How to make WWI a stalemate.

Couldn't the Germans trade the land they hold in France for Alsace Lorraine or wherever it was they were after in France as well as their African and Pacific colonies.

I mean Germany has it's hands in France and the French army is on the brink of revolt, I think Germany could get whatever they want. But that's just me.

During WWI, Germany already had Alsace-Lorraine. And they really couldn't without a total defeat of France; If France believes that resistance is possible, then the war will continue until France agrees to Germany's terms. Essentially, Germany can't "trade" the land because France until it is defeated believes it can drive Germany from that land, and then get more besides.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Good point.

Can Britain or France or both go communist after the First World War. As well as holding grudges and such, it would be interesting to see a second world war with France, Britain and the USSR on one side with Germany, America, Austria and the Rest of them on the other.
 
Can Britain or France or both go communist after the First World War. As well as holding grudges and such, it would be interesting to see a second world war with France, Britain and the USSR on one side with Germany, America, Austria and the Rest of them on the other.


France might go Communist, but a victorious Germany won't let it stay Communist for any length of time; and since a Communist revolution means civil war for virtual certain, France would have no way to resist German intervention.

As for Britain, we always boast of our immunity from revolution, but I suspect that if there was ever a moment when it could conceivably have happened, it was 1918 in the event of losing the war. If so, the big question is whether Germany could launch any kind of invasion, and whether anyone in Britain would co-operate with her. Iirc, some Ulstermen in 1914 had hob-nobbed with Germany (or at least talked of doing so) rather than accept Home Rule, so maybe that attitude could have revived. Hard to say.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Couldn't the Germans trade the land they hold in France for Alsace Lorraine or wherever it was they were after in France as well as their African and Pacific colonies.

I mean Germany has it's hands in France and the French army is on the brink of revolt, I think Germany could get whatever they want. But that's just me.


Sure, but is hard to get something one side does not see as a big loss. Negotiate deal is easy. Fair is very near impossible.

The problem is the parties with the colonies will not want to give them back. Japan starts making demands on China right after Tsingtao falls. You likely can't get these back with a war with Japan. Or at the very minimum permanently breaking the Anglo-Japanese alliance and turning Japan into a perpetual enemy of the UK. Now it endup that way IOTL, but I have not seen where people saw it coming. South Africa, Australia and NZ are dominions. Maybe not 100% free, but you can't assume compliance. By 1923, Canada refused to back England in war with Turkey. So it is between hard to impossible for the UK leadership to give Germany back the colonies. And a step harder for France to put enough pressure on England to force Japan to do something.

So now lets look at a deal. Germany has to have not only something equal to its original colonies, but has to gain. Tsingtao was the prestige colony, so it will take a big chunk of Africa to make up for it. Probably something at least as large as British East Africa or Nigeria. This is a big problem, but lets assume for discussion that the UK both is willing to give up British East Africa and Germany is willing to accept as fair for Pacific losses. Now the next part is the easy part, the only easy part. Belgium Congo for Belgium.

Now to France. You want the prewar lines back. Germany has to get something big. It takes a lot of African square miles to make up for one square mile in Europe. Algeria is off the table. Germany has hugely valuable industrial zone in France, and needs something of value. Maybe French Equitorial Africa plus IndoChina is enough, but this means we have huge French loss. And likely German public feels cheated. Now once the countries are tired enough, they will take a deal. Hard to see how it works without a long war to make a peace by exhaustion. The problem is the huge losses. By the end of the first year (winter 1915/16), all sides has losses greater than Napoleonic wars or at least seen as greater.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
During WWI, Germany already had Alsace-Lorraine. And they really couldn't without a total defeat of France; If France believes that resistance is possible, then the war will continue until France agrees to Germany's terms. Essentially, Germany can't "trade" the land because France until it is defeated believes it can drive Germany from that land, and then get more besides.

Largely yes. All side fought until well after it made sense to make peace. Until the French army refuses to fight, the war goes on. Or until France runs out of reserves. Once that happens, the France will trade if Germany is willing. The problem here is you either need radically different decision making by both sides or you need both side to collapse at the same time. Very challenging POD.
 
The way to balance out the relationship the US has with either side is to have the Germans win the 'Race to the Sea' and establish a position on the French coast down to about the mouth of the Somme. This would give Germany vastly greater access to the Atlantic for the purposes of blockade running and make the Briitish blockade task considerably more difficult without the immense geographical advantages of holding the Strait of Dover narrows.
 
Top