Decisive Entente victory=a better world ?

The Entente won decisively OTL, what with Germany ceasing to have an army and everything. The actual question is about an earlier Entente victory, still decisive. Russian strategic blunders in 1914 are being brought up (Germany's advantage rested on a lot of early fortune), and something I've often talked up is neutral Ottomans, since this would have lots of pro-Etente diplomatic and military butterflies which could collapse Austria by 1916. Germany can't fight on three fronts and knows it.

Ah. I was under the impression the OP was referring to the Entente actually moving in on Berlin, having the nation occupied, etc (same with Vienna and Constantinople, of course, but those are of less import). OTL, although the Entente certainly won the war, it wasn't decisive in that sense; a (very) large contributor to the end of the war was the German Revolution, and although the military situation was shifting more and more to the Entente's advantage, it was still far away from what I thought OP wanted.
 

Makty

Banned
OTL decisive? Explain this

Stab-in-the-back_postcard.jpg


Now. Before you claim the Germans were morons. Keep in mind that they were still holding the line (barely) in France. When Little Heinz saw the poster declaring surrender and asked his father: "Papa, why did we surrender when we were beating France?", his Father had no real answer.

Hence the reason for the stab in the back legend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend

Though through the re-examination of historical fact we know that the Germans made the mistake of recalling soldiers and ceasing armanents productions; while the Allies used the cease fire to prepare materials to reassume the offense; hence the predicament which forced the Germans into accepting an unfair peace less be occupied in a decisive defeat.
 
Last edited:
OTL decisive? Explain this

An understandable but totally misled mix of horror, disbelief, and some excellent PR work by the military which convinced the German people that there army hadn't been on the point of total collapse and their society total implosion.
 
Bright day
Bloody hell. Why is this thread knee-deep in "Entente cannot find its ass without an atlas" and that other one was full of "hur hur, Germany, hur hur"? If that thread was valid this one has to be valid too.

Though I think this one can get pretty inflamatory too.
 
No flames please! It's history:). I think that Makty's post is very eloquent and explain better (and visually) why Nazism grew in Germany after a non-decisive victory. Decisive victory means: Entente's forces in Berlin, Munich and Rhineland before the end of the war. In that case, also ordinary German people at home could understand the defeat of their army. In OTL, in october 1918, ordinary German people couldn't understand defeat: they faced terrible sacrifices for years, they saw their powerful army occupying a vast empire, from Bruxelles to Baku and then a revolution in Germany and a quick defeat followed by harsh conditions. They didn't know that their army was not able to fight anymore, because all bad reports were dismissed as "defeatism". German's officers, after the war, had a very easy opportunity to spread the "stab in the back" legend, because many Germans thought that it was true. After two or three years, in the 20s, that legend became the "truth". A decisive Entente's victory could change history. A quick Entente's victory could change it better. A different kind of victory (without Russian collapse and revolutions) could really make this world better.
 
Haber Process, without or with too little of it, Germany would have been in a tight spot somewhere in 1915.


Keep in mind that they were still holding the line (barely) in France.

Keep also in mind, if you folks can, that it was their country and their time and while Germany the stab-in-the-back legend was created, other countries made upp their own legends too.
 
Last edited:
Top