WI: The First World War ended in 1919

"A-H is a huge problem in this scenario and it's rather telling that Giobastia as all but ignored the A-H in his timeline. As much as he can quibble over Ludendorff or the High Seas fleet, there's no way in hell he can propose a 1918 POD that saves the A-H and thus protects Germany's southern flank into 1919".

Dear Bill Cameron, first of all I'm not "quibbling" over something, I'm quoting documents, real documents and I invite you to do the same.
And about Austro-Hungary you're completely wrong. The image of a disintegrating empire is very simplified and ideological: political divisions inside the Empire did exist but they didn't affect the army, which was loyal to the Emperor until the end of the war. Monarchy and Religion were strong enough to bring the troops together. Come here in Italy (where I live and work) and read the original documents, please. I invite you to read the first hand reports of German and Austrian officers from the front in September and October 1918: they spoke about a loyal army, plagued by many problems like flu, malaria and famine, but not political or national disorders. Do you want another proof? Italian, British and French forces in Veneto and Tonale Pass met a hard resistence during 24-27 October offensive. Do you want a third proof? Until the Italian offensive in Vittorio Veneto there were no mutinies between A-H lines on the Italian front. Their army began to disintegrate only after the military defeat. The first mutiny happened on 25 October, among Hungarian troops of Army Group Tirol, when Italian offensive was going on and the news about an imminent armistice were circulating since the beginning of October.
Without the collapse of the Balkan front, without an armistice in the air and with more solid positions (along Isonzo and not along Piave), A-H army could have resisted until the end of 1919.

Ps: an eventual separate peace is another metter. Emperor Karl perceived an inevitable defeat since 1916. This perception was strong also among the cultural elites. For exemple, philosopher Karl Popper quoted his parents about this dominant idea: after 1916 war was unwinnable. But A-H couldn't ask for a separate peace because of the fear of a German invasion. We can find this idea (a German military reaction) also in Karl's memories and testimonies. When A-H sent troops on the Western Front in august 1918, Vienna lost all possibilities for a separate peace.
 
Last edited:
Dear Bill Cameron, first of all I'm not "quibbling" over something, I'm quoting documents, real documents and I invite you to do the same.


Giobastia,

First, you're quoting nothing because you've provided no references.

Second, you're proposing nothing that hasn't already been proposed and refuted here dozens of times before. Do you really think this is a new idea? Do you really think anything you've suggested hasn't been suggested before?

Third, your POD is one of the weakest among those many proposals already discussed here. Stabilizing the Balkans front will do nothing because stabilizing the far larger Russian front in the OTL did nothing.

Fourth, the Italian front is not the sum total of the war and the A-H army operating on the front was not the only A-H army in the war.

Fifth, the image of a disintegrating empire is not very simplified and ideological, the political divisions inside the Empire did exist, and they did affect the army. As I've already pointed out, the Czechoslovokian national council was acting as a national government by mid-summer, had the loyalty of previosuly A-H army formations, and even joined the Entente in October.

Come here in Italy (where I live and work) and read the original documents, please. I invite you to read the first hand reports of German and Austrian officers from the front in September and October 1918...

Once again: The Italian front is not the only front in question and the troops along that front are not the only troops in questions. Compared to A-H soldiers fighting elsewhere, the troops facing Italy were famously loyal to the empire during the war because they'd been routinely winning.

Until the Italian offensive in Vittorio Veneto there were no mutinies between A-H lines on the Italian front.

But there had already been major mutinies elsewhere, mutinies and transfers of loyalties to the various national councils.

Without the collapse of the Balkan front, without an armistice in the air and with more solid positions (along Isonzo and not along Piave), A-H army could have resisted until the end of 1919.

Try looking beyond your borders. The Italian front was a wasteful sideshow and the actions of A-H troops there were the exception and not the rule.

an eventual separate peace is another metter.

No it isn't.

Austria-Hungary has the same chance of concluding a separate peace in WW1 as Italy did in WW2: None. And both those chances are a result of both powers' alliances with Germany. If Karl had tried to withdraw from the war, Germany would have invaded the empire, occupied it rapidly, and set up a puppet government.

Your idea doesn't work. It's neither "big" enough or "early" enough to assure Central Powers resistance into 1919.


Bill
 
Last edited:

Paul MacQ

Monthly Donor
Aerial Attack from Carriers was interesting idea
One of my Favourite WI aircraft it if had managed to see combat in this war
Sopwith Cuckoo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Cuckoo
Planned use

Throughout 1917, Commodore Sueter proposed plans for an aerial torpedo attack on the German High Seas Fleet at its base in Germany.[6] The carriers HMS Argus, HMS Furious, and HMS Campania, and the converted cruisers HMS Courageous and HMS Glorious, would have launched 100 Cuckoos from the North Sea.[6] In September 1917, Admiral Sir David Beatty, commander of the Grand Fleet, proposed a similar plan involving 120 Cuckoos launched from eight converted merchant vessels.[7] Training took place in the Firth of Forth, where Cuckoos launched practice torpedoes at targets towed by destroyers. Cuckoos of No. 185 Squadron embarked on HMS Argus in November 1918, but hostilities ended before the aircraft could conduct any combat operations.[1]

Yes Argus might have been a good pick for ship to do a Raid on the High Seas Fleet

An effective Raid with even half the results of Taranto in a later OTL War, Would have stunned the World and had rather major follow on effects in Naval thinking
 
Interesting scenario, but I don't think if it was techcnically feasible. I discovered that here in this board we have to be very accurate in history, or someone could fly into a passion! By the way... I prefer battleships! They are more romantic then those pontoons named carriers :D
In the next post, I'll describe the next and last phase of this alternative WW1!
 
July-August 1919: the Western “Blitzkrieg”

Western front: Between the 1 and 5 July began the Entente’s general offensive against Germany. Medium C tanks were used to cross the lines and devastate German’s command and control structures; Mark VIII “Liberty” tanks followed to breach the lines; finally, cavalry and Whippet light tanks poured through the gaps created by the assault and sweeped around the slow-moving defenders. Artillery couldn’t follow, but tank’s firepower and a massive use of airplains for a tactical support, could replace the artillery during the fast advance. That scheme was repeated in all sectors and it was always succesfull. On 1 July, British II and I Armies breached the front of German VI Army and liberate Bruxelles in just one week; American’s I and II Armies, with French IV Army, breached the German’s V Army lines near Saarbrucken. The long war of attrition is finished: maneuver warfer is back again in the Western front for the first time since 1914. The large two-pronged Entente’s offensive routed three German Armies (IV, VI in Northern sector, V in Southern sector) and obliged the other 5 German Armies (XVII, II, XVIII, VII and I) to retreat beyond the Rhine river by the end of August.

Italian front: after the occupation of Fiume by Italian III Army, the Austro-Hungarian fleet was forced to a sortie; the fleet, led by Hungarian admiral Horty was intercepted and defeated by the Allied First Fleet (with Italian and French dreadnoughts, led by Italian admiral Thaon di Revel) near Curzola Island on 10 July; on 11 July Emperor Karl I asked for peace; an armistice was signed in Trieste on 15 July; Ludendorff sent immediately troops in Bohemia, Moravia and Tirol to stop a future Entente’s advance against German’s southern flank; other German divisions were sent in Ukraine and Belarus to relieve Austro-Hungarian units; Germany’s reserves were overstreched.

Salonika Front: One week after the start of the new Entente’s offensive, Bulgaria asked for peace; an armistice was signed on 8 July; after the surrender of Austro-Hungarian empire, on 16 July, German’s XI Army and the Army Group Mackensen began a long retreat followed by French and Serbian armies; all Serbian territory was quickly liberated; all Romania was liberated by the end of August; Entente’s troops entered the territory of Austro-Hungarian Empire, where they could use an intact railway net to attack Germany; the British expeditionary force in Salonika and the Greek army (under the unified command of general George Milne, turned East and attack European Turkey; on 6 august, after two weeks of hard fightings, British forces conquered Gallipoli, five years after the famous landing; on 7 august the Anglo-French fleet (led by French admiral Jean Amet) penetrated the Dardanelles and shelled Costantinople; on 9 august, Greek and British forces began the attack on Costantinople by land; on 10 august the Anglo-French fleet sank the German Mediterranean Squadron (the battlecruiser Goeben and the light cruiser Breslau); on 11 august the Young Turks government asked for peace; an armistice was signed in Gallipoli on 15 august.

Middle East: Allenby began the advance inside the Anatolia peninsula; the advance was very slow, due to rough terrain and hard resistence opposed by Turkish army; only on 10 august the first British column (led by Allenby) could reach Angora (Ankara); Marshall’s Anglo-Indian divisions reached Lake Van on august 9, cutting out Ottoman troops deployed in Persia; on 15 august the operations ended because of the armistice.

Central Asia: British Malleson’s troops counter-attacked and dispersed the remnants of the Turkestan German-Ottoman’s column; in the beginning of august, he attacked the hostile khanates of Bukhara and Kiva, bringing them to heels in few weeks; by the end of July, a re-organized Persian army and the British column led by general Dunsterville (the “Dunsterforce”) counter-attacked and defeated the Ottoman column in Persia; by the end of August, all the Central Asia was cleared.

Russian front: on 2 July, Kolchak officially assumed the supreme command of all White and Allied forces; on 5 July he launched the great offensive against Moscow; in the South, general Denikin advanced in Ukraine, against German and Austrian occupation’s forces; after the collapse of Austro-Hungary, his advance speeded and he could reach the Dnepr river and Kiev by the end of august; by 30 august all Ukraine was under Denikin’s control, only Mahno’s anarchist forces resisted in Crimean peninsula. In the central sector, Kolchak’s army (with Allied forces) marched directly against Moscow; the core of the Red Army supported by two German army corps defended the capital; on 2 august Kolchak began the attack of the eastern defences, but the frontal assault failed; Whites and Allies began the siege of the city; Lenin and Trockj decided to resist to the death inside the Cremlin’s walls. The city fell on 30 august. The Bolshevik élite was decapitated.

War on the sea: British Grand Fleet conducted a series of bombings against German’s Baltic cities, inflicting heavy casualties and menacing an imminent landing… which never took place; this menace obliged German High Command to deploy fresh troops and reserves in the North, far from the other fronts; on 2 august, coordinated with the attack on Moscow, British battlecruisers supported Judenic’s White Army offensive against Petrograd; the battle lasted one week, on 10 august Petrograd fell.

Internal fronts: all pro-communist rebellions in France, Great Britain and Italy were succesfully repressed with harsh methods. Sabotages in war’s industries were punished applying the martial law. Pro-Bolshevik socialist formations were banished. In the Central Power’s side, the alliance with Bolshevism produced more stability inside armies and civilians. But the fall of Moscow demoralized troops and civilians. Soviets inside German units disbanded and the discipline began to collapse.

September - October 1919: German finale

On 1 september 1919, Germany was lonely against all Entente’s forces. Its reserves were completely mobilized and exhausted. German Army’s units had less then half of their organics. And they were completely demoralized. In this phase of the conflict, Entente’s forces had virtually no enemies. They had only to advance as fast as possible to reach strategic objectives.

Western front: after the fall of Metz and Saarbrucken, American I and II Armies and French IV Army advanced to Mainz (occupied on 21 October); British III and V Armies breached German’s inner defences at Aachen and advanced in the Ruhr and Saar, occupying the two industrial regions; British II Army advanced to the North, taking Bremen and Hamburg by the end of October.

Italian front: exploiting the vacuum created by the Austro-Hungarian defeat, Italian armies began an offensive against the southern border of Germany, through Austria and Tirol; but on Brennero’s pass Italians met the defences of German mountain troops (led by Kraft von Dellmessingen) and were stopped after hard fightings; the second Italian offensive, through Austria was halted by German’s XI Army on the Drava river after a very slow advance; Germans began a general retreat only in the end of October

South-Eastern front: in mid-september, the Army Group Mackensen began to regroup in new defensive positions in Bohemia and Moravia; on 2 October, general Franchet d’Esperey, advanced through the Balkans. He reached the Danube when the war ended

Russian front: Russian White forces completed a fast advance to the West; in the first days of september, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian nationalist forces insurrected against the German appointed “Baltic Nobility”; Hindemburg and Ludendorff decided to retreat all troops from the Eastern front, to face the Entente’s advance from the West; in few weeks, Poland and the Baltic Republics were liberated; along the new frontiers, White armies met the new national armies when the war ended.

On 11 November 1919 Germany surrendered. Large portions of it’s territory were under military occupation. A Bolshevik regime in Russia was overthrown: immediately after the war, a National Assembly was elected in Petrograd. Finland, Baltic Republics, Belarus (White Russia), Poland, Ukraina, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, three Kossak’s Republics (Terek, Kuban and Don), Turkestan, Bukhara and Kiva, became independent states. In the Middle East two new nations (an Arab kingdom and a Jewish state) were born after the collapse of Ottoman Empire. Austria-Hungary didn’t exist anymore: Czechoslovakia became independent, Croatia and Slovenia were under Italian occupation, Bosnia-Hercegovina under Serbian and French occupation. They never became a unified Jugoslavia: they became two separate states. The first was a Republic comprising Slovenia and Croatia (independent but under the Italian sphere of influence), the second was a Kingdom comprising Serbia, Montenegro, Vojvodina, Bosnia and Hercegovina (Serbian-centered, but under the French sphere of influence).

A treaty signed in Potsdam on 28 July 1920 generated a very different World.
 
Last edited:
Any suggestion for the developments of the World after 1920 in this scenario are welcome. If someone can suggest a different and more solid POD for the beginning of this scenario (about: "Why Central Powers could fight in 1919") he/she is welcome.
 
Germany is totally screwed. Longer war makes victorious Allies even more vengeful towards it. A division of German Empire is quite possible.
Since I'm Polish I concentrate on Poland in your scenario. IOTL Poland was considered as a one of victorious nations (very minor though) thanks to General Haller's army - its first units saw action in 1918. It is very probable that ITTL Haller's Army would have fully participated in fighting in 1919, significantly strengthening Polish political position.
Poland is politically stronger, there is no communist threat Germany is needed to counter and all the Allies hate German guts with passion. I think Poland can seriously count on gaining much bigger part of Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania that it did IOTL. There would have been no plebiscites, I'm affraid. It is very possible Poland gets Danzig too (even if it was mostly German at that time) - parhaps as a mandate territory.
In the east Poland gets less. Lwów (Lvov, Lemburg) almost for sure, the rest means conflict with Belarus (not very dangerous enemy), Lithuania (not very dangerous enemy) and Ukraine (that IS a dangerous enemy). If they unite against Poland and are backed by Russians, eager to keep those countries in their spere of influence - it might get ugly. In such case I'm affraid Vilnius is lost to Poland. OTOH everybody will be so tired of war that Entente mediators might be able to create a solution somehow acceptable to everybody.
 
To me, a good alternate history isn't overly plausible, but merely a good idea, which the person who came up with said idea explores in a good read and tries their best to make plausible or interesting.

giobastia, my friend, to me you have written a good alternate history, in my books. I am enjoying this, and I like that you've elaborated a little more on the Ottoman fronts, including the ones you've opened yourself, because not many people tend to focus on them.
 
Douglas,

Incorrect actually.

The blockade was greatly modified after the armistice. Among other things, Germany could import food provided they paid for it and it arrived in German hulls. So Germany all but exhausted it's gold reserves buying food and buying the ships needed.

A blockade continued after November 11, 1918, The blockade ceased after November 11, 1918.


Hadn´t the blockade been going on since, well, nearly the beginning of the war? Germany didn´t starve in 1914, nor in 1915, 1916 and 1917.
 
I wonder in this TL how many troops have the Americans been able to brin to bare against the Germans? I would assume US forces would have swelled to such a number they would take on more and more combat operations.
 
Hadn´t the blockade been going on since, well, nearly the beginning of the war? Germany didn´t starve in 1914, nor in 1915, 1916 and 1917.


Blockades don't work immediately. It takes time for the loss if imports to gain traction and, as that loss continues, the effect grows markedly as time passes.

Germans may not have been "starving" in 1914, but they began starving in increasing numbers as the war dragged on. By mid-1916 and the introduction of the Hindenburg Program, daily rations for German civilians and soldiers alike were set at 1,000 calories. I'll leave it to you to google just what effect that level of nutrition has on the human body over a long period of time.

By the end of the blockade, the best estimates place the number of civilian deaths due to the blockade at between 750 and 800 thousand. The effects of reduced nutrition, seen primarily as a weakness to various diseases, were even more widespread. For example, the population of Germany suffered a greater proportion of deaths from the Flu pandemic than other, better fed, peoples.

Good alternate history needs both a good idea and a good level of plausibility. Giobastia's has neither.

Stabilizing the Balkans front will do nothing to help the Austria-Hungarian Empire. What little morale boost occurs is too little and too late to reverse the ethnic unraveling already taking place. The various national councils were already acting as quasi-national governments, already had the loyalties of significant numbers of supposed A-H troops, and - more importantly - already had the support of the Entente.

Germany and the Central Powers are still starving, another winter is looming, their military dictator Ludendorff is under psychiatric care, and the Entente is growing in power every day. As seraphim74 neatly put it, Germany is screwed if the war continues and - more importantly - the German elites know this. That's why they forced the Kaiser to abdicate, why Prince Max became chancellor, why they accepted the Entente's terms, and why they eventually signed Versailles. They knew that if the war continued it would only become more of a disaster for Germany, even more of a disaster than Versailles.

A minor victory on a sideshow front in the Balkans isn't going to change anything because a major victory on the Eastern front didn't change anything. The only truly vital issues are those the Central Powers are facing on the only front that truly matters, the Western front, and the political elites of the Central Powers knew that even if Giobastia does not.


Bill
 
Mr. Cameron, you're becoming my personal persecutor :)
If I understood, you think that my POD is completely wrong. Well, now I'd like to read your ideas: what events could have protracted the war in 1919? No "Black Day" for Germans? A better harvest in summer 1918? No Spanish flu? Any suggestion is welcome.
Or do you think that a 1919 scenario is impossible in any case?
 

Deleted member 1487

Blockades don't work immediately. It takes time for the loss if imports to gain traction and, as that loss continues, the effect grows markedly as time passes.

Germans may not have been "starving" in 1914, but they began starving in increasing numbers as the war dragged on. By mid-1916 and the introduction of the Hindenburg Program, daily rations for German civilians and soldiers alike were set at 1,000 calories. I'll leave it to you to google just what effect that level of nutrition has on the human body over a long period of time.

By the end of the blockade, the best estimates place the number of civilian deaths due to the blockade at between 750 and 800 thousand. The effects of reduced nutrition, seen primarily as a weakness to various diseases, were even more widespread. For example, the population of Germany suffered a greater proportion of deaths from the Flu pandemic than other, better fed, peoples.

Bill

Ah, no. The calorie count for civilians varied throughout the nation, some people still getting 2,000+ (mainly country folks), while the suffering middle class that was not involved in vital war industries was getting between 1,600-1,400 per day. In Hamburg, one city that has statistics taken for all classes, dropped to 60% of prewar consumption at its worst. Much of the propaganda revolving around the British starvation blockade has spilled into historical discourse, which poisons the conversation. In reality there were about 350-420,000 civilian deaths that could be attributed to the blockade and these were mostly small children and the elderly whose families did not have means to buy extra food. 200,000+ more died due to the flu when it came around, which was made worse by nutrition levels, but still not on the order of 800,000. The army still had better rations than the civilian populations, though still not enough.

The winter of 1916-17 was the worst due to a number of factors that did not have to due solely with the blockade. By 1918 the situation was improving significantly, but by that time the population had had enough of the war, especially as it was obviously lost with the deep American manpower reserves still untapped. I suggest you check out "The first world war: an agrarian interpretation" by Avner Offer, who has done an immensely important job of covering the situations in Germany and England as the result of blockades, even touching on the U-boot offensive in an interesting way.

The bottom line: the situation in Germany was desperate solely because of the failure of the military situation. Ludendorff screwed the pooch in a number of ways by his bad policies, including the Hindenburg program that caused much of the food, munition, and morale crisis when it upset the delicate balance that the War Ministry had established. The worst time in the food situation was the direct result of mismanagement and the resulting strikes, which further exacerbated the situation. When that was cleared up, the situation at home got markedly better. The issue remained that the home front collapsed when the military situation collapsed. Though unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime was still present, the pot did not boil over until Germany was defeated in the field, starting with Amiens and the mental collapse of Ludendorff.

That said, AH was still doomed, partly due to the piss-poor communication and relationship between the Central Powers. The southern front could have been salvaged if Germany had had better leaders that convinced the Austrians that the empire was gone and it was time to think solely of Austria. But with the Americans in the war, the jig was up. There was simply no way that the Central Powers could have worked anything out after Wilson declared war in 1917.
 

Deleted member 1487

Originally Posted by Bill Cameron
Douglas,

Incorrect actually.

The blockade was greatly modified after the armistice. Among other things, Germany could import food provided they paid for it and it arrived in German hulls. So Germany all but exhausted it's gold reserves buying food and buying the ships needed.

A blockade continued after November 11, 1918, The blockade ceased after November 11, 1918.


Which was effectively maintaining the war blockade, because Germany was forced to give up most of their material wealth before the Versailles treaty was even signed. The amount of livestock, foodstuffs, and other industrial goods that were surrendered effectively destroyed the German ability to provide for itself. Their merchant fleet, which was one of the largest in the world pre-war, was seized and denied to Germany for these efforts. As it was, the nation as printing money and suffering from inflation before the war ended, which forced them to further devalue their currency by depleting their gold. In effect, this was a much more effective way to starve the nation, as it was impossible to feed everyone while bankrupting them at the same time.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking, do you want to place the Pod in 8 August 1918? What if German won Amiens?


They cannot. The German army was out-numbered, out-gunned, and out of time. It was a matter of time at this point until the war is over.

Any POD after the US enters the war is moot. Really, the Zimmerman telegram and/or the U-boot offensive cannot happen. The US turned against Germany, whereas before they would have been willing and probably able to negotiate a decent peace agreement between the two sides. The more I consider the options of Germany, even without the Americans, I don't see them keeping Luxembourg or Alsace. The French army was about to collapse by the end of the war as it was, but the British were getting in to their grove at this point.

Though their committments were increasing all over, as the French were only able to really focus on the continent at this point, the British were still releasing reserves that were being held back at home and transferring in men from other fronts, mainly the Middle East. This manpower does have a limit, as does American patience for Europe destroying itself. At some point Wilson is going to step in to try to force both sides to the table. This is IMHO after Amiens (which would still happen without the Americans) and probably after the Allied offensive stalls in France. Austria-Hungary is breaking apart and the other CP nations are out of the war, but Germany is still holding some valuable realestate and unlikely to be ejected without some serious bloodshed that is not going to go over well with the French. The German homefront is likely to also hold together without the threat of American manpower making resistance futile, but there will be cracks showing.

Wilson has leverage over the Allies, as he can threaten to call in their loans. The Germans are likely to be much more willing to negotiate at this point, though they are in a better position than OTL and the French in a worse one. Max von Baden is now heading up the government, Ludendorff is gone, the Kaiser is likely to be soon out of power, and the Germans are willing to have peace. They are going to lose Alsace-Lorraine as a start, as even Wilson was for this. However, I don't see Poland gaining as much, especially as the Germans are likely to pull most of their men out of Eastern Europe to defend their new frontiers. This means occupying Austria and the Czech lands to shore up their southern flank and also probably fighting against the Poles to ensure their Eastern border.

I wonder though if Wilson will stick to his principles and push to let the Austrians decide if they want to unite with Germany. Beyond Alsace, I don't see Germany losing any more territory ITTL if the Americans are helping force peace. But will they let the Germans gain the much more valuable area of Austria in compensation? The big losers are going to be Italy, as no one liked her for her mercenary ways (no offense, but Italian leaders were quite blatant about leveraging their entry in to the war to satisfy their desires of an empire at the expense of everyone around them). Poland and Czechoslovakia are likely to lose out on territory that they inherited OTL and the Balkans is likely to get more chewed up than OTL too, as the British are likely to intervene in the communist uprisings in Hungary.

France is going to be in trouble domestically too, but more on that later.
 
France retakes its territories lost in 1870-1871 but beyond that, what?

Invade Germany? After +4 years of war and a bolchevik revolution in the former Russian empire, the French and the British would simply not do it and the US certainly wouldn´t go into it alone.
Eventually the US would have enough forces invade Germany(IOTL, the US forces had not even replaced French KIA by the time of the armistice) by itself but even when, the US public would simply not accept that the US does the job for France and Britain.

So, after Alsace-Lorraine, there would be an armed stand-off for a time.

Allieds would gain enough military advantage to push the Germans away from the new border, into Germany itself but the idea of fighting all the way to Berlin only to face bolchevik revolutionnaries at home would make them consider not too.
Politicians would call for war, for the invasion of Germany but general war-weariness and fear of left-wing caused troubles would be too great.
 
Bright day
Interesting TL. But suprisingly I have problem with Italian front and Autria-Hungary.

What happened to Italian advance of 27th October? An offensive which OTL brought A-H out of war?
What happened to Czechoslovak declaration of independence from 28th October? IOTL the Italian advance has yet been uncertain and the dimpomatic note that has been misused by revolutionaires is from previous day.
 
Bright day
Interesting TL. But suprisingly I have problem with Italian front and Autria-Hungary.

Well, yes, this is the weakest point of my TL. I admit it. But the Pod is in September 1918. Let's assume that the Entente offensive in the Balkans failed or never started. If you don't have the Bulgarian separate peace in September 29th, then you don't have the Ludendorff nerve's collapse, nor his request for an immediate armistice, nor a Max von Baden's government, nor the German's note to Wilson, nor the Wilson's answers in which he asked for a Kaiser's abdication, independence for Czech and Yugoslav peoples. Without this chain of events, I assume that the war would continue in 1919.
Some people in this forum pointed out many other weak points: could Germany and AH continue their war effort despite internal turmoil and naval blockade? Were they able to continue the fight?
A TL of 1919 is interesting for three aspects: evolution of a mechanized warfare and new naval weapons, the opening of two new fronts (in Russia Entente-vs-Reds and in Central Asia) and a very different conclusion, with an Entente occupation army well inside Germany and the Bolshevik regime overthrown. Those changes could also affect the post-war scenario, possibly avoiding totalitarianism and a WW2.
I don't know how plausible is this TL. It's alternative history and it's very difficult to state how things could have been possible or not.
By the way, I'm writing another alternative TL of WW1. I'll post it soonest possible. Stay tuned!
 
Top