Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

I don't think it was possible, perhaps a stalemate at best.  Both sides were pretty exhausted by the time that 1918 rolled around, although the British were finally getting savvy at the art of modern warfare by then, and would not have broken at all.  France was pretty tapped out, and I don't see them doing too much, Germany was absolutely on the ropes even with the troops released from the East, revolution was brewing, and there was a paucity of reserves for the German Army.  I see both sides just sort of coming to some sort of settlement since Germany could not win after 1917.  

I don't think it was possible for the US to stay out especially after the U-boat campaign, and the British working their end with the Zimmerman telegram, etc.  But the US was not in any way prepared for what was coming.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Murph said:

 the British working their end with the Zimmerman telegram, etc.

The British just ensured the telegram was leaked to the US.  The Germans fired that shot into their foot themselves.  Same with unconditonal undersea warfare.

Posted

The British blockade was working, even more so in Austria-Hungary than in Germany.  The Hapsburg empire was falling apart.  The Ottoman one wasn't much better.  Without US supplies, it may be that the Allies could not have conducted offensive action until a German revolution, but they could probably hold the Central Powers in France and Italy until the Central Powers collapsed.

It seems unlikely that US industry and Wall Street could be coerced into forgoing the profits to be made  by selling and lending to the Allies.  Smarter German foreign policy might have been able to keep America from declaring war, but there was too much money to be made from it to keep the US from influencing it and no obvious reason then to have Neutrality Acts like the ones passed in the thirties.. 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, R011 said:

The British just ensured the telegram was leaked to the US.  The Germans fired that shot into their foot themselves.  Same with unconditonal undersea warfare.

Never said otherwise. The Kaiser never seemed to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  

Posted
2 hours ago, R011 said:

The British blockade was working, even more so in Austria-Hungary than in Germany.  The Hapsburg empire was falling apart.  The Ottoman one wasn't much better.  Without US supplies, it may be that the Allies could not have conducted offensive action until a German revolution, but they could probably hold the Central Powers in France and Italy until the Central Powers collapsed.

It seems unlikely that US industry and Wall Street could be coerced into forgoing the profits to be made  by selling and lending to the Allies.  Smarter German foreign policy might have been able to keep America from declaring war, but there was too much money to be made from it to keep the US from influencing it and no obvious reason then to have Neutrality Acts like the ones passed in the thirties.. 

 

Very valid point, the AH Empire was crumbling no matter what was the outcome, the Hungarians were vetoing any chance of anyone else getting some power such as the Czechs, and others.  I suspect that Germany was not far behind.  As for the Ottomans, I tend to follow the book "The Peace to end all Peace" which details how Britain and France dismembered the Ottoman Empire.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Murph said:

Very valid point, the AH Empire was crumbling no matter what was the outcome, the Hungarians were vetoing any chance of anyone else getting some power such as the Czechs, and others.  I suspect that Germany was not far behind.  As for the Ottomans, I tend to follow the book "The Peace to end all Peace" which details how Britain and France dismembered the Ottoman Empire.  

That was a pretty good book. The aftermath of WW1 in the Middle East, the Balkans, and eastern Europe is pretty interesting, and kind of unknown, or at least not emphasized in the US. I forget if it was "The Peace to End All Peace" or somwhere else that I read about the forging of modern Turkey against Greek and French occupation, but I found that pretty interesting.

Posted

As per historical but no US, and the war ends in 1919 - probably to restart before 1925, and I'd expect a good deal of transatlantic tension over finance with trouble coming from both sides. German reparations would have been heavier and enforced, Depending on what happens in Russia and exactly how it ended in Germany, its likely there is a phase of government as a more constitutional monarchy under either Willy II or Willy III, there may or may not be a German Civil War.  Lord knows what happens in Russia, but there is a chance it could end well. 

Keep Turkey out and I'd speculate they could have ended the war in late 1917 or early '18 even without direct US involvement.
1/ Having the Black Sea open to merchant traffic and not having to fight in the Caucuses puts Russia in much better position across the board. 
2/ The troops not employed against the Ottomans can be used to far more effect directly against the A-H or Germans. Ottoman Neutrality would keep them out of the Black Sea which is unfortunate, but well resourced campaign into Bulgaria or Serbia, while far from easy, is going to be hitting force densities that permit a degree of manoeuvre and so prevent a viable swipe into that mythical soft underbelly

But if you want the really googly -  one change to end the war early? Keep Romania neutral. Use Anglo-French money to buy the Romanian 1917 harvest and have it tipped into the sea. 

Posted

With no US involvement the Allies would not win.

The Allies would be much shorter on shipping, raw materials and food supplies, while the Germans would be in no hurry to end the war in the west after Russia surrenders. And then there is huge impact the US troops had on the morale on both sides. They also added a big number of actually working trucks to the Allies arsenal that improved the logistics situation by a lot and formed the basis for the successful attacks at the end of the year. Now the Allies could press an attack, even if they railroads could not keep up. The war weary troops of the allies, would probably not be to eager to keep assaulting German lines without US troops arriving and without the Germans being weakened by the Spring offensive of 1918.

Posted

Its worth reflecting on something. The Spring offensive was beaten by predominantly British Imperial and French troops. So there was not much difference made by American manpower there, at the most critical point of the war. Its also interesting to compare the Amien offensive, AKA 'The Black day of the German Army', when the German Army finally started to crack, and look at the breakdown of the manpower in that offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

19 British Empire divisions
(10 British, 5 Australian, 4 Canadian)
12 French divisions
1 American division
1,104 French aircraft
800 British aircraft[3]
532 tanks[4]

Admittedly IIRC, two of those heavy tank battalions were manned by American units. But its clear with that kind of manpower, there was more than enough for them to be manned by British or Imperial troops also.

There is a  case for saying that the main impact of America entering the war was political. Admittedly the impending introduction of US Troops precipitated the Spring Offensive, which effectively burned out the German Army. But we can see in terms of manpower, American presence was dwarfed in decisive sectors by Australian or Canadian troops.

Logistics? All those model T ambulances, trucks ammunition, barbed wire? Im not knocking it, it was the arsenal of democracy in WW1 just as it latterly was in WW2. But If there was a truly invaluable contribution made militarily, Id point it more to the US Navy and their effort at escorting the convoys.

 

Posted

My memory tells me that the German homeland was falling apart with thousands dying of starvation.  How much longer could they prosecute the war?  Even the much vaunted 1918 offensive with grenadiers attacking strongpoints etc ran out of steam without too much in the way of damage top the allies.

Germany was as done then as it was aproximately thirty years later.

Posted

According to Basil Liddell Hart, and a few other historians talking on the subject, when the German Army managed to break through to the allies forward stockpiles, they found masses of new kit, boots, belts, whiskey for officers, and reflected on their own patched together equipment, and realised they had lost the war, no matter how well they were doing at that moment. So they got drunk, really drunk. And then the discipline started to fail.

It was not American manpower that made that difference, from all the evidence I can tell, they just fell apart when they realised logistically they were no match for the allies. That, and we could just keep spamming Indian Sepoys. Where were they going to get more Prussians from?

 

Posted

Excellent points here but I think the US logistical end might be over rated since we had to borrow British tanks, French airplanes, French cannons, etc.  Heck we even borrow Chauchat mg's!  

Posted
7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its worth reflecting on something. The Spring offensive was beaten by predominantly British Imperial and French troops. So there was not much difference made by American manpower there, at the most critical point of the war. Its also interesting to compare the Amien offensive, AKA 'The Black day of the German Army', when the German Army finally started to crack, and look at the breakdown of the manpower in that offensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

19 British Empire divisions
(10 British, 5 Australian, 4 Canadian)
12 French divisions
1 American division
1,104 French aircraft
800 British aircraft[3]
532 tanks[4]

Admittedly IIRC, two of those heavy tank battalions were manned by American units. But its clear with that kind of manpower, there was more than enough for them to be manned by British or Imperial troops also.

There is a  case for saying that the main impact of America entering the war was political. Admittedly the impending introduction of US Troops precipitated the Spring Offensive, which effectively burned out the German Army. But we can see in terms of manpower, American presence was dwarfed in decisive sectors by Australian or Canadian troops.

Logistics? All those model T ambulances, trucks ammunition, barbed wire? Im not knocking it, it was the arsenal of democracy in WW1 just as it latterly was in WW2. But If there was a truly invaluable contribution made militarily, Id point it more to the US Navy and their effort at escorting the convoys.

 

But the Germans attacked because the Americans were coming and it was obvious that it was either win now or loose later. Without the US, the Allies do not get that manpower growth, they do not get the industrial output and are much less well off when it comes to supplies. So, Germany could afford to wait for negotiations, because as much as Germany and the Axis were unable to reach Paris, the Allies were unable to reach Berlin or even the German border.

So Germany can simply hold. Which either means the Allies try one final attack or it will lead to a negotiated settlement, as both sides are running out of steam and the morale of the troops is hitting rock bottom. The French had mutinies in spring and early summer 1917, do you think they will end with less supplies and less hope?

Posted
7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

the Amien offensive, AKA 'The Black day of the German Army'................

The BEF would have repeated that in 1919 to even greater effect and win the war. UK invented blitzkrieg and Germany knew it did not have enough time or resources to develop counters measures.  Entry of the AEF merely gave the German government a good excuse to negotiate a quasi surrender.

Posted

Not only would the allies have won, but the terms imposed on Germany would have been far harsher, and some countries that exist nowadays (Hungary, Turkey) may not exist at all. Remember that after the armistice, the blockade was still in place and the winter of 1919 was worse than that of 1918.

Posted
11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Not only would the allies have won, but the terms imposed on Germany would have been far harsher, and some countries that exist nowadays (Hungary, Turkey) may not exist at all. Remember that after the armistice, the blockade was still in place and the winter of 1919 was worse than that of 1918.

The question is if the war goes much into 1918 in that case. In December 1917 Russia signs the armistice with Germany. German troops from the Eastern front become available, but no American troops are arriving. Petin has barely stabilized the French army and the British and Germans are suffering from Paschendale.

Posted
11 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The question is if the war goes much into 1918 in that case. In December 1917 Russia signs the armistice with Germany. German troops from the Eastern front become available, but no American troops are arriving. Petin has barely stabilized the French army and the British and Germans are suffering from Paschendale.

In 1918 troops from the Eastern Front were used before the Americans had arrived and eventually the Germans were stopped without US help in practical terms, and that was the end of the German Army, as the best divisions had been wasted away. At that point, Austria-Hungary was tetering on the edge of collapse and it only took a moderate effort at the Battle of Vittorio Veneto for the building to collapse. Turkey was just as bad, as was Bulgaria.

Simply put, the allies would take more losses in 1919 but they had the will to take them and Germany didn't have reserves to stop them, particularly as tanks trump the German defensive measures and the allies have air superiority. If the Germans don't ask for an armistice, the advance goes on in Germany...

Posted (edited)

I am not convinced the moral would be there without US involvement. US involvement meant that it was only a matter of time before things got better for the Allies. With no Americans coming, Germany does not need to rush the use of the troops from the Eastern front.

Edited by seahawk
Posted
1 minute ago, seahawk said:

I am not convinced the moral would be there without US involvement. US involvement made that it was only a matter of time before things got better for the Allies. With no Americans coming, Germany does not need to rush the use of the troops from the Eastern front.

The moral of whom? the frontline troops? they certainly were willing to go at the "hun", indeed, they did, on all fronts. The allied governments? going to be difficult to find 2 people more committed to victory than Lloyd-George and Clemencau? the Generals, well, there's Foch. People seem to forget that the 1917 mutinies only impacted the French army, and the mutineers were willing to fight, just not to attack mindlessly.  It was Ludendorff that broke down and it was Hindenburg and Ludendorff the ones that asked the Kaiser for an armistice. If anything would have changed it may be that the Kaiser wouldn't need to abdicate, but the French and the British would surely make Germany pay very dearly for the war.

Posted

You forget that with the US not entering the war, the Allies would still need to pay for all the supplies and materials the US supplied. And by April 1917 they would no longer be able to so.

Posted
1 hour ago, seahawk said:

You forget that with the US not entering the war, the Allies would still need to pay for all the supplies and materials the US supplied. And by April 1917 they would no longer be able to so.

And  with the US entering the war they still needed to pay for those supplies, it was done through war bonds and public debt. Lend lease only applied to WW2. The Uk only finished paying for the war in 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-30306579

Even Russia paid out its WW1 debt: https://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=15275

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...