AHC: World War I cease fire by Dec. 25, 1914

Deleted member 1487

My inclination would be to manufacture a political crisis in France that prevents it from getting involved in the back-and-forth mobilization that led to war. War breaks out, and only involves an Eastern and a Southern Front. Germany and Austria-Hungary then administer a couple serious defeats to the Russians in Poland but are unable to achieve much of use. Meanwhile AH would be embarrassing itself at Belgrade.

This would be the only way to have war end by Christmas! The AHs wouldn't founder in front of Belgrade because the shift of forces to Galicia from the Serbian Front OTL that resulted from too few Germans on the Eastern front won't be an issue here. Instead Serbia gets crushed early on and the entire reason for the war is settled.

Though honestly without France signaling their will to get involved Russia won't go to war in 1914. If though France has to weasel out of their treaty obligations, then Russia will have to save face somehow once war is declared, but they are majorly humped. By bowing out early the regime signals its weakness to the people, probably provoking civil unrest turning into revolution, or stick out the war and suffer huge damage to the nation and suffer revolution from the losses.

Either way Germany and AH win big politically, as France is now marginalized without Russia (and financially hit because Russian loans aren't getting repaid), while Britain has lost her most important ally on the continent, as France cannot stand up to Germany by herself even with the BEF. Plus the Germans now have Mittel Europa as their playground and a stabilized ally.

As others have said, the fall of Paris is the obvious solution.

Why didn't I use it? Because, aside from the sheer difficulty, and that taking it would leave them so overstretched that successes for the Entente would be an immediate risk, there's no certain guarantee that the French stop fighting. A chance, yes, but no certainty.

If we force things so the Germans take a little more time, arrive able to fight, and then take Paris, and if we assume the French call for a ceasefire, that's still not enough. Britain and Russia have to be brought to a ceasefire as well. Getting that before Christmas? I just don't see it.

The reverse is even less likely.

You can probably avoid utter Russian defeat in East Prussia, but you can't get much of a victory. And the French strategy at the war's opening simply would not induce the Germans to surrender by Christmas.

No I think you need to limit the war to meet the conditions of the challenge.

Now this is utter truth. Really the only way that the Moltke plan (as it no longer really belonged to Schlieffen) could work is if the French screwed up more than OTL. I mean HARD. The French 5th army would have to get destroyed early on, as it nearly walked into a trap OTL, and it wouldn't hurt to have the BEF encircled at Mons, again which nearly happened if not for Bülow's orders to Kluck on the eve of that battle.
Assuming this plays out Paris is besieged (remember it is fortified), which cripples France as a combatant, leaving her armies in retreat to stay in the game. They are intact (relatively and minus the 5th army), but have lost most of the crucial parts of the nation, including the border forts. It is a replay of 1870, with France prostrate, but unwilling to surrender, which gives Germany the breathing space to send some troops east in October-November. AH is beaten, still in the game, but maimed. Russia loses at Lodz like OTL, but now is on the defensive with the Eastern Front the main sector. The war lasts into 1915 with AH doing better thanks to much more German support, but the Western Front remains hot. Eventually a truce probably is reached in 1915 that favors the CPs, but leaves Russia and France intact enough to remain threats later in the century. Britain is bitter and possibly plotting revenge too. All we have is an ugly setting for another go in the 30's or 40's with mechanization and larger populations than OTL. Germany is much stronger than OTL, but AH remains a millstone around her neck, especially after the delegitimization of the losses in the Great War.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy extrapolations, Batman! Even if they lost 5th Army that easily, (which, most likely, they wouldn't) the French won't simply roll over. If anything, the loss would make them fight harder and more tactically, since they lost all that cannon fodder. The war would bog down (more than OTL, if that's possible), and, as other nations pile on, would become a decades-long worldwide charliefoxtrot in the middle of France. Not that that'd be much of a loss, just sayin'. Only good thing that's come out of that country in the last hundred years are the chocolate croissant and the Exocet missile.
 
After the Race to the Sea had concluded, the system of trenches was in place, and tempers had had time to cool, it could have been the time for cooler heads to propose a peace in the west on the basis of the status quo ante bellum. France, Belgium and Luxemburg to be evacuated and the Germans get their colonies back. It didn't happen because both sides still had unrealistic expectations which, if they had been objective, they should have recognized had already been refuted (also, German atrocities in occupied France and Belgium hadn't help tempers to cool).

If a settlement could be agreed in the west, one in the east should have followed. Russia and Austria-Hungary didn't really want each other's territory, so it should have been doable.

Not sure how best to deal with Serbia, the original problem. Pity people didn't have a crystal ball to look into the 1990s so they could see what a worthless cause greater Serbia turned out to be.
 

Deleted member 1487

Holy extrapolations, Batman! Even if they lost 5th Army that easily, (which, most likely, they wouldn't) the French won't simply roll over. If anything, the loss would make them fight harder and more tactically, since they lost all that cannon fodder. The war would bog down (more than OTL, if that's possible), and, as other nations pile on, would become a decades-long worldwide charliefoxtrot in the middle of France. Not that that'd be much of a loss, just sayin'. Only good thing that's come out of that country in the last hundred years are the chocolate croissant and the Exocet missile.

My point was that the only way France would lose so big is to make some serious mistakes early on that bordered on ASBs. There is almost no way for Lanrezac would lose the 5th army; he was far too clever for that. I am just saying that were it to happen France would be in a very very bad place, having already suffered very badly on the offensive in the frontier.
 
If this was a super short WW1, would tanks and bombers reach the level WW2 started in? As bad as war is it spurns technological advancment, so perhaps a hybrid WW1/WW2 happens FOR the actual WW2

Could my opinion be correct?
 
If this was a super short WW1, would tanks and bombers reach the level WW2 started in? As bad as war is it spurns technological advancment, so perhaps a hybrid WW1/WW2 happens FOR the actual WW2

Could my opinion be correct?

As Atlantic Friend pointed out, the combatants could draw very different conclusions from the war. The losing party could decide that they had lost due to inferior tactics, strategy. Alternatively defeat could spur the loser to invest more heavily in military technology. HG Wells had described armored attack vehicles like tanks as early as 1910.

IMHO I don't think a quick defeat in the Great War would spur a great deal of advancement in army technology. Cavalry would be shown to be obsolete as an offensive weapon, though horses would continue to be vital for supplies. In fact we may see armies invest even more in pack animals since even the successful armies often outran their supplies.

Airplanes would probably be appreciated as scouts rather than offensive weapons, so I would be surprised if bombers developed much earlier than OTL. Zepplins might not be out the door in this case, since neither side had the time to develop explosive shells to take them down easily, and Zepplins had proven quite useful early on in the war.
 
As Barbara Tuchman and many others have noted, European politicians and generals almost universally believed that the "Great War" would be over in a matter of weeks, or by Christmas at the latest.

Was there a wide-scale belief that the Great War would be over quickly? While there were a lot of public announcements to that end (""You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees.") that's not unusual rhetoric for the beginning of a war. "Over by Christmas" as a phrase stems from the American Civil War at the latest. As a political figure, it's a lot better to say "The war will be over by Christmas" rather than "It's going to go on for years, lots of you are going to die, even then we might not win."

There's been an amount of research which suggests that the belief that the war would be over soon was not widely held. In 1912 Moltke had said that the German army was unable to deliver a knock-out blow to its enemies. Ludendorff said that the war would be a "long-drawn out campaign with numerous difficult, long-lasting battles, before we can defeat one of our adversaries". The Prussian Statistical Office in 1906 foresaw a war of 3 years. German intelligence had warned that the first strike would fall well short of delivering a knock-out blow. In 1914 Moltke warned of a drawn-out war. Karl Haushofer predicted a 3 year war. Kitchener famously predicted a long war. In August 1914 Haig wrote that "we must organise our resources for a war of several years". John French told munition makers in August 1914 that the war would be a long one. In 1912 Joffre had predicted a long war regardless of who won the first battles (though he was not consistent in this prediction, and at least planned a short war - though this was all that was acceptable to a French military psychologically enslaved to the concept of attaque à outrance following 1871).

While there was a great amount of rhetoric in the newspapers that the war would be over by Christmas (and this was a key part of the early-war recruitment drive) we can't say with confidence that the generals thought it would be so. Many realised it would, or could, be a long war, and had told their political masters to prepare for such a conflict. On the other hand, we can't go too far the other way, and say that there was universal acceptance of belief in a long-war, as undoubtedly many generals did believe that modern wars would be fought and won quickly. That said, "over by Christmas" has become shorthand for the futility of the First World War and the incompetence of the generals, and is often reproduced in history books without backing up such a statement (as it is 'common knowledge'), whereas it can be demonstrated that many of the generals had appreciated that the subtleties of this conflict made it different from short wars seen previously, and that the war would be long, bloody and difficult.

Sorry to post all that up without much discussion of Alternate history, but I felt it was necessary (and the beginning of the First World War is something of a speciality of mine!) :D
 

Deleted member 1487

Was there a wide-scale belief that the Great War would be over quickly? While there were a lot of public announcements to that end (""You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees.") that's not unusual rhetoric for the beginning of a war. "Over by Christmas" as a phrase stems from the American Civil War at the latest. As a political figure, it's a lot better to say "The war will be over by Christmas" rather than "It's going to go on for years, lots of you are going to die, even then we might not win."

There's been an amount of research which suggests that the belief that the war would be over soon was not widely held. In 1912 Moltke had said that the German army was unable to deliver a knock-out blow to its enemies. Ludendorff said that the war would be a "long-drawn out campaign with numerous difficult, long-lasting battles, before we can defeat one of our adversaries". The Prussian Statistical Office in 1906 foresaw a war of 3 years. German intelligence had warned that the first strike would fall well short of delivering a knock-out blow. In 1914 Moltke warned of a drawn-out war. Karl Haushofer predicted a 3 year war. Kitchener famously predicted a long war. In August 1914 Haig wrote that "we must organise our resources for a war of several years". John French told munition makers in August 1914 that the war would be a long one. In 1912 Joffre had predicted a long war regardless of who won the first battles (though he was not consistent in this prediction, and at least planned a short war - though this was all that was acceptable to a French military psychologically enslaved to the concept of attaque à outrance following 1871).

While there was a great amount of rhetoric in the newspapers that the war would be over by Christmas (and this was a key part of the early-war recruitment drive) we can't say with confidence that the generals thought it would be so. Many realised it would, or could, be a long war, and had told their political masters to prepare for such a conflict. On the other hand, we can't go too far the other way, and say that there was universal acceptance of belief in a long-war, as undoubtedly many generals did believe that modern wars would be fought and won quickly. That said, "over by Christmas" has become shorthand for the futility of the First World War and the incompetence of the generals, and is often reproduced in history books without backing up such a statement (as it is 'common knowledge'), whereas it can be demonstrated that many of the generals had appreciated that the subtleties of this conflict made it different from short wars seen previously, and that the war would be long, bloody and difficult.

Sorry to post all that up without much discussion of Alternate history, but I felt it was necessary (and the beginning of the First World War is something of a speciality of mine!) :D
Very true; I was just reading a few articles about this topic today. It seems that the general idea was for a 2-3 year war all around and there was very little enthusiasm as is popularly portrayed. Too much propaganda has been taken as truth in popular histories, which muddies the waters to the point that the truth isn't visible anymore.
Edit: the Franco-Prussian war heavily influenced perceptions, except many expected an even longer struggle.
 
Very true; I was just reading a few articles about this topic today. It seems that the general idea was for a 2-3 year war all around and there was very little enthusiasm as is popularly portrayed. Too much propaganda has been taken as truth in popular histories, which muddies the waters to the point that the truth isn't visible anymore.
Edit: the Franco-Prussian war heavily influenced perceptions, except many expected an even longer struggle.

This is quite interesting. I've always considered "The Guns of August" to be the definitive historical work on the outbreak of the First World War. What would you recommend for primary sources (preferably in English) or good secondary sources to learn more about WWI?
In addition to Tuchman, I've read Storms of Steel, Dreadnought, A Peace to End all Peace, and of course All Quiet on the Western Front.
 

Deleted member 1487

This is quite interesting. I've always considered "The Guns of August" to be the definitive historical work on the outbreak of the First World War. What would you recommend for primary sources (preferably in English) or good secondary sources to learn more about WWI?
In addition to Tuchman, I've read Storms of Steel, Dreadnought, A Peace to End all Peace, and of course All Quiet on the Western Front.

All Quiet is one of my favorite works. I actually have it in the original German and its just as brilliant if not more so in the original language.

A major source I've been using recently is:
http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Studies-International-History-Politics/dp/0691015953/ref=pd_sim_b_2

There are also a number of scholarly articles in the various academic journals that I would have to take some time and search for on my hard drive, but Holger Herwig wrote a good one about Moltke's plans prewar.

http://www.amazon.com/First-World-W...3481/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295563365&sr=8-2

Probably the most important work for an initiate:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-W...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295563381&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Pyrrhic-Victo...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295563412&sr=1-1

http://books.google.com/books?id=sY...AA#v=onepage&q=1918 offensive zabecki&f=false

And a MUST HAVE:
http://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Front-1914-1917-Norman-Stone/dp/0140267255

http://www.amazon.com/White-War-Death-Italian-1915-1919/dp/0465013295

There are a number of books out now about the Schlieffen plan too, but there is no consensus about Zuber's book, which claims the Schlieffen plan never existed. I'm dubious about it, especially after reading the dozen or so articles dissecting Zuber's claims, as well as his other somewhat shoddy scholarship in his other books.
For example: http://wih.sagepub.com/content/10/4/464.abstract
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_35/ai_n15623720/
http://books.google.com/books?id=35...&resnum=6&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07...&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846

http://www.amazon.com/Campaign-Marn...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295563690&sr=1-1

These are just a few to get you started, but a warning, once you start delving into the history of WW1 you might get addicted to amazon.com and interlibrary loans! I am still waiting to see if I can get some 1930's Austrian military technical magazine articles about WW1 through interlibrary loan...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Food for thought! How about the Christmas truce of 1914 blowing out into a far reaching mutiny in the ranks of both sides?

I don't now if it is to far fetched, but one thing for that to be at least possible is, I guess a much, much more bloodier autum campaign. Also I think this event has some merits for success - be a catalyst for peace - if it was more powerful or at least more widespread. I also think one shouldn't underestimate this particular event, when the common soldier on both sides decided for peace and got peace. Until the general-staff got them relocated to other fronts.
 
Serbian reaction to AHs demands

One important factor to limit the conflict would have been the Serbian reaction to AHs demands after the assasination of Franz Ferdinand d'Este. Hadn't the Serbs unlike in OTL conceded to nearly all of AHs demands, but rejected all of them stubbornly, it would have costed them a lot of sympathies in the west.

Since the British, who had experienced the Boer war a little more than a decade earlier, were the least war enthusiastic country in Europe, they might have tried to persuade and if necessary coerce (by threatening not to help) the French to a more neutral position in the serbian/russian question. France might have retreated to the diplomatic position, that, should Russia be the party to declare war on Germany, they are not obligated to come to Russias aid.

Germany would at first not send own troops into the balkan theatre, but help AH only materially. Russia still would see this as a casus belli and declare war on Germany. The French would stay neutral as promised, a quick and decisive victory against Russia and Serbia would follow.

Poland would be recreated out of Russian territory as a buffer state between Germany and Russia, maybe including Lithuania and thus granting the state access to the Baltic sea, probably with some German prince as King. In addition to this, Russia would be forced to pay reparations to both Germany and AH.

It also might be forced to grant at least the western parts of Belarus and Ukraine independence, there to settle its persecuted jewish population (how about calling this country Ashkenazia) as a buffer state between AH and Russia. Serbia definitely would suffer most, possibly becoming a client state to AH.
 
Last edited:
One important factor to limit the conflict would have been the Serbian reaction to AHs demands after the assasination of Franz Ferdinand d'Este. Hadn't the Serbs unlike in OTL conceded to nearly all of AHs demands, but rejected all of them stubbornly, it would have costed them a lot of sympathies in the west.

Since the British, who had experienced the Boer war a little more than a decade earlier, were the least war enthusiastic country in Europe, they might have tried to persuade and if necessary coerce (by threatening not to help) the French to a more neutral position in the serbian/russian question. France might have retreated to the diplomatic position, that, should Russia be the party to declare war on Germany, they are not obligated to come to Russias aid.

Germany would at first not send own troops into the balkan theatre, but help AH only materially. Russia still would see this as a casus belli and declare war on Germany. The French would stay neutral as promised, a quick and decisive victory against Russia and Serbia would follow.

Poland would be recreated out of Russian territory as a buffer state between Germany and Russia, maybe including Lithuania and thus granting the state access to the Baltic sea, probably with some German prince as King. In addition to this, Russia would be forced to pay reparations to both Germany and AH.

It also might be forced to grant at least the western parts of Belarus and Ukraine independence, there to settle its persecuted jewish population (how about calling this country Ashkenazia) as a buffer state between AH and Russia. Serbia definitely would suffer most, possibly becoming a client state to AH.


But such amount of suicidal intentions is a bit ASB. Only of A-H demands there were rejected were those that would pretty much shatter Serbia's sovereignty. Government of Serbia at least indirectly supported and condoned actions of "Young Bosnia", but Archduke assassination was way too much, too drastic. Ever since overthrow of Obrenovic dynasty Serbia tried to make amends with A-H, that A-H kept bombing. (annexation of Bosnia, inciting Bulgaria to cause Second Balkan's War...). After the assassination of Archduke and A-H ultimatum Serbian government accepted as much as it could have possibly done; anything more was surender, anything less would be suicidal.

Related. In 1914 Serbia managed to give A-H a bloody nose and repel all attacks; and it wasn't until 1915 and Germany and Bulgaria attacking together with A-H that country was overrun.

But.

Assume French and British collapse/surrender in late '14. Russia knows it can't fight Germany and A-H alone, and tries to negotiate a peace. Some territorial concessions in Poland and Ukraine most likely. Serbia could survive as a nation technicly, but having to accept full dominance of Vienna.
 
Top