.
 
Last edited:
Ok, they mutinied over Hippers proposed Death Ride that would have served no purpose other than as a "Fuck You" to the UK. They mutinied against their lives being thrown away needlessly

The French were the same. The vaunted mutinies, such as they were, were over pay and the leadership, not the war as a whole.
 
And the Italians crushed Austria more or less on her own. That won't change, nor the ottoman front, so France collapsing doesn't mean a general Entente collapse any more than Russia collapsing meant a german victory either.
Also the Germans did end up mutinying at kiel- going off of ring of steel they had the morale for one final push, but also had strong disputes internally over what the peace should look like. In particular the SPD was not going to support continuing the war just to get better terms beyond prewar borders and even this is difficult if one includes Austria, Turkey and the colonies. More likely Germany gets brest litovsk plus status quo ante with france in return for throwing her allies under the bus.

However you forget that the situation in Germany was greatly influenced by the entry of the USA. Here we got the opposite: the USA instead of entering the war and sending troops and providing further money and war material stays out. The spring of 1918 wont be a last chance to win the war before the americans arrive. On the other hand France, Great Brittain and Italy will be in a much worse shape both morally and materially by the spring of 1918 than OTL.

And moral is immensly important at this point for all sides. The people are on all sides near their breaking point. Russia is already out. And ITTL the CP's are much better off in this aspect than OTL and the Entente much worse. And if the food shortage is not resolved - thats too much in the situaion - but significantly improved I think the CP's can easily outlast the french and the italians. And thats gonna improve somewhat thanks to them winning in the east - question is by how much. After that a stalemate/minor CP victory in the west like peace is possible.
 
And the Italians crushed Austria more or less on her own. That won't change, nor the ottoman front, so France collapsing doesn't mean a general Entente collapse any more than Russia collapsing meant a german victory either.

Austria was brought down by the collapse of the Macedonian front, which was an Anglo-French (mainly French) affair, and won't happen if Germany has troops to spare, and certainly not if France is on the ropes and needs all her forces at home. That gave A/H a long southern border to defend, and led the Hungarians to demand the return of their troops from Italy. The Italian front collapsed on account of this, and the Italians sensibly waited until the process was well advanced before risking any kind of attack.

And if France collapses, then .Germany has ample forces to spare for the Italian theatre. Once they arrive it's game over for Italy as well.

Also the Germans did end up mutinying at kiel- going off of ring of steel they had the morale for one final push, but also had strong disputes internally over what the peace should look like. In particular the SPD was not going to support continuing the war just to get better terms beyond prewar borders and even this is difficult if one includes Austria, Turkey and the colonies. More likely Germany gets brest litovsk plus status quo ante with france in return for throwing her allies under the bus.

Certainly there was a mutiny at Kiel - but only after Germany was clearly losing on the Western Front. As long as they think they can win, the Germans will hang in. Just feeling miserable because of the blockade will not bring them down on any foreseeable timescale.

I'm not sure what you mean about the SPD. It abstained on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and most of its members voted for that of Bucharest. The Independent Socialist voted nay, and were rewarded by losing the last two by-elections in the Second Reich. The Majority Socialists were perfectly ok with the government's war aims, so long as these seemed attainable.
 
Austria was brought down by the collapse of the Macedonian front, which was an Anglo-French (mainly French) affair, and won't happen if Germany has troops to spare, and certainly not if France is on the ropes and needs all her forces at home. That gave A/H a long southern border to defend, and led the Hungarians to demand the return of their troops from Italy. The Italian front collapsed on account of this, and the Italians sensibly waited until the process was well advanced before risking any kind of attack.

And if France collapses, then .Germany has ample forces to spare for the Italian theatre. Once they arrive it's game over for Italy as well.



Certainly there was a mutiny at Kiel - but only after Germany was clearly losing on the Western Front. As long as they think they can win, the Germans will hang in. Just feeling miserable because of the blockade will not bring them down on any foreseeable timescale.

I'm not sure what you mean about the SPD. It abstained on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and most of its members voted for that of Bucharest. The Independent Socialist voted nay, and were rewarded by losing the last two by-elections in the Second Reich. The Majority Socialists were perfectly ok with the government's war aims, so long as these seemed attainable.

Austria was brought down by her bloody failure at Piave then the Italian counterattack at Vittorio Veneto, not Macedonia, though that was certainly dangerous to her as well. And again that front does not change as a consequence merely of American neutrality nor even a French collapse. By the time France is collapsing so are Austria Hungary and the Ottomans. Italy is the least of the great powers but she is still a great power, and she inflicted serious and IMHO decisive defeats on the Dual Monarchy, including over 2 million casualties and a series of military defeats which taken together were instrumental in the general collapse.

The German people were literally on the brink of starvation and that the SPD was not at all in favor of an "imperial war of aggression" against the western Entente. Said members were also the most likely to avoid Germany resuming Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, so if they're stronger (say if Ludwing Frank avoids his death on the Western Front and returns a war hero) then the Germans are less likely to have support for continuing the war. IMHO they get status quo ante with France, Brest Litovsk in the east and then have to accept a partition Austria and Turkey. Nothing better is really on the table for them by the last year of the war.

However you forget that the situation in Germany was greatly influenced by the entry of the USA. Here we got the opposite: the USA instead of entering the war and sending troops and providing further money and war material stays out. The spring of 1918 wont be a last chance to win the war before the americans arrive. On the other hand France, Great Brittain and Italy will be in a much worse shape both morally and materially by the spring of 1918 than OTL.

And moral is immensly important at this point for all sides. The people are on all sides near their breaking point. Russia is already out. And ITTL the CP's are much better off in this aspect than OTL and the Entente much worse. And if the food shortage is not resolved - thats too much in the situaion - but significantly improved I think the CP's can easily outlast the french and the italians. And thats gonna improve somewhat thanks to them winning in the east - question is by how much. After that a stalemate/minor CP victory in the west like peace is possible.

Morale means little when Germany is still starving. The Turnip Winter was prior to US entry and is not improving with her neutrality either. Beyond which US "neutrality" does not imply that she is washing her hands of Europe, indeed this was precisely part of why USW was so popular, Wilson's hypocrisy was justly despised by the German public.
 
Morale means little when Germany is still starving. The Turnip Winter was prior to US entry and is not improving with her neutrality either. Beyond which US "neutrality" does not imply that she is washing her hands of Europe, indeed this was precisely part of why USW was so popular, Wilson's hypocrisy was justly despised by the German public.

As I said the disapperance of the eastern front will help Germany with the food situation - the question is to what extent.
 

longsword14

Banned
Not enough to count considering that the collapse of Russia did exactly nothing to prevent the Turnip Winter in 1917.
Food was never enough to break them. If a victory on land happens, unlike OTL, then nobody in Germany would believe themselves to be in a weaker position compared to Britain just because of the blockade.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Us neutrality is not enough to save the central powers. All this talk about them collapsing without the us ignores two things: first, that the US, neutral or not, was already propping them up, and two, that the central powers were worse off than the Entente, and everyone knew it.
No. Up until the end of 1916 US creditors were providing interest bearing credit, secured against realizable Anglo-French assets, while US businesses were selling war materials and supplies to the Entente at inflated prices. Those were independent business transactions, not the benevolent acts of "the US" propping up the Entente war effort.

And no. In late 1914 the CP powers were significantly worse off in terms of manpower, economies, empires and finances. But, by the end of 1916 the Entente had burnt through their financial reserves, lacked the shipping to fully utilize the potential of their empires and the Russian war effort was on the brink of collapse. Without unfettered access to US resources, it is difficult to argue the Entente war effort was even a going concern.

No matter what happens in France Italy by 1917 will almost certainly break the dregs of the Austrian army, which even before this point were simply not capable of defeating The Italians without substantial German assistance (which means almost certainly giving up on a breakthrough in France.
No. In the first instance there is no way Italy could break A-H any time before late 1918 and in the scenario provided, the early exit of Imperial Russia makes this unlikely. In the second instance, without the additional men, food, fuel and munitions from its Anglo-French Allies, Italy simply will not survive 1917 - A-H does not need to beat the Italian military [yet again] in the field.

The Ottomans, likewise, are noy going to beat back the British, not by 1917. They don't have the men, the resources, the logistics or the morale to do so. A stalemate basically means that Germany has to come to terms with Britain and the rump of the Entente, before revolution breaks out at home and she suffers her own Brest Litovsk at enemy hands.
If the Russians are already out of the war, the British are not going to waste increasingly scarce resources on reclaiming the dessert, when the French are on the brink of collapse. In an environment of absolute scarcity, the British simply would not have the resources to continue to prop up the Italian war effort or play in the sand.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Not enough to count considering that the collapse of Russia did exactly nothing to prevent the Turnip Winter in 1917.
Could you talk us through how you would have expected the collapse of the Russian war effort in late 1917 early 1918 to retrospectively impact on the earlier 1917 planting, growing and harvesting season?
 
...and which came back under Armando Diaz and broke the kuk more or less in its own, 2nd Piave was 52 Italian divisions to 3 French and 2 British. Italians in wwi do not deserve their reputation (imo tainted, like the French, by wwii). The stalemate on the Izonzo was hardly worse than verdun especially given the terrain, and the disaster at caporetto was accomplished with heavy German backing, the Italians were "winning" (onsofar as they wwre attacking and tskijg austtian territory rather than the other eay around) against Austria or at least stalemating her before that. The disaster at caportetto is also overstated- the Veneto region is peripheral to Italy, and the Germans didn't even take the best parts of it either.

Which brings me back to my original point. Gemrany has imo the ability to knock France out of the war, or to prop up her allies. Not both at once.

Which ignores that Italy saw an influx of 11 Anglo-French divisions to stabilize it after Caporetto and that Second Piave came after American grains kept Italy alive that Winter. Further, once France is knocked out, it's over for Italy even if the loss of American supplies somehow proves indecisive; the influx of Germans dooms her.
 
I have nothing to add about the European fronts. The Ottomans, I can see them losing at least Aden for sure (British route to India), and probably the rest of their Arabian peninsula holdings as well, up to the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Arabian peninsula, especially Aden, probably a British protectorate of some sort. Naturally, the UK will not lay direct claim to Mecca and Medina for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities. That would probably forming some kind of Islamic theocratic kingdom that's nominally independent, vaguely similar to OTL Saudi Arabia. The British would also get the Persian Gulf area itself - probably similar to OTL protectorates.
 
As I see it the CP were forced to adapt a war economy were they were reliant only on themselfs. They did so and survived OTL till late 1918. The antant on the other hand relied heavily on the USA as they could and it was much easier - though more costly - than the CP way. They arranged their war economy that way. However if in 1916 the USA decides not to prop them up after their credit run out they will be in a much harder situation than the CP. They will have to adopt on the run - with a lot of french economy under occupation, Russia falling. They will have a much harder time doing it and I have serious doubt thay can manage it without loosing the war.

The fall of Russia is crucial in the sense than after that food stuff - the most sorely needed thing for the CP - will start to trickle from that way to the CP's. And after the first full harvest is had in the east the food problems of the CP will be mostly solved. OTL they didnt survive that long. An earlier fall of Russia might bring this about.
 
No. Up until the end of 1916 US creditors were providing interest bearing credit, secured against realizable Anglo-French assets, while US businesses were selling war materials and supplies to the Entente at inflated prices. Those were independent business transactions, not the benevolent acts of "the US" propping up the Entente war effort.


Incidentally, the idea of unsecured loans took a bit of selling even after America entered the war. The US Treasury was a bit suspicious, fearing a British plan to get "Uncle Sucker" to pay Britain's war expenses as well as her own. Arthur Balfour had to go to the US in May 1917, to persuade them of the urgency of the situation.

That gives some idea of the unlikelihood of such loans from a neutral America, even under Wilson, let alone Bryan or Clark.
 
Food was never enough to break them. If a victory on land happens, unlike OTL, then nobody in Germany would believe themselves to be in a weaker position compared to Britain just because of the blockade.

I've been hunting through Price Max of Baden's Memoirs. In Oct 1918 he had various worries, esp the flood of US troops to the Western Front, and the possible loss of Rumanian oil following the collapse of the Macedonian one. But he barely mentions the food situation save to note that things were very bad in the poorer parts of Berlin.

Ditto for Ludendorff. In justifying his decision to launch Michael, he cites the need to get a decisive blow in before the Americans arrive in force, and argues that German soldiers were weary of endless defensive battles. However, he says nothing about any imminent danger of starvation, though this would have been a perfect alibi for him.

FTM, an Imperial conference as late as August 1918 discussed likely German and Entente strengths in December 1919. Clearly there was no expectation (save possibly by Haig) of an imminent CP collapse, whether from starvation or any other cause.
 
I've been hunting through Price Max of Baden's Memoirs. In Oct 1918 he had various worries, esp the flood of US troops to the Western Front, and the possible loss of Rumanian oil following the collapse of the Macedonian one. But he barely mentions the food situation save to note that things were very bad in the poorer parts of Berlin.

Ditto for Ludendorff. In justifying his decision to launch Michael, he cites the need to get a decisive blow in before the Americans arrive in force, and argues that German soldiers were weary of endless defensive battles. However, he says nothing about any imminent danger of starvation, though this would have been a perfect alibi for him.

FTM, an Imperial conference as late as August 1918 discussed likely German and Entente strengths in December 1919. Clearly there was no expectation (save possibly by Haig) of an imminent CP collapse, whether from starvation or any other cause.

It's backed up by the statistics, as food rations in 1918 were increased and they were expecting Ukrainian food to come in 1919.
 
Top