What If WW1 ended in 1916?

[Msalatino]

Let's say that The Ottoman Empire stayed Neutral and There was a Republican President during WW1 (either, Taft, Roosevelt, or Root) who pressured Congress to declare War on Germany after the sinking of the Lusitania.

WW1 ended in Nov/Dec 1916

How would this change the Treaty of Versailles?

Could Austria-Hungary survive?

Would the Russian Empire Survived?

Would the Kaiser remain in Power?

Would Germany still lose all it's colonies?

Could another World war still happen?

 

[Lalli]

How would this change the Treaty of Versailles?

ToV perhaps not be that harsh as in OTL.

Could Austria-Hungary survive?

It is possible. But it depends how willingful Entente is preserve that and could it remain stable enough.

Would the Russian Empire Survived?

Possible but not certain. Lot of depends what will happen later. There would be still much os demands for reforms.

Would the Kaiser remain in Power?

Wilhelm II is probably enforced to abdicate but monarchy probably survives.

Would Germany still lose all it's colonies?

Yes.

Could another World war still happen?

Probably not.

 

[Snowstalker]

Would American intervention have even been decisive by 1916? I could see it accelerating the push for a settlement, but not an outright German defeat as IOTL.

Going along with this, Germany would lose its colonies and Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungary survives but loses Bosnia, Trieste, and Trentino.

 

[Lalli]

Would American intervention have even been decisive by 1916? I could see it accelerating the push for a settlement, but not an outright German defeat as IOTL.

Americans would indeed arrive too late to effect to war, but with neutral OE CPs are pretty much doomed. Russians and Brits can now throw more troops to Western and Eastern fronts.

Going along with this, Germany would lose its colonies and Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungary survives but loses Bosnia, Trieste, and Trentino.

Austria-Hungary would too lost Galicia and possibility parts of Croatia. ITTL Entente might not betray Italy so Italy gets Dalmatia too.

 

[Msalatino]

ToV perhaps not be that harsh as in OTL.



It is possible. But it depends how willingful Entente is preserve that and could it remain stable enough.



Possible but not certain. Lot of depends what will happen later. There would be still much os demands for reforms.



Wilhelm II is probably enforced to abdicate but monarchy probably survives.



Yes.



Probably not.

Thanks for your response, But I am not sure it won't be another World War or similar conflict. For Example, An Industrialized Expansionist Nationalist Russia could cause a conflict in Asia with Britain, Japan, or The Ottomans.

Also with the Expulsion of Jews from Russia during the Tsar, it could spark the idea of a Jewish state, but The Ottoman Empire Surviving, doing it in Palestine would be Impossible.

Israel could be settled in Namibia Since they Rejected Kenya before WW1.

 

[Lalli]

Thanks for your response, But I am not sure it won't be another World War or similar conflict. For Example, An Industrialized Expansionist Nationalist Russia could cause a conflict in Asia with Britain, Japan, or The Ottomans.

Possible sure but not certain. But I agree that Anglo-Russo relations probably are not great since Britain would be worried about strong Russia. Actually it is possible that Germany and Britain become closer but France grows apart from Britain. And Britain and Ottomans might are closer. But not sure if there is WW2. Russia hardly is able to industrialise such degree as in OTL. Of course lot depends what will happen in Russia after WW1.

Also with the Expulsion of Jews from Russia during the Tsar, it could spark the idea of a Jewish state, but The Ottoman Empire Surviving, doing it in Palestine would be Impossible.

Israel could be settled in Namibia Since they Rejected Kenya before WW1.

Probably there is still pogroms against Jews but not sure if there is such massive expulsion or flux to other places. Israel wa<sn't inevitable and without Holocaust there probably is not such state. And Namibia IMO not seem like suitable place for Jewish state due climate. And South Africa might has something saying for that.

 

[Evil Crusader]

It depends on whether this 1916 peace happens before or after a clear breakdown. In the first instance, you still have a moderate peace, in the second one, the Entente has the strength needed to push its maximalist dreams yet.

Negotiated peace: A-L to France, Trentino and whatever small gains on the Isonzo to Italy, Austrian Galicia to Russia, German stuff in Asia to Japan, whatever economic concession the USA want, African colonies are divided between France and Britain, maybe small corrections to Belgium and Denmark, Serbia is restored but Bulgaria keeps its gains. No major political upheaval for sure, a second bout is quite possible.

Capitulation peace: France also gets the Saar and possibly other territories on the west bank of the Rhine, Denmark is returned Schleswig, corrections to Belgium, Posen also goes to Russia, Italy gets the full London Pact, Serbia maybe gains some corrections from A-H, Bulgaria probably has to relinquish its gains, no further events outside of Europe. A second bout is harder to happen, but individual conflicts are fairly possible. The Kaiser abdicates, FJ dies as per OTL, but their monarchical systems are unlikely to just go down despite it all. Though, Communism will flare in Germany... or we could have a funny moustached man of sorts, talking about a mutilated country that needs to win its pieces back.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

How would this change the Treaty of Versailles?

Slightly less harsh on Germany since the Entente suffered less.

Could Austria-Hungary survive?

Probably, at that point the situation was still under control so an end to the war would mean they would be able to survive with perhaps a few concessions to ethnical minorities. They would lose important territories to the Entente though.

Would the Russian Empire Survived?

Probably, while Nicky was very hated a return to peace will probably enough to not be forced to abdicate, at worst he abdicates and his brother becomes a regent.

Would the Kaiser remain in Power?

There would be less hate for him in Germany since the conditions are better than IOTL 1918, but it also depends on whether the Entente wants him to remain (that whole discussion about how Prussian militarism is responsible for WW1).

Would Germany still lose all it's colonies?

Yes.

Could another World war still happen?

It's much more unlikely as conditions are less favorable for it to happen and even if the Nazis end up in power anyways and want to go to war, they would find themselves in a two front war between Russia and France which they're extremely unlikely to survive for long, especially as the military hated Hitler up until the success in France.

 

[Lalli]

Slightly less harsh on Germany since the Entente suffered less.

And one motivation for Brits to get lesser harsh terms is fear of strong Russia. Now Russia is not at civil war so Brits want keep Germany somehow strong so it can fight at future. Of course Brits must pressure France to accept milder terms.

Probably, while Nicky was very hated a return to peace will probably enough to not be forced to abdicate, at worst he abdicates and his brother becomes a regent.

There would be good-feelings year or two but eventually veterans (several peasants among them) begin to demand reforms and minorities (speciality Poles and Finns) are yelling their old rights back. Nicholas II has either grant reforms or abdicate. Otherwise Russia is in deep troubles.

There would be less hate for him in Germany since the conditions are better than IOTL 1918, but it also depends on whether the Entente wants him to remain (that whole discussion about how Prussian militarism is responsible for WW1).

USA would has lesser pressure so monarchy can be preserved. But probably Wilhelm II has still abdicate.

It's much more unlikely as conditions are less favorable for it to happen and even if the Nazis end up in power anyways and want to go to war, they would find themselves in a two front war between Russia and France which they're extremely unlikely to survive for long, especially as the military hated Hitler up until the success in France.

Rise of nazis is almost impossible. Peace terms are lesser harsh and probably ITTL it would be pretty clear that CPs had not any chances to win so idea about back stabbing myth wouldn't get that much popularity. And no communist Russia either.

Actually if WW2 will happen, IMO most plausible agressors are Franco-Russian alliance. But not sure if even this is really likely.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

There would be good-feelings year or two but eventually veterans (several peasants among them) begin to demand reforms and minorities (speciality Poles and Finns) are yelling their old rights back. Nicholas II has either grant reforms or abdicate. Otherwise Russia is in deep troubles.

Not really, while very hated the Tsarist regime always managed to put down any attempt at revolt and without the Ottoman Straits blockaded more supplies can go to Russia, once the war is over while there will be some problems the population isn't as dissatisfied as during wartime, mainly because they aren't starving and because inflation will return to a normal level (with US help trough loans). The Poles and Finns are a minority in the army and their privileges have long been revoked.
And any attempt at rebellion must be done immediately "good-feelings [for a] year or two" would mean that all of the army is demobilized and everything returns back to normal, at that point any rebellion has no chance of succeeding.
In the extremely unlikely scenario where there is a February Revolution kind of thing during peace time is going to meet the same fate as Bloody Sunday.

Rise of nazis is almost impossible. Peace terms are lesser harsh and probably ITTL it would be pretty clear that CPs had not any chances to win so idea about back stabbing myth wouldn't get that much popularity. And no communist Russia either.

Actually if WW2 will happen, IMO most plausible agressors are Franco-Russian alliance. But not sure if even this is really likely.

I agree but in the 0.00001% chance case where they still end up in power, they're still doomed.

 

[Lalli]

Not really, while very hated the Tsarist regime always managed to put down any attempt at revolt and without the Ottoman Straits blockaded more supplies can go to Russia, once the war is over while there will be some problems the population isn't as dissatisfied as during wartime, mainly because they aren't starving and because inflation will return to a normal level (with US help trough loans). The Poles and Finns are a minority in the army and their privileges have long been revoked.
And any attempt at rebellion must be done immediately "good-feelings [for a] year or two" would mean that all of the army is demobilized and everything returns back to normal, at that point any rebellion has no chance of succeeding.
In the extremely unlikely scenario where there is a February Revolution kind of thing during peace time is going to meet the same fate as Bloody Sunday.

There won't be February Revolution. That I agree. But I disagree that people just go happily live their own lives without any reforms. There is still lot of social and political problems and Russia wasn't peaceful even between 1905 Revolution and WW1 and it won't become peaceful afterwards without serious reforms. People not begin magically love their tsar when he has won the war when there is not any reforms. And economy won't be rising forever. Eventually shit is flying to fan altough not in such level as in 1917. Yes, majority of army is going to be side of tsar but even then it is going to be really brutal and tsar just become more and more hated. Things must eventually change.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

There won't be February Revolution. That I agree. But I disagree that people just go happily live their own lives without any reforms. There is still lot of social and political problems and Russia wasn't peaceful even between 1905 Revolution and WW1 and it won't become peaceful afterwards without serious reforms. People not begin magically love their tsar when he has won the war when there is not any reforms. And economy won't be rising forever. Eventually shit is flying to fan altough not in such level as in 1917.

As a matter of fact regimes much more oppressive than the Tsar managed to exist for far longer than Nicholas' reign without doing any reforms. The RE while not the most stable of all was not an entity that would collapse on itself out of nowhere. And

veterans (several peasants among them) begin to demand reforms and minorities (speciality Poles and Finns) are yelling their old rights back. Nicholas II has either grant reforms or abdicate.

is not going to happen, the Revolution of 1905 wasn't near succeeding neither would any other revolution.

Yes, majority of army is going to be side of tsar but even then it is going to be really brutal and tsar just become more and more hated. Things must eventually change.

The Tsar reached the maximum of hated he could without starvation or bad economic conditions. Things won't change until a Tsar that wants change comes to power, up until then we continue with the current course of action.

 

[DougM]

I seam to be in the minority.
I think that if you get a peace treaty in 1916 with the changes the OP said happened then I think it turns into something MUCH closer to a white peace. Germany and Austria will not being doing that much worse in this TL and the US will be weaker than it was when it first joined the war in original time line. So it wont have much effect on the war/treaty other then that Germany sees the US coming and thinks that it is a good time to end this mess.

The problem with this timeline is… I dont think what the OP suggest as the changes will result in a peace treaty,
Germany is will be doing worse but not THAT much worse.
And while any treaty will be less harsh if it happens sooner the problem is why does the treaty happen?
France and Italy and GB will be in as strong of position as they were OTL if not a bit better. So why accept a treaty that doesn’t screw over Germany?
The USSR will be doing better so May not implode like it did but it won’t be running rampant. But I doubt it accepts a treaty that Germany would accept.
Austria is doing worse (they are the biggest losers in this timeline) so they are willing to accept just about anything.
This may cause an issue.
But unless Austria implodes I can’t see Germany accepting a treaty that France will accept.
In truth Germany will be worse off in this timeline vs the same date in OTL. But if you compare the way this Germany is vs the OTL Germany was at the end of the war this Germany is actually in a better position. Yes ultimately it is screwed. But OTL Germany had seen most of its Allie’s implode and had the US sending in fresh troops and was running out of troops and equipment and was starving to death.

This Germany is not starving. Has not gotten as desperate for troops, has not ran as low on weapons and supplies and and is not starving (yet). And the Us is actually weaker and will take even longer to get up to speed.

Yeah if you wait a bit this timeline Germany is up a creak but that is not happening in 1916. So I just can’t see any way that GB,France,Russia will agree to terms that this 1916 Germany will agree to.

If you want a peace treaty in 1916 then
A) Germany needs to be in a worse position then this change would cause. Remember Germany did most its gains very early in the war and this POD does not change that. Nor does this POD mean that Germany in this Timeline will be pushed back out of France. The change is not that big,
OR
B) you need to get France (and to a lesser degree GB) to be willing to trully negotiate, And I mean negotiate not dictate terms like in OTL treaty. But I have no idea how you pull this off.
In Either case you also have the issue that Germany will not negotiate very well as they are still sitting in France.

So the problem with this TL is exactly the same as OTL 1916. Nobody is willing to truly negotiate. In reality in OTL any sane government would have been willing to negotiate. The war was obviously not going to be won as originally envisaged by either side. And No one was doing particularly well.
France should have been willingly accept going back to starting positions but it was hell bent on avenging the last war and getting A-L back.
GB ahould have been willing to acept a treaty that got Germany out of Belgiam and maybe placed some restriction on Germanic’s navy as long as GB promise to play nice with Germany and stop using its navy to bully anyone it is mad at.
Germany should have accepted getting out of this war and going back to starting positions and more or less keeping everything it had, while giving up some of its navy that it really couldn’t afford anyway in exchange for a few promises from GB.
Austria should have been willing to accept a treaty that got an apology for the death of its crown Prince and that kept Russia from gaining control over more area.
Russia should have been willing to accept a treaty that kept its territory and kept Austria from gaining control of Misc countries or territories.
And the US should have remained actually neutral vs trying to be on GB side while pretending not to be and selling everything the US could in an effort to take GB and France to the cleaners.
Perhaps if the US was really neutral then they could have helped negotiate said treaty.

But nope. Everyone thought that they could win right up to the point that they shifted views, when that decided that they could not except a reasonable treaty bec they had suffered to much, paid to much and lost to many boys for the war to turn out as more or less going back to starting spots.

And France and GB and various countries all had already decided on what they were going yo demand long before the US ever entered the war (and lied about that to the US) so you have NO reasonable people that will be willing to negotiate a fair treaty.
So frankly this topic is really ASB. As it can’t happen. Unless you change everyone involved.

 

[Driftless]

Would American intervention have even been decisive by 1916? I could see it accelerating the push for a settlement, but not an outright German defeat as IOTL.

No. If there were a non-Wilson President from 1912 on, then some of Elihu Root's earlier suggested reforms of the US Army might have made more impact, even in compromise form. Those reforms were more to modernizing the top brass administration and forming the onset of a true General Staff. There wasn't a popular push for a large standing Army, so by 1916, the troop numbers wouldn't be there to scare any European Army. However, with an improved planning and organizing General Staff in place, a 1917-1918 AEF would have been able to contribute more.

Maybe the potential of a million or more Doughboys arriving in 1917-1918 helps tip the scales a bit, but even that is doubtful.

Does someone in the White House, other than Wilson, open the US economy more to help the Allies from 1914 on?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The USSR will be doing better so May not implode like it did but it won’t be running rampant. But I doubt it accepts a treaty that Germany would accept.

With the Ottoman Straits open and US loans, the RE can last longer and we're still far from having a Bolshevik takeover.

Does someone in the White House, other than Wilson, open the US economy more to help the Allies from 1914 on?

I'm not certain about this but didn't Wilson put some limitations on loans to the Entente so that when the US joins the Entente is bankrupt?
Either way if the US joins in 1915 there will be a lot more credits given to the Entente.

 

[Msalatino]

Possible sure but not certain. But I agree that Anglo-Russo relations probably are not great since Britain would be worried about strong Russia. Actually it is possible that Germany and Britain become closer but France grows apart from Britain. And Britain and Ottomans might are closer. But not sure if there is WW2. Russia hardly is able to industrialise such degree as in OTL. Of course lot depends what will happen in Russia after WW1.



Probably there is still pogroms against Jews but not sure if there is such massive expulsion or flux to other places. Israel wa<sn't inevitable and without Holocaust there probably is not such state. And Namibia IMO not seem like suitable place for Jewish state due climate. And South Africa might has something saying for that.

Well, Palestine is not much better than Namibia in terms of climate. And there were Propositioons for a Jewish state before WW1.

 

[Lalli]

Well, Palestine is not much better than Namibia in terms of climate. And there were Propositioons for a Jewish state before WW1.

Perhaps but South Africa would has something saying for that unless Britain decide to pressure that. But it would be really stupid. But not really sure if Namibia still would has massive Jewish migration anyway. That would are mostly Russian Jews who would try move to Palestine as long as Ottoman officials allow that and then probably whatever place which is willingful to take them. But this of course depends how long Russia will continue its antisemitic politics.

 

[Msalatino]

Perhaps but South Africa would has something saying for that unless Britain decide to pressure that. But it would be really stupid. But not really sure if Namibia still would has massive Jewish migration anyway. That would are mostly Russian Jews who would try move to Palestine as long as Ottoman officials allow that and then probably whatever place which is willingful to take them. But this of course depends how long Russia will continue its antisemitic politics.

I'm not sure if the rest of the European countries, Canada, or America, will accept more Jews from Europe, Russia wasn't the only antisemitic nation in Europe.

So the calls for a Jewish state would be higher

Most of the Jews will migrate to Argentina and Brazil, mostly the first one.

 

[Lalli]

I'm not sure if the rest of the European countries, Canada, or America, will accept more Jews from Europe, Russia wasn't the only antisemitic nation in Europe.

You are right that many countries wouldn't accept Jewish immigrants at all or would accept only highly educated ones. Or are thrown to colonies. But all Jews wouldn't move to single place either.

So the calls for a Jewish state would be higher

There would be zionism existing while but it wouldn't get such boost as in OTL without Holocaust. Whilst antisemitism is still existing it is not that bad as under nazi regime. So eventually zionism would fade into irrelevance. And existing of any Jewish state is completely on hands of great powers. Yes, Balfour Declaration predate rise of nazism but not really sure if it had such serious intentions as some think. At end British officials restricted really massively Jewish migration to Palestine even at end of WW2.

Most of the Jews will migrate to Argentina and Brazil, mostly the first one.

Probably.

But general Jewish migration it should be noted that they are mostly Russian Jews. ITTL nazis hardly take power so German Jews mostly would remain in Germany.