Different WWI Ending POD?

So I'm trying to write my first proper timeline and I'm stuck around when the POD should be. It's going to be around WWI and post WWI Europe and there are some things I want to be specific.
- US neutrality during WWI, financial support allowed though
- A truce on the Eastern Front similar to OTL (eg. a Treaty very similar to Brest-Litovsk, where Germany dominates Russia)
- End of war in either 1916 or 1917, but not too important
Basically what I'm looking for is a Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or equivalent in the Eastern front, and in the West, a complete truce/armistice that is fair to both the Allies and Central Powers according to their position at the time of the truce.
Sorry for not being too specific, I don't really know myself what I want the final outcome to be, I'm hoping it'll come to me as I write it x'Dx'D
 
Maybe a succesfull Sixtus affair but it also mean that Prince Charles will need to be more willingly to give something to Italy and the German leaderships going for accepting that total victory will not be obtained or in any case too costly, so better end there and accept some loss in the colonial empire and give some little concession to the French in the west
 
I think the simplest option would be for the Germans to learn of the French Army's mutiny and launch a heavy attack. A breakthrough in those circumstances would be difficult if not impossible to seal off and could knock France out of the war. Russia is already on the brink of collapse and Italy's not much better off. A French collapse could easily trigger similar events in Russia and Italy and with their allies gone the British government would be under a lot of pressure to find a way out of the war.
 
I think the simplest option would be for the Germans to learn of the French Army's mutiny and launch a heavy attack. A breakthrough in those circumstances would be difficult if not impossible to seal off and could knock France out of the war. Russia is already on the brink of collapse and Italy's not much better off. A French collapse could easily trigger similar events in Russia and Italy and with their allies gone the British government would be under a lot of pressure to find a way out of the war.

This will mean victory for the Germans (and they will basically give the French the same treatment of Russia) and this is not what asked by the OP, plus the French soldiers refused to launch offensive not to fight against the German to defend the country.
 
plus the French soldiers refused to launch offensive not to fight against the German to defend the country.
I'm aware of that, but I have my doubts an army where moral has sunk as low as it did with the French would be able to withstand a determined attack. The men clearly had no faith in the high command, and that doesn't bode well for their ability to resist. They might be able to withstand local attacks, but across a whole front where the elements of the army must be co-ordinated? No I don't see it.
 
I'm aware of that, but I have my doubts an army where moral has sunk as low as it did with the French would be able to withstand a determined attack. The men clearly had no faith in the high command, and that doesn't bode well for their ability to resist. They might be able to withstand local attacks, but across a whole front where the elements of the army must be co-ordinated? No I don't see it.

This is WWI, the defender always had the advantage and suddenly organize and coordinate an offensive it's not a very easy job at the time...it can easily become the German version of the Nivelle Offensive; and while widespread and affecting more than 40% of the French infantry division...only 9 of that division saw a full ammutination, while the rest was affected by great or little act of rebellion/desertion, nothing that can be described as military collapse
 
I'm aware of that, but I have my doubts an army where moral has sunk as low as it did with the French would be able to withstand a determined attack. The men clearly had no faith in the high command, and that doesn't bode well for their ability to resist. They might be able to withstand local attacks, but across a whole front where the elements of the army must be co-ordinated? No I don't see it.


But does it matter anyway?

The CP are standing on enemy soil virtually everywhere. All hat the Entente holds of theirs is a sliver of Alsace and some worthless scraps of colonial territory. So to win the war they have to go on the offensive, whereas the CP can win just by holding on to what they currently have until the other side's soldiers despair of ever regaining it. They don't need an offensive.
 
But does it matter anyway?

The CP are standing on enemy soil virtually everywhere. All hat the Entente holds of theirs is a sliver of Alsace and some worthless scraps of colonial territory. So to win the war they have to go on the offensive, whereas the CP can win just by holding on to what they currently have until the other side's soldiers despair of ever regaining it. They don't need an offensive.
But the Central Powers are all suffering badly from the British blockade, they need to end the war. The Germans cant break the blockade, their navy isn't strong enough. If they can take advantage of the French weakness and break through it gives them the best chance of forcing the Allies to the conference table. Russia and Italy are already near that point, and the British Empire would be unlikely to continue alone.
 
But the Central Powers are all suffering badly from the British blockade, they need to end the war. The Germans cant break the blockade, their navy isn't strong enough. If they can take advantage of the French weakness and break through it gives them the best chance of forcing the Allies to the conference table. Russia and Italy are already near that point, and the British Empire would be unlikely to continue alone.


The blockade certainly made life miserable for a lot of Germans and others, but it was never likely to force them out of the war by itself.

It started to undermine morale in 1918, but that was itself a result of the offensive, during which German soldiers captured large amounts of British and French supplies, and so realised how much better off the other side was.

It was also a lot less watertight before US intervention made it possible to control exports to the Northern Neutrals at source.
 
I mean, if the mutiny's your idea, then the logical choice would be to attack the British while the French are sorting out their issues. They might defend themselves, but they wouldn't counterattack to assist with a mutiny on, and that could lead to the front collapsing.
 
Top