Who Wins WWI if America Doesn't Enter the War?

[grumbler]

Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Ah, the old "you guys are trolls" troll! 

That one hasn't worked here in ages. 

[Cecil]

Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Ah, the old "you guys are trolls" troll! 

That one hasn't worked here in ages. 

I guess that sounded better in your head.

[Faeelin]

This conversation is interesting because I've always thought that Germany had a better shot of winning WW1 than WW2. This might still be true, but only in the sense that in the Great War the odds were slim whereas in WW2 the odds were hopeless.

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

As I mentioned above, earlier development of Stosstactics was probably the bast (and maybe only) shot Germany had to win the war.

This seems a bit unlikely, doesn't it? It requires Germany to make a leap in military tactics much quicker than it did historically, and the tactics seemed to develop gradually. Or am I wrong?

[The Minsky Moment]

British finances were on the verge of collapse if the Americans didn't enter the war.

Pretty big exaggeration.

First of all, the UK was a net creditor during WW2, not a not debtor.  That is, looked at on a holistic basis, borrowing from the US was not used to fund the UK war effort, but rather to fund the UK's financing of the Russian and Italian war efforts.  Basically, the UK acted as an investment banker for the allies, using its privileged position in the NY money market to secure better terms for its financially weaker allies.  Second, total US financing of 1 billion pounds was significant, but still only about 10% of UK war expenditure, even not including the overseas sterling loans to allies.  In comparison to WW2, the UK made less use of income taxation (and taxation in general) to finance the general budget.  Third, UK financial policy in ww1 was oriented around maintaining the value of sterling vs. the dollar and this is what practically limited dollar financing prior to US entry,  Fourth the UK in ww1 did not use the rationing and administrative measures resorted to in WW2.

Thus the probably result of no US entry on UK finances likely would have been higher taxes, a decline in the value of sterling, less lending to the Russian provisional government and to Italy, and possibly some form of rationing.  This would have been perceived as painful and unprecedented, but well short of "collapse:"

[grumbler]

This seems a bit unlikely, doesn't it? It requires Germany to make a leap in military tactics much quicker than it did historically, and the tactics seemed to develop gradually. Or am I wrong?

Yes, it seems unlikely to me, as well.  Basically, it would have needed someone to come up with the plan, and then some mechanism to convince the army leadership to adopt it before the need for new tactics was clearly visible. 

[Capetan Mihali]

Could Germany have won the First World War? If so, how?

Yes. By staying away from Dolchstosstactics.

[Zanza2]

The thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

I think the idea was that the war would be over by Christmas, not that it would last for four years. AFAIK, there was no starvation in the first year or two of the war.

[dps]

I also don't think the Germans would have acted any different in the spring of 1918 if the US hadn't entered the war.  The German people were starving to death.  That created a need to end the war by the summer of 1918 independent of anything the US did.

I agree with your conclusion that Germany had lost the war bu 1918, but I don't agree with your arguments.  I think they ignore the effects of the blockade on Germany and the effects of a million and a half American troops in allowing the British and French to concentrate the troops they needed for the Hundred days Offensive.

I'm in general agreement with grumbler here.  I'm not sure that the German plans for 1918 would have been exactly the same if America hadn't entered the war, but one way or another, the Germans needed the war to end before the end of 1918.

The thing about WWI I never got was how a country that wasn't self-sufficient in food and depended upon waterborne imports could even consider going up against the Royal Navy.

They didn't think that the war would last long enough for the effects of the blockade to be felt.  Remember, they intended to capture Paris and knock France out of the war in the opening campaign, after which Britian and Russia would magically make peace too.

What Germany really needed was someone to say, "Make peace you fools!" in late 1914.  What I don't understand is why that didn't happen;  actually, all the German leadership should have been thinking along those lines.  Plan A to win the war had failed, and there was no Plan B.

[grumbler]

They didn't think that the war would last long enough for the effects of the blockade to be felt.  Remember, they intended to capture Paris and knock France out of the war in the opening campaign, after which Britian and Russia would magically make peace too.

It was the lack of imported fertilizers, not imported food, that doomed Germany.  Field Marshals and Kaisers don't tend to think of the important shit; they thought it would be over by Christmas).

What Germany really needed was someone to say, "Make peace you fools!" in late 1914.  What I don't understand is why that didn't happen;  actually, all the German leadership should have been thinking along those lines.  Plan A to win the war had failed, and there was no Plan B.

I've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

[Grey Fox]

Only thing that surprises me with this thread is why Timmys is asking it here. Its a question that has been discussed to death on the other forum you frequent by people who are a lot more knowledgable than the trollers on languish.

Unless that forum is the Association of University History Proffessors then no they weren't more knowledgable.

Altho, yes we are all trolls.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, that's what I meant.  I can sort of understand going to war, but not quitting once they failed to knock out France.  I guess g's answer is about as good as any.

[Warspite]

It was the lack of imported fertilizers, not imported food, that doomed Germany.  Field Marshals and Kaisers don't tend to think of the important shit

[Faeelin]

I've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918? There were still no foreign troops on German soil...

[The Brain]

I've never understood this myself, except in the possible sense that the Kaiser's personal rule would not survive the consequences of getting Germany into a war it could not win.  No one in a position of power would then have been in a position to survive those political consequences, so they perhaps preferred to gamble for a miracle.

Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918?

No.

[grumbler]

Was it obvious to everyone that Germany was losing before 1918? There were still no foreign troops on German soil...

It was obvious to the Germans.  They were eating strange things and caloric intake was plummeting.  Artillery tubes were worn out and German artillery was dropping shells on their own troops. I don't know how good Allied intel was on the German home front or amongst the German troops.  I seem to recall that it was good enough to know that the German fleet would rebel if ordered to sail in 1918, but don't know about the preceding year(s).