How can the Central Powers do better in World War One?

I know this is a very cliche topic, but the search function isn't working for me, so I couldn't find past discussions of this.

Under what scenarios could Germany and Austria-Hungary do better than in OTL?
 
Win the Race to the Sea, putting themselves in a Strategic Offensive/Tactical Defensive position against both Britain and France. Avoid Verdun and concentrate on Russia in 1916.
 

mowque

Banned
Keep the Italians out of it.

Try to keep the USA out of it.

Try not to quite deplete the agricultural services so quickly.
 
I know this is a very cliche topic, but the search function isn't working for me, so I couldn't find past discussions of this.

Under what scenarios could Germany and Austria-Hungary do better than in OTL?

The USA doesn't enter the War

Russia goes into revolution sooner

Whichever British officer authorized the development of tanks gets a stroke/heart attack, and his successor rejects the proposal.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'll shamelessly plug my TL; check the sig for the link.
 
For Austria Hungary they botched the opening of the war and winter 1914-15 offensives ruined them.

1) Despite Serbia being the "cause" of the war they are unlikely to be taken out quickly. As a result putting more than a screen against them is a waste; IMHO. So have enough troops to prevent the Serbs from doing an offensive into Bosnia. All other troops are placed vs. Russia instead.

2) The question is does the KuK army attempt an invasion of Russia or not? Of Conrad is still Chief of Staff then no; Conrad is not good at detailed staff work and over aggressive. Stupid and Aggressive the worst combination possible in a military leader; stupid might be harsh but certainly given to flights of fantasy. A good staff officer would work within the limits of his material and not try fantastic operations that require higher quality material If Conrad is left as chief of staff then CinC needs to be active to reign in Conrad's destructive impulses. So either Conrad has to go or Archduke Friedrich can't be CinC or both perhaps. If a better command team could be in place then perhaps A-H could attempt the offensive vs. Russia with 5 armies instead of the historic 4 and perhaps mobilized and placed faster. This could pay big dividend; if nothing else it might avoid the Battle of Rawa.

See Tom_B's A-H Tannenburg timeline for possible better A-H conduct in WW1.

3) If the Battle of Galicia is still botched then its critical that Conrad not do his winter offensives that generated massive A-H casualties. The KuK army lost far too many NCO's and junior officers in those first 6 months of the war and it was handicapped the rest of the way.

If 1914 goes as historic then A-H has to eat a lot of crow and accept massive German aid and training to rebuild their army. KuK units did very well later in the war when operating under German command.

As to Germany lots of options

My favorite is a Russia first option and sitting on the defensive in the west. This, especially combined with a A-H Russia concentration would result in a lot more combat power vs. Russia. Congress Poland would be overrun by end of 1914 without a doubt. Even if Conrad is left incharge of KuK army the extra German combat power might make it moot as Russia wouldn't have the resources available to press A-H as they would be faced with a massive German attack.

Outside of this, the key is to NOT force the USA into the war. If Germany had 200 or 300 U Boats then Unrestricted Submarine Warfare might work but otherwise all it does is make the blockade on Germany worse (as UK used USW as an excuse to tight blockade to include food stuffs, etc.) Germany with more food and a more isolationist USA could win a war of exhaustion in the West.

There are lots of ideas out there.

Michael
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hmm, a better 1915 would be the obvious, if several German offensives in the West actually had worked...

Another is no unrestricted submarine warfare 1917, which probably would butterfly away American intervention. However this doesn't guarantee a CP victory, more likely both sides would fight to exhaustion, causing a stalemate.
 
My favorite is a Russia first option and sitting on the defensive in the west. This, especially combined with a A-H Russia concentration would result in a lot more combat power vs. Russia. Congress Poland would be overrun by end of 1914 without a doubt. Even if Conrad is left incharge of KuK army the extra German combat power might make it moot as Russia wouldn't have the resources available to press A-H as they would be faced with a massive German attack.

The thing about this is that it also neatly deprives the British of an excuse to enter the war. No German invasion of Belgium equals no British intervention. If the Germans try to invade later, after the British public has gotten a good look at the horrors of trench warfare, they will probably be able to get away with it. The British will not want to enter the war once they see how horrible it is. They could very well enter later on if France appears in danger of collapsing, however.
 
Judging from what I remember of the period, if the Schlieffen Plan is rejected pre-World War I war is much less likely- a significant contributor to the war was that the historical Schlieffen plan was dependent on exploiting Russia's slow mobilisation.
 
Don't provoke Britain by invading Belgium. Wait until the French do it first.

Don't provoke the US by starting unrestricted sub warfare.

Better attack Russia from the beginning, and keep at it until Russia goes down. The border to France is short (even if you include Belgium) and easy to defend.

Despite of all the jokes people make about the Italian military: Try to keep them as an ally.
 
For the Germans: they had a chance to defeat France at the Marne, and a second chance in 1917, when the French army mutinied. An all-out attack could have overrun the French lines. The biggest mistake took place decades earlier, when Chancellor Caprivi let Germany's secret alliance with Russia lapse and the Russians allied with France instead.

Austria: best if it could have isolated Serbia in 1914. If the Austrians could have shown that the Serbian government was tied to the assassination, it would have been more difficult for the French and Russians to support Serbia. The British would have pushed them strongly to back off. Also, Italy was dithering, angling for the best deal. It would have been cheaper to give Italy some territory in the Tyrol or Dalmatia, or to acquiesce in a takeover of Albania, to get it on the Central Powers' side.

Turkey: play the pan-Turkish card in Central Asia earlier. Provide Nejd with an incentive (control of the holy cities?) to join the fight against the Hejaz revolt. Turkey didn't have to get involved in WWI at all, and ultimately it might have been better off staying neutral.
 
Instead of trying to knock out France before the Russians mobilize, Germany should try knock out Russia first. As it were, the Germans greatly underestimated the technological ascendency of the defensive war. They could have contained the French with trench warfare. By the time Russia surrenders, the French would have bled white on the Western front, unable to advance anymore than the Germans did IOTL.

This would avoid the invasion of Belgium that got the British involved. With Russia out of the war, no British intervention, the French would have no choice but abandon dreams of retaking Alsace Lorraine.
 
Top