DBWI: A longer continental War?

The Continental War of 1914-1916 reoriented Europe and established Germany and Austria as the preeminent powers.

France was defeated and force to cede Belfort, Briey-Longwy, and all of Lorraine east of the Moselle River to Germany.
In the east, Russia was forced to cede Congress Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Kars, Batumi, and Yerevan.
Serbia was vassalized, Montenegro annexed, Bulgaria expanded, and Austria satisfied.

It was messy, but the social cost was relatively limited compare to, say, the upheavals of 1848 or the Napoleonic Wars.

What if the war had been more drawn out and socially disruptive?
 
It's kinda simple, really. You could just try to find some way to get Britain involved. Despite having a somewhat sour relationship with the Germans, they always stayed on the sidelines in the war. Have them join in (maybe with a border skirmish in the colonies or even have Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium like some guy named "Alfred Von Schlieffen" proposed) and then you have a war that may last to perhaps 1917 or longer.
 
It's kinda simple, really. You could just try to find some way to get Britain involved. Despite having a somewhat sour relationship with the Germans, they always stayed on the sidelines in the war. Have them join in (maybe with a border skirmish in the colonies or even have Germany violate the neutrality of Belgium like some guy named "Alfred Von Schlieffen" proposed) and then you have a war that may last to perhaps 1917 or longer.

That seems quite ASB, the Germans would never do something that stupid to pull in the largest empire with that much manpower and seapower, there was a reason they dropped it so soon after hostilities started.
 
That seems quite ASB, the Germans would never do something that stupid to pull in the largest empire with that much manpower and seapower, there was a reason they dropped it so soon after hostilities started.
You could also try to somehow make Britain join alongside Germany, but that also might be ASB since like I said, they had a pretty sour relationship and France wasn't stupid enough to provoke the Brits either.
 
Britain's Army was not all that powerful in 1914 the British Empire was more geared towards the Navy. So the industrial might of the British Empire would not be as influential has people believe. It looks like it would boil down to a war of attrition, that could go either way.
The British Empire was reliant on trade with other nations and its Empire to keep its war machine running. If faced with a war of attrition the Germans just might try cut off British trade bybusing commerce raiders. That would mean stopping and possibly sinking American vessels. That could get the United States into the war. As I said the sides would be pretty much even.The financial backing of the United States and American production would have been enough to shift the balance of power against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
 
Britain's Army was not all that powerful in 1914 the British Empire was more geared towards the Navy. So the industrial might of the British Empire would not be as influential has people believe. It looks like it would boil down to a war of attrition, that could go either way.
The British Empire was reliant on trade with other nations and its Empire to keep its war machine running. If faced with a war of attrition the Germans just might try cut off British trade bybusing commerce raiders. That would mean stopping and possibly sinking American vessels. That could get the United States into the war. As I said the sides would be pretty much even.The financial backing of the United States and American production would have been enough to shift the balance of power against Germany and Austria-Hungary.
That goes completely against the Monroe Doctrine, although it would be cool to see what would happen if the sleeping American giant awakened.
 
The invasion of Belgium was the actual German war plan in 1914, and historians regard the last minute change back to an earlier plan that they had kept around to be almost accidental. The crisis happened to start in Eastern Europe, so the Germans were not that interested in even fighting France, and relations between Germany and Britain had improved to the point that the British actually bought German assurances that they would take no French territory and the Germans were satisfied that the British would not enter anyway. You could get your POD just by destroying the earlier plans. Btw the French "cessions" were just until reparations were paid and eventually returned to them. Invading Belgium would widen the war and probably get the British involved and there is your POD. I don't have time now to actually answer the OP as to the effects but will come back to the thread later.
 
The reason that the Germans have been so successful in warfare is that they had fewer enemies. The German Empire was fortunate that it only fought France and Russia. To the present day, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire are flourishing democracies.

As opposed to the clusterfuck that was the Ottoman Empire.
 
The invasion of Belgium was the actual German war plan in 1914, and historians regard the last minute change back to an earlier plan that they had kept around to be almost accidental. The crisis happened to start in Eastern Europe, so the Germans were not that interested in even fighting France, and relations between Germany and Britain had improved to the point that the British actually bought German assurances that they would take no French territory and the Germans were satisfied that the British would not enter anyway. You could get your POD just by destroying the earlier plans. Btw the French "cessions" were just until reparations were paid and eventually returned to them. Invading Belgium would widen the war and probably get the British involved and there is your POD. I don't have time now to actually answer the OP as to the effects but will come back to the thread later.

Would that have been enough to get Britain into the War though? 1914 was the start of the Home Rule issue that came very close to outright Civil War over the next decade. Granted, the concessions and compromises slowly managed to make the situation turn out without an utter disaster and laid the groundwork for the Commonwealth. If War had broken out, would the British government have been able to walk the path needed that would eventually calm tensions?
 
A longer 1914-1916 continental war probably become the new Great War. Germany was very lucky in 1914, because one wrong move could've set off a chain of events that led to their downfall. But the Continental War allowed for Germany to position its hegemony in Europe and establish itself overseas. If the continental war becomes the Great War as more and more countries are dragged in (USA, Britain, Italy etc.) Germany certainly comes out the worser. It was just not in a position to last that long, and it didnt help that their king at the time was reportedly insane.

As opposed to the clusterfuck that was the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman's actually seemed like the rising star for a while. During the 20s, their military increased rapidly, and their economy improved as well. However, they were just too outclassed. A skirmish with the Austrians in the Balkans led to the Great War of the 30s, and though the Ottomans were making gains and even occupied the Caucuses and the Danubian basin for most of the war, the collapse of their allies France and Italy in the west and their ports being cut off by the British-German blockade screwed them.

OOC: Great War in the '30s between France, Italy, Ottomans (maybe USA too?) vs. Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary
 
If we presume the POD for a longer war is Britain joining in against Germany, there is a good chance Germany will lose. Britain plus Russia and France have far more industrial capacity than Germany, Austria-Hungary, and potential allies (Italy? Turkey?) and while the British army was small, they could have built up a large army, even introduced conscription, and they had a huge empire to draw on. Russia is also helped by more German corps in the West instead of the East, especially as you almost need the German invasion of Belgium to get British involvement. Going through Belgium and encircling the French could knock France out right away, but we are presuming a longer war so in this timeline this presumably doesn't happen. In this case Germany will be hard pressed and will likely lose.

One wildcard is what happens to the Russian Revolution. Its usually blamed on Russia's defeat in the war, but could still happen if Russia is just under a good deal of pressure, especially if Turkey and Denmark close the passages to the Baltic and Black Sea like they did IOTL, and might even be more radical in this timeline.
 
Would that have been enough to get Britain into the War though? 1914 was the start of the Home Rule issue that came very close to outright Civil War over the next decade. Granted, the concessions and compromises slowly managed to make the situation turn out without an utter disaster and laid the groundwork for the Commonwealth. If War had broken out, would the British government have been able to walk the path needed that would eventually calm tensions?

Well, Russia was falling apart and they still jumped in. And as Russian President Leon Trotsky mentioned in 1942, one of the core aspects of the British geopolitical ideology is their utter refusal to back down even against major European powers. Just look at the Seven Years' War, Napoleonic Wars, Great War, Anglo-Venezuelan war or the Sydney Rebellion for examples of this.

If we presume the POD for a longer war is Britain joining in against Germany, there is a good chance Germany will lose. Britain plus Russia and France have far more industrial capacity than Germany, Austria-Hungary, and potential allies (Italy? Turkey?) and while the British army was small, they could have built up a large army, even introduced conscription, and they had a huge empire to draw on.

And then there's the other wildcard, the Empire of Japan. Japan and Russia both had territorial claims on the Kurils and Karafuto, so it wouldn't surprise me if they joined Germany's side too if the conflict got large enough (potentially even allowing them to take Indochina and Kamchatka several years earlier than IOTL).

Someone should also use our conclusions to make a mäp comparing a longer-war scenario to OTL
 
Britain's Army was not all that powerful in 1914 the British Empire was more geared towards the Navy. So the industrial might of the British Empire would not be as influential has people believe. It looks like it would boil down to a war of attrition, that could go either way.
The British Empire was reliant on trade with other nations and its Empire to keep its war machine running. If faced with a war of attrition the Germans just might try cut off British trade bybusing commerce raiders. That would mean stopping and possibly sinking American vessels. That could get the United States into the war. As I said the sides would be pretty much even.The financial backing of the United States and American production would have been enough to shift the balance of power against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

That goes completely against the Monroe Doctrine, although it would be cool to see what would happen if the sleeping American giant awakened.

More importantly, the US was involved in the Second Mexican War at the time and thus was very much not inclined towards involving itself in European Affairs.

Without the Mexican War and with US entry into the war, we don't see the US annexing Mexico North of the 30th parallel or purchasing Curacao and the Danish West Indies in an effort to keep out Germany, I think.

The Ottoman's actually seemed like the rising star for a while. During the 20s, their military increased rapidly, and their economy improved as well. However, they were just too outclassed. A skirmish with the Austrians in the Balkans led to the Great War of the 30s, and though the Ottomans were making gains and even occupied the Caucuses and the Danubian basin for most of the war, the collapse of their allies France and Italy in the west and their ports being cut off by the British-German blockade screwed them.

OOC: Great War in the '30s between France, Italy, Ottomans (maybe USA too?) vs. Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary

Yeah, but even then the war only ended up achieving a policy of Ottoman containment rather than a real cracking of the empire. The loss of Palestine, Greater Lebanon, and Yemen as well as the end of restored Ottoman Suzerainty over Albania and ejecting the Ottomans from Western Iran were primarily containing actions that limited external power projection without really messing with the country internally. The Russians meanwhile failed in their primary goal: regaining Kars, Batumi, and Erevan. The only real chink to them internally was that settling the Kuwait boundary in Britain's favor meant less oil for them come the 1950s.

The Ottomans certainly did quite fine when they struck oil
 
Last edited:
That seems quite ASB, the Germans would never do something that stupid to pull in the largest empire with that much manpower and seapower, there was a reason they dropped it so soon after hostilities started.
Britain's Army was not all that powerful in 1914 the British Empire was more geared towards the Navy. So the industrial might of the British Empire would not be as influential has people believe. It looks like it would boil down to a war of attrition, that could go either way.
The British Empire was reliant on trade with other nations and its Empire to keep its war machine running. If faced with a war of attrition the Germans just might try cut off British trade bybusing commerce raiders. That would mean stopping and possibly sinking American vessels. That could get the United States into the war. As I said the sides would be pretty much even.The financial backing of the United States and American production would have been enough to shift the balance of power against Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Why are people assuming that the USA would go to war against Germany? They were plenty salty about what happened in Venezuela in 1895, and to this day large portions of the US population are Germanophone. No way they can go to war with Britain without massive backlash from the Socialists, Irish, and Germans, which would cause major political unrest. Even if you did, it seems more likely for the USA to get involved against Britain for freedom of the seas violations, if only because Britain would have more supremacy over the seas.

However, I do think it possible for the Germans to make a calculated gamble and decide to invade France via Belgium, even if it means provoking the Brits. There's a decent chance, or so the General Staff might think, that they can take the French off guard and be in Paris before the UK is on the continent, at which point their victory at least in the West becomes fait accompli. However, if that gamble doesn't pay off, then Britain will get involved because of the violation of Belgian neutrality.
 
The Continental War of 1914-1916 reoriented Europe and established Germany and Austria as the preeminent powers.

France was defeated and force to cede Belfort, Briey-Longwy, and all of Lorraine east of the Moselle River to Germany.
In the east, Russia was forced to cede Congress Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Kars, Batumi, and Yerevan.
Serbia was vassalized, Montenegro annexed, Bulgaria expanded, and Austria satisfied.

It was messy, but the social cost was relatively limited compare to, say, the upheavals of 1848 or the Napoleonic Wars.

What if the war had been more drawn out and socially disruptive?

For one, it's entirely possible that the Great War might not have been as massively damaging, or as horrific as it was-the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary in particular never fully recovered from the conflict, and anti-German sentiment remained a huge problem in France and Italy until the early 1960s, mainly thanks to the devastation wreaked upon both countries. Also, probably no 2nd Mexican War, either(and so, Baja California, Sonora and Chihuahua never become states in 1957, which may also mean that Alaska and Hawa'ii may not be admitted in 1947 as IOTL, depending on butterflies)

The Ottomans certainly did quite fine when they struck oil

For a while, things arguably were looking truly positive for them, yes, from about 1917 to 1933 when the war broke out-but after that, even oil couldn't stop them from falling apart in the late '70s(and the tragedies that followed in the '80s, much like after A-H's collapse in 1946-though arguably, at least the Danubian Federation has largely gotten over it's predecessor's failures since it's formation in 1972).

OOC: Think of the Balkan Wars of OTL, only writ large. (And, sadly, it's doubtful A-H would have been able to survive in it's then original form to the present, with such a late POD, as it had too many problems to overcome-hope glenn67 doesn't mind too much!)

Why are people assuming that the USA would go to war against Germany? They were plenty salty about what happened in Venezuela in 1895, and to this day large portions of the US population are Germanophone. No way they can go to war with Britain without massive backlash from the Socialists, Irish, and Germans, which would cause major political unrest. Even if you did, it seems more likely for the USA to get involved against Britain for freedom of the seas violations, if only because Britain would have more supremacy over the seas.

Interesting possibility here(though we allied with Germany only after the Ottomans declared war on us over the Harriman Telegram incident, so named for the current American ambassador to the Ottomans at the time), though I should point out that there actually aren't very many fluent (non-Amish) German speakers around today outside of some parts of Wisconsin and Texas, maybe 200,000 at most, and most of them 60 or older.

Someone should also use our conclusions to make a mäp comparing a longer-war scenario to OTL

James Turtledove's classic trilogy from back in the '90s, anyone? Here's a link to the official fan site, if anyone's interested.
 
Last edited:
For a while, things arguably were looking truly positive for them, yes, from about 1917 to 1933 when the war broke out-but after that, even oil couldn't stop them from falling apart in the late '70s(and the tragedies that followed in the '80s, much like after A-H's collapse in 1946-though arguably, at least the Danubian Federation has largely gotten over it's predecessor's failures since it's formation in 1972).

OOC: Think of the Balkan Wars of OTL, only writ large. (And, sadly, it's doubtful A-H would have been able to survive in it's then original form to the present, with such a late POD, as it had too many problems to overcome-hope glenn67 doesn't mind too much!)

You're confusing the Kirkuk strike with the discovery in the mid-50s of the oil in the Gulf. Gulf oil flooded the state's coffers and allowed for the infrastructure development and state-centralization that ultimately doomed the dynasty. Kirkuk oil was what fueled the expansionist mindset of the 1930s.

The Fall of the House of Osman and the replacement of the Imperial State with the Turkish Republic was a long-time coming. The growth of the New Turk movement in the late 50s, in which Turkishness came to be defined in a progressive, modern, and civic sense, combined with the social upheavals of urbanization, mass Turkish-language education, the Russian expulsion of the Azeris to the Empire, and the dynasty's loss of Arabia resulted in the Ottoman Population's identity becoming a lot more Turkish in a variety of ways and less dependent on Islam.
 
You're confusing the Kirkuk strike with the discovery in the mid-50s of the oil in the Gulf. Gulf oil flooded the state's coffers and allowed for the infrastructure development and state-centralization that ultimately doomed the dynasty. Kirkuk oil was what fueled the expansionist mindset of the 1930s.

Ah, I see what you mean now.

The Fall of the House of Osman and the replacement of the Imperial State with the Turkish Republic was a long-time coming. The growth of the New Turk movement in the late 50s, in which Turkishness came to be defined in a progressive, modern, and civic sense, combined with the social upheavals of urbanization, mass Turkish-language education, the Russian expulsion of the Azeris to the Empire, and the dynasty's loss of Arabia resulted in the Ottoman Population's identity becoming a lot more Turkish in a variety of ways and less dependent on Islam.

Of course, though, one can't also forget the horrific conflicts that broke out following the Empire's collapse during the '80s, particularly the firebombing of Beirut in 1988 by the True Turkish forces, or the Latakia Massacre in 1984, or the attempted wholesale genocide of the Druze in Syria in 1983-85, etc.(The Canadian Broadcasting Company also had a documentary series on the Kurdish freedom fighters as well, here if anybody's interested, as well as on the Truth & Reconciliation Commissions set up after the Turkish Republic solidified control over the Empire's remains in 1989-90, with help from the Danubian Federation, the U.S., Iran, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, and certain others).

Then again, had the government not become so reactionary in the 1960s, and not persecuted the New Turks so badly(and given the "True Turks" so much influence!), the Ottoman Empire might not have fallen, at least not as hard as it did IOTL, anyway.....(though at least the modern Turkish Republic is a very decent and very stable place to live, and a genuine liberal democracy to boot!)
 
Last edited:
Top