LOOONG WW1...

[ObssesedNuker]

I have been musing about the game Iron Storm, of which a major plot point is WW1 lasts into the 1960s.

Now obviously, WW1 lasting into he 60s seems very unlikely as nuclear bombs would come into play sometime into the mid-30s to mid-50s in most TLs, but I was wondering if you could get a stalemate that lasts into the 1940s before breaking due to nuclear weaponry?

[Blizrun]

ASB. Before the US entered the war, there were signs that both sides were getting exhausted from the conflict. Without American entry, I'd give WWI another year before riots in the trenches leads to an armistice and return to the status quo, minus Russia, which was undergoing its revolution.

[The Mists Of Time]

When you talk about a war such as WWI I think of a "hot" or shooting war. There is just no way I can see a hot or shooting war that lasts forty six years. Look at how much of Europe was devestated in WWII that ran only six years from 1939 to 1945. My gosh after 46 years of that , well long before 46 years were up, there would literally be nothing left of either side.

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Blizrun when he says "ASB", there's just no way a real shooting war like WWI is going to run from 1914 to 1960.

[NapoleonXIV]

Couldn't it happen as a sort of stalemate? Both sides settle into long periods when neither one moves or fights much, interrupted by brief forays when one or the other develops a new weapon or tactic and tries it, then both sides develop counters and the status quo resumes. The face, conduct and character of the war evolves and changes, but it always continues

The war becomes institutionalised, accepted. Life goes on. Going off to the trenches becomes a rite of passage, part of growing up. The war itself becomes a sort of giant public work for all the combatants, the Keynesian "flywheel" that keeps prosperity from overheating.

[Elephande]

You mean like the badly named "Hundred Years War", then?

[Fenwick]

WWI lasting for a decade seems very ASB, but if you made it like a cold war it is possible. Or even limit it to various regions, before the "big one" happens.

1914-1916: Balkan conflict. Austria moves in, and Russia had to hold back due to problems, France and England decide to send in "volunteers," add to that German "volunteers" and the war is very bloody, but it ends in Austria with a puppet serbia.

1919-1923: African bush wars. "tribes" start attacking other tribes. The Germans and British slug it out, Italy and France doing the same, neither side really admiting to such, the worst part of the conlict was a German and British convoy firing upon each other.

1925-1927: Chinese War. Various Warlords pop up in China, and Germany starts funding them, Russia, Japan, and Britian do the same. Almost a million Chinese die.

1931-1935: Great War. For whatever reason the powers go to war. Sure there are bi-planes, and even mon-planes flying, armored cars have cannons atop them, and the French march in with assualt rifles, but after a few weeks of fighting sides begin entrenching themselves. While German planes bomb Russia with little to no resistance, the Western front is a place where victory is decided in yards.

[Fenwick]

Originally Posted by NapoleonXIV

Couldn't it happen as a sort of stalemate? Both sides settle into long periods when neither one moves or fights much, interrupted by brief forays when one or the other develops a new weapon or tactic and tries it, then both sides develop counters and the status quo resumes. The face, conduct and character of the war evolves and changes, but it always continues

The war becomes institutionalised, accepted. Life goes on. Going off to the trenches becomes a rite of passage, part of growing up. The war itself becomes a sort of giant public work for all the combatants, the Keynesian "flywheel" that keeps prosperity from overheating.

Hmm so maybe the resources from the East are just enough to kickstart Germany? Also no Spanish flu. Add to that the CP keeps making these ever large fortifactions one, two, and finally twenty miles behind the front lines. So when the Germans let the allies move up they find stronger and stronger defenses.So even if a breakthrough occurs the resistance gets tougher and tougher. Niether side wants to give up, for a stalmate would mean political suicide (more effective then you'd think), and the millions dead would be worthless.

Maybe the English ar ethe first to start the One man= one year program, the other nations follow, having raw recruits arrive every year, and keeping them. Of course the soldiers can stay for up to three years.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Originally Posted by ObssesedNuker

I have been musing about the game Iron Storm, of which a major plot point is WW1 lasts into the 1960s.

I like to do that too. However, I got the impression that the shape of the war by the 1960s would be totally different then that of our WWI period. For one thing, there eventually comes a time when you simply run out of people to throw in uniform. Given that the attrition warfare was not exactly the most sustainable type of warfare, I figured that at some point the war essentially devolved into a conflict of local assaults, of small raids and commando assaults, rather than any type of wide-ranging attempt to push the front line forward.

I also figured that defensive technology had been accelerated to the point where straightforward assaults by tanks, bombers, or whatever could easily be countered with little effect on the ground.

[CDurham]

Another reason it can't last decades like in the Hundred Years War is industrialization. A war in the middle ages could last that long but every year the entire war was put on hold at least twice a year as nearly everyone headed home for planting and harvest season (hey, you're army needs food). By World War One that is no longer neccesary.

[Riain]

You could have the hot part of WW1 ending in a reasonably even stalemate in the west and then have the war continued by proxy in the rest of the world supported by the European powers.

[Fenwick]

How about England, France, Japan, Italy and America, v. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and Russia?

So you can get America, and Russia sending food to the front, plus extra men to throw into the mix. The West has the Navy to keep the East from moving out, but the East has the military to keep the front lines. Throw Japan in, and have her act like OTL by simply stopping once the germany colonies are taken over.

That might work. Cause you have the resrouces to feed the larger industry, and the frontlines everybody likes.

[Niceguy]

I can see the war going on for decades. Low intesity warfare. Lot's of thease conflicts going on in the world right now and they can drag out for decades, no problems. Just let the involved nations stay in a status of war with each other but limit the actual fighting. Demobilaze most of the forces and scale down the war.

Also, some of the involved nations could probably decide that they had it and atually go and sign peace treaties, or in some cases not sign peace treaties but for all practical concern be at peace with each other.

This could then lead to a WW1 that has entered a stage inbetween a hot war and a cold war. I can see such a conflict last for decades.

[Michel Van]

Some german historians request that WW1 and WW2 put to together in
The Thirty Years' War of 20 century !
because because WW2 is the Result of WW1

Lets take the genuine long wars as example
(I know this AH after 1900 thread but the Long wars were in 16 Century)

The Thirty Years' War was fought between 1620 and 1648.
who is in reality Reality 4 Wars
The Bohemian Revolt 1618-1625 in today Czech Republic.
Danish intervention 1625-1629 in today Niedersachsen Germany
Swedish intervention 1630-1635 invasion of Holy Roman Empire
Peace of Prague sign in 1635

French intervention 1636-1648 invasion of Holy Roman Empire
The Peace of Westphalia sign 1648
more on that madess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

Eighty Years' War (1568–1648)
Spain Empire vrs the Dutch
The Battle of Heiligerlee start the War
Resurgence (1572–1585) by Spaine end ins the Bankruptcy of Spain !
the Guerrilla warfare by Dutch (1572 - 1609)
1576 Spain Empire was forced to accept bankruptcy again
1588 Spain Empire Lost his Armada by attack on England

Twelve Years' Truce (1609–1621)
Spain and the Dutch declare a start of a ceasefire of twelve years.
because again Bankruptcy of Spain !

War recommences (1622-1639)
Spain attack the Dutch (because Thirty Years' War)
1639 Spain Invade Dutch with 20,000 troops
The armada was decisively defeated by Dutchtroops.
a ceasefire until 1648
The Peace of Westphalia sign 1648
end the war
More on that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by Niceguy

I can see the war going on for decades. Low intesity warfare. Lot's of thease conflicts going on in the world right now and they can drag out for decades, no problems. Just let the involved nations stay in a status of war with each other but limit the actual fighting. Demobilaze most of the forces and scale down the war.

Also, some of the involved nations could probably decide that they had it and atually go and sign peace treaties, or in some cases not sign peace treaties but for all practical concern be at peace with each other.

This could then lead to a WW1 that has entered a stage inbetween a hot war and a cold war. I can see such a conflict last for decades.

Soooo...

Not 1984 then?

[Mojo]

If the manpower situation got bad enough could the Europeans start forming "volunteer" women divisions of widows and women without children to fight?

[Advernt]

Do you mean one huge DMZ throughout western France and a massive No mans desert in Asia / Siberia , where no full scale fighting takes place , but rather a few sporadicminor skrimishes each month with ocassional escalation ( A version of OTL The Korean DZM ten or twenty times more active? )

[NapoleonXIV]

One other possibility, though I can't see how it would happen, would be to limit it to a Naval war, and have it be fought almost totally by McMahan's big, decisive engagements strategy. That way you could have big fleets have a big battle, sink most of each other's ships and then go back to noncombatant hostility while they build more. Costly, but mainly in money rather than men and infrastructure (naval battles take thousands of lives vs land battles hundreds of thousands), so it could last a long while.

It could even go nuclear, (assuming the fleets are very spread out) w/o destroying the world, (at least at first)

[Michael B]

Any one who has read The Moon Maid by Edgar rice Burroughs will know that the Great War lasted from 1914 to 1967. American troops were deployed in France in the Argonne and in Turkey in 1938 if not earlier (one of the ancestors of the main character is killed in that theatre in that year).

At the end of the war, the world is effectively disarmed by the British and Americans. In addition there is a break down in law and order in Africa, Russia (central, east?0 and central Asia (Afghanistan?, western China?)

No auto rifles are mentioned, just bolt action rifles. Nor are nuclear weapons or tanks used. On the other hand they were using gas shells and radio bombs which I guess are some form of air or ground launched missile.

[Sovereign12]

Originally Posted by Mojo

If the manpower situation got bad enough could the Europeans start forming "volunteer" women divisions of widows and women without children to fight?

In th Map Continuation thread, I have Venice doing just this in their equivalent of ww1. I figured if OTL Russia could have woman combatants in ww2, its not a far stretch for women in combat if the situation gets bad enough.

[Max Sinister]

Funny idea by Burroughs. If you consider that many people thought before WW1 that it COULDN'T take longer than a few months, because then all the reserves of the countries would be depleted... seems both were wrong.