AHC: Make WW1 a stalemate
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ww1
Unlikely. They'll keep running on sunken cost fallacy and reasonable (though ultimately unfounded) fear of a punitive peace until a major country gives in and probably pulls its coalition with them.
I know it’s basically impossible IOTL but is there a scenario you can think about where it is a real possibility?
colonel
Donor
Maybe another unsanctioned Christmas truce in 1916 where the troops ignore orders to resume hostilities. It sufficiently scares the leadership on both sides into believing they’ll wind up having armies start walking away from the front and turning on them. They decide to accept American offers of mediation as a fig leaf.
This question has come up before. A frequent answer is that the USA does not enter the war. Without the influx of American troops and support, eventually the British, French, and Germans would exhaust themselves.
So no Zimmerman telegraph and unrestricted submarine warfare which provoked the Americans. Also, covert financial aid to American Socialist, Irish Americans, and German Americans to encourage them to push for the USA to not go into the war.
So no Zimmerman telegraph and unrestricted submarine warfare which provoked the Americans. Also, covert financial aid to American Socialist, Irish Americans, and German Americans to encourage them to push for the USA to not go into the war.
The tank was a no brainer. Where the British stole a march on everyone else apart from Burstyn in 1911 de Mole in 1912 was to build one that could easily cross trenches. The latter two gentlemen incorporated trench crossing/climbing into their designs. However neither was taken up.
Here's to hoping this thread won't degenerate into the usual slugfest over the state of Entente finances in 1917.
I've created more threads on the topic of WWI ending with a negotiated peace in 1916-17 than any AH.com member has a right to, and I can't make any absolute promises that I won't create more at some point. My thoughts have been heavily influenced by Philip Zelikow's book on Wilson's peace efforts, because he's the only recent author to cover the subject in any kind of depth. Various posters have raised good points, and I can't say that I have perfect responses to all of them. The issue is getting both sides to the point where they feel more comfortable gambling on Wilson's armistice proposal than whatever their plans are for 1917. Suffice to say, it's pretty bloody difficult. Is it "impossible"? Maybe, but I would like to believe there was a chance.
The simplest POD is Wilson's December peace proposal having some actual teeth to it, stating some actual preconditions for an armistice, pending a proper treaty. Minimal conditions might be something like Germany restoring Belgium - Bethmann was okay with this, and if he get the Kaiser to agree to it, he can probably get it to happen - with Britain ceasing the blockade of Germany. Of course, the war is not a conflict between London and Berlin alone, but they were most influential members of their respective sides.
Another idea (which I might turn into a TL at some point, real life permitting), has Tsar Nicholas and General Brusilov killed in an Austro-Hungarian bombing run in April 1916. The main Russian summer offensive is directed against the Germans and ends in failure. With more reserves, the Germans capture Fort Souville, and French casualties mount ever higher. The Germans have more reserves for the Somme, so they come out a bit better. In Italy, the Strafexpedition still peters out, but without Brusilov the KuK army has the reserves to blunt the Isonzo offensive later in the year. You might add a worse Jutland to get the British more on edge, or have Lloyd George be drowned with Kitchener.
The above scenario, where things are more inconclusive than OTL, is somewhat more conducive to getting everyone looking at other options. However, I won't say I'm wholly convinced, and no doubt many others will feel even less confident.
I've created more threads on the topic of WWI ending with a negotiated peace in 1916-17 than any AH.com member has a right to, and I can't make any absolute promises that I won't create more at some point. My thoughts have been heavily influenced by Philip Zelikow's book on Wilson's peace efforts, because he's the only recent author to cover the subject in any kind of depth. Various posters have raised good points, and I can't say that I have perfect responses to all of them. The issue is getting both sides to the point where they feel more comfortable gambling on Wilson's armistice proposal than whatever their plans are for 1917. Suffice to say, it's pretty bloody difficult. Is it "impossible"? Maybe, but I would like to believe there was a chance.
The simplest POD is Wilson's December peace proposal having some actual teeth to it, stating some actual preconditions for an armistice, pending a proper treaty. Minimal conditions might be something like Germany restoring Belgium - Bethmann was okay with this, and if he get the Kaiser to agree to it, he can probably get it to happen - with Britain ceasing the blockade of Germany. Of course, the war is not a conflict between London and Berlin alone, but they were most influential members of their respective sides.
Another idea (which I might turn into a TL at some point, real life permitting), has Tsar Nicholas and General Brusilov killed in an Austro-Hungarian bombing run in April 1916. The main Russian summer offensive is directed against the Germans and ends in failure. With more reserves, the Germans capture Fort Souville, and French casualties mount ever higher. The Germans have more reserves for the Somme, so they come out a bit better. In Italy, the Strafexpedition still peters out, but without Brusilov the KuK army has the reserves to blunt the Isonzo offensive later in the year. You might add a worse Jutland to get the British more on edge, or have Lloyd George be drowned with Kitchener.
The above scenario, where things are more inconclusive than OTL, is somewhat more conducive to getting everyone looking at other options. However, I won't say I'm wholly convinced, and no doubt many others will feel even less confident.
Personally, I doubt it. And, I’ll be honest, I am not sure why it is such a popular AH idea. But, to each their own.
The nature of total war of the WW1 sort is that you go until one side runs out of gas and then that side basically crumbles. IOTL WW1 that is basically always going to be Germany. The alternative is that one of the sides is less committed to the war than the other. But, particularly in WW1, nations tended to get more committed as positions hardened and victory became less about position and more about survival of your way of life. So it’s not an easy thing to manage to get one side to give up without being defeated.
Its really hard with politicians, or political groups for one side to give up if your Germany, and a couple million are dead, countless treasure spent, that your going to be able to sell a compromise peace is hard.
So its almost that the government responsible has to be overthrown then the next government makes a compromise peace, so maybe in a TL where there is no Hindenburg plan, more coal for heating, more food into the cities, a bit more equipment to the front, Germany doing a smidge better but obviously still losing, no death ride, Kaiser abdicates, Ludendorff fired, maybe the German army remains in the line, and Germany negotiates a compromise peace instead of an armistice (Germany willing to give up Alsace-Lorraine and the colonies, and the navy, air force, and heavy artillery, but keeping a large regular army, keeping the Polish corridor, etc...). Maybe that is acceptable to the Allies vs a million more casualties invading Germany.
Mismanagement of food distribution during the Turnip Winter in Germany leads to greater social unrest in early 1917 meanwhile French mutinies of 1917 are meet with heavier discipline and less offerings, which backfires. Both sides fear major social unrest (or even revolution given the situation in Russia). Both sides are willing to make greater compromises during negotiations, leading to peace.
If the US doesnt enter the war, the Entente is done in 1917.
Romania crumbled in 1916
Zar deposed
Simultaneous 1917 summer offensive by al Entente powers in order to win before Russian army dissolves
Russian army dissolves in the Kerensky offensive
French army mutinies...
...only now there are no Usians coming, no hope for the poilus that someone else is going to do the fighting. All they have to look forward is for the rest of the Germans to head to France after finishing the Russians.
The brits are bleeding themselves white to keep up appearances that someone is still fighting.
If the French army has not collapsed by then, then the Germans and Austrians crush the Italians at Caporetto.
Oh yeah, and the Entente is broke, no US money to bankroll them.
The issue at that point is what kind of deal the Germans are willing to give them to avoid a rout.
Last edited:
True enough. And to be clear, my failure of understanding is not an indictment on those that prefer the POD. Just a quirk of my own. I don’t understand why my wife watches Survivor. Doesn’t mean she is wrong for doing so.
Its a bit like how long could you have Hans Landa strangle Bridget von Hammersmark for in Inglorious Basterds. The result's the same, she isn't going to win.
I don't know why people hang onto this hope that Entente finances were somehow worse than Germany and it's shackled corpses A-H and the Ottomans. The sole German strategy was sell debt to the German people and then recoup it through reparations.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know why people hang onto this hope that Entente finances were somehow worse than Germany and it's shackled corpses A-H and the Ottomans. The sole German strategy was sell debt to the German people and then recoup it through reparations.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My take is Italy honours it's alliance and joins the CP. With the aditional stress of fighting the italians, the french are even more on the ropes. While Austria-Hungary is a bit better since it's not fighting Italy, but focuses on Russia etc. I do like the idea of a better Jutland for the germans, as well as perhaps a similar fiasco for the french fleet (probably boosted by some british ships) at the hands of the combined italian and austro-hungarian fleets. Taking a cue from Italy, Romania also joins the CP, so it's oil is not destroyed but is available for CP's war effort.
Seeing all this bloodletting the americans would be more reluctant to join the war against the combined and somewhat more successful german-italian -austro-hungarian alliance, so after all kinds of back-door wrangling between the great powers the war ends pretty much as a stalemate.
Seeing all this bloodletting the americans would be more reluctant to join the war against the combined and somewhat more successful german-italian -austro-hungarian alliance, so after all kinds of back-door wrangling between the great powers the war ends pretty much as a stalemate.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The influenza pandemic is more serious that OTL leaving hundreds of thousands of soldiers dead or seriously ill, which also soaks up precious resources (hospital beds, trained medical staff - also contracting the disease so even less of them - railway space for hospital trains, etc. After this none of the surviving troops fancy a return to water-logged dug-outs & freezing trenches, and those that do adopt a "live & let live" attitude.