The US remains neutral in WWI and thus the Entente get no unsecured loans from the US

[WolfBear]

What if the US would have remained neutral in WWI and thus the Entente would have gotten no unsecured loans from the US from 1917 onwards? A great way to do this would be for Germany to delay the decision on resuming USW for an additional several months, after which point it would have already become unnecessary.

Anyway, with the Entente's financial situation being much more dire in this scenario, could we actually see a pro-CP compromise peace in 1917 or, at the very latest, 1918 in this TL? I know that already in 1917, there were some prominent voices in favor of a compromise peace, such as the German Reichstag (with its Peace Resolution), the Russian Provisional Government, Kaiser Karl, and the Pope.

What do you think about this?

 

[sillygoose]

They'd be out of foreign exchange and couldn't purchase from the US. Shipping from elsewhere is not viable due to the distance and lack of hulls which means the Entente runs out of steel, food, gun cotton, and oil as well as suffers a major drop in number of shells it can produce (it was sourcing components from the US). That effectively means they lose in 1917, especially after the French mutiny. That would mean they have to negotiate, but on unfavorable terms. I could see some minor border adjustments in the west with France in Germany's favor, things ending 'as is' in Italy, and Russia effectively being left out to dry which then means France is financially ruined when their loans can't be paid back and they have a bunch of debt to Britain. Even with secured loans they were only capitalized to like 10% of the loans, so they'd be pretty indebted anyway, but unlike with the unsecured loans being written down due to being secured by the US government the Entente is on the hook for all of the value of those secured loans. Russia is screwed post-war, as they will have to service their existing loans, have lost a bunch of valuable territory, being pretty well banged up, and probably face the problems of stabilizing the provisional government as they did historically.

So the situation is exactly why the British wanted to fight on to final victory, because a negotiation in 1917 favors the CPs heavily and will even more so if the Entente is now financially crippled and the US isn't backing them. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Germany even got the Belgian and French Congo as well as a demilitarized Belgium and French border to leave the conquered territories of those countries. Probably Britain has to return German colonies as well to ensure they leave Belgium. The colonies Japan took are gone, but like OTL the Japanese have to pay for them.

Even though A-H is now a basket case and the Ottomans are quite weakened and lose territory this is a pretty big win for the CP alliance system, especially if they can break off substantial parts of the Russian empire or even get it to fall apart in the aftermath of the war. Germany is in the best position post-war since they don't have the debt the Entente does, has little destruction on its own territory, and avoids the worst loss of life and social instability of the 1917-18 period. Of course not having to pay reparations and effectively having their 'Mitteleuropa' empire as well as 'Mittelafrika' would mean the post-war economy would be quite good and inflation easily contained. Meanwhile the Entente nations end up relatively impoverished since Belgium used the Congo to rebuild, France also relied heavily on its empire/reparations/US debt write downs IOTL, and Britain ends up holding the bag on the entire debt of the Entente due to having borrowed for everyone to get the best interest rates.

IMHO that should prevent another war since the power balance is now heavily against the Entente. Even if the A-H empire breaks up that region can still be stabilized and managed if needed. The CPs will probably get heavily into China like Germany historically did in the 1930s when they stage a recovery in the 1920s which could very well build up that country and avoid Japanese aggression. In fact the world economy might end up avoiding the Great Depression since the post-war situation will likely see a recession and avoid the explosive economic growth in the US and French gold hoarding that screwed up the post-war international economy. We'd see no Bolshevism, decolonization might happen sooner due to weaker Entente powers and perhaps the CPs trying to destabilize their rivals with intelligence operations in say India and Iran as payback and to ensure they are too weak financially for another go around.

In time this might mean Europe can evolve into a single market since there would a clear dominant state on the continent which would avoid another go around. In the long run then Europe could well end up being what the US was after 1945 given the economic fallout for the US and the Entente effectively being beaten and economically crippled to the point of being pulled into the CP orbit to be able to recover. In the long run things are much better off without WW2 and the rise of Communism and the OTL cold war. There likely wouldn't be another cold war analogue here given that the US wouldn't have the stature it did IOTL after winning WW1 and without the disruptions of the OTL Great Depression there is less need to violently compete for control of declining global trade.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think @sillygoose laid it out quite splendidly here.

To the last paragraph, I would add the supporting consideration that the outcome of the war would vindicate anti-war and isolationist sentiments in the USA. This would presumably further reduce the overall likelihood of an ATL Cold War between German-led Europe and the USA. I could see the USA re-casting its "isolationist" sentiments into a renewed Monroe doctrine. That would imply essentially exploiting the weakness (even ruination) of the Entente powers to effectively expel them from the Western hemisphere (except, presumably, Canada), and turning the greater bulk of the Americas into the "US sphere" where European meddlers are expected to stay out.

Regarding Austria-Hungary, I'm rather optimistic. It could fall apart if everything is mis-managed, but I rather doubt it. Germany wouldn't want instability if it can be avoided. I rather think that meaningfully expanding Austria-Hungary can end up having a stabilising effect. Just absorb all the Serbs and Romanians and whatnot. Create a separate South Slavic Crown by compensating the Hungarians through the addition of all Romania (Black Sea access!), and presto. Then add a lot of Poles, and turn that into a new Crown, too. Now you have a quadruple monarchy. The South Slavic Crown will see most trouble-makers fighting each other, while the obstinate Hungarians will now forever be busy dealing with the Romanians.

Europe, post-war, would end up looking a bit like this:

(Excuse the crappy borders, I literally just quickly drew lines on an old map of 1914 Europe.)


Should Austria-Hungary fall apart, Germany will be able to quickly annex the Austrian and Polish Crowns, while leaving the oher two to mess themselves p in bloody civil war first. With some discretionary police action to be taken later, I'd guess...

 

[sillygoose]

I think @sillygoose laid it out quite splendidly here.

To the last paragraph, I would add the supporting consideration that the outcome of the war would vindicate anti-war and isolationist sentiments in the USA. This would presumably further reduce the overall likelihood of an ATL Cold War between German-led Europe and the USA. I could see the USA re-casting its "isolationist" sentiments into a renewed Monroe doctrine. That would imply essentially exploiting the weakness (even ruination) of the Entente powers to effectively expel them from the Western hemisphere (except, presumably, Canada), and turning the greater bulk of the Americas into the "US sphere" where European meddlers are expected to stay out.

Regarding Austria-Hungary, I'm rather optimistic. It could fall apart if everything is mis-managed, but I rather doubt it. Germany wouldn't want instability if it can be avoided. I rather think that meaningfully expanding Austria-Hungary can end up having a stabilising effect. Just absorb all the Serbs and Romanians and whatnot. Create a separate South Slavic Crown by compensating the Hungarians through the addition of all Romania (Black Sea access!), and presto. Then add a lot of Poles, and turn that into a new Crown, too. Now you have a quadruple monarchy. The South Slavic Crown will see most trouble-makers fighting each other, while the obstinate Hungarians will now forever be busy dealing with the Romanians.


Should Austria-Hungary fall apart, Germany will be able to quickly annex the Austrian and Polish Crowns, while leaving the oher two to mess themselves p in bloody civil war first. With some discretionary police action to be taken later, I'd guess...

I agree with you, but for the optimism about A-H. By 1917 even in victory they had fallen apart pretty badly and the Hungarians had gotten even more militant. At best they retain a personal union and alliance, but independent governance and the monarch becomes a figurehead.

Also have to disagree about the benefits of adding another crown except if they were going to make the entire empire a personal union. A three-way fight to coordinate the empire every 10 years would only end in disaster; the Ausgleich as it was barely held together and then only with threats of military action. 1917 was probably the limit for the life of the empire even in peacetime given the Hungarian plans to play hard ball (before and during WW1) to reduce the empire to a personal union of the monarchy. Adding Poland in would have been a massive fucking disaster, not that that was on the table by 1916 given the lead Germany had taken in the alliance and their own plans for the Kingdom of Poland. Giving them Galicia in return for a Habsburg monarch would be the smart play, but I'm not sure if that was on the table either by that point.

Germany wouldn't annex the Polish territory from A-H they'd just it to the Kingdom of Poland. They'd probably add the Austro-Czech lands into the German empire as another crownland.

 

[WolfBear]

1917 was probably the limit for the life of the empire even in peacetime given the Hungarian plans to play hard ball (before and during WW1) to reduce the empire to a personal union of the monarchy.

If done in peacetime, though, then this could simply result in Austria crushing the Hungarians with German support and then reducing Hungary to a simple crown land like Bukovina is, no?

 

[sillygoose]

If done in peacetime, though, then this could simply result in Austria crushing the Hungarians with German support and then reducing Hungary to a simple crown land like Bukovina is, no?

Potentially. Depends on who is in charge. What you describe was actually what FF wanted to do minus German troop support.

 

[WolfBear]

Potentially. Depends on who is in charge. What you describe was actually what FF wanted to do minus German troop support.

I was thinking of FF surviving here, but I suppose that either FJ or Karl could likewise work here if FF is still assassinated in 1914 but WWI doesn't actually break out that year for whatever reason.

And the German troop support might be necessary as a backup in the event that Austria can't do the job by itself--or at least can't finish the job by itself. And Yes, I did get this idea from reading an academic article about FF on JSTOR.

 

[WolfBear]

I think @sillygoose laid it out quite splendidly here.

To the last paragraph, I would add the supporting consideration that the outcome of the war would vindicate anti-war and isolationist sentiments in the USA. This would presumably further reduce the overall likelihood of an ATL Cold War between German-led Europe and the USA. I could see the USA re-casting its "isolationist" sentiments into a renewed Monroe doctrine. That would imply essentially exploiting the weakness (even ruination) of the Entente powers to effectively expel them from the Western hemisphere (except, presumably, Canada), and turning the greater bulk of the Americas into the "US sphere" where European meddlers are expected to stay out.

Regarding Austria-Hungary, I'm rather optimistic. It could fall apart if everything is mis-managed, but I rather doubt it. Germany wouldn't want instability if it can be avoided. I rather think that meaningfully expanding Austria-Hungary can end up having a stabilising effect. Just absorb all the Serbs and Romanians and whatnot. Create a separate South Slavic Crown by compensating the Hungarians through the addition of all Romania (Black Sea access!), and presto. Then add a lot of Poles, and turn that into a new Crown, too. Now you have a quadruple monarchy. The South Slavic Crown will see most trouble-makers fighting each other, while the obstinate Hungarians will now forever be busy dealing with the Romanians.

Europe, post-war, would end up looking a bit like this:

(Excuse the crappy borders, I literally just quickly drew lines on an old map of 1914 Europe.)


Should Austria-Hungary fall apart, Germany will be able to quickly annex the Austrian and Polish Crowns, while leaving the oher two to mess themselves p in bloody civil war first. With some discretionary police action to be taken later, I'd guess...

If the Russian Provisional Government makes peace early enough, then it could avoid the loss of Livonia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus, no?

Interestingly enough, while Germany is undoubtedly going to be a huge short-term winner, Russia is going to be a long-term winner here since it will avoid the extreme demographic devastation of the 20th century while also being spared decades of Nazi and especially Communist tyranny. By the end of the 20th century, Russia should have around 300 million Slavs and 100 million others, primarily Central Asians, which would make it a demographic power comparable to the US (Slavs = US whites, Central Asians = Hispanics). Of course, Russia's GDP PPP per capita in this TL might be more comparable to France than to the US by the end of the 20th century since the US is unusually wealthy for a country of its average IQ.

Why doesn't A-H try expanding further at Italy's expense?

 

[sillygoose]

I was thinking of FF surviving here, but I suppose that either FJ or Karl could likewise work here if FF is still assassinated in 1914 but WWI doesn't actually break out that year for whatever reason.

And the German troop support might be necessary as a backup in the event that Austria can't do the job by itself--or at least can't finish the job by itself. And Yes, I did get this idea from reading an academic article about FF on JSTOR.

FJ was deathly afraid of a civil war, so likely wouldn't have done that at this advanced age while Karl was too weak to try to go for that option judging by his wartime behavior. Unless he bows to more militant Austrian generals.
German support would be more for keeping Russia off Austria's back.

 

[WolfBear]

FJ was deathly afraid of a civil war, so likely wouldn't have done that at this advanced age while Karl was too weak to try to go for that option judging by his wartime behavior. Unless he bows to more militant Austrian generals.


German support would be more for keeping Russia off Austria's back.

Makes sense. And re: Karl: Depends on just how much the Hungarians will try forcing his hand in regards to this, I suppose.

Though either way the Hungarians will need to get crushed. Can Austria actually do and finish this job by itself, without any German help?

 

[Skallagrim]

I agree with you, but for the optimism about A-H. By 1917 even in victory they had fallen apart pretty badly and the Hungarians had gotten even more militant. At best they retain a personal union and alliance, but independent governance and the monarch becomes a figurehead.

Also have to disagree about the benefits of adding another crown except if they were going to make the entire empire a personal union. A three-way fight to coordinate the empire every 10 years would only end in disaster; the Ausgleich as it was barely held together and then only with threats of military action. 1917 was probably the limit for the life of the empire even in peacetime given the Hungarian plans to play hard ball (before and during WW1) to reduce the empire to a personal union of the monarchy. Adding Poland in would have been a massive fucking disaster, not that that was on the table by 1916 given the lead Germany had taken in the alliance and their own plans for the Kingdom of Poland. Giving them Galicia in return for a Habsburg monarch would be the smart play, but I'm not sure if that was on the table either by that point.

Germany wouldn't annex the Polish territory from A-H they'd just it to the Kingdom of Poland. They'd probably add the Austro-Czech lands into the German empire as another crownland.

On the terms of purely Austria-Hungary, I'd say your analysis of the late-in-the-war realities has merit. I'm not sure this would hold up in a "no war" scenario, as you suggest as well, but let's put that aside.

I do however think that, as @WolfBear mentioned, Germany would lend support in suppressing any Hungarian dissent. In fact, I think German "support" would be rather insistently "offered" to ensure Austria-Hungary gets its house in order. (Precisely because of the lead Germany had taken in the alliance, as you mention. They wouldn't let some Austro-Hungarian domestic shitfight mess up Mitteleuropa!)

Regarding Poland: I figured that German plans were pretty nebulous, and the Germans were always quite suspicious of the Poles. In turn, the Poles preferred the Habsburgs over the Hohenzollerns (and both over the Romanovs, but that's become irrelevant at this point in the ATL). So I figured that "Germany takes no more Polish lands, pawns it off on the Habsburgs" would make sense. After all, Germany already has the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and Ukraine to install its own puppet kings.

...However, your suggestion of Germany offering to put a Habsburg king on the throne of Poland if the Austrians thrown in Galicia does make far more sense. I don't think it was ever really "on the table" in OTL, but it's plausible enough.

 

[Skallagrim]

If the Russian Provisional Government makes peace early enough, then it could avoid the loss of Livonia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus, no?

In the scenario that @sillygoose laid out, which I find convincing, the Entente basically folds, and Russia gets thrown to the wolves. By this stage, Germany knows it's going to in, so it can demand whatever it wants. Russia can either fold, or keep fighting until it loses anyway.

Why doesn't A-H try expanding further at Italy's expense?

That would be adding an additional mess to the Austrian segment of the Empire. Very counter-productive.

 

[WolfBear]

On the terms of purely Austria-Hungary, I'd say your analysis of the late-in-the-war realities has merit. I'm not sure this would hold up in a "no war" scenario, as you suggest as well, but let's put that aside.

I do however think that, as @WolfBear mentioned, Germany would lend support in suppressing any Hungarian dissent. In fact, I think German "support" would be rather insistently "offered" to ensure Austria-Hungary gets its house in order. (Precisely because of the lead Germany had taken in the alliance, as you mention. They wouldn't let some Austro-Hungarian domestic shitfight mess up Mittereuropa!)

Regarding Poland: I figured that German plans were pretty nebulous, and the Germans were always quite suspicious of the Poles. In turn, the Poles preferred the Habsbrgs over the Hohenzollerns (and both over the Romanovs, but that's become irrelevant at this point in the ATL). So I figured that "Germny takes no more Polih lands, pawns it off on the Habsburgs" would make sense. After all, Germany already has the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and Ukraine to install its own puppet kings.

...However, your suggestion of Germany offering to put a Habsburg king on the throne of Poland if the Austrians thrown in Galicia does make far more sense. I don't think it was ever really "on the table" in OTL, but it's plausible enough.

Having a Hapsburg King of Poland also makes sense because Poles were Catholics. For that matter, the Lithuanian King should likewise be Catholic for the same reason, no? But can Eastern Orthodox Kings be found for Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, et cetera?

 

[WolfBear]

In the scenario that @sillygoose laid out, which I find convincing, the Entente basically folds, and Russia gets thrown to the wolves. By this stage, Germany knows it's going to in, so it can demand whatever it wants. Russia can either fold, or keep fighting until it loses anyway.

Would a Germany that continues to have its military be led by Erich von Falkenhayn still be as greedy in regards to this, though?

 

[Skallagrim]

Would a Germany that continues to have its military be led by Erich von Falkenhayn still be as greedy in regards to this, though?

Well, you'd want something to show for your efforts, and a great big crescent of buffer states in the East sure is an attractive notion, wouldn't you say?

 

[WolfBear]

Well, you'd want something to show for your efforts, and a great big crescent of buffer states in the East sure is an attractive notion, wouldn't you say?

I mean, probably, if you think that you can actually defend them from the Russian bear indefinitely at a low cost in terms of money, troop stationing, et cetera.

BTW, what do you think of my analysis here? :

Interestingly enough, while Germany is undoubtedly going to be a huge short-term winner, Russia is going to be a long-term winner here since it will avoid the extreme demographic devastation of the 20th century while also being spared decades of Nazi and especially Communist tyranny. By the end of the 20th century, Russia should have around 300 million Slavs and 100 million others, primarily Central Asians, which would make it a demographic power comparable to the US (Slavs = US whites, Central Asians = Hispanics). Of course, Russia's GDP PPP per capita in this TL might be more comparable to France than to the US by the end of the 20th century since the US is unusually wealthy for a country of its average IQ.

 

[Skallagrim]

I mean, probably, if you think that you can actually defend them from the Russian bear indefinitely at a low cost in terms of money, troop stationing, et cetera.

The ultimate point of buffer states is for them to provide a defence for you. Not the other way around. Since none of them would want to be re-taken by Russia, that works out here. They'd also provide considerable economic profit to Germany, and they'd grant easy access to resources to Germany (while denying same to Russia).

All these considerations, I believe, absolutely make it worth your while to carve out these buffer states and put them under puppet kings.

BTW, what do you think of my analysis here?

Compared to OTL, it's true that Russia wins. But they're still taking an enormous loss here, and I certainly don't see the country doing well for quite some time.

 

[WolfBear]

The ultimate point of buffer states is for them to provide a defence for you. Not the other way around. Since none of them would want to be re-taken by Russia, that works out here. They'd also provide considerable economic profit to Germany, and they'd grant easy access to resources to Germany (while denying same to Russia).

All these considerations, I believe, absolutely make it worth your while to carve out these buffer states and put them under puppet kings.

The thing is, though, that I don't think that they'd actually be able to defend themselves from Russia without German help.

Compared to OTL, it's true that Russia wins. But they're still taking an enormous loss here, and I certainly don't see the country doing well for quite some time.

Sure, but it certainly beats having millions of one's citizens starve to death, lose their lands in forced collectivization, and then have tens of millions of one's citizens lose their lives in a new World War on top of that. So, Yes, things won't be good for Russia; it's just that Russians won't know just how much worse things could have actually ended up being for them!

 

[sillygoose]

In the scenario that @sillygoose laid out, which I find convincing, the Entente basically folds, and Russia gets thrown to the wolves. By this stage, Germany knows it's going to in, so it can demand whatever it wants. Russia can either fold, or keep fighting until it loses anyway.

Germany only demanded B-L because Russia refused to quit the war and they decided to take all the grain they could get by grabbing Ukraine and the Kuban. I'm not so sure that Germany would go maximal in their demands here since they are also thinking of the long term ability to occupy it all.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It fell to Hoffmann to set matters straight at dinner on 27 December: Poland, Lithuania and Courland, already occupied by the Central Powers, were determined to separate from Russia on the principle of self-determination that the Bolsheviks themselves espoused. Joffe "looked as if he had received a blow on the head".[17] Pokrovsky wept as he asked how they could speak of "peace without annexations when Germany was tearing eighteen provinces away from the Russian state".[18] The Germans and the Austro-Hungarians planned to annex slices of Polish territory and to set up a rump Polish state with what remained. The Baltic provinces were to become client states ruled by German princes.

I think this would be the territorial demands ITTL since it appears the German mindset was to set up client buffer states rather than annex anything and wanted to avoid a totally destabilized Russia, as it would be hard to extract reparations payments from a failed state and Germany wasn't interested in maintaining a large standing army in the east to prop up something like the B-L territories until they had no other choice. Plus there was the problem of refugees fleeing west and destabilizing the German territories if Russia collapsed or worse yet the Bolsheviks would take over everything and become a major problem in the long term.

 

[sillygoose]

On the terms of purely Austria-Hungary, I'd say your analysis of the late-in-the-war realities has merit. I'm not sure this would hold up in a "no war" scenario, as you suggest as well, but let's put that aside.

I do however think that, as @WolfBear mentioned, Germany would lend support in suppressing any Hungarian dissent. In fact, I think German "support" would be rather insistently "offered" to ensure Austria-Hungary gets its house in order. (Precisely because of the lead Germany had taken in the alliance, as you mention. They wouldn't let some Austro-Hungarian domestic shitfight mess up Mitteleuropa!)

Regarding Poland: I figured that German plans were pretty nebulous, and the Germans were always quite suspicious of the Poles. In turn, the Poles preferred the Habsburgs over the Hohenzollerns (and both over the Romanovs, but that's become irrelevant at this point in the ATL). So I figured that "Germany takes no more Polish lands, pawns it off on the Habsburgs" would make sense. After all, Germany already has the Baltics, Finland, Belarus and Ukraine to install its own puppet kings.

...However, your suggestion of Germany offering to put a Habsburg king on the throne of Poland if the Austrians thrown in Galicia does make far more sense. I don't think it was ever really "on the table" in OTL, but it's plausible enough.

Depends. Germany pre-war was very willing to let Austria deal with their internal issues on their own. Even in the so-called 'blank check' telegram Wilhelm even told FJ that whatever he did with Serbia was his decision, it wasn't Germany's business to tell him how to run his country, just that he'd honor their alliance.

I have a feeling the Germans would want to make it look like an internal issue Austria could iron out herself, with German troops, if involved at all, perhaps wearing Austrian uniforms and probably only being Bavarian to maintain the illusion. That way the Austrians don't look weak.

Yes there was no set plan on Poland because everything kept changing. I still think it is likely to have gotten a German or Habsburg monarch as some point though, even if Pilsudski kept playing hardball. IIRC the problem was the proposed Habsburg was basically rolled over by the more militant Poles, so wasn't turning out to be as useful as thought.

There were options discussed about throwing in Galicia, but even the Habsburgs couldn't make up their mind IIRC.