USA doesn't join WW1 but Germany still loses?

[Fenrisúlfr]

I think without the US in the war the Entente doesn't have the manpower or financial capital to knock out Germany. Germany can't knock out the UK and I'd give them a 40% chance of bringing France to the table and an 80% chance of knocking out Italy (although this doesn't help much). I can see the Ottomans and Bulgaria peacing out as OTL, honestly, it'd be a close-run thing if Austria-Hungary collapses in 1919 or they make it into the 1920s. Maybe an Italian collapse keeps them afloat for now? If Germany knocks Italy out and Austria looks on the verge of collapse then perhaps we just get a kind of peace of mutual exhaustion. Germany and France can't keep going, the UK is out of capital and there are revolutions or civil wars in Italy, Russia, and the former Ottoman Empire, while Austria is on the very edge of collapse.

It's probably very unlikely but part of me really likes the idea, narratively speaking, of all the major powers calling a ceasefire as their domestic politics are swept by revolution. Germany, France, Italy, and Austria, each calling more and more troops back from the lines as insurrection and mutiny overtakes them until the trenches become slowly abandoned and everyone forgets that they're supposed to be at war. Perhaps the lack of American intervention is the only thing that could have resulted in successful leftist revolutions all over Europe (although the strength of their Marxism may vary). That'd be an interesting timeline.

 

[BELFAST]

Would the Spanish flu still arrive in Europe and spread all over the world as fast?

 

[James Ricker]

Post-war things would get a lot uglier in Europe as France and the British Empire would both be bankrupt

 

[Lucius Verus]

Why does the US have to be completely disinterested? It wasn't up to the Zimmerman telegram, why does it go to zero?

People tend to forget that the Zimmerman telegram was the cumulation of a series of provocations. General British affinity, good British propaganda (selectively truthful, the best kind) vs German propaganda that was increasingly turned inwards (partially due to the lack of external access), mass murder, rape, and looting in Belgium all of which was broadcast daily via radio, the Austrian-Hungarian gloating of crimes against humanity, unrestricted submarine warfare killing Americans, taking the Americans aboard the Yarrowdale as prisoners of war with the weak excuse of "they were under British employ and you're keeping German sailors as POWs" when it was pointed out that German sailors were at liberty in America, Germany's grandiose imperial dreams in Europe. Idealism and public opinion aside, there was plenty of economic reasons to go to war: the first thing the British did was cut the underwater telegraph lines and Germany trade-leading to the pro-German business lobby collapsing.

And why does the Entente collapse overnight? The situation in 1917 was that the central powers was only able to hang on by looting Romania; Ottomans and AH was facing nationalist dissolution and starvation, Germany was a year from starvation and revolution, Germany didn't have the rubber, trucks and oil needed to sustain a push and couldn't end the war.

France and England, while in financial difficulties can absolutely cut back- their civilians and soldiers were still living well compared to Germany, they can tax harder across vast empires, they still had access to food, rubber, and such in contrast to the Central Powers that can't get it no matter how much they cut back. And governments deal with uncollateralized loans all the time, given high enough interest rates you'd still get loads of loans for societal breakdown Venezuela, let alone the two largest empires on earth.

 

[David Flin]

I think without the US in the war the Entente doesn't have the manpower or financial capital to knock out Germany.

The Entente doesn't have the manpower? Seriously?

With the Ottoman Empire collapsing and the fronts there being freed up, the weight of the Indian Army becomes a factor.

 

[BELFAST]

Why does the US have to be completely disinterested? It wasn't up to the Zimmerman telegram, why does it go to zero?

People tend to forget that the Zimmerman telegram was the cumulation of a series of provocations. General British affinity, good British propaganda (selectively truthful, the best kind) vs German propaganda that was increasingly turned inwards (partially due to the lack of external access), mass murder, rape, and looting in Belgium all of which was broadcast daily via radio, the Austrian-Hungarian gloating of crimes against humanity, unrestricted submarine warfare killing Americans, Germany's grandiose imperial dreams in Europe. Idealism and public opinion aside, there was plenty of economic reasons to go to war: the first thing the British did was cut the underwater telegraph lines and Germany trade-leading to the pro-German business lobby collapsing.

And why does the Entente collapse overnight? The situation in 1917 was that the central powers was only able to hang on by looting Romania; Ottomans and AH was facing nationalist dissolution and starvation, Germany was a year from starvation and revolution, Germany didn't have the rubber, trucks and oil needed to sustain a push and couldn't end the war.

France and England, while in financial difficulties can absolutely cut back- their civilians and soldiers were still living well compared to Germany, they can tax harder across vast empires, they still had access to food, rubber, and such in contrast to the Central Powers that can't get it no matter how much they cut back. And governments deal with uncollateralized loans all the time, given high enough interest rates you'd still get loads of loans for societal breakdown Venezuela, let alone the two largest empires on earth.

as you say just the Zimmerman telegram would not be enough. The Germans did need a better propaganda department.
To make a big change you would need no credit to either side and some ting like cash and carry policy and this would have made the Entente run out of resources much faster.
As for the grandiose dream of an empire that put the Germans in the same boat as all the other powers in Europe with the massive empires.
The real difference of no American troops arriving in Europe would be the Entente lacking the manpower to break the German lines and the German may not have wasted the manpower on the last offensive in 1918 to break allied lines and kept those troops for defence. The Spanish flu being dealt or not arriving could change things too.
rubber, trucks and oil were not so important to the Germans in ww1 as they are mostly using trains and horse-drawn transport. rubber, trucks and oil were much more important in ww2 to the Germans and this explains why they used so many horses in ww2 when the British had stopped using them.
The unrestricted submarine warfare may not have happened if the UK had not included food are part of the blockade of Germany.
Traditional food was not included in naval blockades.

 

[David Flin]

The real difference of no American troops arriving in Europe would be the Entente lacking the manpower to break the German lines and the German may not have wasted the manpower on the last offensive in 1918 to break allied lines and kept those troops for defence.

Um, you are aware that the Indian Army, finishing up the Ottoman Empire, was being freed up.

 

[BELFAST]

Um, you are aware that the Indian Army, finishing up the Ottoman Empire, was being freed up.

Would that be enough to break the German lines if the Germans did not waste the troops on the 1918 offensive?
The question would be could the Germans hold out long enough for the food to arrive from Ukraine to stop famine?

 

[David Flin]

The question would be could the Germans hold out long enough for the food to arrive from Ukraine to stop famine?

In 1914, at the start of the war, Germany imported around 20-25% of its food requirements, with 75-80% being produced within Germany.

By 1917, obviously the blockade had removed the bulk of the imported food, leaving Germany with that it produced itself. With rationing and care, 75-80% would have been sufficient. However, agricultural output within Germany collapsed to about one third of its pre-war levels. Some idiotic decisions were made early on based on the assumption that the war would be a short one (slaughtering breeding animals for meat, for example). As a result, by the end of 1917, Germany was generating around 25-30% of the food that it needed. (The whys and wherefores are a Thesis project to describe).

The official ration was around 800 cal (cf 3000 cal required for a labourer). Because of what can only be described as incompetent organisation, the official ration was badly distributed (hence the proliferation of Hamster Runs). Rural areas weren't too badly affected, whereas in urban industrial areas, food was a luxury item.

If the entire produce of Ukraine was transferred to Germany, leaving zero for Ukraine, and if this was distributed fairly to relieve the worst-hit areas (neither are likely), then Germany would have about 50-60% of its food requirements.

Put simply, even with Ukraine grain, Germany is still going to starve. How quickly it will starve will depend on how effectively the German authorities arrange fair distribution. The record of the German authorities in doing so in the years up to this point was pathetic.

Would that be enough to break the German lines if the Germans did not waste the troops on the 1918 offensive?

Hard to say. On the one hand, the Indian Army, unlike the American Army, was one experienced in modern warfare and was combat experienced. On the other hand, the Indian Army was unfamiliar with the climate of the Western Front. On the other hand, much of the US Army was familiar with climate very different to that of the Western Front.

The Indian Army would be easier to integrate with the British and French forces, and wouldn't need to go through the painful learning process that the American Army went through. You'd also not have the nonsense that the US Army had with black troops.

Then you have the imponderable of how many troops the Germans don't lose in the 1918 offensive and how many Entente troops aren't lost. Reading Die Sappe and memoirs of German officers, it's clear that morale in the German army was plummeting. Then again, its easier to maintain a defensive posture with low morale than to conduct offensive operations.

It's a question that one can pick and choose whatever aspects one wants to prove whatever one's initial premise is. My best guess is that, in the absence of American troops and in the absence of the Spring '18 offensive, but with the increased presence of the Indian Army, the details of the German collapse will be somewhat different, but it will probably happen along pretty much the same sort of timescale.

 

[Aber]

Would that be enough to break the German lines if the Germans did not waste the troops on the 1918 offensive?
The question would be could the Germans hold out long enough for the food to arrive from Ukraine to stop famine?

Reminder that with the collapse of the Macedonian front and Bulgarian armistice on 29 September, the Allies had free rein in the Balkans, liberating Belgrade on 1 November, crossing the Danube before the Armistice, with Romania re-entering the war. The collapse of the Ottomans would also allow allied naval forces into the Black Sea.

 

[cjc]

Littery non of that would be happening if America hadn't joined the war in 1917, but this is really not the thread to be rehashing arguments again.

Reminder that with the collapse of the Macedonian front and Bulgarian armistice on 29 September, the Allies had free rein in the Balkans, liberating Belgrade on 1 November, crossing the Danube before the Armistice, with Romania re-entering the war. The collapse of the Ottomans would also allow allied naval forces into the Black Sea.

 

[Mikestone8]

Um, you are aware that the Indian Army, finishing up the Ottoman Empire, was being freed up.

They were "finishing up the OE mainly because, OTL, Germany was under too much pressure to keep on propping it up. Ditto for Germany's other allies.

It might still lose Syria, but the mountainous Asia Minor was ideal country for defence.

 

[BELFAST]

In 1914, at the start of the war, Germany imported around 20-25% of its food requirements, with 75-80% being produced within Germany.

By 1917, obviously the blockade had removed the bulk of the imported food, leaving Germany with that it produced itself. With rationing and care, 75-80% would have been sufficient. However, agricultural output within Germany collapsed to about one third of its pre-war levels. Some idiotic decisions were made early on based on the assumption that the war would be a short one (slaughtering breeding animals for meat, for example). As a result, by the end of 1917, Germany was generating around 25-30% of the food that it needed. (The whys and wherefores are a Thesis project to describe).

The official ration was around 800 cal (cf 3000 cal required for a labourer). Because of what can only be described as incompetent organisation, the official ration was badly distributed (hence the proliferation of Hamster Runs). Rural areas weren't too badly affected, whereas in urban industrial areas, food was a luxury item.

If the entire produce of Ukraine was transferred to Germany, leaving zero for Ukraine, and if this was distributed fairly to relieve the worst-hit areas (neither are likely), then Germany would have about 50-60% of its food requirements.

Put simply, even with Ukraine grain, Germany is still going to starve. How quickly it will starve will depend on how effectively the German authorities arrange fair distribution. The record of the German authorities in doing so in the years up to this point was pathetic.

And someone cancelled the production of copper sulphate meaning Bordeaux was not applied to the potatoes so the crop failed from potato blight making the food problem much worse.
I had no idea the German were that badly organised on food in ww1.

 

[Aber]

They were "finishing up the OE mainly because, OTL, Germany was under too much pressure to keep on propping it up. Ditto for Germany's other allies.

It might still lose Syria, but the mountainous Asia Minor was ideal country for defence.

Which doesn't help with 2 British Corps approaching Constantinople from the European side.

 

[BELFAST]

Hard to say. On the one hand, the Indian Army, unlike the American Army, was one experienced in modern warfare and was combat experienced. On the other hand, the Indian Army was unfamiliar with the climate of the Western Front. On the other hand, much of the US Army was familiar with climate very different to that of the Western Front.

The Indian Army would be easier to integrate with the British and French forces, and wouldn't need to go through the painful learning process that the American Army went through. You'd also not have the nonsense that the US Army had with black troops.

Then you have the imponderable of how many troops the Germans don't lose in the 1918 offensive and how many Entente troops aren't lost. Reading Die Sappe and memoirs of German officers, it's clear that morale in the German army was plummeting. Then again, its easier to maintain a defensive posture with low morale than to conduct offensive operations.

It's a question that one can pick and choose whatever aspects one wants to prove whatever one's initial premise is. My best guess is that, in the absence of American troops and in the absence of the Spring '18 offensive, but with the increased presence of the Indian Army, the details of the German collapse will be somewhat different, but it will probably happen along pretty much the same sort of timescale.

Thanks for the compressive reply.
I wonder did the Spanish flu do more damage to the German side or the entente?

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

I think without the US in the war the Entente doesn't have the manpower or financial capital to knock out Germany. Germany can't knock out the UK and I'd give them a 40% chance of bringing France to the table and an 80% chance of knocking out Italy (although this doesn't help much). I can see the Ottomans and Bulgaria peacing out as OTL, honestly, it'd be a close-run thing if Austria-Hungary collapses in 1919 or they make it into the 1920s. Maybe an Italian collapse keeps them afloat for now? If Germany knocks Italy out and Austria looks on the verge of collapse then perhaps we just get a kind of peace of mutual exhaustion. Germany and France can't keep going, the UK is out of capital and there are revolutions or civil wars in Italy, Russia, and the former Ottoman Empire, while Austria is on the very edge of collapse.

It's probably very unlikely but part of me really likes the idea, narratively speaking, of all the major powers calling a ceasefire as their domestic politics are swept by revolution. Germany, France, Italy, and Austria, each calling more and more troops back from the lines as insurrection and mutiny overtakes them until the trenches become slowly abandoned and everyone forgets that they're supposed to be at war. Perhaps the lack of American intervention is the only thing that could have resulted in successful leftist revolutions all over Europe (although the strength of their Marxism may vary). That'd be an interesting timeline.

Italy being knocked out isn’t some small detail. That ensures Austria is no longer fighting any major fronts and Germany can no longer lose the war through an inability to prop up its allies. Instead, Austria can both send units to the Western Front/Balkans and demobilize much of its armies weaker units to help civilian production. Combine this with improved food situation OTL, lack of American blockade, Italy as another hole in the blockade, Ukraine, and Germany not needing to attack and call up more manpower, and the CP have at least moderately improved their economic situation (which did not actually result in a defeat until they lost on the battlefield in late 1918). This will also be a blow to the morale of the Entente, who have seen other new hits to their morale like tightened rationing without US aid and no direct American help coming.

 

[kham_coc]

Which doesn't help with 2 British Corps approaching Constantinople from the European side.

But again, that collapse was only a function of the German defeat.
The British notion of there being pegs whose removal would spell the end of Germany was always flawed, in that there was one peg, and that was Germany.

 

[Mikestone8]

Which doesn't help with 2 British Corps approaching Constantinople from the European side.

Only possible due to the collapse of the Macedonian Front - which also happened only because Germany was under too much pressure to step in and plug the gap.

This is the fundamental fallacy of all WIs that involve defeating Germany by knocking away her allies. They could be knocked out only when Germany was "on the ropes" and no longer able to bail them out.

 

[Aber]

But again, that collapse was only a function of the German defeat.
The British notion of there being pegs whose removal would spell the end of Germany was always flawed, in that there was one peg, and that was Germany.

So it's just a coincidence that 29 September 1918 was the day that the Bulgarians signed an armistice, and Ludendorff decided that the situation was hopeless?

 

[Aber]

This is the fundamental fallacy of all WIs that involve defeating Germany by knocking away her allies. They could be knocked out only when Germany was "on the ropes" and no longer able to bail them out.

They get knocked out when Germany is overstretched; an illustration of the "British way of war" in Europe for centuries - keep your allies in the fight, and knock out your main opponent's allies.