So WI the Germans decide against unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram is never sent/fabricated and consequently the US doesn't enter the war. What is the German strategy? Do they wait to see if the Allies can continue to finance the war? Do they attempt to build in their success and knock Greece and/or Italy out of the war?
German Strategy Minus US Intervention
- Thread starter danwild6
- Start date
The Allies can still finance the war by continuing to take loans from American investors and financial firms. I'm not sure there would be any change from OTL in that regard.
It's 1917, which means Germany will have to put everything into a last-ditch effort. On the plus side, they are winning against Russia (the war as such is practically over on the Eastern front), but the German economy is on its last legs, strangled by blockade and overtaxed by war production demands. Brest-Litovsk changes almost nothing at sea, so breaking the blockade is out (the German naval assets in the Baltic are derisory, and even if they had actually been handed the Russian fleet, their chances at beating the Home Fleet are next to nil at that stage). Knocking secondary allies out would not be decisive, so while an all-out attack on Italy would be possible, it wouldn't accomplish anything. My guess is, pretty much as OTL - a massive offensive in the West to knock France out of the war.
Realistically, their best bet is to force negotiations on a status-quo-ante basis. In effect, that would be a French defeat, because the country has been bled white and is practically owned by US creditors. Germany would also be in a similar state, but could use its conquests in Eastern Europe to try and stabilise itself internally. Of course, realism was not the strong suit of Germany's leadership, so it's more likely they'll try for a decisive knockout blow and fail. Who collapses first then is iffy - neither side had much left to stand on.
Realistically, their best bet is to force negotiations on a status-quo-ante basis. In effect, that would be a French defeat, because the country has been bled white and is practically owned by US creditors. Germany would also be in a similar state, but could use its conquests in Eastern Europe to try and stabilise itself internally. Of course, realism was not the strong suit of Germany's leadership, so it's more likely they'll try for a decisive knockout blow and fail. Who collapses first then is iffy - neither side had much left to stand on.
If the Allies are able to financed the war, they win the war in 1919. They had finally found the correct strategy(see battle of Amiens for an example) and remember that Lloyd George had been holding back troops since the middle of 1917 to stop Hague from launching bloody offensives.
It does bear mentioning that if the US is still neutral the blockade won't be quite as tight as it was OTL. After all, the US was the only neutral nation that had enough clout to object to the blockade, and had been bringing a reasonable amount of diplomatic pressure to bear against Britain over the issue of protecting neutral rights. Obviously, US entry into the war killed that issue OTL, but a neutral US is still going to be making an issue of neutral shipping rights, especially since the blockade wouldn't be overshadowed by USW in this ATL.
Now, even with the US unhappy in the background the blockade will still be devastating to Germany, but even being a tiny bit less tight could be enough to make a difference.
If you leave out US intervention the Germans will still follow the same strategy they did in reality. They make a treaty with the Soviets to get every last pound of flesh then commit everything they have for a knock out blow against the west.
At that point it's really a question of will and endurance. The Germans were onthe verge of starvation while the Englis and French were exhausted and just about out of men.
My guess is that without US troops the Spring Offensive is more successful than it was and succeeds in capturing Paris. I believe at that point; having fought four years on their own soil, having suffered enormous losses, having seen Russia knocked out, despairing of US intervention, and now seeing Paris captured I think French morale would have broken.
Considering the exhausted state of their economy and military, their huge gains in the east, and the continued effects of the British blockade the Germans might have been willing to offer fairly moderate terms to end the war.
At that point it's really a question of will and endurance. The Germans were onthe verge of starvation while the Englis and French were exhausted and just about out of men.
My guess is that without US troops the Spring Offensive is more successful than it was and succeeds in capturing Paris. I believe at that point; having fought four years on their own soil, having suffered enormous losses, having seen Russia knocked out, despairing of US intervention, and now seeing Paris captured I think French morale would have broken.
Considering the exhausted state of their economy and military, their huge gains in the east, and the continued effects of the British blockade the Germans might have been willing to offer fairly moderate terms to end the war.
The last ditch effort was based on the US entering the war, and the Germans fearing more troops. I do not seem them winning a total victory but German occupational control over some really great farm land makes me see one to two years of hanging on a little bit more. American troops allowed the Entente the ability to make large scale moves because of the new forces. The German defensive line however could be withdrawn to a more secure position as in OTL making the Entente- minus the USA - fight a more comfortable, and prepared German force over ruined trench lines.
In summary without the US I do not see the need for the Spring Offensive.
In summary without the US I do not see the need for the Spring Offensive.
Militarily, no. But Germany in 1917 is not a happy country. Most politically savvy leaders realise that no victory in 1918 may mean no empire in 1919. Food squeezed out of Ukraine and loudly publicised, ostensibly magnanimous peace offers towards France might have kept the people in line, but there is only so much they will bear. And the Ludendorff gang are in a quandary of their own making here: too harsh a peace offer, and France will turn it down, which means they have to knock her out before German discontent blows up in their faces. Too easy terms, and public anger will bubble up over letting the Erbfeind off easy after four years of devastating war.
The construction and withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line was designed to conserve German strength in the west in order to allow them to attack in the east. Following the treaty of Brest Litovsk Germany finally has a one front war and about forty divisions available for reinforcement.
The blockade is still in place and even with access to the farmlands of the Ukraine and Poland the German population is still being starved to death and the economy slowly throttled. France has been bled to the point where they can no longer launch an offensive without assistance. England is on its last kegs and running out of manpower. All the populations are war weary. There is no certainty how long any of them will be able to continue.
Given these circumstances and Ludendorf's basic faith in the offensive I can't imagine Germany NOT attacking in the Spring of 1918. Germany is not AS desperate as they would have been with hundreds of thousands of fresh US troops arriving each month in France, but their situation remains a tenuous one.
The only way to end he war is to make the French and British yield and come to the peace table. The only way to do that is to beat them on the Western Front. Standing on the defensive will spare the soldiers but not the nation. How long will the population continue to support a stalemated war that sees them getting hungrier by the day?
The Ottoman Empire is being destroyed and Austria Hungary is cracking. Time is not on Germany's side. The German's would try and put everything they had into a final knock out blow aimed at capturing Paris and finally breaking the French will to fight.
The blockade is still in place and even with access to the farmlands of the Ukraine and Poland the German population is still being starved to death and the economy slowly throttled. France has been bled to the point where they can no longer launch an offensive without assistance. England is on its last kegs and running out of manpower. All the populations are war weary. There is no certainty how long any of them will be able to continue.
Given these circumstances and Ludendorf's basic faith in the offensive I can't imagine Germany NOT attacking in the Spring of 1918. Germany is not AS desperate as they would have been with hundreds of thousands of fresh US troops arriving each month in France, but their situation remains a tenuous one.
The only way to end he war is to make the French and British yield and come to the peace table. The only way to do that is to beat them on the Western Front. Standing on the defensive will spare the soldiers but not the nation. How long will the population continue to support a stalemated war that sees them getting hungrier by the day?
The Ottoman Empire is being destroyed and Austria Hungary is cracking. Time is not on Germany's side. The German's would try and put everything they had into a final knock out blow aimed at capturing Paris and finally breaking the French will to fight.
That was a point I was going to mention as well.
With Austria no longer fighting in the east, they can focus on their Balkan and Italian Fronts. Turkey can focus itself in the middle east. Some additional Austrian forces might be sent to assist Germany in the west. This could allow for a push from Elsaß-Lothringen to the west further adding to the Spring offensive. The French might be more worried about this new push which might head straight into Paris, and thus might pull more of their forces to reinforce that line. If the Germans split their divisions accordingly, they could use the majority to attack flank the British while the remainder either launches several feint attacks, holds the line, or makes a northern push directly to Paris.
Deleted member 1487
Several issues without the US, some of which have been mentioned:
1)No US entry means no US unsecured loans. The US wanted to pressure the Entente to end the war to prevent Communist uprisings and the destruction of European civilization. They also wanted to divest their economy in 1917 rather than wait for the inevitable crash when the war ends and also didn't want to deal with a Europe so heavily in debt to the US that they could never pay it back, especially if they are destroyed by revolutions and extra years of war. Understand too that the world thought that Germany was going to be able to keep going for years. OTL the Allies planned on fighting into 1920!
2)Without the US involved Russia exits the war early. The loan issue was held over Russia's head, which kept the Russians in the war as long as they did. Without the Allies threatening to withhold future loans to rebuild, Russia will exit the war in early to mid-1917 before their final offensive that ultimately started the destruction of Austria-Hungary.
3)Italy will leave the war after Caporetto, which will probably happen earlier without the Russians staying in the war.
4)France could not fight on morally without the psychological boost of knowing the US was coming. Even with further loans, the French people and army refused to fight after the Nivelle offensives. The single greatest part of Petain's rehabilitation of the army was speeches given to soldiers explaining that they could not lose with American manpower; they just need to wait and not quit too early. Without that the French fold under German attacks. Without the US loans the French are utterly broke in 1917, so they will pressure everyone of their allies to negotiate.
5)The blockade was pretty leaky until the US entered the war. At that point it became air tight. Without the US in the war the blockade remains leaky, allowing the Germans to capitalize on this trade and prevent collapse. Furthermore OTL the US was planning on challenging the blockade to open the Central European markets to their businesses, thanks to the Entente being tapped out without American loans. This is coming and will collapse that weapon, which alone will probably end the war.
6)The food situation in Germany improved in 1918 over the previous year, which really only resulted from Ludendorff mismanaging the economy, rather than the blockade alone. The real reason that the Germans lost in 1918 was that they were out of men. The US manpower intimidated the average German, because they knew they couldn't outlast the 100 million fresh Americans. Once the Entente prevented a collapse in 1918 (which they only could due to the knowledge the US was coming)the German Army realized it was defeated in time. It wasn't food, rather unlimited manpower that did Germany in psychologically, not materially.
1)No US entry means no US unsecured loans. The US wanted to pressure the Entente to end the war to prevent Communist uprisings and the destruction of European civilization. They also wanted to divest their economy in 1917 rather than wait for the inevitable crash when the war ends and also didn't want to deal with a Europe so heavily in debt to the US that they could never pay it back, especially if they are destroyed by revolutions and extra years of war. Understand too that the world thought that Germany was going to be able to keep going for years. OTL the Allies planned on fighting into 1920!
2)Without the US involved Russia exits the war early. The loan issue was held over Russia's head, which kept the Russians in the war as long as they did. Without the Allies threatening to withhold future loans to rebuild, Russia will exit the war in early to mid-1917 before their final offensive that ultimately started the destruction of Austria-Hungary.
3)Italy will leave the war after Caporetto, which will probably happen earlier without the Russians staying in the war.
4)France could not fight on morally without the psychological boost of knowing the US was coming. Even with further loans, the French people and army refused to fight after the Nivelle offensives. The single greatest part of Petain's rehabilitation of the army was speeches given to soldiers explaining that they could not lose with American manpower; they just need to wait and not quit too early. Without that the French fold under German attacks. Without the US loans the French are utterly broke in 1917, so they will pressure everyone of their allies to negotiate.
5)The blockade was pretty leaky until the US entered the war. At that point it became air tight. Without the US in the war the blockade remains leaky, allowing the Germans to capitalize on this trade and prevent collapse. Furthermore OTL the US was planning on challenging the blockade to open the Central European markets to their businesses, thanks to the Entente being tapped out without American loans. This is coming and will collapse that weapon, which alone will probably end the war.
6)The food situation in Germany improved in 1918 over the previous year, which really only resulted from Ludendorff mismanaging the economy, rather than the blockade alone. The real reason that the Germans lost in 1918 was that they were out of men. The US manpower intimidated the average German, because they knew they couldn't outlast the 100 million fresh Americans. Once the Entente prevented a collapse in 1918 (which they only could due to the knowledge the US was coming)the German Army realized it was defeated in time. It wasn't food, rather unlimited manpower that did Germany in psychologically, not materially.
To add to this I've heard things about how Wilson was getting sick of the refusal of the Entente to make any serious attempt at negotiations. Something about how in the 1916 negotiations he was quite frustrated with the British and French refusal to do anything to the point that he actually considered taking action. Plus I've also heard things about how he wanted to divest and all that for the same reasons mentioned already.
Basically everything I've heard about Wilson is that prior to the Zimmerman Telegram his opinion of the Entente was getting worse and worse and by 1917 his patience was at it's limit. The Zimmerman Telegram was what stopped him from finally doing something.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Unrestricted submarine warfare was their only chance in the naval war. They were already being outfought in the land war. They'll still knock Russia out and the USSR will still survive. They will also get an even clearer curbstomp from the Allies than IOTL. By 1917, their decision means that any greater gains from Caporetto are counterbalanced by Britain already adopting in 1917 the first modern combined arms operations and their military defeats once the Allies adopt combined-arms tactics. US intervention in some officially but in reality not at all neutral policy favoring the Allies is inevitable in one sense because the triumph of Germany shreds traditional US security policies and US elites are hostile to those of Germany, whose military dictatorship is as anti-1910s USA as you can get.
Cook
Banned
I’d agree with most of this, except I wouldn’t expect reasonable term to be offered. Given the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the fact that there are just as many war widows demanding vengeance as there were in Britain and France I would expect very harsh terms to be levelled on France.
The Germans may be effectively occupying Ukraine, but their expectations of large exports of grain from the region would be met with blood and failure. In addition to a lack of infrastructure to support such shipments, Ukraine was recently featured in the frontlines between Russia and Austria-Hungary (and the destruction that entails), and was suffering from tremendous amounts of infighting and violence (violence which only intensified into what would essentially be a civil war after 1917).
In short, the German hopes of large scale Ukrainian grain imports are quite false. Given the condition of Ukraine, its in no shape to be producing or exporting much at all, at least for a few years.
The end of World War One will/was not seen through with a smashing victory on the battlefield: but determined by whose society, be it the Entente or the Central Powers, collapsed first. I do not see anything particularly major which would prevent the social fabric of Germany and Austria-Hungary from unraveling first. But this part's my opinion.
EDIT:
For the record, the United States Army had no real impact on the Western Front beyond whatever morale effect they brought. The vast majority of the fighting after 1917 was still carried out by the British and French, and the Hundred Days Offensive was still primarily a British (or, specifically, a Dominions) affair. The French may have been running out of men, but the British Empire still had not. The AEF had no real impact on the Spring Offensive (which is unlikely to occur without a US Declaration of War), so its unlikely that a Germany in 1919 or so would be able to achieve a breakthrough (keeping in mind that the British are still building up forces in France in preparation of their own offensive).
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
What are you basing this on? Germany was maintaining a favorable loss ratio in the west and without the US loans the British and French need to massively scale back their weapon, munition, and raw material acquisition, which means they won't be able to fight like OTL with deluges of shells and weapons, which means their limited manpower will not be made up for by material. The Brits and French were committed to other theaters, so until late 1918 none of it can come to Europe and without US loans the AHs, Bulgarians and Ottomans won't go down as quickly.
Not to mention the French won't fight without the US or be able to fight without everything purchased from the US, as everything from food to coal needed to come from the US. France was tapped out of money and could no longer purchase after April 1917.
The psychological aspect kept the French in the war. Without that the French army doesn't fight after April. Plus, as above, without US loans the French can't afford to fight as they are out of money!
Yup, pretty much spot on. In fact the German attempts to negotiate in 1916 were to try and convince Wilson the Entente was unreasonable and to justify their unrestricted sub campaign in 1917.
So long as a government has printing presses, paper, and ink they will not run out of money. They can bring on hyper inflation and ruin the value of their currency, ala post war German mark or Confederate dollar, but so long as a government is determined to keep fighting it CAN be done.
It's really a question of will. At what point does the French nation just give up? By the spring of 1918 with Russia having collapsed and hope in America dwindling I just don't see how they could keep fighting if Paris were lost. And if France yields Britain has no choice but to give up the war as well.
It's really a question of will. At what point does the French nation just give up? By the spring of 1918 with Russia having collapsed and hope in America dwindling I just don't see how they could keep fighting if Paris were lost. And if France yields Britain has no choice but to give up the war as well.
Of course that only works if you're not relying on imports in any big way - which the Allies were.
Agreed.
Last edited: