If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Thoddy
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 18 Jun 2017 11:37
Location: Germany

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Thoddy » 21 Nov 2018 09:34

Its my opinion that german population as well its army were much overstretched and a general collapse threatened.
"Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!"

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9802
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Nov 2018 13:27

Hi POD,

And there I was thinking you were serious!

Enjoyed your controversialist wind-up, but I should get back to more serious threads.

Cheers,

Sid.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Futurist » 11 Nov 2021 03:01

pugsville wrote:
09 Nov 2017 02:51
CroGer wrote:
pugsville wrote:
Romania and Russia were out, Italy and Serbia collapsed. The german forces actually gained a significant boost in morale in 1917.
It's not like the americans just popped up unwanted.
The "Entente" didn't even have enough courage in them to interfere in the turkish or russian civil war.
Italy had not collapsed. Wobbley I'll grant but still in the war. Overall the Entente was in better shape than the Central powers. Britains GDP increased during the war, the German deceased.

The Entente was more capable of fielding armies, supplying and equipping them than the central powers. The German army cracked in 1918, but in any event the German economy was increasingly failing. The Entente was outproducing the Central powers, and that was only increasing as German economy continued to fail.

The US arrival was a tremendous boost, and the the Entente did not expect the German army to crack the way it did, they thought it would be much much more hard fighting and thought the US was critical for 1919. The German decision to the spring offensive was driven by the US arrival, and the spring offensive while spectacular was failure that broke the German army. Without the US entry perhaps the Germans set back in the Hindenburg line and they are in much better shape and the war would continue into 1919. But the collapse of the other powers would have enabled more Entente resources and troops to focused on Germany.

The Psychological effect of the US entry and the arrival of the AEF was tremendous on both the Entente and the Central Powers. The AEF contribution too the actual fighting was rather modest and not critical.
I have a question for you, pugsville: On what terms do you think that the Western Allies would have been willing to agree to a negotiated peace in 1918 had the US not already been in the war? For instance, would having Germany offer a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine and Austria-Hungary offer plebiscites in Trentino have been good enough for this--along with of course a CP withdrawal from all occupied Allied territory other than Russian territory, where the Central Powers sphere of influence could be pushed back to the Daugava-Dnieper Line assuming that the Central Powers are still willing to subsequently overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia. Would that work for the Western Allies?

pugsville
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by pugsville » 11 Nov 2021 05:54

Futurist wrote:
11 Nov 2021 03:01
pugsville wrote:
09 Nov 2017 02:51
CroGer wrote:
pugsville wrote:
Romania and Russia were out, Italy and Serbia collapsed. The german forces actually gained a significant boost in morale in 1917.
It's not like the americans just popped up unwanted.
The "Entente" didn't even have enough courage in them to interfere in the turkish or russian civil war.
Italy had not collapsed. Wobbley I'll grant but still in the war. Overall the Entente was in better shape than the Central powers. Britains GDP increased during the war, the German deceased.

The Entente was more capable of fielding armies, supplying and equipping them than the central powers. The German army cracked in 1918, but in any event the German economy was increasingly failing. The Entente was outproducing the Central powers, and that was only increasing as German economy continued to fail.

The US arrival was a tremendous boost, and the the Entente did not expect the German army to crack the way it did, they thought it would be much much more hard fighting and thought the US was critical for 1919. The German decision to the spring offensive was driven by the US arrival, and the spring offensive while spectacular was failure that broke the German army. Without the US entry perhaps the Germans set back in the Hindenburg line and they are in much better shape and the war would continue into 1919. But the collapse of the other powers would have enabled more Entente resources and troops to focused on Germany.

The Psychological effect of the US entry and the arrival of the AEF was tremendous on both the Entente and the Central Powers. The AEF contribution too the actual fighting was rather modest and not critical.
I have a question for you, pugsville: On what terms do you think that the Western Allies would have been willing to agree to a negotiated peace in 1918 had the US not already been in the war? For instance, would having Germany offer a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine and Austria-Hungary offer plebiscites in Trentino have been good enough for this--along with of course a CP withdrawal from all occupied Allied territory other than Russian territory, where the Central Powers sphere of influence could be pushed back to the Daugava-Dnieper Line assuming that the Central Powers are still willing to subsequently overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia. Would that work for the Western Allies?
Unlikely in 1918 is my guess, but it is very guessey. There was general trend of leadership hardening during the war. Clemenceau, Lloyd George were pretty unassailable domestically and both fairly hard line. Hard to see either giving the game away easily. I do not see them rolling over in 1918.

Depends on the economic effects of non US Entry, if Wilson keeps a hard line (and he was more vulnerable, cutting US industry off at the knees woudl not have played well)

And on what basis does the US not intervene. IS there unrestricted submarine warfare? It was a significant stretch of Entente resources especially shipping. A lot of materials/supplies could have been sourced outside the US on pound sterling rather than dollar basis but that would require longer shipping route.

The Entente had a some fat in their war program that could have been cut out. (a lot of the Royal Navy building program for example) and reduced arms manufacture (not equipping the Americans for starters)

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9802
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 11 Nov 2021 20:23

Hi Guys,

Germany was on the verge of collapse on 11 November 1918. That is why it surrendered in all but name. It had lost all its allies, its shrinking army was defeated in the field, in retreat and leaving increasing numbers of prisoners behind. Its navy had mutinied. It couldn't feed irtself and the population was starving. The influenza epidemic was ravaging the country. It had overthrown its existing government.

Germany had no means of perpetuating the existing war for long, let alone fighting it differently.

The real question was whether it could even reach 1919, let alone 1920!

Cheers,

Sid

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Futurist » 11 Nov 2021 21:33

Sid Guttridge wrote:
11 Nov 2021 20:23
Hi Guys,

Germany was on the verge of collapse on 11 November 1918. That is why it surrendered in all but name. It had lost all its allies, its shrinking army was defeated in the field, in retreat and leaving increasing numbers of prisoners behind. Its navy had mutinied. It couldn't feed irtself and the population was starving. The influenza epidemic was ravaging the country. It had overthrown its existing government.

Germany had no means of perpetuating the existing war for long, let alone fighting it differently.

The real question was whether it could even reach 1919, let alone 1920!

Cheers,

Sid
For what it's worth, History Learner has previously wrote (either here or on another forum--I'll have to check) that had Germany been able to maintain control of its army discipline in late 1918, it could have given the Allies a real bloodbath at Metz in 1919 due to the fact that Metz was heavily fortified. This could have essentially been a second Verdun. Still, I ultimately don't see this as preventing the Allies from winning WWI. The Republicans who won control of the US Congress in 1918 did not do so on a pro-peace platform to my knowledge, after all. If anything, they might be even more vigorous about pushing through the war to a successful conclusion ("unconditional surrender") than Woodrow Wilson was, thus enabling them to attack Wilson from the right as being not tough enough on Germany. But the effects would have been interesting if, instead of 116,500 US deaths in World War I, you ultimately end up having something like 500,000 US deaths in World War I instead. This might be enough to actually push through the partition of Germany after the end of World War I in this scenario. Seriously.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9802
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Nov 2021 12:50

Hi Futurist,

Nobody needed to go via Metz.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by ljadw » 12 Nov 2021 13:47

Futurist wrote:
11 Nov 2021 21:33
Sid Guttridge wrote:
11 Nov 2021 20:23
Hi Guys,

Germany was on the verge of collapse on 11 November 1918. That is why it surrendered in all but name. It had lost all its allies, its shrinking army was defeated in the field, in retreat and leaving increasing numbers of prisoners behind. Its navy had mutinied. It couldn't feed irtself and the population was starving. The influenza epidemic was ravaging the country. It had overthrown its existing government.

Germany had no means of perpetuating the existing war for long, let alone fighting it differently.

The real question was whether it could even reach 1919, let alone 1920!

Cheers,

Sid
For what it's worth, History Learner has previously wrote (either here or on another forum--I'll have to check) that had Germany been able to maintain control of its army discipline in late 1918, it could have given the Allies a real bloodbath at Metz in 1919 due to the fact that Metz was heavily fortified. This could have essentially been a second Verdun. Still, I ultimately don't see this as preventing the Allies from winning WWI. The Republicans who won control of the US Congress in 1918 did not do so on a pro-peace platform to my knowledge, after all. If anything, they might be even more vigorous about pushing through the war to a successful conclusion ("unconditional surrender") than Woodrow Wilson was, thus enabling them to attack Wilson from the right as being not tough enough on Germany. But the effects would have been interesting if, instead of 116,500 US deaths in World War I, you ultimately end up having something like 500,000 US deaths in World War I instead. This might be enough to actually push through the partition of Germany after the end of World War I in this scenario. Seriously.
Partition ?
You need two for a partition .

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Futurist » 12 Nov 2021 20:53

ljadw wrote:
12 Nov 2021 13:47
Futurist wrote:
11 Nov 2021 21:33
Sid Guttridge wrote:
11 Nov 2021 20:23
Hi Guys,

Germany was on the verge of collapse on 11 November 1918. That is why it surrendered in all but name. It had lost all its allies, its shrinking army was defeated in the field, in retreat and leaving increasing numbers of prisoners behind. Its navy had mutinied. It couldn't feed irtself and the population was starving. The influenza epidemic was ravaging the country. It had overthrown its existing government.

Germany had no means of perpetuating the existing war for long, let alone fighting it differently.

The real question was whether it could even reach 1919, let alone 1920!

Cheers,

Sid
For what it's worth, History Learner has previously wrote (either here or on another forum--I'll have to check) that had Germany been able to maintain control of its army discipline in late 1918, it could have given the Allies a real bloodbath at Metz in 1919 due to the fact that Metz was heavily fortified. This could have essentially been a second Verdun. Still, I ultimately don't see this as preventing the Allies from winning WWI. The Republicans who won control of the US Congress in 1918 did not do so on a pro-peace platform to my knowledge, after all. If anything, they might be even more vigorous about pushing through the war to a successful conclusion ("unconditional surrender") than Woodrow Wilson was, thus enabling them to attack Wilson from the right as being not tough enough on Germany. But the effects would have been interesting if, instead of 116,500 US deaths in World War I, you ultimately end up having something like 500,000 US deaths in World War I instead. This might be enough to actually push through the partition of Germany after the end of World War I in this scenario. Seriously.
Partition ?
You need two for a partition .
You can split Germany into more than two countries: Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, Hanover, et cetera.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by ljadw » 13 Nov 2021 07:39

To split and a partition are two different things .
But,whatever : to split Germany would mean no reparations,as the new states could not pay reparations . It would also mean an economic catastrophe for Germany and for Europe,even for the allies who were dependent on trade with a unified German state for their economic recovery .
And the Germans would want reunification,to prevent this Britain and France would be forced to station occupation forces in Germany .US would leave Europe almost immediately .
About Metz : not only the army discipline but also the home front had collapsed in November 1918 .And nothing could have stopped an Allied advance in Germany through Belgium and Luxembourg .
An IF must be realistic and feasible.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9802
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Nov 2021 07:12

Hi ljadw,

You say, "To split and a partition are two different things." Are they? Please explain. I fear you may be trying to partition hairs!

You say, "to split Germany would mean no reparations,as the new states could not pay reparations". Why? Surely that depends on the terms of the peace agreed? Austria and Hungary were separately assessed for reparations.

Sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by ljadw » 14 Nov 2021 11:18

There were several (4 ) partitions of Poland ,but Poland was not split 4 times .
There was a split of the US in 1860,but no partition : partition means that a country /part of a country is divided and goes to other countries .
The USSR was not divided in 1991 ,but split .
It is obvious that if Germany was divided in 25 or more states, these states would be unable to pay the reparations the winners demanded .What would be better for Britain : to trade with ONE German state of 60 million inhabitants or to trade with 25 German states with each 2.4 million inhabitants .
About Hungary and Austria : they were already de facto independent states before WW1. And, how much % of the reparation sums were paid by both countries ?
Last edited by ljadw on 14 Nov 2021 11:35, edited 1 time in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by ljadw » 14 Nov 2021 11:34

Austria did not pay reparations and Hungary not much more . A unified AH could have paid more than the two successors .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9802
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Nov 2021 12:05

Hi ljadw,

I woulds suggest equally that, "There were several (4 ) partitions of Poland AND Poland was split 4 times."

You post, "partition means that a country /part of a country is divided and goes to other countries." It can also be split between them.

You post, "It is obvious that if Germany was divided in 25 or more states...." Who suggested 25 or more states?

You post, "What would be better for Germany....." Why would that be a consideration for the victors at the peace?

You post, "The USSR was not divided in 1991 ,but split." I would suggest it both divided and split.

You post, "About Hungary and Austria: they were already de facto independent states before WW1". Hardly. They maintained a common central government, central bank, currency, defence forces and foreign policy (much to Hungary's disadvantage, as it turned out) and had a single diplomatic service.

Neither Austria nor Hungary paid much in reparations, but they were assessed for them.

As I said before, I fear you may be trying to partition hairs!

Cheers,

Sid

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Post by ljadw » 14 Nov 2021 15:14

AH had a common government, but no central government : Berchtold was not the foreign minister of AH,but the common foreign minister of Austria and Hungary .
The influence of Conrad on the Hungarian army units was in peacetime very limited : non Hungarian officers were almost excluded in these units, the command language was Hungarian, the funding was done by Hungary . And his power on the Honved was non existent.
The title of the minister of war was :the Imperial and Royal minister of war (k.und k.),it was the same for the ministers of foreign affairs and finance .k and k ( kaiserlich and königlich )means : from Austria and Hungary .
Bavaria had in 1914 an ambassador in Berlin, because there was a central government ( with small powers ) in Berlin, but Hungary had no ambassador in Vienna,because there was no central government in Vienna .
About partition : there was no partition of the US in 1861,as the US could only be by its neighbors.That's why I said that a partition of Germany was not possible in 1918,because Germany's neighbors did not want to take big parts of Germany that were populated by ethnic Germans .There were plans (by the US ) in WW2 for a partition of the whole of Germany ,but they were very fast abandoned .
The neighbors of Germany needed an economically strong Germany. Without a central government in Berlin,this was not possible .

Return to “What if”