Extend WW1 to 1921

ar-pharazon

Banned
So Germany was on the verge of collapse in late 1918.

However General Pershing had a plan to invader Germany in 1919.

The Germans were also however preparing for this-creating anti tank weapons and tactics, digging traps, etc...

How can we have the First World War continue to 1921?
 
US never joins and cuts off/reduces credit to the Entente.
German Spring offensive fails.
Social turmoil (and flu?) leaves both sides incapable of meaningful offensive action, and hence incapable of forcing the other side to terms.
A strange not-war war drags on, kind of like the bit in the East between the October Revolution and Operation Faustschlag. But for four years. :closedtongue:

None of this is very plausible. :cool:
 
US never joins and cuts off/reduces credit to the Entente.
German Spring offensive fails.
Social turmoil (and flu?) leaves both sides incapable of meaningful offensive action, and hence incapable of forcing the other side to terms.
A strange not-war war drags on, kind of like the bit in the East between the October Revolution and Operation Faustschlag. But for four years. :closedtongue:

None of this is very plausible. :cool:

Actually pretty plausible:

So no unrestricted submarine warfare. No USA entry.
German 1918 spring offensive fails, likely still, even though the Allies wouldn't be able to afford their own 1917 offensives with USA $$$$, that may be a net positive for the Allies.
Both sides are spent going into 1919.
Germany still has access to the USA market, via cargo submarine and the occasional blockade runner, and whatever the Soviets are willing to sell (Cotton).
Peace conferences break out, but no one can agree to terms.
 
1918/19 was meant to be a one/two punch. The Imperials burn themselves out in 1918 breaking the Germans, then the US steam rolls into Germany in 1919.

The thing was the US was building an army from basically nothing and was pretty awful in 1918 yet still wanted to do things their way. Can that be used to create a situation where the US gets meat grindered boosting morale on the German home front, the French and Commonwealth exhausted and exasperated, and the US having to stop and rethink everything?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I know they raised and lowered the age of conscription in Britain. And I know the US army was pretty inexperienced and you could potentially have a situation where a lot of US troops die.

If say an offensive by the Americans falters and Britain and France are exhausted-that could boost morale in Germany.
 
Some would argue that the intervention in Russia was effectively an extension of WW1. If that was boosted somehow and had greater political and popular support I can see war continuing well past 1921.
 
I know they raised and lowered the age of conscription in Britain. And I know the US army was pretty inexperienced and you could potentially have a situation where a lot of US troops die.

If say an offensive by the Americans falters and Britain and France are exhausted-that could boost morale in Germany.

When you've had your allies collapse, you face a bombing campaign, armies are moving up from the south, and you're very hungry, nothing will boost morale.
 

Toraach

Banned
I don't think it is possible without totally rewriting timeline since the early war. In the OTL in 1918 the economic situation of Germany was that bad, so they would have had a north-korean style diet in 1921.
 
Germany signs a much less harsh peace with Russia, leading to most of the 30 divisions that OTL were on occupation duty until the end of the war in the East be sent to the West ITTL. That probably lengthens the war at least a little.
 
Actually, it's interesting to consider if WW2 could have ended with one side throwing in the towel due to exhaustion like in WW1, though I understand attitudes in favor of total war until victory or death were much more hardened in WW2.
 
The Germans are willing to concede ground in 1916 so while they are able to inflict huge casualties on the western allies when they (western allies) attack they themselves do not take huge casualties in counterattacks., with the general idea that if Britain and France want to waste 100's of thousands of lives for 10 or 15km, let them.
 
The Germans are willing to concede ground in 1916 so while they are able to inflict huge casualties on the western allies when they (western allies) attack they themselves do not take huge casualties in counterattacks., with the general idea that if Britain and France want to waste 100's of thousands of lives for 10 or 15km, let them.

Except the immediate counterattack doctrine was an efficent and effective way to deal more casulties to the Entente (Hit them when they haven't had a chance to repair and dig back into the trench line), and prevent having to spend so much time, labor, and resources re-building their complex layered defense fortifications over and over again in a steadily-retreating line. By preventing their enemies from ever steadily seizing land and being able to set up an effective staging ground for further offensives, Germany manpower and strategic man-hours were better economized in the long term.

---

But for my suggestion, maybe there's a stronger effort to stage an offensive against the Italians on Germany's part earlier? Removing the pressure on A-H would allow the Habsburgs to keep more of their older and younger population at home, reducing the economic decay from their pulling into the army and increased domestic/ethnic tensions, and better deploy their more proffesional formations and strategic resources (Like artillery) to act as force-multipliers on other fronts. The dropping out of Italy from the war would also be another big knock Entente moral and open up their markets from which the CP can purchase resources using German's gold reserves, extending the time their economies can run long for the trickle of resorces coming from the east to steadily increase.

Speaking of the East, adopting a policy of starting to establish locally-managed (if CP dominated) administration during the earlier months/years, rather than keeping it under total military management until the offical Russian surrender, would do wonders for the immediate post-war stability and logistical situation for the B-L states post-October Revolution. Though it means fewer resources for the home front during the active fighting, it DOES mean you'd have a more efficent system of resource production since you haven't eaten the metaphorical local seed corn and would have greater good will from the local elites, at least (and less active hostility from the common folk... even if its only in the form of passive acceptance), which could be fed back into the war industry and would likely reduce general Red agitation and increase the effectiveness of "Local Defense Forces" under German generalship with the organization and training to nip potential rebellions in the bud. With that, and maybe re-routing some of the heavier elements down south to Salonika to stunt the Entente attempt to push the Salonika front when you're pulling troops back West, and you widdle down the effectiveness of the blockade (due to access to resources on the continent) and the number of possible fronts the Entente even has, allowing Germany to fortify the Western Front to the nines and extend the war for the required few years.
 
1918/19 was meant to be a one/two punch. The Imperials burn themselves out in 1918 breaking the Germans, then the US steam rolls into Germany in 1919.

The thing was the US was building an army from basically nothing and was pretty awful in 1918 yet still wanted to do things their way. Can that be used to create a situation where the US gets meat grindered boosting morale on the German home front, the French and Commonwealth exhausted and exasperated, and the US having to stop and rethink everything

The alpine front has been breached and the Italians are making headway that is gonna cause some problems to say the least
 
Except the immediate counterattack doctrine was an efficent and effective way to deal more casulties to the Entente (Hit them when they haven't had a chance to repair and dig back into the trench line), and prevent having to spend so much time, labor, and resources re-building their complex layered defense fortifications over and over again in a steadily-retreating line. By preventing their enemies from ever steadily seizing land and being able to set up an effective staging ground for further offensives, Germany manpower and strategic man-hours were better economized in the long term.

---

But for my suggestion, maybe there's a stronger effort to stage an offensive against the Italians on Germany's part earlier? Removing the pressure on A-H would allow the Habsburgs to keep more of their older and younger population at home, reducing the economic decay from their pulling into the army and increased domestic/ethnic tensions, and better deploy their more proffesional formations and strategic resources (Like artillery) to act as force-multipliers on other fronts. The dropping out of Italy from the war would also be another big knock Entente moral and open up their markets from which the CP can purchase resources using German's gold reserves, extending the time their economies can run long for the trickle of resorces coming from the east to steadily increase.

Speaking of the East, adopting a policy of starting to establish locally-managed (if CP dominated) administration during the earlier months/years, rather than keeping it under total military management until the offical Russian surrender, would do wonders for the immediate post-war stability and logistical situation for the B-L states post-October Revolution. Though it means fewer resources for the home front during the active fighting, it DOES mean you'd have a more efficent system of resource production since you haven't eaten the metaphorical local seed corn and would have greater good will from the local elites, at least (and less active hostility from the common folk... even if its only in the form of passive acceptance), which could be fed back into the war industry and would likely reduce general Red agitation and increase the effectiveness of "Local Defense Forces" under German generalship with the organization and training to nip potential rebellions in the bud. With that, and maybe re-routing some of the heavier elements down south to Salonika to stunt the Entente attempt to push the Salonika front when you're pulling troops back West, and you widdle down the effectiveness of the blockade (due to access to resources on the continent) and the number of possible fronts the Entente even has, allowing Germany to fortify the Western Front to the nines and extend the war for the required few years.

First I think you need a firmly neutral USA who can and wants to get shipments through to Germany and weaken any blockade so that starvation is not in order, so long as Germany can get some minimum trade she has more life in her and if Germany can better administer the conquered East it gets far less dependent upon imports anyway plus gets more troops to attempt a breakthrough. I think the Entente is getting too low on funds to carry the war beyond much 1916 and by 1917 without American money the war must simmer down to a defensive stalemate with only Germany now hopeful to grasp victory. The real issue is morale, I think all sides want out by end of 1916, it can drag on through 1917 as more fractures open, but by 1918 the war must be won or it is lost. I like the idea floated that armistice comes, a cold war sets in and something sparks a reopening of hostilities after 1920 to get the war effectively carrying on. Otherwise it is just a dystopian wank without real grounding in the war as we know it.
 
Actually pretty plausible:

So no unrestricted submarine warfare. No USA entry.
German 1918 spring offensive fails, likely still, even though the Allies wouldn't be able to afford their own 1917 offensives with USA $$$$, that may be a net positive for the Allies.
Both sides are spent going into 1919.
Germany still has access to the USA market, via cargo submarine and the occasional blockade runner, and whatever the Soviets are willing to sell (Cotton).
Peace conferences break out, but no one can agree to terms.
Likely the war would have gone on until 1921 without the US entering, unless a Marxist revolution took hold in Germany. However, such was always on the agenda from the time Lenin returned to Russia, and even without US aid to Britain the prospects for both sides withstanding the demands of their working classes are not even bright.
 
Amiens falls to a stronger Spring Offensive, but even then, how the war ends with German surrender as late as January 1921 is a bit tricky
 
Curious about this also.
For Britain, prices doubled. For France they trebled. Germany's was at 4 times the 1914 rates when collapse came (Turkey at 18 times). Germany's plan was to not increase taxes on it's people (they were paying in blood) and then make everyone else pay at the peace table. Britain and France had already been increasing taxes to pay for the war so could move on to printing money and further increasing their inflation to reach the point that Germany was at and spend years doing this while Germany suffered under blockade. The only out Germany has is trade and supplies from conquored Russia but in 'Revolutionary' Russia this is going to be very difficult.

No matter what happens on the Western Front, the collapsing Southern Front will decide matters for Germany.
 
Top