DBWI: Great War lasts past 1917?

Wait, come back, this isn’t another “what if Germany won the Great Imperial War” thread!

So, the facts . Two years of bloody stalemate in Europe, attempted invasions and guerrilla warfare in the Middle East, and colony swaps in Africa until the bunch of fives of the Brusilov Offensive, Austria-Hungary’s aborted invasion of Italy, the defence of Verdun, the Turnip Winter, and the Somme had the Central Powers repulsed on all sides. King Carl hems and haws and fartarses but in early 1917, he’s cut a separate deal for peace and Germany’s alone (and the Polish Republic starts[1]). The U-boat gamble is pointless, foreign forces cross the borders, peace in April, the Socialists are swept to power yadda yadda…

But, what if the Central Powers had kept it going for another year? Not won, just held on until 1918 or 1919. All it would take is one of the big five causes to cock up – maybe the Germans succeeded in bleeding France at Verdun instead of bleeding out themselves, or Austria-Hungary hadn’t been idiots & invaded Italy, or the Somme had failed. We know in the later case that Haig originally wanted a much larger offensive but was talked out of it [2], and the Somme needed a ton of shells aimed at a small section of wire to succeed; spread that out, is enough damage done? And if Germany seems to be holding it together, is Carl going to accept the terms of surrender?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t have the Myagmar “stabbed in the back” crap, for a start: both of the states would’ve been invaded and pounded, nobody’s blaming the monarch and his “elites” for selling them out. And Ireland would turn out very differently with all the Irish soldiers still abroad and Whitehall’s attention away from Dublin

[1] Polish independence being both an Entente demand and something Germany said would happen if they won (because eff Russia, that’s why).

[2] The Somme was planned as a smaller offensive but in OTL, Haig didn’t listen to his generals going “expanding it is a bad idea”.
 
Oh right, this is an interesting question. We can divide the answer in two part, one global and one more in detail for the varius nation.

Globally two or even one year of war more than OTL mean that every nations (winner and loser alike) will be in more dire straits economically, socially and politically.
In OTL post-war all the fringe parties like the italian fascist, that crazy offshot of the socialist the communard IRC and many others gained a lot of traction due to the economic depression and the overall destruction, so for them more war is more good, hell they can even take power in one nation.
In general 17 was a critical year for the Entente, economically the British were almost at the end of their secured loan and RUssia was on her last leg and almost descended in revolution.
And frankly if we think that the A-H and Ottoman Empire dissolution was messy, image one where the Entente is too tired to intervene and let the conflict spread.

Going on the particular of my nation:

Italy if the fight continue till the CP surrender can probably get what the Treaty of London promised insted of the pittance of OTL (OCC: basically what A-H originally promised for Italy remaining neutral plus some colonial expansion that more or less is equal at what France and UK give to Benny to quiet him). This mean that Italy relationships with her war allies will remain cordial instead of the self-isolation of OTL and utter rebuffal of any attempt to forge a peace time alliance to contain revanchist Germany and his allies/sidekick Poland and Hungary.
Sure Italy get something more when Austria imploded in 1919, but were always some scraps (OCC: basically further border adjustment in Trentino and the equivalent of the OTL Free State of Trieste, plus the neutralization of some island in the Adriatic and some local authonomy for the italian minority) and Russia and France effort to block any Italian expansion on the Balkans really created a sore point between our nations that tainted Italian percpetion of them even post second conflict.
Frankly a more satisfied (and tired) Italy will have never be so aggressive towards Greece, grabbing Corfù and some other Aegean Islands in 1920 over some stupid border incident and the evacuation of North Epirus by the troops of Athens or starting a border war with Abyssinia in 1918 when that nation was engulfed in a little civil war (OCC: No full invasion, just some skyrmish and some land grabbing in the contested territory of Ogaden plus a couple of border town near Eritrea, basically a show of force to demonstrate that Italy is not a push over)
 
Well first thing's first, you'd need to butterfly Jutland. Once the High Seas Fleet was effectively destroyed (at least in an operational sense) Germany was on borrowed time. The Kaiser was apparently never the same afterward, and by losing the "fleet-in-being" effect the Royal Navy was practically able to operate with impunity.

Maybe have Scheer or Jellicoe be a bit more cautious, some bad luck on the British side, good luck on the German side... but I don't know, anybody going toe to toe with the Royal Navy in 1916 was always going to get a pretty brutal beatdown.
 
that crazy offshot of the socialist the communard IRC

You mean communist. They used to be a really big deal in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, or at least the fear of them was - after they never took power but socialists, hardcore nationalists etc did, they fizzled out (and in some cases were brutally wiped out).

Basically, they were the anarcho-syndicalists of their days.

And frankly if we think that the A-H and Ottoman Empire dissolution was messy, image one where the Entente is too tired to intervene and let the conflict spread.

I don't really want to imagine a larger version of the Red Pogrom. That's a scary thought.

Going on the particular of my nation:

Italy if the fight continue till the CP surrender can probably get what the Treaty of London promised insted of the pittance of OTL

That sounds plausible. I'm wondering if Italy would still get blocked from the Balkans or if that'd still happen & Italy would just put up with it. I can't really see Italy being allowed in there - unless, of course, Russia is in no shape to say "boo" and then it'd be in like gangbusters, 'making friends' of the new Slavic states.

Russia out of shape would also mean no Tsar to bail out his cousin in Greece, so they wouldn't be as aggressive in their foreign policy - that bloody invasion of the Ottoman remnants, for feck's sake. [1] Maybe Italy wouldn't have had any border conflict. With luck, we wouldn't have ended up with Spartist Greece.

Well first thing's first, you'd need to butterfly Jutland. Once the High Seas Fleet was effectively destroyed (at least in an operational sense) Germany was on borrowed time. The Kaiser was apparently never the same afterward, and by losing the "fleet-in-being" effect the Royal Navy was practically able to operate with impunity.

Good point, I was forgetting the naval part. It doesn't even have to be victory, just enough boats escape. The U-boats wouldn't have managed to do much of anything on their own [2] but with the remaining fleet? Probably could hold out longer.

-

[1] Assuming Greece will still feel "owed" Turkish land, so an equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919–22) happens but earlier

[2] In OTL, the u-boats also were not enough but they lasted longer so we still recognise it as a good go that did lots of damage - ITTL, Germany lost too soon into the campaign for that to be how it's remembered
 
You mean communist. They used to be a really big deal in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, or at least the fear of them was - after they never took power but socialists, hardcore nationalists etc did, they fizzled out (and in some cases were brutally wiped out).

Basically, they were the anarcho-syndicalists of their days.

Ah yes communist:eek: my bad...but similar enough;). Socialist were not much of the problem, at least the great majority of them were more on the moderate side, basically today social-democrats but between the extremist on the far right and far left and the ubernationalist mixed between them is not a surprise that A-H don't even lasted till the end of the peace negotiation.


I don't really want to imagine a larger version of the Red Pogrom. That's a scary thought.

Yeah, now add croatian, italian, romanian and basically every other nationalist from east europe to the middle east and no occupation forces by the Entente to separate them...it will be a massacre, worse a series infinite of massacres




That sounds plausible. I'm wondering if Italy would still get blocked from the Balkans or if that'd still happen & Italy would just put up with it. I can't really see Italy being allowed in there - unless, of course, Russia is in no shape to say "boo" and then it'd be in like gangbusters, 'making friends' of the new Slavic states.

They will try to block her in any case, still with the war continuing and the italian role more preminent in took down A-H at least what agreed in 1915 will be given unlike the scraps of OTL.
I think that any italian goverment will have fought tooth and nail to make the provision stick, even because after so much they will need to show something and to appease the nationalist like Mussolini and D'Annunzio; but honestly the Treaty of London agreement will be the max...unless Russia is out of the question naturally, in this case with only France (and the passive role of London) to stop Italy effort probably that monstrousity of MegaSerbia...ehm sorry i meaned Yugoslavia will have not raised from the ashes of the Hapsburg Empire.

Russia out of shape would also mean no Tsar to bail out his cousin in Greece, so they wouldn't be as aggressive in their foreign policy - that bloody invasion of the Ottoman remnants, for feck's sake. [1] Maybe Italy wouldn't have had any border conflict. With luck, we wouldn't have ended up with Spartist Greece.


Greece was even in worse internal matter, initially deeply divided between neutralist and interventionist; the new king decided to ride the nationalist coat and start to pick troubles with any of his neighbough.
Frankly i think that's a great achieviement that the ones in charge in Athens really made Italy and Turkey work together to put a stop at Greece sheninghans.
Still without Russia (and France) diplomatic intervention i doubt that Greeks loss will have been so moderate.

One thing to consider is that with a longer war the terms given to Germany worsen...a lot.
Maybe more strict military restriction and heavier reparations...and this can create a real political and economic chaos in Germany; even blocking any union between her and Austria; after all even with the territorial loss of the treaty (OCC: Alsace-lorraine, the polish corridor but not Silesia that remain all German and not divided as OTL, Danzig is keeped but a extraterritorial railway is granted at Poland and Germany must finance a Polish port in the corridor, Memel is keeped) the add of Austria and the part of Bohemia that said yes at the referendum at least eased the general situation...even if the French greatly opposed that, but the other were too scared of the civil unrest and the possible revolution to let them go alone.

It's very ironic that Russia supported the creation of a new kingdom of Poland thinking that it will be an ally or better a puppet and nearly from the beginning instaed become a strong German ally.
After all the oppression done in the past centuries they really thought that the moment they were too weak to crush them easily they will have remained loyal? With Russia being too weak and divided after the end of the war, and frankly the brief but intense civil war really not helped, they used the moment to become too strong to be reabsorbed again
 
Top