WWI Result without American Involvement

What Would the Outcome of WWI Have Been Without American Involvement?

  • Central Powers Victory

    Votes: 58 26.2%

  • Stalemate

    Votes: 61 27.6%

  • Allied Victory, But Much Later

    Votes: 30 13.6%

  • Allied Victory, But Slightly Later

    Votes: 61 27.6%

  • Allied Victory At Roughly The Same Time As IOTL

    Votes: 11 5.0%
  • Total voters
    221

Cloudy Vortex

I dunno. The Germans were running out of everything. France's Renault FT-17 was the best of the war and the only one that could've broken the lines, though it wouldn't have been definitive. Just a break in a few places.

I suppose the real answer lies in who would suffered a revolution first, since London, Paris, and Berlin had developed an all-or-nothing attitude about the war. The nations they led suffered too much to tolerate their enemy(ies) standing to fight again in their lifetimes (ironic and tragic). I just don't see them fighting to exhaustion. I see them fighting until either the Hohenzollerns or the Third Republic are overthrown. King and Parliament wouldn't be overthrown. I can see them opt for some kind of trucelike peace, once the government is voted out. But, if Germany defeats France and tries to wrestle France's empire away, forget it. It'd be the Napoleonic Wars all over again. The Royal Navy was still so overwelming that the UK could still blockade all of Europe at will at little expense or risk for a generation. Only the USN was a threat, and they were friendly. Hell, the US might even be more understanding and hold off on the ill-prepared-invasion-of-Canada this time. That'll help. ;)
 
Last edited:

The Sandman

Banned
I repeat my question: does anyone have any figures on available manpower for France, Britain and Germany in 1918? Because I think the major limiting factor is that none of the combatants can sustain the war for much longer. Assuming that the Germans don't have enough manpower to take Paris (although Reims and/or Amiens might be plausible) and that the Allies don't have the manpower to throw the Germans out of France, you have a peace of exhaustion that amounts to a German win, since the Germans have a slightly better hand at the negotiating table.

And without the US in the war, there aren't any nations in the war that matter except those three. Not by 1918, at any rate.
 

Larrikin

Banned
No USA in WWI

The CP's economies were well and truly in the toilet. They were suffering major shortages in production in both industrials and agriculture.

What people neglect when they talk about the US and its effect on the Western Front, and the Russian withdrawal is that in Sept-Oct of 1918 the other 3 CPs collapsed and sued for peace. This freed up something in the vicinity of 1 million veteran British and French troops, plus the Italians. For all that Germany could transfer troops back form the occupied territories in the east, that couldn't transfer all of them, and the Entente would have quite happily supplied and equipped the Poles through the Black Sea.

The territories gained at Brest-Litovsk wouldn't have been contributing to the German economy until at least 1920, possibly later, and they would have been taking from it in terms of occupation forces and in scarce resources to rebuild the infrastructure to enable the production on resources and food to make it to Germany.
 

M79

Without US troops on the ground there are still severe manpower questions in the West. Certainly the Ottomans are in trouble, but will the rest crumble if they think they'll win in <12 months?

Again, I think without the US that France will eventually unravel and it starts a chain of events leading to a semi-negotiated end of the war.
 
Fenwick

Fenwick

Okay so we have 40 divisions giving Germany over 190 divisions on the Western front. Now how long shall we give the East to settle down? A year? two years?

Not only does Germany get to secure not fight for the East, AH gets to do the same. So how many divisions can they throw at Italy?

Better question: How long till the goods from the East get to Germany? Six months? a year?

So WI the war from 1918 on was fought in this manner: dig in and wait for supplies. Seriously if Germany makes no more offenses, and focuses on maintaining itself, plus taking what it wants from Belurus, Ukraine, and the Baltics could Germany not get that influx of supplies to keep it adrift for a few more years of war, or atleast prop itself up awhile longer? After all the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave German puppets 9/10ths of Russian coal mines, the farmlands of the Ukraine, and here is something I just realized a lot more people. So six months you may get the Estonian Expeditionary Force marching West. Even if it is a 1,000 troops, that frees up a 1,000 Germans.

I think that we are focusing, myself included, on the big powers to much. After all it wasn't AH, or Germany that gave up first it was Bulgaria. How about the Germans give alittle more help to AH, or if anyone has the figures AH troops from the East going to the Italian front?

Given enough pushing let's assume another repeat of the battle of Caporeto with Italian forces in shambles. Two big defeats seemingly in a row may break the italian morale, all the more so if they break the Italian lines with British and French allies. Or maybe Caporeto is not stopped due to the lack of Americans in the region, though I doubt it (once again need hard figures).

So say italy loses big time and asks for a cease fire. What would that do to French and British morale? Two allies gone within months, and now facing Germany and her allies at what may seem like its strongest (yes yes on their last legs, but the boys in the trenches have been hearing that since the war started).
 

The Sandman

Banned
Larrikin said:
The CP's economies were well and truly in the toilet. They were suffering major shortages in production in both industrials and agriculture.

What people neglect when they talk about the US and its effect on the Western Front, and the Russian withdrawal is that in Sept-Oct of 1918 the other 3 CPs collapsed and sued for peace. This freed up something in the vicinity of 1 million veteran British and French troops, plus the Italians. For all that Germany could transfer troops back form the occupied territories in the east, that couldn't transfer all of them, and the Entente would have quite happily supplied and equipped the Poles through the Black Sea.

The territories gained at Brest-Litovsk wouldn't have been contributing to the German economy until at least 1920, possibly later, and they would have been taking from it in terms of occupation forces and in scarce resources to rebuild the infrastructure to enable the production on resources and food to make it to Germany.
Click to expand...

First issue is that, barring US participation, Italy is no longer capable of fighting in 1918, assuming they aren't forced to the conference table after Caporetto (with the US on the sidelines, the British and French might be more reticent about sending significant numbers of troops to Italy's aid when they have the specter of increased German activity on the Western Front. In point of fact, the lack of American involvement will probably slow Allied operations in the Middle East and Balkans as well; without American manpower infusions imminent, reinforcements will have to come from somewhere.

On the economic side, a lot depends upon when the Americans declare neutrality and how neutral they intend to be; France wasn't in good economic shape either (what with its most industrialized and resource-laden region either occupied or a war zone), and any American neutrality that allows for a larger U-boat campaign in 1915-16 will devastate the British economy as well.

And to what extent did each side know just how badly the other side was hurting in the last year of the war? It doesn't matter if Bulgaria or A-H or Germany is on the verge of collapse as long as the British and French don't realize this before the ceasefire.
 

Gladi

Italy is not going to collapse to A-H, or if it is provide reason. And Italian Army suxxorz, is not an answer.
 

The Sandman

Banned
The Italians lost 300,000 men at Caporetto and in its aftermath, and were thrown back to the Piave River, about 15 miles from Venice. French and British reinforcements (six divisions worth in OTL) were a large part of why the Austrians waited until June 1918 to launch a follow-up assault aimed at Venice and Padua, along with German withdrawal of troops for the Spring Offensive.

Assuming that the British and French can't afford to send as many reinforcements, and that the Germans feel they can safely leave their Italian troops in place for a little longer, the follow-up attack across the Piave happens in late November or early December, when the Italians are still reeling. Even if the Italians manage to get the remains of their army out to safety, they lose the rest of the Veneto and may be forced back to the Po. At that point, Italy probably calls it a day.
 

Gladi

You are completely ignoring that Austrian army was collapsing in 1917, companies were picking up and marching home, several mutinies had to be supressed with force.
 

M79

Bulgaria surrenders in late September 1918 after a counteroffensive into its territory threatens Sofia and A-H lost Piave due to poor intelligence (11 supplemental Allied divisions from UK/FRA, revelation of the time of their attack, and flooded bridges all along the Piave). A-H units had allowed Italian units time to recover and their own morale/supplies were in the toilet. An earlier attack might easily allow A-H to occupy Venice and perhaps Verona and Mantua, and if A-H gets to the Po River most of northern Italy comes under threat. Retaking Venice alone gives them a morale boost, keeping the US out of the war prevents morale loss to A-H in the first place.
 
Fenwick

Fenwick

Gladi said:
You are completely ignoring that Austrian army was collapsing in 1917, companies were picking up and marching home, several mutinies had to be supressed with force.
Click to expand...

True, but the Battle of Caporetto was in November of 1917. With German reinforcements only 35 divisions defeated 41, and pushed almost 100 km into Italy; 275,000 prisoners were taken and 2,500 guns captured; 11,000 were killed and 20,000 wounded.

What stoped them was not the Italian army but the combined efforts of Italy, England, France, and the USA. Plus the German divisions had to leave for the Spring offenses, so that left just the Austrians. With the Germans having no reason to leave I could see either another offensive or a better defense for the region.

Of course this loss also lead to the creation of the Supreme War Council, however once again without the American manpower coming in to free up more experinced divisions, and Germany not forced to make a "knockout blow", I wonder how well such a move will work.
 

Dean_the_Young

By no American involvement, I assume you mean actual neutrality? From what I remember, America's biggest contribution to the Allies wasn't manpower (which was needed), but finances. Several American buisnessmen arranged large loans to keep the Allies out of bankruptcy. An strictly neutral US might not have allowed that to happen, and so the Allies might have gone under economically if for no other reason. Man power was also a shortage for the Allies, as I seem to recall France at one point seriously considering making a seperate peace with Germany before American reinforcements arrived.

A US with colder relations with the Allies over some conflict in the past (Civil War? Canada dispute?) could be disastrous even without actually fighting, as they could tie down troops in Canada to prevent an invasion, as well as not selling weapons to the allies.
 

M79

The Allies did offer peace terms just before US intervention, they sound a lot like the Versailles Treaty.
http://www.bartleby.com/67/1769.html
Another possibility that we've only dabbled with is continued US efforts to bring the war to an end by negotiation, granted after Brest-Litovsk this becomes more difficult but perhaps if one Ally like Italy of France falls the rest come to the table. I still think the CP gains a military victory but negotiated peace is not out of the question.
 

The Sandman

Banned
If anyone can get in touch with Tom B1 over at Grey Wolf's board, he would probably have some useful info on this subject.

IIRC, the French made up a significant portion of their OTL shortfall in various raw materials (particularly nitrates) by importing from the US; given true US neutrality, those imports might dry up.

Oh, and if we need a POD to cause American neutrality, here's one possibility: German spies somehow find out about the sizeable load of munitions that the Lusitania was carrying on her OTL last voyage. While unrestricted submarine warfare has been declared, an exception is to be made in this case. Instead of being sunk outright, the Lusitania is stopped and boarded by the German submarine that sank her in OTL.

The resulting news of the British knowingly putting American citizens at risk by illegaly loading war materials onto a civilian vessel (thus making her a legitimate target) sparks a "plague on both your houses) reaction in the US, with the US declaring complete neutrality in the conflict.
 

RCTFI

Nice...

The Sandman said:
If anyone can get in touch with Tom B1 over at Grey Wolf's board, he would probably have some useful info on this subject.

IIRC, the French made up a significant portion of their OTL shortfall in various raw materials (particularly nitrates) by importing from the US; given true US neutrality, those imports might dry up.

Oh, and if we need a POD to cause American neutrality, here's one possibility: German spies somehow find out about the sizeable load of munitions that the Lusitania was carrying on her OTL last voyage. While unrestricted submarine warfare has been declared, an exception is to be made in this case. Instead of being sunk outright, the Lusitania is stopped and boarded by the German submarine that sank her in OTL.

The resulting news of the British knowingly putting American citizens at risk by illegaly loading war materials onto a civilian vessel (thus making her a legitimate target) sparks a "plague on both your houses) reaction in the US, with the US declaring complete neutrality in the conflict.
Click to expand...

Nice idea for a POD to keep the Americans out of the war.

Oh, and I'd really have to argue for a CP win or at least a more equitable peace. The French and Italians were on their last legs, the Russians were out of the fighting... Austria-Hungary might have managed to actually hold together for a little longer.
As for the whole thing with Bulgaria, maybe some German troops from the eastern front could have been sent there, since a knock-out blow against the western allies wasn't so critical?
Just a thought...
 

M79

I also think A-H will fall apart if the CPs win but that Austria, Czech areas, and perhaps Galicia will gravitate into Germany while Hungary tries to unify the rest between 1925 and 1935.
 

Gladi

M79 said:
I also think A-H will fall apart if the CPs win but that Austria, Czech areas, and perhaps Galicia will gravitate into Germany while Hungary tries to unify the rest between 1925 and 1935.
Click to expand...

Why, oh god why, would Czechs gravitate towards something they have resoundingly said NO! seventy years beforehand?
 
Last edited:

Tyr

The allies were already beaten.
Went with slightly later but it may well have been pretty much the same time. Its just the cost to the entente will be a bit worse.
 

Alratan

Interestingly, if no American entry results in the war dragging into 1919, we will probably see the RN plan to use naval aviation to destroy the HSF at anchor come into play, which would have significant knock ons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top