AHC: Fastest Allied Victory in WW1?

The trend mostly seems to be how to get the Central Powers to win, not surprising since this is alternate history, but looking around I can't seem to find much if any discussion on how the Allies could of won faster or done better. That or I'm just not using the right terms. But anyway, with a point of departure any time after the Germans attack through Belgium on 4 August 1914 what's the quickest realistic way that people think the Allies could beat the Central Powers?
 
Here's some speculation.

1. Better cooperation between Samsonov and Rennenkampf; Russia avoids the Tannenberg disaster. Germany fails to completely dislodge Russia from Poland by the end of 1915.
2. Nicholas II never fires Grand Duke Nicholas.
3. Britain forces the Dardanelles in February 1915. The Ottoman Empire exits the war. The Russian supply line is open.

Germany should still last until 1917, but it may crack if the strengthened Brusilov Offensive forces it to reinforce Austria-Hungary even more than it did in OTL. If Britain, France, Russia and Italy all maintain the pressure then they should win by 1917.
 
There are a few glamourous possibilities such as the GF cutting off and destroying the HSF at Jutland, or a successful Gallipoli campaign. There are also some glaring errors such as the British loss at Kut or the Salonika campaign which would have been avoided.

However I'm not a believer in panaceas. I think the best way for the Allies to win faster would be to learn different lessons from their 1915 battles and go through their learning curve quicker so the Paschendale and Cambrai becomes OTLs 1918 offensives.
 
An interesting corollary: Why DID Germany surrender so easily? Russia was conquered, the British offensive in the Dardanelles was a disaster, Italy had almost collapsed and was more of an opportunity to the Central Powers than a threat. Even by the end of the war, the U.S. was only beginning to make itself directly felt. The new 'tanks' had not been effective at breaking the German defensive line. Militarily, Germany was losing ground, but the Allies had not even breached the Hindenburg Line.

Yet Germany accepted a humiliating one-sided peace! Why?

1. Starvation. Before the war, Germany imported a third of its food supply. The British blockade cut most of this off. By late 1918, the Second Reich couldn't keep even its soldiers adequately fed.

I remember once seeing a picture of the ration allowed to Germans toward the end of WWI. It looked like quite a bit of food, enough to feed a person for a couple of days, with a whole loaf of bread, bits of sausage and butter and jelly even. Then I read that this ration was not for one person, but for a family. Further, it was not for a day, but for a week. The ration could not have been life-sustaining for any long period.

Which leads us to:

2. Revolution. What actually precipitated the German surrender was not defeat on the field of battle or even magical Americans, it was Germans who couldn't take any more. Even before the Army mutinies started, German soldiers were surrendering in droves. Communists and Socialists helped instigate riots in the cities.

Karl Marx said that no country is ever more than three meals away from revolution.

Hitler was not entirely fantasizing when he blamed the defeat on the 'fifth column'. Germany was ripe for rebellion, and in those days the Leftists were ready and able to encourage revolt. They even briefly set up a Marxist state in Bavaria after the war, and if the Communists had been willing to come to terms with the Socialists, the fabled Proletarian Revolution might really have happened.

If the Allies had wanted to defeat Germany quickly, they could have encouraged and supported Germany's domestic 'enemies'. They did not, perhaps for fear of vulnerability to their own working classes.
 
Last edited:
How about an Allied victory in 1914:

1. If the French and BEF coordinate their counter-attacks, they can cut off and destroy multiple German armies at the battle of the Marne.

2. In mid-September when the Western Front is in disarray, Rennenkampf advances in line with Samsonov. Hoffman/Ludendorff's operational plans turn out to be ineffective and the Germany Eighth Army is pushed beyond the Vistula.

Thus by October 1914, Germany faces a crisis on both the Western and Eastern Fronts. Maybe this will turn out to be another six week war after all.
 
How about an Allied victory in 1914:

1. If the French and BEF coordinate their counter-attacks, they can cut off and destroy multiple German armies at the battle of the Marne.

2. In mid-September when the Western Front is in disarray, Rennenkampf advances in line with Samsonov. Hoffman/Ludendorff's operational plans turn out to be ineffective and the Germany Eighth Army is pushed beyond the Vistula.

Thus by October 1914, Germany faces a crisis on both the Western and Eastern Fronts. Maybe this will turn out to be another six week war after all.

I'd also use the battle of the Marne as a turning point. If the Germans had pressed on, as discussed frequently, and that ends in an utterly desaster, that's a huge effect. If you add a better performance of Russia in the Carpathians and at Tannenberg, you might see Russians in Hungary and still in East Prussia int 1915/16. At that point in time, Italy and others would join the war at the latest.

A success in the Dardanelles is just another step to CP-defeat.



Interesting questions: many believe that CP-victory holds a decent chance of a better world - at least form the European point of view. What about an early and less costly victory of the Allies? Will Germany get a lighter peace and Europe be a more stable and peaceful place?
 
Interesting questions: many believe that CP-victory holds a decent chance of a better world - at least form the European point of view. What about an early and less costly victory of the Allies? Will Germany get a lighter peace and Europe be a more stable and peaceful place?

Why should they? Abolition of the strong central European power that hadn't existed prior to 1871 was the aim of the fringe, who had dominated the centre for centuries before 1870.
It was the demise of the Russian Empire and the threat of the forming Soviet Union that moved them not to dissect Germany more than they already did.

A victorious Tsarist Russia takes East Prussia and adds Posen Province and Silesia to her Polish Duchy. France goes - with Russian backing - for the Rhine border. Bavaria and the Southern states get extra conditions for seceding from the Reich. - And the British - unable to prevent the Franco-Russian fait accompli in Europe - enjoy possession of the former German Colonies and console themselves that the British Empire is now bigger than it ever was before...
 
Why should they? Abolition of the strong central European power that hadn't existed prior to 1871 was the aim of the fringe, who had dominated the centre for centuries before 1870.
It was the demise of the Russian Empire and the threat of the forming Soviet Union that moved them not to dissect Germany more than they already did.

A victorious Tsarist Russia takes East Prussia and adds Posen Province and Silesia to her Polish Duchy. France goes - with Russian backing - for the Rhine border. Bavaria and the Southern states get extra conditions for seceding from the Reich. - And the British - unable to prevent the Franco-Russian fait accompli in Europe - enjoy possession of the former German Colonies and console themselves that the British Empire is now bigger than it ever was before...

This seems bit harsh to me but I'm no expert. Anyway, assuming this happens and that Europe still won't be all hugs & kisses afterward, who will the new rivals be? Clock has basicly been turned back to 1800s with a weaker/disorganized/puppeted Central Europe so how would the new alliances build up? French go 'Napoleon' again or Anglo-French vs Russia or maybe French and Russians stay happy with CentEur divided between them?

What happens to Austria-Hungary in this btw?


Interesting questions: many believe that CP-victory holds a decent chance of a better world - at least form the European point of view. What about an early and less costly victory of the Allies? Will Germany get a lighter peace and Europe be a more stable and peaceful place?

War as a means to do 'business' isn't really discredited without the horrendous losses of OTL WW1 and of course everyone isn't flat broke so they can still build up the military muscle if required. Since Germany won't be pulling anything resembling the rampage in OTL WW2 and Russia probably won't be turning to Evil Commies any future conflicts would stay 'limited'. That is, until the powderkeg is ready for a real boom again. What would the alliances look like then?

Of course horrors of Nazism/Stalinism were so staggering that even a Europe that doesn't start to shun war will be better off (in terms of lost lifes/destruction) for quite a while compared to OTL.
 
What happens to Austria-Hungary in this btw
Is thrown to the hounds like IOTL, only that the Italians - if they don't hurry up - get nothing.
The Czech nationalist leaders played the Russian card first - and only went west when realising that Russia was paralysed; the Serbs are Russian proxies anyway.
 
I'd also use the battle of the Marne as a turning point. If the Germans had pressed on, as discussed frequently, and that ends in an utterly desaster, that's a huge effect. If you add a better performance of Russia in the Carpathians and at Tannenberg, you might see Russians in Hungary and still in East Prussia int 1915/16. At that point in time, Italy and others would join the war at the latest.

A success in the Dardanelles is just another step to CP-defeat.

Those are possibilities but I think the best bet would be France doesn't adopt the suicidal plan XVII. Instead they have at least a couple of armies along with the BEF blocking the German drive through Belgium. Even basic field defences would mean that the advancing Germans are likely to be very badly mauled as they are forced to attack to meet the demands of the Plan. They will probably push the allies back a bit by sheer weight of numbers, at least until reinforcements arrive and their artillery will do some damage but they should suffer a lot worse.

Coupled this with a more successful Russian advance into Prussia and you might well get the central powers quickly realising their losing badly and asking for an armistice. Even if they don't their position is so bad that their unlikely to get any allies and will probably be forced to make peace in 1915 or 1916 at the latest.

Interesting questions: many believe that CP-victory holds a decent chance of a better world - at least form the European point of view. What about an early and less costly victory of the Allies? Will Germany get a lighter peace and Europe be a more stable and peaceful place?

Definitely the case. A shorter war, meaning less bitterness, plus the continued existence of Russia [and possibly a slightly reduced A-H] in the east makes for a much more stable position. Hence there will probably be fairly minor changes in Europe and elsewhere and some limitations on the German navy especially, which will be a British requirement.

Without the same huge losses and long destruction the economy for Europe and the bulk of the world will be much better off.

Steve
 
Delay the Haber process coming on line, and prevent the capture of the Antwerpen nitrates, and the Germans are going to run out of shells at a critical point.
 
Late August - Early September 1914. Germany succeeded handsomely in East Prussia in 1914 because Rennenkampf called a halt to the Russian 1st Army's advance after Gumbinnen. The Germans bluffed him into not attacking using a light screen force, while the main German armies annihilated the Russian 2nd Army at Tannenberg. Had Rennenkampf pursued the Germans after Gumbinnen, and both Rennekampf and Samsonov pushed forward aggressively, Germany would have been in trouble in the East.

In itself, this would not have been fatal -- the German heartland could have fought on even if East Prussia was lost altogether, but if Germany tried to retrieve the situation by sending too many troops from the Western Front, the Battle of the Marne and the follow-up could have turned into a real disaster provided the allies took maximum advantage.

And suppose the immediate German defeat at the Marne was compounded by an understandable military blunder: a determination to try to hold the line instead of retreating. Psychologically, it had to have been hard to retreat, anyway, after coming so close to Paris. Then if the British and French broke through, there's a real chance of von Kluck's westernmost army being surrounded and destroyed while the remaining German forces are rolled up and forced to the east.
 
Delay the Haber process coming on line, and prevent the capture of the Antwerpen nitrates, and the Germans are going to run out of shells at a critical point.
Actually, if they were still ramping up the Haber factories, and AFAIK the Antwerp nitrates gave them breathing room. If they didn't have that, could the Entente have stopped them/pushed them back?
 
Okay so taking the given suggestions lets assume for the moment that in the west the French and British co-ordinate better and win a decisive victory at the Marne, and in the east the Russians win a decisively at Tannenberg. The Germans are thrown into retreat and the Allies continue to advance. If the Allies are able to push on and beat Germany in a much faster and less bloody manner than in our timeline what are going to be the knock-on effects?


  • Without the four years of blood and loss I don't think you'd get a highly vindictive Treaty of Versailles. A better guide would probably be the Treaty of Frankfurt that ended the Franco-Prussian war.
  • What sort of territorial concessions would Germany have to make, losing Alsace-Lorraine is a given but would they try and push for more? I could see Russian demanding Posen to add to their Kingdom of Poland, perhaps Eastern and Western Prussia as well? Even Alsace-Lorraine and Posen is likely to cause bad feeling, add in territory on the left bank of the Rhine and Eastern Prussia and you've just created some nice little revanchist feeling to help set up the rematch at some point in the future.
  • Russia buoyed by military victories and annexations is able to regain a small piece of stability, plus they don't have large groups of annoyed armed peasants standing about to rebel. Now the underlying problems with the country and its rulers are still there so it's simply more of a slight delay before some form of revolution kicks off.
  • All of the countries involved aren't drive to near bankruptcy. Germany will be paying reparations so they're not so great but France and especially Great Britain will be much better off, IIRC it was the Great War that effectively sealed Britain's eventual economic decline.
  • If it's over before the US becomes involved then no Woodrow Wilson or his bloody Fourteen Points. The US continues its isolationist course although its growing power gradually leads it to take more interest and active part in global affairs. What does this do for black culture? I have vague memories of black troops being effected by exposure to France during the war and Paris in the interwar years but don't really know.
  • No Fourteen Points means interesting things for Austria-Hungary. If they're pushed into dissolving - and I can't really see a monarchy like Russia pushing for that, annexing territory sure but otherwise might set a bad example for the minorities - they can probably stumble on for a bit but they're separating fairly soon. Probably losing some territory to Russia, I've got no idea what they might want, and indemnity payments will unbalance things.
  • For the British and French if it's over quickly and they don't have to call up large numbers of colonial troops what does this do to the decolonisation process? IIRC fighting and dying for their mother countries in Europe helped foster nationalism and a belief that they'd earned their independence. Even before the war in India you had the Indian Councils Act 1909 and later the Government of India Act 1919 so they were already very slowly moving towards independence. With the Indian National Congress continuing to campaign for better better representation and eventual Dominion status the colonies were on the way out, however with no war expect a much slower process which could be no bad thing.
  • The German colonies will probably be divided up pretty much as in our timeline I would expect. Well that's most of what I can think of for the moment. :)
  • Edit: One other factor I just thought of, with no years of slaughter the old order wont be so completely discredited to so many of their citizens. Socially that's going to have major impacts.
 
East Prussia being ceded in an early Entente vitory is ASB, as would be ceding West Prussia. Germany loses the colonies and Alsace-Lorraine. No change to the border with Denmark. As for Posen, I'm honestly not sure if Russia wants to risk having more Poles, inluding many who may have been better off in Germany than in Russia.
 
East Prussia being ceded in an early Entente vitory is ASB, as would be eding West Prussia. Germany loses the colonies and Alsace-Lorraine. No change to the border with Denmark. As for Posen, I'm honestly not sure if Russia wants to risk having more Poles, inluding many who may have been better off in Germany than in Russia.

I agree. Germany loses some if not all of its colonies as well as Alsace-Lorraine. Russia makes gains in either Turkey or Austria-Hungary, unless it wants to create Poland (which I highly doubt).

Not much changes, and that's why I think this is the best-case scenario in the other thread. A more sustainable balance of power is created.
 
I agree. Germany loses some if not all of its colonies as well as Alsace-Lorraine. Russia makes gains in either Turkey or Austria-Hungary, unless it wants to create Poland (which I highly doubt).

Not much changes, and that's why I think this is the best-case scenario in the other thread.

The thing is, it also still creates problems in Western Asia as a Sykes-Picot partition would be in play. Also, what colony would Germany get to keep?
 
The thing is, it also still creates problems in Western Asia as a Sykes-Picot partition would be in play. Also, what colony would Germany get to keep?

Honestly, I don't know France and Britain's colonial priorities in a 1914 scenario. They could just take them all from Germany as you suggest. But I don't think the Ottoman Empire will be partitioned in a 1914 victory.

The alliances would be unsustainable in the post-war era though, as Russia and Britain would have too many conflicts of interest in Central Asia and the Middle East.
 
Honestly, I don't know France and Britain's colonial priorities in a 1914 scenario. They could just take them all from Germany as you suggest. But I don't think the Ottoman Empire will be partitioned in a 1914 victory.

The alliances would be unsustainable in the post-war era though, as Russia and Britain would have too many conflicts of interest in Central Asia and the Middle East.

What do you see happening to Austria-Hungary?
 
What do you see happening to Austria-Hungary?

The territorial losses should be minimal and limited to the east because Italy would be unable to jump in. Oh I forgot, Russia would probably want A-H to give something up to Serbia.

But the whole Imperial structure may be in line for changes, and Franz Josef's death may provide the necessary spark. Dissolution isn't the only possible outcome though.
 
Top