Road Less Traveled: WW1 negotiated peace in 1916/17

[Catspoke]

I'd say with the US not in the war, Russia should see the war as unwinnable, and the price for getting out of it insurmountable (mostly lands that are poor and troublesome).
So provided they have a bout of induced rationality their peace feelers might see the war end there and then - but I agree if the Russian revolution happens, Germany will think its winning.

Regardless of British and French finances or lack thereof, Can Kerensky Russia continue in the war without 375,000,000 in USA loans and credits???? Which wouldn't be forthcoming with the USA in the war.

https://usrussiarelations.org/2/timeline/the-soviet-period/4

https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2289&context=etd

 

[Knightmare]

Regardless of British and French finances or lack thereof, Can Kerensky Russia continue in the war without 375,000,000 in USA loans and credits???? Which wouldn't be forthcoming with the USA in the war.

It's not just cash, it's domestically, is there gonna be support for continuing a war that, at this point in time, has not exactly been what one could call a rousing success. Better to plead off ASAP, to avoid a revolution while your army is well away from suppressing said rebels. Cash just offers a quick justification to bow out.

 

[Old1812]

From what I can tell, it would be difficult for Russia to make a separate peace. Neither the politicians, nor the generals really wanted to end the war.

 

[TRH]

Just went back and re-read the OP. It was asking what would happen if a negotiated settlement in 1916 had taken place, and yet it has been derailed into whether the Entente not winning outright is impossible and unthinkable or not. As we do.

 

[Mikestone8]

Finally what was teh rigger event for the US declaring war? German unresected sub warfare, whey did teh Germans have to go with unrestricted sub warfare, was it because teh British were about to break through German line and march to berlin?

Not right away, but soon if things went on as they seemed to be.

They had barely weathered 1916 what with fighting the battles of Verdun *and* the Somme (GB and France had only one of these each) plus having to detach an army to fend off the Brusilov offensive, and 1917 promised to be even worse. The BEF would then be more seasoned and effective, while in Russia, munitions manufacture was finally getting up to speed, so next year their troops would be better armed. Both the French mutinies and the military collapse of Russia were still months in the future. so to all appearances 1917 seemed likely to be the last year of war. If the u-boats were able to starve Britain out, Germany still had a chance to win the war that year. If they didn't, then from the looks of things she would *lose* the war that year.

Hence the cavalier attitude to the prospect of war with the US. They anticipated (correctly) that American manpower could not be brought to bear until well into 1918, and deduced (incorrectly) that this made it irrelevant because the war would not *last* into 1918, but would have ended - one way or the other - the previous year.

The blockade was no doubt making life unpleasant, but in Jan 1917 (or Jan *1918* ftm) it was the least of the Germans' problems. It was not the blockade that they feared, but the prospect of a plain, old-fashioned battlefield defeat.

 

[ferdi254]

If by the end of 16 Wilson had doubled down on the matter and told the Enteente oeace or we cut you off and the CPs peace or we email er on the side of the Entente a peace make might have been possible. But it will be hard.

But it would save millions of lives, leave Europe in a much stronger position and might gave avoided the USSR and certainly a well known Austrian guy would not make any career.

So much better for Europe but as this will mean longer colonialism others might not be happy.

 

[Catspoke]

Not right away, but soon if things went on as they seemed to be.

They had barely weathered 1916 what with fighting the battles of Verdun *and* the Somme (GB and France had only one of these each) plus having to detach an army to fend off the Brusilov offensive, and 1917 promised to be even worse. The BEF would then be more seasoned and effective, while in Russia, munitions manufacture was finally getting up to speed, so next year their troops would be better armed. Both the French mutinies and the military collapse of Russia were still months in the future. so to all appearances 1917 seemed likely to be the last year of war. If the u-boats were able to starve Britain out, Germany still had a chance to win the war that year. If they didn't, then from the looks of things she would *lose* the war that year.

Hence the cavalier attitude to the prospect of war with the US. They anticipated (correctly) that American manpower could not be brought to bear until well into 1918, and deduced (incorrectly) that this made it irrelevant because the war would not *last* into 1918, but would have ended - one way or the other - the previous year.

The blockade was no doubt making life unpleasant, but in Jan 1917 (or Jan *1918* ftm) it was the least of the Germans' problems. It was not the blockade that they feared, but the prospect of a plain, old-fashioned battlefield defeat.

Plus the Murmansk railway is opening Spring 1917, which can bring in lots of Allied goodies for the Russian army.
Plus the Ottomans look likely to be crushed by the Russians/British at any time.

 

[Old1812]

Does putting Lloyd George on the Hampshire with Kitchener increase the chances for a peace to made?

 

[Old1812]

Just went back and re-read the OP. It was asking what would happen if a negotiated settlement in 1916 had taken place, and yet it has been derailed into whether the Entente not winning outright is impossible and unthinkable or not. As we do.

I'd still say that the original question of the OP hasn't really been answered satisfactorily. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I just don't see the case for why this scenario is so implausible.

 

[TRH]

I'd still say that the original question of the OP hasn't really been answered satisfactorily. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I just don't see the case for why this scenario is so implausible.

Well, there is the undeniable problem that from a political standpoint, World War One was tricky to end because there was pretty much no line between a public that would overthrow a government for making peace and one that would overthrow a government for not making peace. Hence the revolutions in Russia, Germany, Hungary and elsewhere. But from what I remember, a lot of this thread was instead arguing whether or not the question is pointless on the grounds that the Entente could not have plausibly failed to win.

 

[Catspoke]

With a very compromise peace like the OP proposes, no way the Russians, Austrians or the British can really look their people in the eyes and say it was worth it. Somebody will have to pay politically for that.

France didn't have much choice, Germany might get away with it, with a lot of broke the encirclement spin, and the high place of the military in German society.

I can't imagine the Russians are just going to reestablish authority over Poland, and no very compromise peace would leave that in German or Austrian hands, so it's place in the world might be a seed for future conflict.

 

[Old1812]

British can really look their people in the eyes and say it was worth it

I believe the British plan was to have Germany withdraw from Belgium as a show of good faith prior to the negotiations. That way the government could show the people that they had indeed saved Belgium. I'm not saying it would satisfy everyone, or that people won't start asking some pointed questions before too long, but I'm just describing what the government planned to do.

---

Another interesting issue for the peace conference: will the British dominions like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland be granted separate seats?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

You aren't going to get an independent Poland if there is a peace treaty in 1916, it is part of the Russian, Austrian and German Empires. They aren't going to give that territory very easily. You are stepping on the toes of three great powers and the war is still too much "up in the air" for them to give up much. Some borders might be adjusted , some money change hands but I doubt you would see major boundary changes that the reestablishment of Poland would require.

As early as 1914 the Septemberprogramm called for a nominally independent Poland as a puppet state. I know the Septemberprogramm was just a wishlist, but it seems likely that Poland would de jure not be part of the German empire.

Yeah - I think France is not going to be in a position to demand it, but there might be some kind of negotiated settlement, with some Francophone territories going back to France.

If IIRC, the predominantly Francophone parts of Alsace (ie Belfort) did stay with France after the Franco-Prussian War. I'm not sure about Lorraine.

Have we though, because I have not seen anything that has shown me that Britain could financially survive past July 1917, hell I have never even hired of this new revenue source manly because I'm pretty sure Britain has been doing that sense September 1914 and that was running out leading to that crisis.

This really is a myth that needs to die, if Britain defaults in 1917 then American banks take over British assets in America and thats that. No bank in America was stupid enough to be exposed to a war time nation spending unforcen amount of money on a war. Hell if Britain goes bank rupt after the war then the banks are payed back by the American tax payers, at no point was the American banking system at risk against Britain. Wilson and the banking industry didn't even like each other, he's more likely then not to crow about American banks breaking the law (sense unsecured loans are liligal) then he is to do anything to help them.

It persists because the majority of the financial elites favored the Entente cause. Of course this had more to do with their Anglophilia than fear of default, since as you mentioned the loans were secured with collateral.

For the sake of the argument I'm willing to accept that Germany withdraws for a negotiated peace, its just that nothing I've read on the topic indicates they were willing to do so, though I'm happy to be corrected.

If the negotiators play their cards right, I think the lifting of the British blockade would be a powerful bargaining chip.

 

[Old1812]

Bethmann stated Germany's willingness to restore Belgium without Wilson urging him to do so, which is pretty major.

 

[Wendell]

Russia would still collapse eventually. It'll take time, but it's in the cards by that point in the war.

 

[cjc]

As early as 1914 the Septemberprogramm called for a nominally independent Poland as a puppet state. I know the Septemberprogramm was just a wishlist, but it seems likely that Poland would de jure not be part of the German empire.

If IIRC, the predominantly Francophone parts of Alsace (ie Belfort) did stay with France after the Franco-Prussian War. I'm not sure about Lorraine.

It persists because the majority of the financial elites favored the Entente cause. Of course this had more to do with their Anglophilia than fear of default, since as you mentioned the loans were secured with collateral.

If the negotiators play their cards right, I think the lifting of the British blockade would be a powerful bargaining chip.

I mean maybe, but dispute how much america is controlled by the financial world is a meam, its not true, not now and definitely not during the progressive era.

 

[Old1812]

I'm interested in finding out what happens in Ireland in a situation where the war ends a year after the Easter Rising. Without the German spring offensive, would the Irish Convention be able to reach a compromise?