Early End to World War One

LordKalvan · Mar 30, 2006

MerryPrankster said:
Had the Brits kept going instead of hanging back when they did, the Ottoman troops would have fled the area. Instead, they had the opportunity to bring in reinforcements.

Now, the Brits breaking out of Thrace could prove tricky. However, a large Allied force, so close to Constantinople, would keep the Ottomans quite busy and it would definitely keep the Straits open.

Strange assumption: historically, Ottoman troops have always performed quite well when they had to defend the homeland. In 1914, the army was already reformed, and they had confidence in their generals.
The expeditionary Force did not have even good maps of the peninsula.
What are you anticipating? the EF forcing the narrowest part of the peninsula and taking Constantinople (not to mention Adrianople, and the rest of Trakia??

Gallipoli was an expensive and wasteful exercise, which was undertaken for political rather than military reasons. Even assuming that the EF might have kept their beachhead on the Gallipoli peninsula, it would not have reopened the Dardanelles: the forts on the 2 narrows were always in Turkish hands, and their guns were interdicting any navigation.

Frankly (and on the assumption that a new front against the Ottomans was really necessary) I'd have tried a landing near Smyrna: at least the Entente troops would have had some space to maneuvre, and Smyrna was an important port as well as the second largest city for Turkey.

Max Sinister · Mar 31, 2006

And the local Greeks even might've joined them...

Anaxagoras · Mar 31, 2006

There are any number of sources for total World War I casualties, but does anyone know where I might find a breakdown by year? I want to find out what the casualities suffered by each other would have been had the war ended in 1916? Particularly, I want to know what Britain's losses were BEFORE the Somme.

Wendell · Mar 31, 2006

Anaxagoras said:
The Gallipoli thread got me thinking: what would be the postwar situation had World War One ended a few years earlier than it did IOTL? Suppose, for example, that it had ended with a negotiated settlement in late 1915 or early 1916? Neither side wins a decisive victory- there are no massive financial reparations or admissions of war guilt.

IOTL, all European nations, even the victors, were utterly exhausted at the end of the conflict, having suffered millions of casualties and completely bankrupted themselves. Had the war ended in late 1915/early 1916, they would still have suffered very heavy losses and would have spent a lot of money, but not nearly to the same extent as happened IOTL. What effect might this have on the social thought of the postwar world? Would the malaise which everyone seemed to sink into IOTL perhaps have been avoided?

If the war had ended earlier, would the Russian Revolution have been avoided, or just postponed?

If the war had ended before the United States joined in, might the Americans have remained relatively isolationist throughout the 20th Century?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

The German Empire survives a while longer, and wholly intact, excepting maybe some or all of its Pacific Island holdings. That said, the war ending before Japan gets them would be interesting...Anyway, the Russians will likely fall into revolutionary fervor, especially with some border readjustments being probable. It might be more of a Nationalist revolution, however.

stevep · Apr 1, 2006

Wendell said:
The German Empire survives a while longer, and wholly intact, excepting maybe some or all of its Pacific Island holdings. That said, the war ending before Japan gets them would be interesting...Anyway, the Russians will likely fall into revolutionary fervor, especially with some border readjustments being probable. It might be more of a Nationalist revolution, however.

Unless they were forced to give them back an a negotiated peace the Japanese would keep all the German pacific colonies north of the equator as they seized them early in the war.

I think any revolution would still be left wing BUT there were attempts at right wing military coups and without the shattering of so much of the army this might be more successful, possibly not so much against the Czar but in response to any revolution or unrest.

Steve

Tizoc · Apr 1, 2006

Okay, maybe we should put Italy into Central Powers camp? Say, that they waited longer before becoming entangled with The Great War, so they could see the effects of German & A-H offensive on the East...

stevep · Apr 1, 2006

Tizoc said:
Okay, maybe we should put Italy into Central Powers camp? Say, that they waited longer before becoming entangled with The Great War, so they could see the effects of German & A-H offensive on the East...

The problem with that was that the territory the Italians wanted above all was part of the Austrian empire.

Also if they had gone to the central powers it might have won the war the for Central powers, tying up further allied forces but would probably be disastrous for Italy. There would very probably be heavy fighting across much of Italy and its trade and coastal regions would be totally disrupted by the allied control of the seas.

Steve

Wendell · Apr 1, 2006

stevep said:
Unless they were forced to give them back an a negotiated peace the Japanese would keep all the German pacific colonies north of the equator as they seized them early in the war.

I think any revolution would still be left wing BUT there were attempts at right wing military coups and without the shattering of so much of the army this might be more successful, possibly not so much against the Czar but in response to any revolution or unrest.

Steve

I thought that they were not seized until 1915 or 1916.

Wendell · Apr 1, 2006

stevep said:
The problem with that was that the territory the Italians wanted above all was part of the Austrian empire.

Also if they had gone to the central powers it might have won the war the for Central powers, tying up further allied forces but would probably be disastrous for Italy. There would very probably be heavy fighting across much of Italy and its trade and coastal regions would be totally disrupted by the allied control of the seas.

Steve

Italy would be screwed in the war at sea, but on land, the Entente will not get far without naval back-up. Keep Britain from starving, or invade Italy?

Anaxagoras · Apr 1, 2006

Wendell said:
I thought that they were not seized until 1915 or 1916.

All German colonies in the Pacific were in Allied hands by the end of 1914.

Gustav Anderman · Apr 2, 2006

The easiest way to end wwI early is : the schlieffen-plan works

Tizoc · Apr 2, 2006

stevep said:
The problem with that was that the territory the Italians wanted above all was part of the Austrian empire.

Steve

Nice, Sabaudia, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta and French and British Somali, and maybe even northern Sudan - none of the above were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...

stevep · Apr 2, 2006

Tizoc said:
Nice, Sabaudia, Corsica, Tunisia, Malta and French and British Somali, and maybe even northern Sudan - none of the above were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire...

Not familiar with Sabaudia, is that the area also know as Savoy that the Piedmont monarchy transferred to France along with Nice for their help in the 1859 war?

I agree that some or all of those areas might be attractive to Italy. However the areas they wanted most of all were in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Also the vulnerability of Italy and its dependency on imports would make it very vulnerable to allied sea power. Britain historical did send sizeable older forces to the Med. and there was the French fleet which markedly larger than the Italian.

An Italian declaration for the Central Powers would have caused the allies a lot of problems. However given the lack of success in mountain fighting in 1915-17 and similarly the performance of the Italians in June 40 I think they could have been help fairly easily along the Alpine frontier of France while they could have been certain of the loss of their own colonies and maritime trade, with serious effect to their economy.

Hence I think an Italian Dow against the allies would have been highly unlikely.

Steve

stevep · Apr 2, 2006

Gustav Anderman said:
The easiest way to end wwI early is : the schlieffen-plan works

It might but it might not. WWI was a coalition war so you might have had Britain and Russia decide to fight on, as well possibly as parts of France, relying on assistance from their allies. It would make the Central Powers position a lot stronger but not necessary overwhelming and they could met some nasty surprises. [Principally I'm thinking an extended campaign deep into Russia by the German army. With the population far more hostile than they were initially to the Nazis and the Germans lacking motorised vehicles things could get nasty there]. Britain would far serious threats to its supply lines but introducing convoys earlier could have largely solved the submarine problem and without the heavy commitment in France would have a lot more to commit to the ME front against the Ottomans, where we would have had superior logistics anyway. Odds are still on the Central Powers but a victory is by no means certain

Steve

Gustav Anderman · Apr 2, 2006

stevep said:
It might but it might not. WWI was a coalition war so you might have had Britain and Russia decide to fight on, as well possibly as parts of France, relying on assistance from their allies. It would make the Central Powers position a lot stronger but not necessary overwhelming and they could met some nasty surprises. [Principally I'm thinking an extended campaign deep into Russia by the German army. With the population far more hostile than they were initially to the Nazis and the Germans lacking motorised vehicles things could get nasty there]. Britain would far serious threats to its supply lines but introducing convoys earlier could have largely solved the submarine problem and without the heavy commitment in France would have a lot more to commit to the ME front against the Ottomans, where we would have had superior logistics anyway. Odds are still on the Central Powers but a victory is by no means certain

Steve

Well i never read that the germans wanted as far as moskow in wwI.

Max Sinister · Apr 2, 2006

For a short time in 1918, some people (around a certain Herr Helfferich IIRC) made up the plan to topple the Communists and impose a German-supported right-wing regime in Moscow. It was dropped pretty fast, though.

stevep · Apr 2, 2006

Gustav Anderman said:
Well i never read that the germans wanted as far as moskow in wwI.

I didn't mean that. Just thinking that if they wanted to defeat the Russians and the Russians lose battles but won't surrender then the Germans might just kept advancing. The Russians have the example of Napoleon's invasion to inspire them to continue resisting and the Germans have their belief in their army and technical skills to persuade them they can sustain such an invasion and one of them is right. [Which one I don't necessarily know].

Also don't forget the Brest Treaty in 1918 gave the Germans control of the entire Ukraine as far as the Don. It might be further south but it still gets pretty cold. While if the Russians keep resisting the capital [St Petersburg/Petrograd] and traditional heartland [Moscow] are going to be on the target list.

Steve

Wendell · Apr 2, 2006

Max Sinister said:
For a short time in 1918, some people (around a certain Herr Helfferich IIRC) made up the plan to topple the Communists and impose a German-supported right-wing regime in Moscow. It was dropped pretty fast, though.

Interesting idea.

Tizoc · Apr 3, 2006

stevep said:
Not familiar with Sabaudia, is that the area also know as Savoy that the Piedmont monarchy transferred to France along with Nice for their help in the 1859 war?

Yes, Sabaudia=Savoy. Damn translation

stevep · Apr 3, 2006

Tizoc said:
Yes, Sabaudia=Savoy. Damn translation

Tizoc

Thanks for the clarification.

Steve