What would a negotiated peace in 1917 look like?
- Thread starter Jiraiyathegallant
- Start date
History Learner
Banned
I've already pointed out repeatedly now that between November of 1916 and January of 1917, the Germans sank more tonnage than the British would build in either 1917 or 1918. This prompted Admiral Beatty to remark on January 27th-four days before the start of USW-that the question of the war was now whether the Germans would blockade the British to peace before the Royal Navy could do the same to the Germans.
History Learner
Banned
Well, my immediate take: Without American credit, they can't buy American oil and without American oil, the French Army and the BEF are defunct. Given such, the Germans can defeat them on land which would bring the Channel Ports into Berlin's hands which, in turn, would leave the British with a very major choice: either return Germany's colonies in the peace or lose London. At the time, London could not be supplied solely by railway and thus they would've have had to evacuate up to one third of the city or it would be starved out.
Mind you the main problem with cruiser rules and applying them to submarines is that the obvious solution to help prevent losses is to add a couple deck guns to your merchant ships, which in turn prevents you from being nearly as effective, not to mention that cruiser rules don't work at all if convoys are involved...which is why nobody ever used them post WWI
Deleted member 94680
You've repeatedly pointed it out and I’ve repeatedly asked why they stopped it if it was so effective.
Beatty’s hyperbole aside - a juicy comment probably designed to secure further funding for the Navy rather than an accurate summation of the respective supply situation of both nations - this raises the point of Germany’s food supplies. Why are we only talking of Britain starving and not Germany? The U-boats can’t keep those numbers up indefinitely and if they continued for much longer, the British would surely do something different to OTL - no one willingly starves to death. The USW campaign was launched in part due to Germany’s food situation as well.
Which Britain was doing. By the end of 1916 most merchantmen were either armed or in process of being.
But Wilson did not object to the torpedoing of armed ships. In late 1916 the armed vessels Marina and Arabia were so sunk, and Wilson took no action despite repeated prods from Secretary Lansing. In practice if not theory he had accepted that armed ships were fair game and couldn't expect a warning. So an "unrestricted" campaign specifically against armed ships would not have led to war with the US.
Last edited:
ferdi254
Banned
Stenz because the Germans dd not know about the predicament the UK was in. If somebody had told them in January 1917: "In April 1917 the UK will be broke and that will mean a 70% reduction in imports of oil and 50% less to eat for the UK, unless you get the USA in the war" they would not have gone to USW.
The assumption of USW was: OK, we slowly strangle the UK, but it takes too long and we might face revolution before we force the UK to the table so let's speed up by USW and things will be over before we notice the military power of the USA.
The assumption of USW was: OK, we slowly strangle the UK, but it takes too long and we might face revolution before we force the UK to the table so let's speed up by USW and things will be over before we notice the military power of the USA.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Problem was that German was already broke and starving (it relied on printing money to keep its economy going and had just suffered the "turnip winter"). If Britain goes "broke" in April 1917 it is just joining Germany in the same situation it found itself in late 1916.
People who claim that the Entente would collapse in 1917 absent funding from America seem to ignore the fact that Germany was already playing to different rules and surviving (just).
Beatty was right in a way - it was a race to see which blockade would work but the way in which the blockade would be effective is the social and economic collapse of the nations concerned not the absence of food. And in that race Germany had a pretty long lead in early 1917 and no real opportunity to negotiate a solution (which the Entente did with the USA using the "debt bomb" tactics that Latin America would use later in the century)
Deleted member 94680
So, what happens ATL for them to realise this? What affects their own supply situation to give them enough time to play the longer game needed?
Once again, Britain was not 'broke', is unlikely to 'go broke' and - even in the position where their financial position became more constrained - they had several more cards to play and draw things out further.
ferdi254
Banned
Stenz, derek, Germany was able to continue the war until 1918 that is an historical fact. In a Tim line in which the UA does not declare war it would have been better off due to the blockade not being that tight. So the discussion about Germanys ability to wage war does not help the point on how the Entente could go on without any imports which could not be paid for by GBP.
Britain was broke: If you cannot pay your invoices any longer (which was just the position the UK was in in April 1917)you are broke. Do you know any other definition f being broke? It is irrelevant if other people owe you money (as long as they can not pay or do not have to pay) or if you have other assets as long as you find no buyer. If you cannot pay your invoices anymore you are broke. And Britain had no way to pay back the overdraft at JP. And if you two claim it was not, well, at least the UK government in 1917 thought it was.
As I said, with strict rationing the UK could have gone on for a while on 50% of the calories (a far more severe lack than the one Germany was facing, that's why only for a while), yes, they could stop all offensives because of the lack of steel but how do they make up for a loss of 70% of the oil? Britain was far more dependent on imports than Germany was.
So it is not "the same situation". Germany was not dependent on steel, food and oil imports to continue the war until 1918.
Britain was broke: If you cannot pay your invoices any longer (which was just the position the UK was in in April 1917)you are broke. Do you know any other definition f being broke? It is irrelevant if other people owe you money (as long as they can not pay or do not have to pay) or if you have other assets as long as you find no buyer. If you cannot pay your invoices anymore you are broke. And Britain had no way to pay back the overdraft at JP. And if you two claim it was not, well, at least the UK government in 1917 thought it was.
As I said, with strict rationing the UK could have gone on for a while on 50% of the calories (a far more severe lack than the one Germany was facing, that's why only for a while), yes, they could stop all offensives because of the lack of steel but how do they make up for a loss of 70% of the oil? Britain was far more dependent on imports than Germany was.
So it is not "the same situation". Germany was not dependent on steel, food and oil imports to continue the war until 1918.
They knew that Britain was in trouble financially - the Fed's disapproval of unrestricted loans was public - but they couldn't judge how rapidly it would take effect.
At that time it looked as if 1917 would be a repeat of 1916 (an "annus horribilis" for Germany) but even worse. So it would probably be the last year of the war. And if Britain were to go bankrupt in, say, September 1917, that would be no help to a Germany which had already been defeated in August.
Also, they had to think beyond the end of the war. If they rejected USW, and Germany went on to lose, the Pan-Germans would scream bloody murder - "We'd have won if you lily-livered schweinhunds had agreed to USW." TTL, of course, there would be no way of disproving this, and those who had rejected USW would at best have signed their political death warrants, and in some cases maybe their actual ones.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Where does the 50% reduction in calories come from? The UK didn't introduce compulsory rationing until December 1917. Food intake over the course of the war only dropped by 3-6% due to a massive increase in home grown production to offset the high levels of imported food in 1914. By 1917 imported food was only 12.5% of the total. Germany on the other hand was on rationing by mid 1916 and by summer of 1917 the average calorie intake was 50% of pre-war levels.
Steel - the UK imported around 30% of the iron ore it needed. If all of this disappeared then there would be critical shortages. but note that the UK had not moved to a war economy in the same way as the German already had. German GDP dropped by 20% almost immediately the war started - by redirecting civilian investment much of the iron and steel could be repurposed.
Finally oil - it was important and tanker losses were severely affecting oil imports But this isn't an all or nothing situation - around 40% of UK oil consumption came from Scottish oil shale. Would it impact the UK economy - absolutely. Is it a case of no oil, no war? Absolutely not.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Considering they didn't even have central management of oil stocks until June 1917 the UK government was hardly a shining example of a Total War economy.
Germany doesn't need "longer". We know from OTL, they had enough left to keep on fighting until into 1918. US neutrality is hardly going to make their situation worse. As a matter of fact US entry in OTL completely plugged the parts of the blockade that were leaky. So if anything the German economic situation improves a tad.
If Britain starts a fire sale of colonies and the like, that's sending a clear signal to all third parties on how "well" things are going. Actions speak louder than words. Once Russia drops out, chances are other countries smell blood in the water.
So with Russia dropping out now having happened yet, but clearly on the horizon, you don't need to be a defeatist to consider it might be better to negotiate a peace as a united front, than after some of your allies have bailed.
Derek Pullem
Donor
All of these premises basically assume that the UK won't fight as long or endure as much as the Germans will?
Why is that?
Why is that?
And from a much superior start point at that!
The British had nothing along the lines of the Turnip winter
I recall an account from a German officer during the Micheal offensive who upon taking ownership of a British dugout was stunned to see that the British had used tins of bully beef to create a level floor.
Or just that she won't be able to subsidise her allies' war efforts as well as her own.
ferdi254
Banned
Maybe, the Britisch could fight on as long as end of 1918. Maybe without the moral boost the British army and populace got by the DOW of the USA and with severe rationing, cutting down on all ends on the economy. the population in the UK would go along. Maybe, but an offer "You keep the colonies, we withdraw in the west and in the east we have free hand" would look more and more enticing. But maybe the UK stays in the war. Large handwavium applied. But then:
Russia? They collapsed 1917. Italy without USA and UK help? Collapsing after Caporetto? And then it is Germany and AH plus OE against France and the UK. This well end even worse than the above proposal. Especially with a Germany that does not have to defend against big attacks, has better supplies etc...
And that still assumes that France, with its economy also being severely hit would be able to put up any fight. Petain has the option to stop any offensives until the Americans arrived. Without that?
Oh ant btw Deerek can you give a quote for the 12.5%? that would have mean nearly a doubling of own produced food. All figures I can show is that it hardly grew and the import was up to 60%. (sugar at 100%).The only place I can find 12.5% was on meat but not due to higher production but due to lower imports.
Russia? They collapsed 1917. Italy without USA and UK help? Collapsing after Caporetto? And then it is Germany and AH plus OE against France and the UK. This well end even worse than the above proposal. Especially with a Germany that does not have to defend against big attacks, has better supplies etc...
And that still assumes that France, with its economy also being severely hit would be able to put up any fight. Petain has the option to stop any offensives until the Americans arrived. Without that?
Oh ant btw Deerek can you give a quote for the 12.5%? that would have mean nearly a doubling of own produced food. All figures I can show is that it hardly grew and the import was up to 60%. (sugar at 100%).The only place I can find 12.5% was on meat but not due to higher production but due to lower imports.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
The OE is collapsing in 1917-18 in any case.
The issue is whether France can outlast Austria-Hungary