This is something I've been turning over in my head for a few months now, and I thought I would throw the question open for discussion on here.
The board is often flush with discussion of how the Germans could achieve fast victory on the Western Front in the First World War, but I don't remember seeing the reverse done. Is there any possibility of the Allies achieving a quick victory (i.e. before the end of 1915 at the latest) over the Germans? I've tried to come up with scenarios were it might have happened, but I've struggled, barring a combination of unlikely outcomes, so I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has something to suggest.
I should think it depends how many variables one is prepared to alter. Is it too much to alter the strategic war plans of the Austro-Hungarians? Is it too much to provide the French with an intelligence edge or a technological advantage over the Germans? Would it be too much to flick ignite several light-bulbs over the heads of Entente commanders and inventors while leaving their opposite numbers in either darkness or merely their OTL lighting? Can one ditch Les pantalons rouges and replace them with something else? If doing so requires a stronger French dye industry during the later nineteenth century, has one gone back rather too far in one's desire to adulterate Clotho's thread? Setting aside matters of technology or plans or intelligence, and simply sitting down at the dinner table with "Plans", one can make German casualties during the initial phase of the war much heavier, if one assumes a greater stockpiling of ammunition by the French during the war. They burned through it rather quickly IOTL, as did everyone. One might venture in the direction of requesting heavier artillery for French divisional commanders, but that arguably becomes a technological question. One can decrease French offensive casualties by cancelling their southern offensives. But one must bear in mind the knock-on effects this will have on the German left.
Meanwhile, given the historical deployment of the French armies, nobody would say that it would not have been of benefit to the French to have placed their left flank in a more northerly position. Were a longer war being considered, I should point out the strategic importance of the Briey Basin to France's industrial output, but in thinking about a war occurring between August and the end of December, it doesn't seem worth dwelling on. So what about
offensive a l'outrance? Well, that's a reaction to German manpower and tactics. Knowing that the Germans would have a tactical superiority in numbers, and that they would exploit this by attempting flanking manoeuvres, the historical suggestion was to launch a concerted frontal assault, splitting the attackers in twain. They could then be dealt with in turn. This turned out not to be terribly practical. So one could come up with a reason to alter French military thought. One might suggest that a series of fighting retreats, trading land slowly for German casualties, would be helpful.
So far I've suggested giving the artillery more shells (one might add that high explosive ones are more handy for trench warfare), moving the flank of the armies to the north, not attacking in the south and changing French tactical doctrine to be less inclined toward aggression and more focused on the defensive. None of these is the sort of thing to make one harrumph with disgust at the originator's Francophilic bias, I hope! These changes impact strengthen the French military, but I doubt that they alone would lead to a cessation of hostilities by Christmas. Changes to the Belgians (improved defences? Fewer shakos?
) will slow down the Germans. Changes to the Central Powers' arsenals will make a difference (much has been said about the power of Austro-Hungarian artillery). A stonking Russian victory over the Germans, as has been mentioned above, would be rather a horrifying thing to the Generalstab. Given how the Germans underestimated the Russians, I have sometimes thought that from the East is probably the simplest way to Berlin. After all, if one smashes the existing divisions, then any secondary line of defence has to come from units assigned to the West. IOTL the French and Russians intended to catch the Germans between their combined armies. A dash more luck could well have seen it happen.
But I'm rambling. I've laid out a few possibilities for French military improvement, as France strikes me as particularly interesting. However, I fluttered merrily across a field of other nations, and a few of the possibilities for alterations to each of them, before coming to land on Russia. Objections are raised about Russia, but some are rather more mythical than historical or which, at any rate, project later events further back. They were as well-supplied with artillery shells as anyone else
at first. The supposed Rennenkampf-Samsonov feud seems to have been a German invention. Although were it not, one would have no difficulty as an alt-historian in transposing one Russian army commander with another. I hope that despite my rambling I have been of some help!
