Germany does not lose WW1. What happens to Eastern Europe?

Belisarius II

Naval Aviation Fan said:
You gave a very good bit of information on the Eastern Front upthread, what about problems that France was having? An army that refuses to conduct offensive operation, while enemy troops occupy their sovereign soil, sounds to me (exactly) like someone that might just be open to a 'white' peace in the west, and let the Germans go hang themselves in trying to control the East.

Financially, if the USA isn't in the war, where are the Entente getting all the war materials that the USA isn't providing in this alternate timeline?

Moral wise, knowing that the 'Yanks are coming' is NOT true, how does the Entente keep going?
Click to expand...
Respectfully my friend the French army didn't say they wouldn't attack they said they wouldn't launch any more stupid attacks. It's unlikely the Americans would cut off Allied credit, they had too much invested in Allied victory. Yes, knowing millions of Yanks were coming was a huge boost in Allied morale, but they still had material superiority over the CP's. Without the Americans in the war the urge to punish the CP's for what they did would be stronger not weaker.
 

Naval Aviation Fan

Belisarius II said:
Respectfully my friend the French army didn't say they wouldn't attack they said they wouldn't launch any more stupid attacks. It's unlikely the Americans would cut off Allied credit, they had too much invested in Allied victory. Yes, knowing millions of Yanks were coming was a huge boost in Allied morale, but they still had material superiority over the CP's. Without the Americans in the war the urge to punish the CP's for what they did would be stronger not weaker.
Click to expand...
Made it back home, dinner on the way, and then I can start working on this again, thank goodness!
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Belisarius II said:
Respectfully my friend the French army didn't say they wouldn't attack they said they wouldn't launch any more stupid attacks. It's unlikely the Americans would cut off Allied credit, they had too much invested in Allied victory. Yes, knowing millions of Yanks were coming was a huge boost in Allied morale, but they still had material superiority over the CP's. Without the Americans in the war the urge to punish the CP's for what they did would be stronger not weaker.
Click to expand...
For example, look up the French "bite-&-hold" operations in 1917 at Verdun that eventually recaptured almost all of the ground lost in 1916.
 

Ambusher11

Coulsdon Eagle said:
For example, look up the French "bite-&-hold" operations in 1917 at Verdun that eventually recaptured almost all of the ground lost in 1916.
Click to expand...
Also the La Malmaison battle. Not only did they lose a area that they were planning to use as a jump-off point for a 1918 offensive, but they took fairly heavy losses of 18,000-50,000 men compared to just 12,000-14,000 men on the French side.

I'm also going to point out that if there's no American entry into the war, there'd be no resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, and thus the British economy wouldn't be as damaged as it was OTL.
 

Riain

Banned
Ambusher11 said:
no resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare,
Click to expand...

For me the biggest sticking point of no USW = no US DoW is that Germany will not do nothing in late 1916-early 1917, USW will have to be replaced by something.

This is where I start to get dreamy; perhaps the German Navy sends a cruiser to Flanders to stiffen the 23 Destroyers now based there and really starts to push the British in the narrow waters. Perhaps they undertake the 'Sharpened' uboat rules they used in the first 4 months of 1916, or perhaps they send airpower to really attack the through-channel shipping. Something, anything to forestall USW that creates an effect but doesn't cause the US to declare war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top