WW1: America Stays Neutral

[Eternal_Freedom]

Sea Skimmer just said pretty much everything I was going to. I'll add that the British had a considerable advantage in 1916 and that would only grow as new ships were comissioned and older ships were upgraded with better directors and anti-flash precautions. I'm not sure how many ships the Germans had building in 1916, but I suspect it was fewer than the RN, so the advantage will only grow the later the war goes on.

And, of course, if the British do withdraw from the continent and focus on a blockade, all the money being spent on the army can be re-purposed to the RN, since the navy would be the dominant force in such a conflict. So the disparity between both sides would only grow.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm. This seems a bit uncertain to me. Are social problems caused by harsh truces, or by the dislocation of fighting a war that tears up the social fabric? Russia wasn't actually losing the war when the Czar was overthrown, not in the sense of being in imminent danger of conquest. They didn't sign a surrender document until Brest-Litovsk, long after the social upheavals had begun. But the army was demoralized, and the people were demoralized and struggling to survive, and the scope of the war effort was large relative to the weak Russian economy. Therefore, the existing government was doomed, and even the provisional government that replaced it was arguably doomed from the outset.

Sure, but the Russians were finished anyway.

That kind of misses my point. Unless I am badly, badly wrong, in 1913 the Russians didn't seem particularly 'finished.' It was the strain of the war itself that 'finished' them; by January 1917 there was basically no way the existing Russian power structure would be able to survive. Even having the Czar abdicate and give power to a parliamentary democracy wasn't enough, especially because the parliamentary government kept trying to prosecute the war (sort of).

So it is not a foregone conclusion what will happen when the postwar butterflies get done stirring things up, assuming the war lasts at least as long as historically. It might not only be France that goes fascist.

To me, it's not a foregone conclusion that we would have avoided Hitler, or a Hitler-like figure causing comparable amounts of chaos and bloodshed, from a totally exhausted Europe in which ALL the major nations were battered as badly as historical postwar Germany.

Here is the thing though - there are only two nations in Europe capable of causing widespread chaos and havoc. One was Britain, the other Germany. A fascist leader in any of the other countries will not be able to do as much simple for lack of means. A fascist outcome in any Western European nation is preferred to either Britain or Germany going fascist because while a Mussolini might do unpleasant stuff in his own country he cannot spread his power into other countries.

Second, you assume all the major nations will be battered as Germany. That does not follow. Germany will be much better off. Britain will be the same. The ones who are screwed are Russia and France. Any such event would cause the same damage to Russia as in OTL and France would not have suffered any more damage than it did in OTL anyway given the countryside where the fighting happened was wrecked anyway.

I think all this is predicated on the assumption of the war ending in 1918 with or immediately after the Michael Offensive. If the war drags out into 1919 or 1920, I don't think you can assume that Western Europe will be no worse off than historically.

Alternatively, we could have seen the Second Reich calling the shots throughout continental Europe, and from the point of view of US interests and strategy it isn't clear whether that would have been desirable either.

Why not? In fact, if you are talking in absolute terms Britain was a much worse partner than Germany. Germany had no territorial disputes or conflicting zones of influence with the US, Britain did. Germany had no navy capable of reaching the US, Britain did. Germany had no interest in the pacific or caribbean, Britain did. Let us not forget that US war planners wargamed against Britain and the US fleet was built to compete with Britain.

Any or all of these might have been subject to change, had Germany bolstered and reinforced its position on the continent to the point of becoming fully competitive with Britain.

If you try and tell me Germany didn't try to become a global power in the pre-WWI era I'm going to laugh in your face; they just failed to do so, or rather didn't get all the way there. They simply that they didn't have enough industrial infrastructure and advantage of prepositioning to compete with Britain (which had both of those things) while simultaneously fielding a huge land army to subdue their continental rivals.

Present them as a Europe-bestriding colossus in 1925, with no meaningful rivals except Britain to even try and compete with, and that changes. Instead of one global competitor who is beholden to the US for being a supporter during the Great War, the US gets two such competitors, one 'young and hungry' with the same desire to break into any new markets and spheres that open up as the US has, and neither of them beholden to the US for anything

Well, speaking in purely strategic terms, I think you make the mistakes of viewing nations which had been competitors for over 100 years as natural allies (US and Britain). Joining the war in Europe or even starting to favor one side over the other makes little sense to me.

This is much easier to understand when you understand the US-Britain relationship in cultural terms. I can't think of any good analogies in continental Europe. Basically, while the US was founded in revolt against its status as a British colony, Britain and the US were generally able to achieve a level of mutual understanding and cultural cross-linkage that kept the two nations from becoming permanently antagonistic.

That didn't make that US and Britain "natural allies," but it did mean that the US could be more comfortable with the existence of a powerful British empire than it would be with the existence of other powerful empires, especially ones that were in the process of expanding their power rapidly.

[Paradox_Fanatic]

I've been reviewing the 1917 campaigns, and the Third Ypres and associated campaigns seem to show that the French (and far moreso the British) were capable of blasting through German defenses and holding their gains. Given another year (possibly two given the Allies original offensive plans) to gather material, for the French to recover, and produce more tanks, it seems unlikely in the extreme the Aliles would have been unable to break the Hindenburg Line and the German Army even without the Americans. And the Germans would only be getting weaker even as their Allies completely collapsed and more Allied forces had to be either countered or could be brought up to the Western Front depending on how fast that happens. The more I read the less I'm convinced the Spring Offensive is basically going to have to happen with the Americans or not, though not necessarily in the same timeframe. Germany is on the ropes. Now if the Americans pull financing or something (so change the status quo in the opposite direction as opposed to simply maintaining their isolation) that'd be different but I'm not sure what could induce them to do that. Unless we're talking a POD before 1914 in which case the war as a whole would be quite different. And even in that case, I'm not entirely convinced that Allies couldn't lurch on. And as long as the blockade exists, then all the Allies have to do is hold on and Germany will collapse.

[Irbis]

Let's go ahead with the thought experiment that Britain does not yield, and starts blockading all of Europe (which it pretty much would have to in order to blockade Germany) - wouldn't that cause the other nations to (tentatively) ally in order to get the "Island bullies" to back off?

Who? The rest of Europe combined is roughly as strong as UK, but dispersed on huge area, easy to meet and destroy in detail. Meanwhile, by 1918 A-H fleet lost half of its best dreadnoughts, Russian fleet effectively ceased to exist, Hochseeflotte mutinied on first mention of engaging Royal Navy, and French/Italian fleets were far too weak to beat RN. At best, it would be repeat of 1941 Mediterranean campaign.

I mean, I could even see the US siding with Germany against Britain, as Britain would deny them trade with whole Europe, which I doubt they would tolerate. Could this lead to a clash between the combined US Navy & HSF and the RN?

Chance of US/IG alliance winning this are zero. Without major UK fuckup, anyway. US navy would need to sail thousands of kilometers to other side of ocean on relatively short ranged ships without escorts. Can you say 'torpedoed while refuelling'? Meanwhile, Hochseeflotte can't sally without being engaged and beaten back unless US navy already entered north sea which is impossible because they would need to push through completely controlled channel or sail right next to Scapa Flow first.

If the war had stretched on any longer what effect do you think the 1918 - 1920 Flu Pandemic would have had? I would assume it would have decimated the tightly packed armies living in poor conditions.

Ironically, might affect Allies worse due to blockade on central powers and travel cut due to front. Or not, might spread as historically did, and be worse in Germany due to lack of sufficient food. Hard to say.

The Bayern compares quite well plus there is the L20 class which might or might not have been built...

In real life Germany ran out of steel and brass for even small arms production by 1918. Where the materials to finish them will come from?

Because this time the soldiers will not be told that they will go on a suicide mission where the motto will be victory or death?

That wasn't any more suicidal than Jutland. Or what land army suffered daily on the front, really. If a force that fought only one battle years prior baulks at prospect of the next, morale is pretty much gone by then.

Yes, which is why I have said they would become satellites and not annexed.

Would that even work? Germany wanted to make satellite out of Poland, too, but as 1918 rolled around population that would have accepted that in 1914 just wasn't interested anymore and uprisings and disarming German soldiers started. Same in countries occupied after Brest, would Germany be able to hold all that in 1919 with war still going on?

The only reason Britain survived that was India. For obvious reasons, the situation will not be the same.

Why not? Even if France fell, UK has really nothing to lose by staying in the war. UK was against one power dominating the continent for 200 years, what would happen now for them to suddenly accept it? Loss of Royal Navy, maybe, but without Germany suddenly inventing Haunebu it isn't going to happen.

Sure, they got plenty of cannons. Tanks are not the end all and the CAS capabilites are laughable. These are not Stukas.

The problem is, allies would start trading tanks for german infantry and artillery. Any late war battle with massed tanks ended up with much higher German losses, and tanks, unlike manpower, are pretty replaceable.

The Soviets would not be going on an offensive, especially not with the white problem not over.

By 1919 it pretty much was, and with war still going on there will be no allied intervention and Whites will be beaten that much sooner.

The same reason the leading authority on the war thinks it would happen - declining morale, no shape to counterattack and a general sense of being unable to complete any objectives.

But allies don't need to counterattack, not really. They were gaining big advantage in Balkans, and with A-H and Turkey about to collapse, they would have big victories to sell to the public and soldiers. Delaying offensive till late summer/autumn of 1918 might mean no German offensive will ever start because troops from Russia will be sent into Hungary, not France.

What are your sources for the effect it had on French morale? Were the french suddenly attacking? No. After the Nivelle offensive the French army was pretty much finished as an offensive force.

Offensive, maybe, but harsh terms meant they still hold on to defensive, which was all that needed. I would need to re-read the book, but it implied Romania and Russia were big factors in why it was 1917, not 1918 French morale and will to defend was worst.

That front only collapsed after the victory of the allies in France, which should be enough to tell you that it won't be decisive on its own.

Why not? Austria and some Hungarians might want to fight on, but Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and all Balkan peoples will to fight for Central powers was pretty much gone. That's half of A-H army right there, and with Turkey suffering string of defeats Germany is the only country that can plug that massive hole opening in the south. Especially loss of Czech republic would be bad, as it only held the majority of A-H war industry and all the rail lines linking it to Germany.

You really think Brest-Litovsk was supposed to be a permanent treaty? No way. And German officers demanding the destruction of France are to be taken as serious as the French soldiers demanding the destruction of Germany. Both loudmouths matter little.

It might not had been, but it was supremely useful propaganda tool for allies. Had Germany offered magnanimous terms, it's possible Belgium and Greece would have thrown in the towel, at least, as it was, no allied country considered surrender for next year after that, IIRC.

Also, on what you base the opinion that France would have been treated lightly, if all the defeated countries so far were pretty much broken? Post-war sources, or is there any war time plan for it?

right and they can suddenly move their heavy guns and ship them with ease because.....?

British executed several fighting withdrawals through the entire war, starting with 1914. What makes you say they would lose all equipment in 1918, when they didn't with much less experienced forces? Sure, they will be losses, but as 1940 demonstrated, even withdrawal of BEF from France won't automatically end the war. You're forgetting British would withdraw over undamaged land, when Germans would chase them over broken no man's land, on foot. This was big reason why 1918 offensive failed in real life, after all.

Can you give any WWI example where retreating army lost all of its heavy material? Serbian army was pretty much pushed out of its country, yet not destroyed doing so.

The soviet army showed itself incapable of beating the Poles even after the white threat had been all but eliminated, so I don't favor their chances against the German army.

They didn't beaten unified Polish army fighting for their country with massive French material and command reinforcements. Would German troops fighting them in occupied countries, with populace unfriendly to them all around, and depressing news from other fronts fare any better? In real life, these were the troops that were disarmed and sent packing to Germany by the same Poles, after all, pre big French support.

Also, with the war still going on, pro-communist sympathies will be stronger, and it's possible Soviets will have more troops, including German defectors, than in RL.

Allies cannot take the Balkans if France collapses.

Why not? Bulgaria (country keeping vast majority of southern war effort alive) is on the verge of collapse with big pro-communist support. Turkey is about to fall, too, and Germany committed historically big blunder and didn't let combined A-H and Bulgarian army push hard into Greece when such an effort would have defeated it, in hopes of making Greece join central powers. By 1918, the situation was unrepairable and Germans failed to stop allied counterattack in RL.

If anything, in the war goes on any longer souther front collapses even with allies doing little as 400 kilometres of occupied territory separating it from central core states will erupt in rebellions, making supplying it very hard. With Bulgarians and A-H troops in area breaking, Germany has to find reserves stopping 2 million strong allied force pushing out of Greece (sure, most of it are Balkan, badly equipped troops, but still).

The food situation will be greatly helped with available harvest workers.

Weren't best German sources of food: Ukraine (unfriendly and badly connected) and Hungary, both on the verge of rebelling? Germany can't feed itself even at peace time, adding some workers won't change that, especially seeing commitments will grow even worse with each Central-aligned country collapsing.

[PainRack]

Didn't the British rely heavily on American finanicial markets to fund their bonds?

If we assume that the Americans stayed neutral, would such an act affect the British credit lines?




Also, could anyone point out any sources regarding German morale? A lot of the histories I read seems to focus on German morale during and after the Michel offensive.

[Irbis]

Also, could anyone point out any sources regarding German morale? A lot of the histories I read seems to focus on German morale during and after the Michel offensive.

The problem with Central powers morale was that regardless what the situation on the front looked like, embargo meant that in 1918 civil order in most of them was about to collapse. In real life, you had collapse of Bulgaria, followed by A-H and Turkey. Even if Germany defeats France in last desperate push, they can't just demobilize troops - you need million soldiers to occupy France, another million on Soviet border, plus something to stop 2 million allied troops from overrunning the Balkans. Even if that is stopped, along with Polish, Hungarian, and Czech uprisings, by then in real life Germany was on the verge of communist revolution, which would be even harsher after more war hardships and stronger Soviets (weaker Whites, no intervention or buffer Poland to check them).

Would Germany be even able to stay in war? By autumn of 1918 it wasn't just the Hochseeflotte that rebelled, when Ludendorff tried to restart war after armistice seeing peace terms German army just deserted en masse. Problems started even earlier, when German troops in the East began to be disarmed by virtually every organized rebel group. If Germany allowed A-H and Bulgaria to defeat Greece, then Italy, or if they gave Romania and Russia magnanimous peace terms, status quo ante bellum might have been possible, or even minor victory, but by real life 1918 it was a bit too late, IMHO, even without USA.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's a question: now-a-days, we know what a desperate situation the Germans were in by that point. But does anybody know what contemporary sources thought at the time? I mean, even if we know that Germany was on the verge of collapse and would have been utterly unable to continue sustained military action even after a theoretical victory with Michel, how aware were the Allied powers of the situation beyond the front? If the British know they can outlast the Germans, they likely would - but if their morale was sufficiently deflated after, say, the fall of Paris, and were unaware that the Germans were that desperate, then isn't a status quo ante vellum sort of peace possible?