WI: Romania remains neutral in WWI

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

What it says on the tin.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What it says on the tin.

Central Powers win. Falkenhayn keeps his job, doesn't renew the Uboat war, the US stays neutral and doesn't offer unsecured loans to the Entente after April 1917, so the Entente war effort grinds to a halt and a peace deal is cut that favors the CPs.

 

[NKVD]

You can probably avoid Romanian entry if the Central Powers maintain the upper hand. I think, IOTL, they didn't really have any casus belli -- the Allies just convinced them to join.

Also, originally Romania was close to Germany, since their king was a Hohenzollern and all. But the two drifted apart, I think, over Austria's annexation of Bosnia, or something else. It's an early POD anyways.

I'd imagine the effects of Romanian neutrality would be somewhat inconsequential, considering how badly they were curbstomped by Austria and Bulgaria.

 

[BlondieBC]

Central Powers win. Falkenhayn keeps his job, doesn't renew the Uboat war, the US stays neutral and doesn't offer unsecured loans to the Entente after April 1917, so the Entente war effort grinds to a halt and a peace deal is cut that favors the CPs.

Agreed.

And it is also important to understand the CP likely win even if for some reason the USW warfare resumes. Romania supplied 1 million tons of cereal. To a large extent, you are fixing the worst of the CP food issues in large areas. And then there is the the troops used. While some likely remain near the Romanian border, you will move all the ammo consumption and most of the troops to another theater. In 1916, this will be more A-H troops to the east. Russia will be hit a lot harder in 1917. The may well be knocked out of the war a good bit earlier (early 1917), and this sets off a chain of positive events in France. Germany has a much, much bigger window of time, more troops, more ammo to break the French before meaningful USA forces arrive in mid 1918. And with more food around, A-H can make it into 1919 in most scenarios. While not guaranteed if this is the only change, we have a series of events likely to break the CP way.

1) No USW = clear CP win.

2) Barring #1, Major CP offensive in summer of 1917 may well take out France.

3) In worst case where Russia last exactly as long as OTL, Germany has had more corps all of 1917 and early 1918 to use in France. Germany has a better strategic position. The Allied counter attack will be later and will start farther west. A-H will survive into 1919. In 1919 in many TL with this basic scenario, we are looking at an exhausted France unable to attack in a major way. The UK has domestic issues and is also growing tired. USA divisions are still green and less than the standards set by France/UK/Germany. Italy is in bad shape and will need help. It will be a tough and bloody year in 1919. A full campaign season to win.

 

[Vingilótë]

I think it's interesting that a Romanian non-entry is, looking at it, a very underused POD. Of most of the (admittedly quite large) plethora of CP victories, a lot of PODs tend towards 1917 and directly keeping America out the war.

I think that in some respects, this might be influenced by how Romania after entering the war; didn't last very long; casting a shadow over its effect on the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

I think it's interesting that a Romanian non-entry is, looking at it, a very underused POD. Of most of the (admittedly quite large) plethora of CP victories, a lot of PODs tend towards 1917 and directly keeping America out the war.

I think that in some respects, this might be influenced by how Romania after entering the war; didn't last very long; casting a shadow over its effect on the war.

I would go more with most poster on the board speak English, so we tend to use English or American history books. These books tend to understate the war in the east. Some easy examples. IMO Brusilov offensive (1916) was more important to the war than Verdun. Brusilov broke the A-H offensive ability for rest of war. It was a decisive win. On Verdun, we basically have a bloody battle that we can argue was it better or worse than simply not attacking. In 1914, Lemberg falling (really miss use of 2nd AH army) is more important in the war than the battle for Marne. Pemberg is more important than race for the sea. WW1, like WW2, was a war won/lost in the east. The main difference is the Tsar regime was too weak internally to survive the cost of winning.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I would go more with most poster on the board speak English, so we tend to use English or American history books. These books tend to understate the war in the east.

There are virtually no books on the East in English outside a few I can count on both hands.

Some easy examples. IMO Brusilov offensive (1916) was more important to the war than Verdun. Brusilov broke the A-H offensive ability for rest of war. It was a decisive win.

It also broke the Russian army and was a very important precursor to causing the fall of the Czar and Russian Revolution. It also brought the Romanians into the war and brought Ludendorff to power, which directly led to the Germans losing WW1. In that sense it was by far the most important campaign of the war and potentially the very bloodiest, dwarfing even the Somme.

On Verdun, we basically have a bloody battle that we can argue was it better or worse than simply not attacking.

Verdun was famous for being in such as small area, so long, and breaking the French army, as about 75% of its was rotated through the meat grinder there.

In 1914, Lemberg falling (really miss use of 2nd AH army) is more important in the war than the battle for Marne.

The loss of Lemberg was not all that important, but the smashing of the A-H army really was the decisive act in the East; it set the tone for the A-H war effort for the rest of the war. The Marne was important though too, so I'm not comfortable saying Lemberg was more important.

Pemberg is more important than race for the sea. WW1, like WW2, was a war won/lost in the east. The main difference is the Tsar regime was too weak internally to survive the cost of winning.

Again, the Race to the Sea would have been a total game changer in the West if Germany won it, because it would have prevented much of the land effort of Britain in France, instead focusing it on defending Britain from German naval threats in the Channel AND locking even more troops in Britain proper in case of naval invasion (even if it was more a panic than reality). I have to disagree that the war was won or lost in the East in WW1; it was really won in the West in WW1, but the East made much greater impact than commonly thought.

 

[Anaxagoras]

There are virtually no books on the East in English outside a few I can count on both hands.

Norman Stone's book is the only general history on the war in the East in English that seems to be read all that much. I would love to see some more material.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Norman Stone's book is the only general history on the war in the East in English that seems to be read all that much. I would love to see some more material.

Churchill's book isn't too bad and there are some older general histories as well. Mostly its been specialized books on specific battles and campaigns. I've very lucky that I can muddle through German, so I can get a different perspective AND more detailed information than just what Stone had to say. I've even found the Russian official history of WW1 online and thanks to the magic of google translate it can be read by us non-Russian readers.
http://www.runivers.ru/lib/book3171/
http://www.grwar.ru/library/Manikovsky/index.html
http://www.grwar.ru/library/index.html

 

[BlondieBC]

Again, the Race to the Sea would have been a total game changer in the West if Germany won it, because it would have prevented much of the land effort of Britain in France, instead focusing it on defending Britain from German naval threats in the Channel AND locking even more troops in Britain proper in case of naval invasion (even if it was more a panic than reality). I have to disagree that the war was won or lost in the East in WW1; it was really won in the West in WW1, but the East made much greater impact than commonly thought.

True, Calais falling would be huge, but Pemberg holding keeps Italy out of the war. And IMO, Calais falling means Gallipoli is cancelled which stops the UK from making the one HUGE decisive blunder that could have shortened the war. These 12-16 division go a long way to stabilizing the front. So lets look at two scenarios.


Italy not coming in results in an CP win in 1917 in most scenario - weakened blockade, lot more ammo to use on Russians, lot more troops for Austria to use, Romania out of war, Serbia easily could fall sooner to extra Austrian troops, Bulgaria may enter sooner. So many things that go right for CP, and I have trouble seeing pro-Entente butterflies here.

Now to Calais falling. Germany still turn east in May 1915. I have a harder time seeing Italy staying out of war, but if Italy does, it is similar to above. But if not, Somme was heavily flooded in 1916, so Verdun will likely happen. It could butterfly away Conrads mistake in 1916, but it might not. If a major Russian offensive happens, Russia will still collapse on time in 1917. But war drags on another year. To me, this is why Pemberg is more important.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Now to Calais falling. Germany still turn east in May 1915. I have a harder time seeing Italy staying out of war, but if Italy does, it is similar to above. But if not, Somme was heavily flooded in 1916, so Verdun will likely happen. It could butterfly away Conrads mistake in 1916, but it might not. If a major Russian offensive happens, Russia will still collapse on time in 1917. But war drags on another year. To me, this is why Pemberg is more important.

Calais falling could keep Italy out of the war, especially if Gallipoli is cancelled and Russia is left twisting in the wind. In fact without Gallipoli Russia might make a separate peace because the West has made no effort to help her. The Ottomans then have lots of troops and supplies to use on other fronts, including against Russia in the Caucasus and Britain, if they even try, in Mesopotamia. Italy would have to judge that too. Britain would be tied down fighting on the Western Front in 1915 in several offensives, where they did very poorly IOTL, so they get bleed out against German defenses as per OTL but on a higher scale. Perhaps then Falkenhayn doesn't let Ludendorff wastefully bash against the Dvina line in Autumn. The Central Powers are then relatively stronger in 1916, especially thanks to the Ottomans, who can open up a bigger front against the Russians, drawing off more strength there, potentially turning Persia into a battle ground and causing the British all sorts of headaches.
Germany can then take a more active role in the East or in Italy in 1916.

Beyond that there is the economic consequences to consider; France would have lost the critical farming and coal mining of the Pas-de-Calais/Nord region, plus probably at least 1 million more people, which makes their army weaker in 1916, not to mention bankrupts them faster due to needing more imports of food and coal. The front line is also shorter, allowing Germany to economize on manpower even more, plus anchor themselves on some very useful river lines. A flooded Somme in 1916 in going to cause vast problems for the Entente, as then it gives Germany the ability to keep the Verdun meat grinder going, while also pushing on other fronts; the British are still bashed up from 1915 and probably hasty attacks in 1916 thanks to the panic over the Germans turning the English Channel into a major war area; this too would badly disrupt BEF supply, not to mention that imports couldn't just said down the Seine to Paris for fear of German Uboats and various smaller craft attacking/mining the mouth of the river. French rail lines were IOTL wearing out quickly by 1917-18, so this increased rail burden only increases that rate.

There is no Dover Patrol keeping Uboats from breaking into the Atlantic via the Channel, which makes Uboats that much more effective in 1915-16, which may butterfly away a return to unrestricted submarine warfare.
Plus we aren't even mentioning the vastly disruptive damage to London shipping via the Thames. A WW2 like evacuation of the city and disruption of supply of coal would be very painful to Britain in WW1 because it had less ability to adapt.

In 1915 and 1916 there is much more pressure to attack before the British army is ready than IOTL (pretty similar to the pressure that pushed Paschendaele) which would result in a major series of blood baths for the Entente instead of the attrition of the German army that the OTL Somme was.