WW1 Ends in 1919 question

Flubber

Banned
So if the americans didnt enter the war officially they would still help the allies, what impact would this have on the situation in 1919 ?

As has already been explained to you, the only way the war can last until 1919 is if the US supports the Entente in some fashion and supports them in a more direct fashion than it did between 1914-1916.

By the spring of 1917, the Entente was running out of money and the collateral needed for additional loans. Because the US Treasury would not sanction unsecured loans, the UK's war spending was about to take a substantial hit and, because it's war spending was subsidized by the UK, France's spending will be effected even worse.

It looked as if the first few months of 1917 would be a race between the Entente's war winding down as their loans dried up and Germany's new USW campaign triggering some kind of US intervention. Then the idiotic Zimmerman Telegram entered the equation and the US entered the war. With US entry, the Entente received the uncollateralized loans it needed to last through 1918.

If you want the war to last past 1917, you either need the US to join the war or the Entente to find the monies it needs.
 
There is. Colonies, Eastern Europe, reperations size, pursuit of war criminals, organization of new Germany etc. 1918 was an ceasefire - not yet peace.

But the OTL armistice did "settle" these matters inasmuch as it left Germany unable to resume hostilities and so obliged to sign up to whatever the Allies demanded.

Incidentally it definitely settled the questions of Eastern Europe and colonies as far as Germany was concerned, by requiring German withdrawal from those places.



Still the French outnumbered the BEF - I'm not knowledgeable to say why did the BEF have better results - maybe they simply were deployed where there were more Germans? Point is,even without the French the rest of the Allies can keep the war going - and win.

Sorry, you've lost me completely now. The armistice terms as drafted OTL were pretty much what the French commanders wanted, while Haig would have been content with less. The only one who advocated more was Pershing, whose ulterior motive was obvious, and who on this TL may not even be there. He was in any case a minority of one, unsupported even by his own CinC, President Wilson.

Foch and Petain wanted to occupy the Rhineland, but didn't want to fight for it unless they had to. If they could get it without fighting, under the terms of an armistice (as OTL they could and did) they were of course perfectly content to do so. Why on earth not?

As for the Germans, they might not seek an immediate armistice if they think they can defend their own frontier. OTL, though, they knew they couldn't, and prolonging the war into 1919 doesn't alter that in any obvious way. So once their border is threatened they still quit. To change that you have to get rid of the entire German leadership (even Ludendorff) and replace them with somebody akin to Hitler, who would rather see Germany annihilated than accept defeat. In WW1 no such person existed anywhere near the levers of power.
 
Last edited:
War was going to come even without the Telegram, its just a question of when. The Uboat offensive was causing major political problems in the US, but it was the Telegram which undercut all support for Germany left in the American public. The Uboat offensive will have to be called off to keep the US neutral.


One possible butterfly. WI Wilson goes for putting US merchant ships in convoy with naval escort, rather than arming the merchantmen themselves?

OTL he rejected this option because the US Navy (like the RN at this point in time) was against the idea, believing that convoy wouldn't work. However, Wilson had quite a record of ignoring expert advice when it didn't accord with his inclination, so he might have gone ahead anyway.

If this happens, probably no US merchantmen are sunk in February or March. OTL, convoyed ships only got sunk rarely, with u-boats preferring to go after unescorted ones. Diplomatic relations are still severed, but after that the excitement dies down until the ZT is revealed - and even that may make less impact with no American ships going down. After all, even OTL Wilson does not appear to have finally opted for war until about March 20 - virtually a full month after he first read the ZT. He could be very stubborn.
 
So if the americans didnt enter the war officially they would still help the allies, what impact would this have on the situation in 1919 ?

For the US to go on helping the Allies would require unsecured loans, which won't happen unless the US enters the war.

What is possible, however, it for America to declare war, but not send troops to Europe, instead fighting a purely naval war and otherwise confining its support for the Allies to the economic sphere. Herbert Hoover was a strong advocate of this, and it would have commanded wide support in Congress and elsewhere. Had Wilson died or been crippled by a stroke soon after the DoW, a Midwesterner like Tom Marshall might have adopted such a policy.

In this case, the Allies still get the supplies, but no AEF. If they can stop the German offensives without it, the lack of US troops may slow their advance enough to prolong the war into 1919. However, there's little reason to expect major change from this, as the Germans will still pack it in if they can't stop the Allies and invasion appears likely.
 
Comment...

I've thought about this one as well - given what happened in WW2 and what generally happens as major combatants face the possibility of fighting on their home soil and having damage inflicted on their own kith and kin instead of other people's, I suspect German resistance would have stiffened appreciably at the border.

It's also worth remembering that the one thing guaranteed to galvanise revolutionary movements is the threat of external intervention especially if that is perceived to be counter-revolutionary. Look at France from 1792-94 or the US or even Russia - all revolutionary states facing counter-revolutionary external military threats, and all beaten back.

Had allied forces entered Germany and perhaps captured Aachen, it might have acted as a rallying call for nationalists and revolutionaries alike and the Ebert social democrats would likely have lost control of the situation leading to civil war and/or some form of backlash.

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that a German nationalist revolution in early 1919 would have led to the expulsion of the invaders by a revived military, no longer Prussian in tone but more genuinely pan-German.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
For the US to go on helping the Allies would require unsecured loans, which won't happen unless the US enters the war.

What is possible, however, it for America to declare war, but not send troops to Europe, instead fighting a purely naval war and otherwise confining its support for the Allies to the economic sphere. Herbert Hoover was a strong advocate of this, and it would have commanded wide support in Congress and elsewhere. Had Wilson died or been crippled by a stroke soon after the DoW, a Midwesterner like Tom Marshall might have adopted such a policy.

In this case, the Allies still get the supplies, but no AEF. If they can stop the German offensives without it, the lack of US troops may slow their advance enough to prolong the war into 1919. However, there's little reason to expect major change from this, as the Germans will still pack it in if they can't stop the Allies and invasion appears likely.

Wilson was big on getting one USA Division (29,000 men) to Europe, but some even in the USA thought it would be 1919 before the USA arrived in force. One way to do this scenario is no Zimmerman, the war is declared in Late May (Wiking), but because of no Zimmerman, there is less funding. IOTL, the initial authorization was only 500K additional men, and the size of the USA army was actually decreasing because of no "stop-loss" and no draft. So say the 500K troop act is still passed, but without any conscription. In the civil war it took a couple of years for the draft. The USA has an authorized strength of 800K, but the USA is unable to get enough volunteers. The USA has one division in Europe in 1918, and begins to trickle in in 1919. At some point in time, the draft will be used, but if it is say 6-9 months late it might be enough for the desired scenario. The USA goes to war 2 months late, it takes another month to pass the war bill, and it takes another 3-6 months more to pass the draft. All this is compared to OTL, but it is plausible, IMO.
 
Had allied forces entered Germany and perhaps captured Aachen, it might have acted as a rallying call for nationalists and revolutionaries alike and the Ebert social democrats would likely have lost control of the situation leading to civil war and/or some form of backlash.

I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that a German nationalist revolution in early 1919 would have led to the expulsion of the invaders by a revived military, no longer Prussian in tone but more genuinely pan-German.


Ludendorff had some such notion, and the Allied side entertained similar fantasies about Russia when the Tsar was overthrown.

In reality, however, all revolutions during WW1 soon took an antiwar direction even if they didn't start out that way. Whether it was the Russian PG trying to stay loyal to its allies, or the Weimar Republic looking for a way to avoid signing the Treaty of Versailles, such regimes soon found that their people simply wouldn't rally round the flag any more. They'd had a bellyfull, which was the essential reason why the revolutions happened in the first place.

That's why I take it as certain that Germany has to quit once the line gets near her borders. The levee en masse wont work, because the masse just ain't willing to levee any more.
 
Last edited:
A Great War draging on in to 1919 would mean that The Netherlands would chose a side.
Not becuase they want to but because they are simply forced due to starvation.
The entente blockade was causing by 1918 severe problems in the food suply, starvation was not the question in 1918 but loomed if the conflict took longer.
Most likely the side they choose was the entente side. Germany was as well on the brink of starvation and the Dutch East Indies and West Indies would be overrun by the British if they sided with the Central powers. even a lot of memebrs of the officer corps favoured the Germans.
Tactical it would mean no much difference, the Dutch army maximum mobilized size would contain 500 000 men but lacked sufficient artilery and combat experience, and the common soldier, motivation.
On the other hand it would give the entente an ohter front.
 
A Great War draging on in to 1919 would mean that The Netherlands would chose a side.

Tactical it would mean no much difference, the Dutch army maximum mobilized size would contain 500 000 men but lacked sufficient artilery and combat experience, and the common soldier, motivation.
On the other hand it would give the entente an ohter front.

So we could see an end via a northern thrust down the german line rather than a french assualt on the Rhineland ?
 

MSZ

Banned
But the OTL armistice did "settle" these matters inasmuch as it left Germany unable to resume hostilities and so obliged to sign up to whatever the Allies demanded.

Incidentally it definitely settled the questions of Eastern Europe and colonies as far as Germany was concerned, by requiring German withdrawal from those places.

Still, Germany was capable of some action, at least in Eastern Europe. Armistices are by definition temporary - there has to be a signed Peace Treaty to call matters "settled".

Sorry, you've lost me completely now. The armistice terms as drafted OTL were pretty much what the French commanders wanted, while Haig would have been content with less. The only one who advocated more was Pershing, whose ulterior motive was obvious, and who on this TL may not even be there. He was in any case a minority of one, unsupported even by his own CinC, President Wilson.

Foch and Petain wanted to occupy the Rhineland, but didn't want to fight for it unless they had to. If they could get it without fighting, under the terms of an armistice (as OTL they could and did) they were of course perfectly content to do so. Why on earth not?

As for the Germans, they might not seek an immediate armistice if they think they can defend their own frontier. OTL, though, they knew they couldn't, and prolonging the war into 1919 doesn't alter that in any obvious way. So once their border is threatened they still quit. To change that you have to get rid of the entire German leadership (even Ludendorff) and replace them with somebody akin to Hitler, who would rather see Germany annihilated than accept defeat. In WW1 no such person existed anywhere near the levers of power.

So we agree that should the Allies demand more the Germans would accept since they had little choice other than resistance to the bitter end. If France suffers for a few more months, the Germans show greater sidnes of weakening than OTL and the French can't be certain of a few hundred thousand americans having their back, they might push for more just to secure themselves. OTL that was the French foreign policy - knowing well that they couldn't match Germany alone they sought to weaken it as much as they could. This policy wouldn't change ITTL but might lead to different - perhaps more drastic - action.

So we could see an end via a northern thrust down the german line rather than a french assualt on the Rhineland ?

Personally, I don't think that is very likely. The British would oppose the Netherlands joining the war on either side, too afraid of France possibly 'dominating' it.

And why would the Netherlands join it in the first place? Just like Belgium it mostly sought to be a viewed as a neutral state. Was there any pro-war movement in the Netherlands? (I haven't heard of it, but then I haven't touched the subject)
 
So we agree that should the Allies demand more the Germans would accept since they had little choice other than resistance to the bitter end. If France suffers for a few more months, the Germans show greater sidnes of weakening than OTL and the French can't be certain of a few hundred thousand americans having their back, they might push for more just to secure themselves.

What "more" did you have in mind?

Remember it can only be whatever they are willing to occupy after their forces have been demobbed, so at most can only be slightly more than OTL. Also, if OTL is any guide, whatever it is it will be evacuated anyway within a decade or so. OTL, the ToV entitled the Allies to occupy the Rhineland till 1935, but they got tired and pulled out by 1930. So expect any change to be minor and temporary.
 
Last edited:

MSZ

Banned
What "more" did you have in mind?

Remember it can only be whatever they are willing to occupy after their forces have been demobbed, so at most can only be slightly more than OTL. Also, if OTL is any guide, whatever it is it will be evacuated anyway within a decade or so. OTL, the ToV entitled the Allies to occupy the Rhineland till 1935, but they got tired and pulled out by 1930. So expect any change to be minor and temporary.

I didn't expect the changes to be major or permanent, but I would expect to be present. Like more pressure on forming the Rheinish Republik and greater limitations on the German Army and larger reperations. They wouldn't last of course but they would be present.
 
So we could see an end via a northern thrust down the german line rather than a french assualt on the Rhineland ?

Why do you assume that they would side with the Entente? They had always been far more German friendly and they have more to gain with Germany who could offer them Belgium and all its colonies which they would jump at rather than the Entente who cant offer them much.
 
Sorry I shouldnt really assume anything given how little I know.:eek:

Im just trying to collect as much info on the scenario as possible.
 
Why do you assume that they would side with the Entente? They had always been far more German friendly and they have more to gain with Germany who could offer them Belgium and all its colonies which they would jump at rather than the Entente who cant offer them much.

eliphas8

Even presuming that German was willing to offer them that and it looked even remotely possible for the central powers to win at this point why would the Dutch want to annex Belgium. True it has a good industrial base, once you're repaired all the damage the war and sabotage has done. But it also has its own population, which for the last 4 years have made clear that it wants to be independent. Not to mention as said by others there's no way the Dutch would keep their existing colonies let alone gain the Congo.

Steve
 
Top