AHC worst entente victory possible in WWI

This AHC is to make a scenario in which the entente wins WWI at the end, but they take the worst victory deal while having the most amount of casualties and economic damage possible

begin
 
Having the US not enter WWI would be enough. The war was already horrible as it was before the US came in and poured new men and resources to the entente's effort, but i still could see the entente winning without an american entry: the germans had wasted a lot of men in a failed offensive in 1917, and their occupation of former west russia by the B-L treaty would be hard since they'd have to dedicate a lot in trying to encourage slavs to join the german war effort.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
@GauchoBadger
Well the US entry WAS the reason for the german spring offense in 1918, when the 'advantages' of the victory in the east were only partially realized yet.
Without the US entry they would probably take their sweet time to prepare a more powerfull offense later that year with a good/better chance of defeating France and Britain on land (though probaly not already winning the war in total).

However even then german victory isn't a given.
If US stays out of the war in terms of sending troops but "only" surge up material support (ofc increasing that way France and Britains post-war debts) the war could last well into 1919 with an awfull lot of more casualties and much more deterriorated state of internal and economical affairs at the end.
 
However even then german victory isn't a given.
If US stays out of the war in terms of sending troops but "only" surge up material support (ofc increasing that way France and Britains post-war debts) the war could last well into 1919 with an awfull lot of more casualties and much more deterriorated state of internal and economical affairs at the end.

Expand this scenario, how would be the peace deal and what's going to happen to the entente after that?
 
The first instinct would be to think that the worst Entente victory would come in 1919 or 1920, with even more bloodletting and economic damage.

However, there is an argument that the British at least would have been pretty screwed with an Entente victory in 1915 or 1916, after Turkey entered the war but before Russia withdrew from the war. Because the only way this would have happened would have been if the "Russian steamroller" had been an actual reality, and Russian armies rolled into Berlin and the Russians got Constantinople somehow as well. That would have put Tsarist Russia in the same position of the Soviet Union in 1945. It was after all a fairly nasty regime, just not as much as Stalin's. And if the victory came in 1916 it would have been a very unstable but still expansionist regime.

For the British and the French, if they can't win a short war scenario in 1914, their best prospects are in 1917 or early 1918, after Tsarist Russia implodes but before the Americans show up in force. But its hard to see how they can do this. In a sense, Britain and France were screwed once their elites decided they had to prioritize stopping Germany, since they had to increase the power of either American or Russia to accomplish this.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Maybe no large scale conscription in homeland Britain and Ireland, instead the Brits raised more Empire and colonial soldiers. In this case, France would be totally broke even if the Entente won. On the flip side, Britain might avoid running out of money.
 
Incidentally, I was counting the "Entente" as Britain and France above. If you count Tsarist Russia as part of the Entente, it becomes really hard to get a worse result for the Entente where they still win than the historical one.
 
Top