What if WWI ends without ToV?

What does Germany get out of this?


  • Total voters
    40
As it says in the title, what would post WWI Europe look like if Germany and the USA were able to maintain trade, the Germans are not hurting as much from blockade, don't engage in USW, and the US stays out of WWI?

Basically, would the Germans need to win on the ground, or just maintain the war if they could import all the fertilizer they needed to maintain food production?

I am assuming here that the USA supplies all the strategic materials needed for Germanys war effort, and that the Entente is aware that their blockade is not going to force Germany into submission, and that they will have to beat Germany on the ground (without help from the USA), or accept Germanys gains in the east as a minimum.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
Another alternative: They keep B/L, lose the colonies, gain Luxemburg and lose most of A/L when America brokers a peace (or else) in 1918
 
It is very hard to plot the course of the war with trade allowed between the US and Germany, since for that to happen the British Government would have had to face a very different political situation than they did IOTL. Because for them to even consider the prospect of surrendering the major strategic advantage of a total blockade against Germany, there would have had to face very dire consequences.

One such situation would be that the powers not involved in the war in 1914 band together to form some sort of early 20th century League of Armed Neutrality. While the combined naval power of the noncombatants in 1914 (Sweden, US, Spain, Netherlands) would not equal that the the Royal Navy, the prospect of a naval war, or some kind of retaliatory embargo might make the UK government reconsider the blockade they enacted during WWI. The Germans in turn have less incentive to attack civilian shipping, especially neutral flagged shipping, making unrestricted sub warfare, and US entry in the war less likely.

Assuming that this did take place, I would expect that the Central Powers would not do much differently that OTL for the first few years, but starting in 1914, the effects would start to have serious ramifications. The German populace would be less likely to face starvation, but the Germany economy would also be facing a current account deficit, similar to that that the UK faced around that time.

Removing the threat of starvation from the civilian population, as well as the prospect of endless Entente reinforcements, in 1918 the Germans might opt for a more defensive strategy in the west while they attempt to shore up their allies in the East, and exploit the resources they had gained from the withdrawal of Russia and Romania. If that were to occur, the war's endgame would amount to a game of chicken between the Entente and Central powers, with whomever's population revolted first being the loser.

I would say the odds would be close to even; both Italy and Austria were close to political collapse by 1918, and by 1919 I expect that even without the threat of imminent military defeat, civilians in Paris, Berlin and London would be ready to take drastic measures to end a seemingly endless and bloody war.
 
Welcome to the thread, and thanks for the in depth reply. I forgot to make the link in my OP stand out, but you bring up a good point for an alternative possibility.

I see; I had obviously not considered a scenario in which the Germans put in as much effort into undersea commerce as they did in undersea warfare!

Since Germany mostly starved due to lack of capital goods (plow animals) and labor (farmers) I don't think a few thousand tons of nitrates each year would really change things, especially when it would be war materials that would have an absolute priority. You would basically have the Germans trading aspirin, optics and gold for military goods, which would not do much for the civilian economy.

Keeping the US out of the war, as a poster in your previous post noted, is really the game changer. If the USA can be kept out of the war, then I don't think the Germans have to win on the ground; they just have to stay in the war until the political will of the Entente collapses. I think all the major leaders recognized this by 1918; the Germans were not trying to destroy the Entente field armies during the Spring offensive, they were aiming for a political knockout.
 
Since Germany mostly starved due to lack of capital goods (plow animals) and labor (farmers) I don't think a few thousand tons of nitrates each year would really change things, especially when it would be war materials that would have an absolute priority.

Keeping the US out of the war, as a poster in your previous thread noted, is really the game changer. If the USA can be kept out of the war, then I don't think the Germans have to win on the ground; they just have to stay in the war until the political will of the Entente collapses.
I didn't really think about that aspect of the food situation, I must admit, and I don't think you could ship plow animals by trade subs. OTOH, I would expect that gardening performed by school children and women would have picked up most of the slack of the men being in uniform, but who knows.

My own personal thoughts are torn between the war ending with a 'white peace' in the west kind of thing, and the Entente having a falling out over Insane French demands that Germany must be broken, that honestly either ends like option two, but just a few years later, or option 4.
 
My own personal thoughts are torn between the war ending with a 'white peace' in the west kind of thing, and the Entente having a falling out over Insane French demands that Germany must be broken, that honestly either ends like option two, but just a few years later, or option 4.

I would lean toward the former. By 1918 the British and French were very much in it together, even the most chauvinistic politicians in each country had to see that they must, to quote Ben Franklin "hang together or most assuredly hang separately." France could never carry on the war alone, and the UK could not win the war on its own.

Incidentally, I do not think a white peace is really possible outside of the West after 1914, or so. The Russian Empire could not be put back together at that point, and the British had seized too much in the Middle East by 1918 to seriously consider walking away from it all. Germany wanted to barter Luxembourg, and the parts of Belgium and France it occupied in exchange for peace with the Entente, which would include having its arrangements in the East left alone. If the Germans did manage to get the UK and France to accept such an arrangement, then I expect that out of spite/face saving then the UK would hold onto the parts of the Ottoman Empire it seized, along with the German colonies.
 
Incidentally, I do not think a white peace is really possible outside of the West after 1914, or so. The Russian Empire could not be put back together at that point, and the British had seized too much in the Middle East by 1918 to seriously consider walking away from it all. Germany wanted to barter Luxembourg, and the parts of Belgium and France it occupied in exchange for peace with the Entente, which would include having its arrangements in the East left alone. If the Germans did manage to get the UK and France to accept such an arrangement, then I expect that out of spite/face saving then the UK would hold onto the parts of the Ottoman Empire it seized, along with the German colonies.
I have to agree that both Entente powers will want to keep what they gained (as will Germany), and neither will want to see a Germany stronger than when she went into the war.

I also just realized that I left out the option of Germany loosing her colonies, but keeping B/L. DOH!

The only way I see for option one, would be the French demanding the dismemberment of Germany, so that France could once again be the dominant power of Europe, and refusing any type of peace that didn't give them that, and the UK finally just saying, up yours France, we're outta here.
 
Basically, would the Germans need to win on the ground, or just maintain the war if they could import all the fertilizer they needed to maintain food production?

Actual one of the reason WW1 went on so long was that by 1914 the Germans had industrialized the Haber-Bosch process which changes the nitrogen in the air to ammonia for use in explosives and fertilizers thus not having to rely on south american saltpeter.


I guess that when the Triple Entente was form in 1907 German could have thought France was the greater threat (pay back for the Franco-Prussian war) and fortified its western borders. Then when the war comes it needs it has a defensive strategy using less soldiers to the west while attacking Russia in the east.
 
Another alternative: They keep B/L, lose the colonies, gain Luxemburg and lose most of A/L when America brokers a peace (or else) in 1918

If the Germans manage to score such a victory that they get to keep B-L and annex Luxemburg then they aren't giving a single square centimetre of Alsace-Lorraine to France.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
I didn't really think about that aspect of the food situation, I must admit, and I don't think you could ship plow animals by trade subs. OTOH, I would expect that gardening performed by school children and women would have picked up most of the slack of the men being in uniform, but who knows.

My own personal thoughts are torn between the war ending with a 'white peace' in the west kind of thing, and the Entente having a falling out over Insane French demands that Germany must be broken, that honestly either ends like option two, but just a few years later, or option 4.

As discussed in the previous thread, the importing of vital raw materials would lead Germany to avoid USW and the Zimmerman Telegram and prevent American intervention. The collapse of Russia following the February Revolution would solve almost all of Germany's import problems

The next question is how do the Western Allies respond- they will have to find manpower to replace the Americans- this they can do. More efficient use of British troops (removing them from Britain and distant theaters) and colonial manpower could do the trip. American supplies would continue to arrive- though paying for them would require a drastic slashing of Anglo-French living standards. How much of this and when the Entente does this is anyone's guess. They are likely to be very slow

Its possible for the Western allies to continue the war with some hope for success and they will. To simply accept German gains in the East and giving the Germans a breathing space to recover would mean only to delay defeat until the next war

Therefore the war will continue until at least one other major nation collapses. The Ottomans no longer count but Austria remains in very bad shape. The Central Powers are still in danger but much strengthened.

France or Italy would be the next ones to get the hammers blow. Italy is the most vulnerable but that helps Austria more than Germany and the Germans are going to win or lose this. The brunt of the war is going to be to break France

Who prevails is not certain but this is going to be a fight to the death. One side or the other is going to have to be beaten to their knees with no hope of success for the war to end
 
Actually one of the reasons WW1 went on so long was that by 1914 the Germans had industrialized the Haber-Bosch process which changes the nitrogen in the air to ammonia for use in explosives and fertilizers thus not having to rely on south American saltpeter.
Welcome to the thread, and thank you for the information.

If the Germans manage to score such a victory that they get to keep B-L and annex Luxemburg then they aren't giving a single square centimeter of Alsace-Lorraine to France.
Welcome as well, and I have to say that in that case, you are most probably correct. Had I not had an attack of the brain-deads, and included a poll option that had stated "Keep B/L, no gains in the west, and loose her colonies, would you have voted that way?


As discussed in the previous thread, the importing of vital raw materials would lead Germany to avoid USW and the Zimmerman Telegram and prevent American intervention. The collapse of Russia following the February Revolution would solve almost all of Germany's import problems.
Welcome to this thread, and once again thanks for the input.
 
Welcome as well, and I have to say that in that case, you are most probably correct. Had I not had an attack of the brain-deads, and included a poll option that had stated "Keep B/L, no gains in the west, and loose her colonies, would you have voted that way?

Thanks. And yes, I woluld have. The loss of the colonies wouldn't have hurt Germany in any significant way (Togoland was the only colony that wasn't a money sink). Some prestige would be lost perhaps, but it would pale in comparison to the historic victory Germany would get if it could keep its B-L gains. But to keep its B-L gains, Germany has to win in the West, since WWI was won or lost on the Western Front. But if Germany wins in the west, either through a final offensive or through outlasting the Entente, then there's no way Germany will give up any morsel of its European territory.
 
Thanks. And yes, I woluld have. The loss of the colonies wouldn't have hurt Germany in any significant way (Togoland was the only colony that wasn't a money sink). Some prestige would be lost perhaps, but it would pale in comparison to the historic victory Germany would get if it could keep its B-L gains.
I have to agree with you here, as Germanys colonies, while potentially useful staging areas for future wars, are not really good for much else at the time.

But to keep its B-L gains, Germany has to win on the Western Front.
I would guess that 'victory on the western front' could be defined differently, based upon the circumstances in this ATL, for instance, in German people are not starving, then Germany can sit back and wait for France and the UK to go broke or bleed themselves white by attacking strong defensive lines.
 
The possibility that the war would have ended in 1917 has been raised before - JFC Fuller I think.

This is based on the idea that both sides were exhausted by then and ONLY the US coming into the war led to The Entente deciding to continue. After all the French army mutinied that year and there were two revolutions in Russia. If the US is trading with Germany than there is no prospect of them entering the war against Germany, which removes the "We only have to hold on for a bit longer chaps, honestly!" motivation for NOT making peace.

A ceasefire before the second revolution in Russia was claimed to be possible, leading to no USSR, along with a years fewer casualties, food imports resuming early making the 1918 Flu epidemic less lethal (malnutrition problemsreversed to some extent)
 
The possibility that the war would have ended in 1917 has been raised before - JFC Fuller I think.

This is based on the idea that both sides were exhausted by then and ONLY the US coming into the war led to The Entente deciding to continue.
Welcome to the thread. I have heard this before, but not with a possible authors name included. Thanks for the input and thoughts.


A ceasefire before the second revolution in Russia was claimed to be possible, leading to no USSR, along with a years fewer casualties, food imports resuming early making the 1918 Flu epidemic less lethal (malnutrition problemsreversed to some extent).
Now this, sir, could lead to some very interesting butterflies indeed.:cool:
 




I am thinking about remaking this thread (or, if possible, editing the poll), so that the poll includes things I was too stupid to include the first time round. Also, what I hope to accomplish is getting ATL ideas in the new thread.

What I would like is for folks to give input on additional (or alternate) poll options for the remake, and for those that are interested, ideas for ATL's that could arise because of the POD here.

Perhaps an ATL based upon NORGCO's post above might be an idea.
Some of my ideas:

ATL where the construction of 'commercial submarines' starts off as secret arms shipping vessels, intended to allow for the secret stockpiling of small arms and ammunition dumps out in the 'colonies', where they can then be shipped overland to equip rebellions in the other fellows colonies next door. The idea being that in the case of a European war looking likely, the secret arms & ammo dumps would be used to draw away the enemies’ troops to force them to fight to retain their colonies, and then hit them while their troop strength is reduced. So some ATL/interesting threads that might come from this could be:

Germany plans to take the Belgian Congo, and hopes to incite rebellions within the colony, forcing Belgium to mobilize, and thus giving Germany a reason to also mobilize, and then...

Germany plans, that in the case of a future war with France, to be able to smuggle arms and ammunition into as many French colonies as possible, so that either large portions of the standing French army must deploy to the colonies, or France looses her colonies. This would require many secret arms and ammo dumps be built within Germanys colonies, with an eye towards making this as easy as possible. This could be either done as a reason to start a war with France, or in retaliation for a French DoW against Germany. An element of the ATL could be that the Germans are shipping non-German weapons and ammunition (either purchased from, or counterfeited to look like) someone else's small arms.

Some variations could be, European war breaks out, Germany waits until the French army is fully committed, and then incites multiple rebellions within their colonies. These rebellions deprive the French of the resources they receive from such colonies, hurting France both in the short term, and long term if they fail to squash these rebellions, permanently weakening the French empire.

Some detailed variations could be the kind of rebellions.
For instance;

A ‘war of lesser returns’, aimed at disruption of resource exploration and exploitation, designed to allow the French to retake it later, but costing them many millions of franc's to rebuild and weakening them a bit, and forcing them to maintain a large and expensive military presence from then on. So, attacks on ports, both to destroy ships, warehouses, wharves, docks and facilities, attacks on bridges and roads, to limit or deny their use and utility, attacks on farms/plantations, either to destroy their crop, or to seize it.

A 'war of independence', that seeks to wipe out any or all French military presence within the colony, but not destroying economic assets, thus making them free.

A 'war of annihilation, where the native forces destroy everything of value that they cannot deny to the Colonial Power, seeking to make their re-conquest so cost prohibitive that they don’t want to come back.

Of course, any plan might not work, or work in ways not intended, or just about anything else folks can come up with.

Other interesting ATL could focus on the submarines themselves, so we could see some interesting developments taking place. One thing I would like to see is an ATL where we end up with submarine supertankers by now.

Another could be ATLs that focus on the anti-submarine forces and weapons that would likely come about, if the Germans go the route of a large fleet of cargo submarines.

Drat, I’m tired out!:eek:

 
Top