RodentRevolution
Banned
Exactly - and they did so only when the Monarchy's position had become patently hopeless in purely military terms.
This is the key to victory/defeat. One side or the other (or at least its soldiers) have to become convinced that they can never win, and that any future deaths will be essentially for nothing. The French were in danger of this in May 1917, and it did happen to the CPs after July-Aug 1918.
On threads like this I sometimes get the impression (apologies if I misunderstand anyone) that the battlefield victory somehow wasn't essential - ie that the Entente could have stayed on the defensive and waited patiently for the other side to collapse due to the blockade or internal troubles of some kind. Needless to say it could never have worked. With the CPs sitting on Entente territory everywhere in Europe, such inaction would have been seen as a confession of defeat, and morale would have evaporated.
The funny thing that which you accuse others of is exactly how the German victory is sought in this thread. Oh but what about the handwaved German field victories you say, there has been a lot of CP handwaving. The importance of logistics has been handwaved away, the lack of ability to actually penetrate the front lines of the Entente defences, yes even at Caporetto gets handwaved away, Ukrainian food deliveries to Germany get handwaved into abundance. Yes I get all that is going on.
The thing is there is, even without the US becoming directly involved and hell even within the US, as has been made abundantly clear, actively own gaoling itself to help the CP rise as future economic challenger, there is still lacking a clear path to CP victory. The only solution is to handwave a moral collapse among the French. The French when they mutinied made clear they were still available in case of attack by the Germans, the French when they mutinied negotiated with their officers, the French when they mutinied even agreed to hand over some of the ringleaders of the mutiny knowing full well some would be shot and the French when they mutinied returned to the offensive.
The issue for the French in this scenario is not a lack of will. It is the lack of the overwhelming superiority of arms required to prosecute a successful offensive against a competent opponent. The problem for the CP is they have the exact same problem.
So what happens when neither side can crush the other on the battlefield? Well the lessons of the 18th and 19th teach us that one side comes to terms. Normally it has to be said, before, they collapse. A lesson which does actually suggest a CP offer of terms in 1917. On the other hand maybe, and it is a stretch, maybe you will see an Entente offer of terms at some point following a Russian collapse, if and it is an if because crucially failed Russian offensives might not have been launched without the submarine offensive. Then again you may see the Germans hold on and hold on and still lose because yes the home front matters and people can only endure for so long and they have been enduring a lot harder for a lot longer.
So yeah battlefield is not historically essential. However for CP victory all their ducks must align in a row while for Entente victory only enough ducks need even show up.