Is there a plausible scenario in which WW1 ends with a Status Quo Ante Bellum?

Essentially, is it possible for WW1 to end similarly to how another great war, the 7 Year's War in Europe, ended, without any significant territorial, political or economic shifts, with all the empires remaining essentially intact and keeping the same system of alliances, only at peace?

I think it would have to end early, before the end of 1914. After that, too much has been invested and too many lives have already been lost to allow any government to accept anything less than victory.

Anaxagoras said:

I think it would have to end early, before the end of 1914. After that, too much has been invested and too many lives have already been lost to allow any government to accept anything less than victory.

Click to expand...

I second this, and even with an early end, it's difficult. The losses of the first days and weeks were extraordinarily high, beyond anything anyone had expected.

The Germans won't stop their drive to Paris as long as it's still rolling. When it stops rolling, the French will attempt to counterattack and drive the Germans off their soil. That will basically cement the war and prevent an easy "out".

The only way I think it's possible is if large parts of the French army basically shatter, precluding any large counterattack, but at the same time the Germans get smashed by the Russians in the east and dogged French and British resistance keeps the exhausted Germans from seizing Paris. That might force Germany to retreat in the west to stabilize the east, creating some breathing space for negotiations.

Germans stand defensive on West, No Belgium invasion.

They make some gains in 1914 against Russia.

Austria bogged down in Serbia

President TR (either as such or just statesperson) gets agreement. Serbia humiliated but does not cease to exist. Borders as before

maybe 2-3 million pointless deaths by 1915 instead of larger number in otl

You've got to limit German territorial gains in the west. It created a very hard negotiating point. They would need to leave that territory as part of the negotiation, but the second they left they would be in a worse negotiating position. By contrast, the blockade if taken off could be put back on in a second.

You need different warplans for the different nations.

I agree with some of the other posters that, for there to be NO significant boundary changes, it would have to grind to a halt early.

However, despite (or because) of the heavy losses, I think you could have effectively reached a point where that's generally agreed in the West. Both German and French troops had mutinied in large numbers and that was getting worse. If the Germans hadn't tried additional pushes in 1917-1918, things would bog down to (even greater) stalemate or the allies would suffer losses for more assaults. Eventually, one side might conclude that they can't go on and propose peace, the other side (bled white and barely able to keep troops in field or food on table) agrees. That could lead to return to a boundary very nearly pre-war (perhaps German return of some areas they'd gained in the Franco-Prussian War).

One could argue that a reasonable POD for THAT scenario is if America does NOT get directly involved. It's been argued that knowledge of the coming Americans prompted the Germans to attack to try to end it.

Again, that would have only been Status Quo in the West, Russia would have lost land and revolted, Austria mauled, Serbia defeated, Ottoman Empire wounded, etc.

Orko said:

Essentially, is it possible for WW1 to end similarly to how another great war, the 7 Year's War in Europe, ended, without any significant territorial, political or economic shifts, with all the empires remaining essentially intact and keeping the same system of alliances, only at peace?

Click to expand...

jahenders said:

I agree with some of the other posters that, for there to be NO significant boundary changes, it would have to grind to a halt early.

However, despite (or because) of the heavy losses, I think you could have effectively reached a point where that's generally agreed in the West. Both German and French troops had mutinied in large numbers and that was getting worse. If the Germans hadn't tried additional pushes in 1917-1918, things would bog down to (even greater) stalemate or the allies would suffer losses for more assaults. Eventually, one side might conclude that they can't go on and propose peace, the other side (bled white and barely able to keep troops in field or food on table) agrees. That could lead to return to a boundary very nearly pre-war (perhaps German return of some areas they'd gained in the Franco-Prussian War).

Click to expand...

That last is ASB. Iirc German leaders were still hoping to gain Longwy-Briey as late as June 1918.

And to hand back all their 1914 conquests without a quid pro quo would be seen as defeat.

It recalls something I read in a book by James Cameron "If France had lost too much to compromise, Germany had won too much".

I agree it would have taken quite a bit, but things were getting ever harder for Germany and that could have eventually pushed them to some kind of negotiated peace (terms dependent on the exact status at the time).

Mikestone8 said:

That last is ASB. Iirc German leaders were still hoping to gain Longwy-Briey as late as June 1918.

And to hand back all their 1914 conquests without a quid pro quo would be seen as defeat.

It recalls something I read in a book by James Cameron "If France had lost too much to compromise, Germany had won too much".

Click to expand...

jahenders said:

I agree it would have taken quite a bit, but things were getting ever harder for Germany and that could have eventually pushed them to some kind of negotiated peace (terms dependent on the exact status at the time).

Click to expand...

If the Germans have any say in these "negotiations", then they would never willingly given up Alsace-Lorraine.

Another possibility is it goes on quite a bit longer. For this to happen the US can't be involved and likely the Russians can't leave. Everyone is going broke and every country is on the verge of revolution with very strong peace movements. In this case you might get an agreement as each government doesn't want to fall.

What you need is a situation in Germany where a general strike has occurred with some success and revolutionaries are in the streets winning victories over the home forces. This was the situation that Ludendorff/etc. was terrified of. Add that to similar unrest going on in Britain and France, and we could see the potential for a status quo ante bellum (agreed upon for fear that anything less would be rejected) where the troops go home to crush their own people.

What if the Germans march on into Belgium and immediately hit a brick wall? No early movement stage, just trench warfare not far from the actual border for a few months. If Germany is successful in the east with such a situation in the west, I can see some sort of white peace.

jahenders said:

I agree it would have taken quite a bit, but things were getting ever harder for Germany and that could have eventually pushed them to some kind of negotiated peace (terms dependent on the exact status at the time).

Click to expand...

Things were going harder for Germany because US intervention had led to a drastic tightening of the blockade, given the Entente unsecured loans which enabled them to continue making massive purchases in America, and provided a potentially limitless reserve of manpower.

If we are assuming that America still enters the war, there will be no compromise because the Entente won't want one. It knows that it need only "hang in" and victory is assured. If, OTOH, the US has remained neutral, then the Entente has virtually no bargaining chips. It holds only a sliver of Alsace, some worthless German colonial territory, and two small corners of the OE. So any negotiated peace will be so much in Germany's favour as to amount to an Allied defeat.

Also, the U-boat war makes compromise close to impossible. A "drawn" peace implies no compulsory disarmament of Germany, so that she is free to go on building subs. Thus any future war a few years down the line will start with Germany having several hundred u-boats, rather tha the 120 or so that it began USW with, let alone the fifty-something that Hitler had in 1939. Can Britain sign up to that?

What about a tech related POD? If the first experimental Haber-Bosch reactor gets destroyed in a hydrogen related accident, throwing back the research a year or two, Germany does not have a nitrate source early in the war. Capture of the saltpeter store in Antwerp happens as OTL, but after that the ammonia capacity is still too low to prosecute the war. Birkeland-Eyde process is too inefficient to be a replacement. Thus, when Germany gets close to exhausting the nitrate supply, the Heer tries to go on a final offensive, in order to secure a better negotiating position, and immediately following that German government offers a ceasefire. Its 1914, the promises of the war "over by Christmas" are not yet forgotten. Germany has to give up naval ambitions and come to a middle ground solution on A-L, as well as some accommodation with Russia. Austria is thrown under the bus and has to be extremely accommodating to Russia and Italy, but as it is not a total destruction like 1918, anything beyond minor border adjustments and indemnities is out of question. Its not exactly a white peace but more a power shift in Europe away from the Central Powers. This may be nevertheless sufficient to throw a wrench into the German politics and tear the old A-H empire apart.

It might even be beneficial for long term european stability if Germany looses Alsac Lorraine. That strip of land has been a source for conflict for far too long, and history seems to show that Germany really isn't all that attached to it, while France certainly is.

Cronos988 said:

It might even be beneficial for long term european stability if Germany looses Alsac Lorraine. That strip of land has been a source for conflict for far too long, and history seems to show that Germany really isn't all that attached to it, while France certainly is.

Click to expand...

Sure, but tell that to a German in 1918. Iirc, even Stresemann (commonly thought of as a moderate due to his postwar record) was in favour of annexing Longwy-Briey

Orko said:

Essentially, is it possible for WW1 to end similarly to how another great war, the 7 Year's War in Europe, ended, without any significant territorial, political or economic shifts, with all the empires remaining essentially intact and keeping the same system of alliances, only at peace?

Click to expand...

The Seven Years War ended as status quo ante in Europe because Britain had got everything it wanted outside Europe, and left Prussia in the lurch. Then Russia (which had no real interests in the war) bailed out, and Fritz fought the Austrians and French to a draw.

In WW I, Germany's colonies are nearly worthless, and no one is settling for that. The war in Europe continues to decision.

Possibility.

1) The messenger with the withdraw order doesn't reach Von Kluck's HQ. German 1st Army is cut off and destroyed. The Western Front is bent well east; the Allies hold Antwerp and regain Brussels.

2) Better Russian commanders and worse German commanders in Prussia. The Russians occupy most of East Prussia and besiege Konigsberg.

3) Goeben is intercepted and flees to Austria instead of Turkey. Turkey remains neutral.

4) Haber blows up a retort, and doesn't get his process going. Germany is out of nitrates by the end of 1914.

5) As OTL, Russia defeats Austria in Galicia, and Serbia repulses Austrian invasion.

At this point, the German war policy has failed on all fronts. So has Austria's. The CPs are barely holding on. Italy is rumored to be going to war against Austria, so is Romania. Austria is threatening to bail out at once; Germany has no choice but to make peace.

OTOH, the Allies have taken a lot of hits, and could be persuaded to end the war ASAP. France wants Alsace-Lorraine back, but Germany's not going there and Britain won't fight for years to make her.

The Kaiser and some of the generals insist that Germany must triumph, but cooler heads arrange a quiet palace coup; Willy has a "breakdown" and abdicates. Russia is bought off with eastern Galicia, Britain with colonies, France with reparations, Belgium with the heads of a few "war criminals".

Aside from Galicia, no territorial changes in Europe.

that is a whole bunch of not very plausible things

for example the haber/bosch process was developed before the war.
and its development stretches back quite a bit, plus that there were others trying to develop this process too. there was so much development going in that field someone had to invent it.


simplest way would be if the us stays out of the war, and by 1917 the british (and since they were financing the french war effort, also the the french) run out of collateral for credit, and they can't us product anymore.
the us wants to keep the trade for its company, and increases pressure on britain to end the blockade so they can trade with the netherlands ( a neutral that was blocked by the entente) and germany

I believe that once the guns started to fire you would never have a real status quo ante.

As a rough sketch you need.

A truly neutral US - condensing no unsecured loans

end of 1916 (IMHO the high water mark for the CPs):

CPs offer peace (in a more realistic mode than OTL)
US offers to mediate
Entente agrees because
a) the Czar senses that his country is on the verge of revolution and barely holding the CPs back (this is after Brusilov)
b) Britain senses that without more loans the war will become too costly to be balanced out by gains
c) France is unable to convince Britain to fight on.

So by Early 1917 we get negotiations.

Russia is probably still facing a revolution which allows the Germans to push for an independent Poland.

Serbia has to suffer but I assume Austria is willing to buy peace with lenience.

Romania will lose its "passes" but thats it.

Japan will probabla be allowed to keep its gains

The Colonies will be a problem.

the OE ? - wondering what the Brits will want to keep (Basra?)

Italy will likely have to give up the Dodekanes (to make the Turks more likely to swallow the loss of Basra)

I am not sure if Germany will get something in Europe, but concessions concerning Brie Longwy and France formally again accepting Alsace Lorraine (50 km demilitarized zone possible ?)

You need a peace that allows to save face for all sides.

The smaler allies of both sides will the ones who pay the price

Not a Status-Quo with Russia, but perhaps with the West:

Its been some time since I read it, but I recall a reference from Fischer's work that suggested Germany's Brest-Litovsk Treaty was so punitive it required a million troops remaining on the eastern front to enforce it. If that suggestion is correct, there is significant scope for the treaty to be less punitive requiring so many troops. A substantial portion of those troops transferred to the Western Front might make all the difference in the 1918 German offensive. If this offensive is wildly successful I could see an exhausted peace settlement being eked out. However I think this is a long shot, a really big long shot.