AHC: World War I ends in 1917 with an Entente victory

Your challenge, as said in the title, is to let WW1 end in 1917 but with an Entente victory.

Bonus questions:
  1. Could this stabilize the provisional government in Russia (because they "won" the war)?
  2. Would a peace treaty as harsh as the OTL-Versailles-treaty imposed, or would the Entente be less harsh?
  3. What would Eastern Europe look like in the aftermath without the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
  4. Would (considering they get involved in the war) the US still face an isolationist backlash in the 20s?
 
British won the first battle of Mesines holding the ridge and butterflying away the battles of festaburt and Ypres.
 
This is indeed a set of good things to discuss.

Timing is of course of essence. Let us now assume that Somme and Verdun goes really badly for Germany. The front in the west collapses and that is it. Peace rings in January 1917.

That is before the US gets involved. This is before Russian revolution.

US comes out tops. No war dead. Will US become the dominant economy a bit earlier. I think so.
Can Russia be saved? probably not.
Versailles? Maybe the war has not impacted enough people to warrant harsh treatments? After all, the crowned heads of state were still family.

This is one that could require a lot of thinking.

Ivan
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Your challenge, as said in the title, is to let WW1 end in 1917 but with an Entente victory.

Bonus questions:
  1. Could this stabilize the provisional government in Russia (because they "won" the war)?
  2. Would a peace treaty as harsh as the OTL-Versailles-treaty imposed, or would the Entente be less harsh?
  3. What would Eastern Europe look like in the aftermath without the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?
  4. Would (considering they get involved in the war) the US still face an isolationist backlash in the 20s?

Russia collapse because it ran out of food in the winter. To fix this, more land has to be planted in Spring 1917, so this win is unlikely to prevent chaos in Russia. We can get different winners and losers, but it is hard to save the status quo.

With Russia in the treaty even if disorganized, the treaty will be MUCH harsher.

Eastern Europe will likely be Russian dominated.

Yes, USA will return to isolation.
 
Russia in on the treaty = harsher

Maybe not. 1919 with the millions dead and the total change of social cohesion in Europe, might have warranted a harder line against Germany.

1916 peace might not have evoked the same changes in society and not the same feelings of revenge.

Interesting thesis, this one.
 
The idea that the US would benefit from an early ending is odd in my opinion. The entente states All suffered many more dead in 17-18 than the US did plus became further indebted to them.
 
I suspect the uk will retain more power, holding Ireland becomes possible especially if Easter rising is avoided. Uk Japan treaty likely to survive as well
 
Emperor Karl of Habsburg's peace negotiations with Prince Sixtus of Belgium are more successful, and Austria-Hungary bails out of the war in mid-1917. Germany notices that she can't fight on three fronts and does the smart thing by following Karl's example.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Emperor Karl of Habsburg's peace negotiations with Prince Sixtus of Belgium are more successful, and Austria-Hungary bails out of the war in mid-1917. Germany notices that she can't fight on three fronts and does the smart thing by following Karl's example.

That is a way you get a less harsh treaty for Germany, possibly the only way.

If The Germans are instead being beaten outright on the western front it will be harsher than OTL.

I don’t buy the short war-easy peace long war- hard peace idea that seems to attract people so much. The Entente and Germany both started talking about plans greedier than Versailles as early as September 1914.

The only thing a shorter war mitigates is the basis for calculating reparations , not territorial losses. And the loser did not pay much of the reparations in OTL anyway.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Russia in on the treaty = harsher

Maybe not. 1919 with the millions dead and the total change of social cohesion in Europe, might have warranted a harder line against Germany.

1916 peace might not have evoked the same changes in society and not the same feelings of revenge.

Interesting thesis, this one.
Well, I once saw the plan of a Russian foreign minister. He litterally planned to rip the whole Southern Germany from Germany.
 
How about the Entente forces the Dardenelles in early 1915 - and this collapses the Ottoman government effectively knocking them out of the war.

With the main supply route to Russia now open and no drain from that campaign on the Entente - more troops and supplies etc for the main European Fronts and the Russian Empire endures its internal issues better than OTL

And then as a second POD A Jutland type battle is fought in mid 1916 with the main clash earlier in the day than OTL - perhaps in better weather with the KM having to endure the cruel attentions of the Grand fleet for several more hours than OTL with the result that the German fleet is unable to effectively break contact effectively and is crushed losing many of its Battleships and Battle Crusiers along with many supporting vessels.

The losses to the KM become public knowledge despite efforts to hide the truth and this causes unreset in Germany as the effects of the blockade start to really impact everyday life and this begins to effect moral on the front lines.

The subsequant USM is less effective than OTL due to the heavy losses in officers and men of the KM reducing the pool from which the Uboat crews would be formed.

This combines to bring an earlier end to WW1
 
Top