Versailles with no US

[miketr]

I told you how. Now if you have anything constructive to contribute, please feel free to do so. If not, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't drag the thread off-topic.

Respectfully sir you have not done that in any meaningful way. Please consider the following. To project peace terms requires some understanding of the following.

1) Objectives of all of the parties.

2) Abilities of the "victors" to enforce their desires in point 1.

3) The abilities of the "defeated" to resist the desires of the victories in point 2.

Germany asked for peace but what sort of shape is she in this ATL? You can't just project another 6 months from the end of the OTL because the conditions 1914-1918 are different to various degrees. For example.

You said neutral but to what degree? Wilson had his own view point and once Wall Street got involved another. The isolationist their own. Soon and so forth. As I said if the US doesn’t give loans or sell war materials to be shipped then that radically changes the situation the western allies would have faced late 1915 till end of conflict. This in turn changes how things played out for Germany and the rest of the CP. This creates a cycle of progressively greater deltas overtime; so much so that by 1918 the situation on the ground could and odds are would have been radically different.

Another point is what sort of shape were the terms of your ATL armistice? For example Germany considered rejecting the historic peace treaty and fighting it out in the hope of better terms. The armistice required Germany to hand over hug amounts of war material (artillery, machine guns, small arms, etc), most of the HSF and give the allies bridge heads on the Rhine. The German army of course removed from Belgium, France, AL and the west bank of the Rhine and a General pull back in the east. The Freikorps started a private war out there but that’s another matter. If Germany only falls back the pre-war boarders she now can make a creditable threat of rejecting too harsh of a set of peace terms if she so wishes. What if the Germans are not forced back out of their captured land at all.

The list of details not covered goes on and on…

In short what type of shape is the Entente Armies in and what sort of shape is the Central Power armies in and who holds what land when the peace talks are held.

Michael

 

[MrP]

Man, now I remember why I started avoiding the AH sections of the forum.

You just need to know how to deal with it. A cold but (I predict) effective solution would be to find a couple of people prepared to argue the other side, get them in here, but everyone discussing that on Ignore (temporarily, of course!), and then debate it with everyone not planning on undermining the initial premise.

 

[Calgacus]

You just need to know how to deal with it. A cold but (I predict) effective solution would be to find a couple of people prepared to argue the other side, get them in here, but everyone discussing that on Ignore (temporarily, of course!), and then debate it with everyone not planning on undermining the initial premise.

That presumes enough people even care by that point. I sure don't. I'm going to re-post this in ASB I think, to preclude any repeat of this.

 

[MrP]

The best move for the CP was an offensive vs. Italy, good chance that Italy folds. The Italian army was still recovering from the Battle of Caporetto and the Hapsburg army hasn't been wasted in uncoordinated and ill planned attacks.

It's surely unfair to compare the Italian army at Caporetto - which was an utter debacle - with them after that devastating defeat. They've withdrawn into defensive positions (was it the Piave river line? I forget) and don't have (unless I misremember) exposed forward positions and most of their men to the front, which is what allowed Caporetto to be such a success. I might be wrong, of course - the Italians aren't an Army I have much on! Yet!

 

[Blue Max]

I get that its something like this:

Germany sues for terms, the OP has suggested the threat of national collapse has brought them to the table. The Rest of the CP are little better, Italy has launched a major attack against AH that has either left them down or put them in no position to resist. The Ottomans, of course, are also screwed.

We are talking about a CP that, probably through worse strategy and higher casualties, got beaten by the Allies without the USA, and the USA was probably trying to be neutral (although it might have decided to escort its ships and build a navy to protect itself).

But that's all beside the point. Its at least plausible that the OP's situation could be reached through worse planning in the battlefield. Perhaps the Schlieffen Plan turns into a massive hash, so Paris is never seriously threatened and the fortunes of war sink lower for the CP than OTL.

In any case, I'm suggesting that the OP suggests Allies are in good enough shape at this point to force the issue against the CP, however unlikely that might be.

I'd already misinterpreted this thread that this was a negotiated peace between the CP and the Allies, but it appears that what the OP is trying to say is a forced peace without Wilson negotiating, or his idealism involved. Privately, I think this a longshot but at least plausible with a PoD at about 1914. All of this, however, is not what the OP is looking for.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

With peace in 1919, everyone has to be on the verge of collapse - and without the promise of US involvement, I doubt the Entente is in a position to try to conquer Germany - by 1919 they will be getting resources from the East, so I don't think they'll just collapse into a puddle of goo.

I don't think the Hapsburgs can last until 1919 - the Brusilov Offensive pretty much spent them.

The Ottomans will probably be better off. They sued for peace because the Salonika front, with Bulgaria's collapse making the defense of Istanbul impossible as there was no strategic reserve left to mount an effort. The British violated the terms of the armistice repeatedly, which is what led to the disasters that led to Mustafa Kemal's struggle. With Germany still in the game, it seems likely that there will be more of an impetus to just getting the Ottomans out and not having to deal with the east anymore, to free up more troops where they're more urgently needed. I think they would still lose the Arab territories, but would probably retain some of Northern Syria and the Mosul region.

Alternatively, if the Entente neglects the Salonika front, the war in the Mid East will go on longer, maybe even reaching Anatolia, where there is likely to be serious resistance - even if Allenby's army is way more significant than the Greek army, the Ottoman army isn't demobilized.

If there was reason to neglect the Salonika front, I would assume it would also apply to the Palestine front.

I would tend to think the East would go similarly to OTL except with a different peace as I mentioned above.

So if the US never enters WW1, but stays strictly neutral, what would happen at Versailles, Trianon, Neuilly, St Germain etc etc (or the ATL equivalents)? Presume the Allies win in spring 1919, with the Germans suing for peace as Belgium is fully liberated and the Rhine is reached.

Main points for consideration-

Germany - does she lose more territory? Is she dismembered? Are reparations harsher?

Austria-Hungary - Is she dismembered as in OTL? What different combinations of states might occur?

Ottoman Empire - Presumably the Entente powers still grab the ME, although perhaps without a LoN Mandate as excuse. Do the Ottomans still fall? Does the state retain more territory or lose more territory? Do the Greeks still launch their bid for Supergreece? And do the Entente support them more than in OTL?

Bulgaria - more territory lost?

Russia - still collapses in revolution and civil war, but what else? Do the Bolsheviks still manage to take control? Do they still beat the Whites?


Factors to consider - in many of these cases, there is no significant change - much will be slightly different simply because of the force of chance. The main things different are that the US is uninvolved. Attempts are made here and there to mediate by the US president (possibly Hughes?) but for the most part they are cold-shouldered by the Entente. There is no public support for active US intervention or involvement in foreign affairs (except in C/S America, of course). Japan is a closer ally, operating alongside Britain, and possibly contributing troops/ships to the fighting in late war, or at least to the Russian Civil War. Beyond that, not much is different.

Bear in mind that the idea of self-determination and the nation-state is given less support in this TL, except at a local level in places like Bohemia.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I told you how. Now if you have anything constructive to contribute, please feel free to do so. If not, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't drag the thread off-topic.

I think this is carried away. It was a legitimate question. I had a hard time answering what would happen to the Ottomans because I'm not sure how the Entente won - the US staying out will have a large impact on how the war is fought, i.e. will the Entente syphon off troops from secondary theatres, etc.

"Germany sues for peace in 1919" still leaves a lot of questions about what happened.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Ultimately, the British will act as they did in OTL treaty of Versailles. They want to limit German power without letting the French get carried away. Alone, the French can't enforce shit. The Brits were the ones that moderated things OTL and will here too. You must remember that the US had little impact on OTL negotiations and that the French and British sent Woodrow packing when he protested. So this ATL is likely the same as OTL, but then depends on the situation on the ground.

 

[Calgacus]

I get that its something like this:

Germany sues for terms, the OP has suggested the threat of national collapse has brought them to the table. The Rest of the CP are little better, Italy has launched a major attack against AH that has either left them down or put them in no position to resist. The Ottomans, of course, are also screwed.

We are talking about a CP that, probably through worse strategy and higher casualties, got beaten by the Allies without the USA, and the USA was probably trying to be neutral (although it might have decided to escort its ships and build a navy to protect itself).

But that's all beside the point. Its at least plausible that the OP's situation could be reached through worse planning in the battlefield. Perhaps the Schlieffen Plan turns into a massive hash, so Paris is never seriously threatened and the fortunes of war sink lower for the CP than OTL.

In any case, I'm suggesting that the OP suggests Allies are in good enough shape at this point to force the issue against the CP, however unlikely that might be.

I'd already misinterpreted this thread that this was a negotiated peace between the CP and the Allies, but it appears that what the OP is trying to say is a forced peace without Wilson negotiating, or his idealism involved. Privately, I think this a longshot but at least plausible with a PoD at about 1914. All of this, however, is not what the OP is looking for.

Thank you.

OK, I don't mean to sound rude to everyone who has tried to contribute here - I have taken some valuable points away from this - but I would like to focus on the basic idea of, as Blue Max has said, a forced peace on the CP with no US involvement.

Now, the POD would be 1914 - British warships sink an American merchant ship trading with Germany. The British apologise etc, but American public opinion is strongly against any support for the Entente. As a result, there is no possibility of American aid for the Allies. Loans may be possible, and one can presume the strict neutrality of the US toward both Entente and CP is broken at several points.

With such an early POD, one could assume that other things have happened differently. I am willing to listen to ideas as to what these might be. However, the basic premise of the original post must be fulfilled - that the Entente powers are able to fend off the Germans long enough for the blockade to seriously damage German supplies of food and war materiel and to badly hit German morale. The German state is at the point of collapse (as it was in OTL) and Entente armies are still intact on the German border or at the Rhine. Russia may have collapsed, or may not - what do you all think? - but even if the Germans have the Ukraine etc, they do not have the time or resources to get much food from there.

Thus, the Germans are pretty much forced to sue for peace, to prevent the Entente forces moving into Germany proper. It's not a surrender, but might as well be one. Sporadic revolts and revolution breaks out in Germany, and eastern territories are seized by Polish militias over the next few months. A-H is also collapsing, and Bulgaria too. The OE, I'm not sure about - up to you guys - as Abdul said, the Entente might have had to plug the gaps with troops used elsewhere.

As to the Entente powers, they are war weary, and have sacrificed even more than in OTL. The British are still in a fairly cohesive state, but the French army is close to mutiny for a while. However, morale is vastly improved by the collapse of the Germans.

So, based on that set of circumstances, what does the peace look like?

Also, any idea on the OE, or Italy, or Russia, would be useful.

 

[MrP]

I cast my vote for Russian collapse. Any war that's lasted until 1919 will have seen sufficiently painful Russian losses for this to be a pretty good bet.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I hate to ask another question but it kind of depends on how the Germans sue for peace. If it's equivalent to the OTL terms, then Germany is screwed, and the terms will probably be similar to OTL. But it seems to me that without the promise of American resources, both sides are likely to be more lor less at exhaustion point and the Germans will be in a better position to resist extreme demands - in OTL it was basically total demilitarization with no promises given by the Entente. It also depends on how much of the heavy lifting the British are doing at this point. It seems to me that they'd have to be doing more than in OTL, and that could mitigate terms against Germany.

So maybe the loss of the colonies, A-L, a demilitarized zone, and the fleet.

I think my alternates regarding the Ottomans still stand; if the war still looks iffy when they ask for an armistice then they may get a better deal and be better prepared to resist any treachery - and they're helped by the lack of interest the Entente public is going to have in fighting for scraps of the Middle East.

Most likely they've lost all the Arab territory but retained Mosul. If the British had to divert the forces given to Allenby, they may not really lose anything, since they made little or no progress until the last months of the war.

On the other hand, if they Entente stripped troops from both the Salonika and Palestine fronts, the Ottomans wouldn't have had much reason to sue in the first place and would have to pull out when Germany does - which could subject them to a lot of nastiness.

Thank you.

OK, I don't mean to sound rude to everyone who has tried to contribute here - I have taken some valuable points away from this - but I would like to focus on the basic idea of, as Blue Max has said, a forced peace on the CP with no US involvement.

Now, the POD would be 1914 - British warships sink an American merchant ship trading with Germany. The British apologise etc, but American public opinion is strongly against any support for the Entente. As a result, there is no possibility of American aid for the Allies. Loans may be possible, and one can presume the strict neutrality of the US toward both Entente and CP is broken at several points.

With such an early POD, one could assume that other things have happened differently. I am willing to listen to ideas as to what these might be. However, the basic premise of the original post must be fulfilled - that the Entente powers are able to fend off the Germans long enough for the blockade to seriously damage German supplies of food and war materiel and to badly hit German morale. The German state is at the point of collapse (as it was in OTL) and Entente armies are still intact on the German border or at the Rhine. Russia may have collapsed, or may not - what do you all think? - but even if the Germans have the Ukraine etc, they do not have the time or resources to get much food from there.

Thus, the Germans are pretty much forced to sue for peace, to prevent the Entente forces moving into Germany proper. It's not a surrender, but might as well be one. Sporadic revolts and revolution breaks out in Germany, and eastern territories are seized by Polish militias over the next few months. A-H is also collapsing, and Bulgaria too. The OE, I'm not sure about - up to you guys - as Abdul said, the Entente might have had to plug the gaps with troops used elsewhere.

As to the Entente powers, they are war weary, and have sacrificed even more than in OTL. The British are still in a fairly cohesive state, but the French army is close to mutiny for a while. However, morale is vastly improved by the collapse of the Germans.

So, based on that set of circumstances, what does the peace look like?

Also, any idea on the OE, or Italy, or Russia, would be useful.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'll do this one area at a time:

Balkans:

Romania - I see Austria - Hungary being granted most of Romania's territory (the allies were already planning to deny Romania any gains they would have made during the war). A small rump state is established in northern Romania, most of it in what is now Moldova, with its capital at Iaşi.

Bulgaria - Has its territories set to where they were before the war. Most likely becomes a Republic following the abdication of Tsar Ferdinand I.

Serbia - The country is liberated, and has its borders reestablished to where they were before the war.

Western Europe:

France - Regains the Lorraine part of Alsace Lorraine. Gains German Kamerun as well.

Belgium -Germany is ceeded Waloon, and a Flemland is established in northern Belgium, a German client state.

Russia - Germany is granted most of what is now called Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, and a sliver of Poland. Russia gains Galicia.

Italy - Italy gains control over Trieste and Fiume.

Caucausus:

The region is divided into three seperate states: Democratic Republic of Armenia, the Central Caspian Dictatorship, and the Democratic Republic of Georgia, Armenia is the most powerful, controling the area which was historically allotted it by the Treaty of Sèvres.

Mesopotamia:

The British are ceeded Iraq south of Baghdad. Areas north remain in Ottoman hands.

Palestine:

The British are granted control of Palestine. A Caliphate is established in most of the rest of the Middle East, with control of modern day Jordan and Syria, along with portions of Saudi Arabia.

Africa:

The only German colony which Germany is allowed the keep is German East Africa. The British recieve German Southwest Africa, the French German Kamerun and Togoland.

 

[Zyzzyva]

<snip>

Who won that war?

 

[Calgacus]

I hate to ask another question but it kind of depends on how the Germans sue for peace. If it's equivalent to the OTL terms, then Germany is screwed, and the terms will probably be similar to OTL. But it seems to me that without the promise of American resources, both sides are likely to be more lor less at exhaustion point and the Germans will be in a better position to resist extreme demands - in OTL it was basically total demilitarization with no promises given by the Entente. It also depends on how much of the heavy lifting the British are doing at this point. It seems to me that they'd have to be doing more than in OTL, and that could mitigate terms against Germany.

So maybe the loss of the colonies, A-L, a demilitarized zone, and the fleet.

I think my alternates regarding the Ottomans still stand; if the war still looks iffy when they ask for an armistice then they may get a better deal and be better prepared to resist any treachery - and they're helped by the lack of interest the Entente public is going to have in fighting for scraps of the Middle East.

Most likely they've lost all the Arab territory but retained Mosul. If the British had to divert the forces given to Allenby, they may not really lose anything, since they made little or no progress until the last months of the war.

On the other hand, if they Entente stripped troops from both the Salonika and Palestine fronts, the Ottomans wouldn't have had much reason to sue in the first place and would have to pull out when Germany does - which could subject them to a lot of nastiness.

I'd presume that the British would be doing most of the lifting by this stage, and in fact possibly even more involvement by Commonwealth and colonial troops.

I'd also assume that there would be no Salonika front, and possibly no Greek involvement in the war at all. Certainly, the Ottomans might have been spared the second attack on Mesopotamia, and the loss of Palestine. Possible that the Hejaz is up in revolt, but the Ottomans look in a generally good position. If they can get a peace quickly they may survive pretty well, although the British could turn the screw somewhat if the OE doesn't make peace when Germany does (or before). Possibly the OE sues for peace when A-H collapses? In which case they'd be sitting with Russia effectively gone, Mesopotamia safe, and fighting only Arab revolt in the Hejaz and desultory campaigning in Palestine/Sinai.

 

[Calgacus]

I'll do this one area at a time:

Now here's my version:

Balkans:

Romania - gets Transylvania

Bulgaria - Retains territory at 1914 borders

Serbia - Liberated, gets part of Bosnia and Vojvodina, unites with Montenegro

Austria-Hungary - collapsed, Austrian rump state as OTL but in union with Slovenia, Czech-Slovak state, Hungary as OTL, Croatia and rest of Bosnia in union (perhaps later unites with either Austria or Serbia), loses Trentino and some of Dalmatia to Italy.

Russia - collapses into revolution and civil war. Independent states in Poland, Baltics, Finland, Caucasus, Central Asia, and Siberia (under Japanese and British protection).

Western Europe:

Britain: Gets most of German E.Africa, Palestine and

France - Regains A-L, and gets Cameroon/Togo. Reparations, and occupation of Saar.

Belgium -Gains some border territories from Germany (more than OTL), and parts of German E.Africa.

Italy - Italy gains control over Trieste, and some of the Dalmatian coast, and Trentino.

Denmark - gets Holstein

Germany - loses Holstein, A-L, some areas of border with Belgium, Saar, some of Pomerania, Silesia, Posen etc as in OTL with minor differences.

Middle East

Ottoman Empire:

loses Palestine, loses Hejaz (to British-supported Arab state), and loses some border areas in Caucasus.

 

[TemporalRenegade]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva
The war would have gone on even without American arms. The Brits and French both had native arms industries that were, at least, sufficient for their needs.

Really? For how long? I am aware that Britain and France were able to manufacture their own arms and supply most of their war needs. But they were also dependent on American supplies IOTL. Also remember that German artillery, hand grenades, and small arms were superior to those of all other nations at that time. The key competition was with American firearms. (Though admittedly the gap in quality of small arms was often neglible in trench warfare.) So the lack of American munitions and loans should have a tremendous effect.

Consider the following:

Originally Posted by miketr
If the US is a true neutral in the sense that Sec of State William Jennings Bryan wanted subtract 20% of war material from the allies and a great deal of loan money. This will have nasty effects for France and the UK in the winter of 1916. I am not saying defeat for the allies but it would be interesting in the Chinese sense of the phrase.

Exactly!

(Btw, I recommend that everybody reads Myth of the Great War by John Mosier for more info.)

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva
Kerensky was a nationalist who promised the allies he'd keep fighting. Wether or not the Russian Army was in any state to do anything at that point doesn't change the fact that he didn't want to give up.

Sure, but the Kerensky government was broke! They desperately needed money and loans to continue fighting provided a strong incentive. Remove that incentive and you have a bankrupt government trying to continue a war while a Bolshevik insurrection looms on the horizon. Expect Russia to surrender.

Originally Posted by Calgacus
The blockade causes shortages and near-starvation in Germany. Morale collapses. The Entent do not need an absolute breakthrough - the Germans will simply collapse on their own.

Right, but you are missing a factor. If the Americans are genuinely neutral and promise noninvolvement, then the Germans are free to continue the U-boat campaign. This could lead to Germany turning the tables on Britain or else Britain offering to call off the blocade if Germany ceases unrestricted submarine warfare. It is generally agreed that in a land war consisting of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany v. Russia and France, the CP's would win quickly and decisively. The entry of Great Britain complicated things, made a Central Powers victory less likely, and prolonged the fighting.

Originally Posted by Calgacus
I told you how. Now if you have anything constructive to contribute, please feel free to do so. If not, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't drag the thread off-topic.

Sorry... Anyways, back on topic. Suppose that the United States remains neutral, and the Entente still manage to win (maybe drastic changes in strategy, British and French stop experiencing such drastic losses, Germans get incompetent generals; natural disaster, plague, pestilence; ASB, whatever) even as the war dragged on until 1919.

I would imagine that there is no unconditional surrender. Imperial Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Ottoman Empire are still defeated but not subjected to OTL dismantling. There are many questions that need an answer. Who sides with the Entente besides Serbia, Russia, France, Belgium, and the British Empire? Who sides with the Central Powers besides Germany, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires? What side does Italy fight on? Does Greece remain neutral? Does the February Revolution occur? How long does the Kerensky Regime last? Does the October Revolution occur? Does Russia last to the end or do they surrender? What effect does unrestricted submarine warfare have on the British? (Remember American neutrality means that there is no reason to cease the campaign.)

 

[miketr]

Let me provide some general numbers.
USA

Built 6,500 out of 97,000 artillery pieces so 6.7%

Produced a like amount of artillery shells; 50 million out of a total 789 million 6.3%

Built 266,000 out of 816,000 machineguns 32.5%

Built 4.8 million out of 31.6 million rifles 15.1%

Built 14,000 out of 140,000 aircraft 10%

Built 33,000 out of 162,000 aircraft engines 20.3%

Those ignore large shipments of High Quality steel in 1917/18, the US, France and UK concluded a deal to ship raw materials and provide funds for the UK and France to produce weapons for the AEF. Otherwise the US was going to have to take over orders intended for he UK/France and or build up even more physical plant which would have taken 12 to 18 months to spin up.
Lets ignore the AEF manpower on the line and in the pipe

The US Treasury Department was supporting the Franc and Pound to the tune of about 35% and 10%. Also by the end of the war all neutrals were reluctant to take any more gold than they already had. The UK wasn’t bankrupt in 1919 but they had taken out huge amounts of loans from the US government and US private firms. Britain and France had sold off a great deal of their foreign investments by 1918 getting 60 cents on the dollar of pre-war value. The critical date for loans is in 1917 if we assume no private loans the Entente have to sell off all their investments; by 1917 the $7.5 worth of UK foreign holdings will be gone. So it would be possible to hand wave away the effects of a neutral USA till mid 1917 or so by a cash and carry response. I suspect France / UK would over time start to face problems sooner between lack of treasury support for their currencies, increased transfers of bullion over historic and general crunch forcing less and less on sale of investments. So the money could run out late 1916 or so; lots of hand waving on my part as I have no way done a detailed study of it.
What happens once France / UK run out of cash? The war doesn’t end, like Germany and AH they resort to other methods to continue the war; increased war taxes, internal war loans, credit manipulation, greater direct control over the economy, rationing, etc. Net effect is the Entente fights on but at increased social / economic cost (more inflation and war weariness) and lots more pain once the war is over.

1918 is a different matter the vast majority of US production comes in 1918 and total production values for entente have reached a plateau point. Italy is static compared to 1917, Russia has none really, France only 12% gain with the UK picking up the slack. With no US loans and foreign investments sold off the entente is going to run into a brick wall on production values, they might even start to drop a little as between currency deprecation / inflation and the rest raw material imports become harder; most likely just static or only small increases. The internal economies keep working but imports slow down dramatically.

If we assume worst case the Entente to be blunt are totally and completely screwed; especially if the USA has gone to some type of armed neutrality response. If the Germans can import even just food most of their problems go away. Worse yet a more strident USA will get the other neutrals like the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden to refuse to clamp down as hard as they did on transshipment of goods to Germany. So we have to assume the USA doesn’t go that far, the blockade isn’t broken but it doesn’t lift a finger to help entente and pure cash n carry on arms, material, etc.

Even then I can’t in all honesty think of situation as you suggest. With no USA coming into the picture it totally changes the Central Powers strategic outlook for 1918 campaign year. They have no reason to attack that year beyond either limited attacks or a weighted blow vs. Italy. They are not in a race with US reinforcements so they can stand in place. The food situation had actually started to improve that year; still it sucked totally and completely literal starvation level rations.

The Germans would have to do the dumb move and attack as historic smashing their reserves and will to fight with the all out attack in the west. I have my own thought on how that campaign plays out if the entente troops don’t know that endless rows of fresh troops are on the way or the logistic push the USA gives is reduced or missing all together. Once the attack is spent the Germans begin to pull back to shorten the front again. AH is also stupid, much easier to believe their command and control was rather shot at this point and they smash themselves. That winter and spring the Britsh / French launch attacks with large numbers of tanks as the core of their offensive firepower. AH then comes apart when the Italians attack.


The Germans then have to rush massive amounts of troops to shore up AH on the Italian Front and in the Balkans. Bulgaria pulls out as historic. Maybe Romania gets itchy and tries to reenter the war. This increases the degree of German over reach having to fight on a wide arch from the North Sea down to Switzerland, Austrian Alps, Balkans and to the Black Sea; plus garrisons to hold down the east. Chuck in your Polish uprising for good measure.

Germany chucks in the towel and asks for an armistice. I strongly doubt it’s the historic armistice terms. The Germans retreat to pre-war border and go to Paris for peace talks; but their armies keep their weapons. Maybe they even agree to the same in the east, Lenin at some point renounces Brest-Litovsk just as Romania did the treaty of Bucharest. Even if he Germans do AGREE to a pull back the Freikorps are going to be active in the east and at an even higher level than historic I suspect. If the allies go for hard ball its going to be very ugly as the Germans threaten to restart the war. The German Government plans Kaiser Willy for the mess and refuse to pay the tab so to speak.

In the mean time the Germans crack down on the Spartacist and all verity of leftist revolutionaries even if the SPD is in charge of a German republic. Help for German nationalist in blood letting within the now very former Austria Hungary occurs. Figure all side are running guns there and to a lesser extent in the east. Both sides can play that game in AH but the Germans are much better off in Eastern Europe.

As to final terms?

No reparations except for some to Belgium.

Territory changes…

German colonies gone as Historic

Alsace Lorraine to France

A rump Poland in the east sans Silesia, Posen, and Danzig but it gets ex Austrian Galicia. The Poles then go for empire into the chaos of Russia. Maybe even the Germans are helping them and perhaps even the French as both sides play for influence in Warsaw.

Perhaps Schleswig goes to Denmark but its not a given and I doubt Belgium gets its little bit.

No Saar, DMZ Rhineland, military restrictions etc.

The German fleet... Its not gone but the Germans would be most likely to deal on that point if restrictions occur, after all the fleet didn't achieve much. Figure some type of crazy half backed agreement on fleet strength between France, UK, Italy and Germany sorta a proto Washington Treaty which never occurs. Even then its more likely an agreement on construction numbers rather than active totals.

If it hasn’t already Austria-Hungary is just gone. When the German areas of Bohemia / Moravia (Czech) attempt to join Austria it succeeds. The Germans send guns and more Freikorps show up, whatever military Austria has held on to gets involved. This plays out as part of a mad scramble across the former Hapsburg and Romanov lands. See similar things in the Baltic’s, Hungary, Ukraine, etc. Romania jumps into seize Transylvania, Serbs go for their empire, perhaps Italy plunges into the chaos, etc, etc. With all sorts of ethnic violence. Very possible to see large scale battles taking place, in local terms over this area as these wars of succession plays. I won’t even pretend to guess how that witches brew plays out in the long term other than to say that it would be ugly.

At anyrate sooner rather than later Großdeutschland occurs as the German areas of Austria join with Germany. The allies of course will throw a fit but as with the rest of this I am assuming that once the guns silent there won’t be the will to start up the war again. The French might be pissed off enough but I doubt London would and without that backing France has no choice but to accept the peace. Especially as increased costs of the war have come home to roost and I wouldn't be suprised to see some fairly impressive displays of disorder occur in France and Britian.

The early 1920's become know as the bloody 20's as was wars of succession and civil disorder are the norm for most of Europe.

PS is this more helpful?

Michael

 

[Calgacus]

Thanks for the contributions - very thought provoking.

Let me explain first what I'm looking to do. I'm looking to explore a world in which the "special relationship" never grows. Not an uber-Britain scenario, but something at least partially realistic. I think the POD of American ships sunk by British navy blockade is a pretty decent one, as far as encouraging US neutrality goes. So 1914, and the German attack on France as OTL, but the US public are more neutrally-minded, and even a touch pro-German perhaps.

Now, there is nothing to suggest the rest of the war needs to go any particular way. I'd rather, for the sake of the TL, not have Britain too much reduced. Some change in Europe might be good, but a short war might actually be a good thing.

But here's the clincher - I don't want to explore the idea of Europe under the German thumb. So a crushing German victory in 1914 doesn't really do any good.

So what other options might there be, to give us an Entente victory, or even a reasonably balanced peace?

Perhaps the Ottoman Empire comes in on the Entente side, as they might well have done OTL? I doubt this would swing the balance, but it might help.

Anything else, with a POD of September 1914?

Mike, your analysis is a good one, and I may come back to it, but it struck me that a long war was not the only possibility. Depending on what ideas everyone has, I may come back to that. I hope to write a TL based on something like this over the summer.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The Ottomans could be brought in on the Entente side, but I think the Entente would rather take territory from them, as by 1918 they don't really need the Ottomans. They are really only useful against Bulgaria.

Thanks for the contributions - very thought provoking.

Let me explain first what I'm looking to do. I'm looking to explore a world in which the "special relationship" never grows. Not an uber-Britain scenario, but something at least partially realistic. I think the POD of American ships sunk by British navy blockade is a pretty decent one, as far as encouraging US neutrality goes. So 1914, and the German attack on France as OTL, but the US public are more neutrally-minded, and even a touch pro-German perhaps.

Now, there is nothing to suggest the rest of the war needs to go any particular way. I'd rather, for the sake of the TL, not have Britain too much reduced. Some change in Europe might be good, but a short war might actually be a good thing.

But here's the clincher - I don't want to explore the idea of Europe under the German thumb. So a crushing German victory in 1914 doesn't really do any good.

So what other options might there be, to give us an Entente victory, or even a reasonably balanced peace?

Perhaps the Ottoman Empire comes in on the Entente side, as they might well have done OTL? I doubt this would swing the balance, but it might help.

Anything else, with a POD of September 1914?

Mike, your analysis is a good one, and I may come back to it, but it struck me that a long war was not the only possibility. Depending on what ideas everyone has, I may come back to that. I hope to write a TL based on something like this over the summer.

 

[Calgacus]

The Ottomans could be brought in on the Entente side, but I think the Entente would rather take territory from them, as by 1918 they don't really need the Ottomans. They are really only useful against Bulgaria.

I was thinking more of in 1914, but it was just idle speculation.

By the way, do you run daily searches for the words "Ottoman" and "Turkish"?