Ideas for a quick Entente victory in WW1, and its aftermath

Thande

Donor
We discuss the Great War a fair amount, but it seems to me that most of the discussion focuses on Central Powers victories - either in 1918 after the long slog that was OTL, or in 1914 right at the start. One thing I haven't seen much is an Entente victory in 1914 or 1915. So, two questions:

1) How could this come about? No PODs before 1914 - i.e. you can have a country stay neutral or join the other side, but you can't say 'the Entente would be in a better position if the war was delayed to 1920' or whatever

2) What might the aftermath be like? One would assume it would be much less punishing than Versailles, and presumably a lot of countries that in OTL were overthrown in revolutions wouldn't be.

Ideas?
 

Deleted member 1487

The easiest would be to have Rennenkampf not be a vindictive asshole and actually support Samsonov. The initial disaster at Gumbinnen caused the 8th army's commander (whose name I can never remember) to fall back on Berlin! If the 1st and 2nd Russian armies follow up properly, they can take most of East Prussia, causing a panic in Berlin. That means the Kaiser will call on Moltke, already cracking up, to send even more forces, which could then conceivably tip the balance in the West. Not only that, but a follow up thrust into Silesia by some of the Southwestern front's armies would end the war. That was the second most crucial industrial area in Germany and without it, there is no way that Germany could sustain a long war, something that OHL realizes.

Germany got incredibly lucky the Russians were generally incompetent or this would have been the actual result.

The result is that Germany is going to lose Alsace. No question. Also, there is likely to be a large indemnity and maybe some losses in territory in the East, though probably just some border area with a Polish majority. Austria-Hungary might actually get pretty messed up. Galicia is gone. Poland and Ukraine get some new provinces.
Hungary may take the opportunity to break off, something that neither Russia nor Serbia would mind. Bosnia is likely to go to Serbia depending on the level of victory. Maybe Croatia too, but I doubt it, unless the Central Powers gets occupied.
 

MrP

Banned
One idea that comes up a bit is the collapse of the German Eastern Front in the face of the Russian attack. A less discussed variant would be a continuation of the successful Russian campaign against A-H. It'd be interesting to see Germany forced to peace by the defeat of her main ally rather than her own defeat. The aftermath of both seem very promising for left-wing parties in Germany. I don't envision the end of the monarchy in Germany, but it might well be "knee-capped" in comparison to its pre-war powers.
 
[...]

1) How could this come about? No PODs before 1914 - i.e. you can have a country stay neutral or join the other side, but you can't say 'the Entente would be in a better position if the war was delayed to 1920' or whatever

[...]

Ideas?

Well, the easiest way is if Germany was either neutral or part of the Entente. But that's not what you want to hear, I suppose?
 
Thande,

The Haber Process isn't developed or is delayed and Germany's war effort collapses due to a lack of nitrates sometime in mid-1915.

If the Germans know they're on a short time table with regards to nitrates, you may see them press harder on both fronts and at sea in the hopes they can win before their stocks run out. That will lead to much higher casualties for all concerned, but especially for Germany as she will be in the offensive role.

I've read a scenario by a historian in which the POD for a short WW1 is due to increased casualties during the first six months overwhelming medical resources on both sides. The writer thought that higher casualty rates earlier on would result in a universal revulsion leading to a ceasefire because neither side would yet be inured to the carnage.

I've my doubts about higher casualty rates having that effect, but a more desperate Germany pressing her early attacks more than was done in the OTL would certainly lead to more dead and wounded.

A 1914 sortie by the High Seas Fleet attempting to force the Entente blockade could lead to all sorts of butterflies too.


Bill
 
princip sneezes, the bullets go through the archdukes head, not chest, making a mess of his face. this leads to increased ferocity on the part of austria hungary(as they were informed of this act by propagandists(nothing like having the heir to your country's throne shot in the face/head to get people baying for blood)), which causes them to make some bad decisions, as they are under greater pressure to make them pay. they then call in the germans earlier, and this diverts troops from west. later, this leads to greater desperation on the half of germany, who does an earlier Jutland, with slightly better(for the entente) results(perhaps even sided minor battle before this, to wake up the RN a bit). Gallipoli does slightly better, earlier, with less troops needed for the west, and more RN vessels. this accelerates things further, and the war finishes 9-12months earlier, with fewer dead.
one side effect of the germans being stretched further is that they may not have time for the hindugerman conspiracy, and India may get self-government, as may Ireland.


its not really what you wanted, is it.
 

Thande

Donor
Good points raised re. Haber Process (which I was aware of) and potential for collapse on eastern front (which I wasn't). You need to cheat my conditions in the OP to get no Haber Process, as it was demonstrated before 1910, but those two together (and if you assume no direct butterflies from the lack of a Haber Process on the march to war) might be enough to hang a timeline on.
 
You need to cheat my conditions in the OP to get no Haber Process, as it was demonstrated before 1910...


Thande,

Demonstrated, yes. Industrialized, no. There's a big difference between the two and the progress from one to the other isn't always smooth.

One of the first catalysts Haber used was uranium, a substance that was both rare and capable of becoming very nasty very quickly(1). Another catalyst based on magnetite doped with various trace elements was eventually developed but that development could easily be butterflied away.

Industrializing the process was also quite an engineering feat. It required steam to be produced and contained at higher temperatures and pressures than had been reached in industrial applications before. There's another butterfly that can delay or prevent the plants' operation.

It took roughly four years from the laboratory demonstration to the industrial application of Haber's process. In the OTL, Germany's Haber process plants came on-line in late 1913. That, coupled with the completion date of the Kiel Canal, gave a lot of people immediately after the war ideas that Germany had deliberately planned the entire mess instead of merely being caught up in the avalanche like everyone else.


Bill

1 - No, no atomic explosions, but what would essentially be a dirty bomb involving very high pressure steam, ammonia, and uranium could create quite a mess.
 

Thande

Donor
Thande,

Demonstrated, yes. Industrialized, no. There's a big difference between the two and the progress from one to the other isn't always smooth.

A fair point. I suppose we could have Haber's ideas discredited or "we cannot waste money on these blue-sky scientific pursuits when the war is around the corner!" etc.
 
Another Eastern Front option would be to have Ludendorff continue his Oct advance into Poland and run into the trap the Russians had set for him. This could play out two ways. One gives an Entente victory around Christmas. The other in early 1915.

It should be noted that in all real early Entente victory scenarios but esp. in either this or any other Russian steamroller variant the Tsarism menace will emerge as the new Big Bad in the eyes of the British before the ink is dry on the peace treaty.
 

Thande

Donor
Another Eastern Front option would be to have Ludendorff continue his Oct advance into Poland and run into the trap the Russians had set for him. This could play out two ways. One gives an Entente victory around Christmas. The other in early 1915.
Around Christmas would be better for irony, I suppose ;)

It should be noted that in all real early Entente victory scenarios but esp. in either this or any other Russian steamroller variant the Tsarism menace will emerge as the new Big Bad in the eyes of the British before the ink is dry on the peace treaty.
Or rather revert to that status. The Great Game renewed, I suppose. I seem to recall a lot of statistics quoted in other WW1 threads saying that the Russian Empire would be in a much more powerful position a few years down the line re. industrialisation and technological capabilities if the Russian Revolution didn't happen.
 
I suppose we could have Haber's ideas discredited or "we cannot waste money on these blue-sky scientific pursuits when the war is around the corner!" etc.


Thande,

Or just throw a few disasters and/or set backs into the industrialization process. Believe me, the process was bleeding edge technology for it's day. Haber may have demonstrated in on a tabletop in the lab, but Bosch is the man who industrialized it well enough to produce the tens of millions of tons per year that German industry and agriculture demanded.

Aside from the significant chemical hurdles surrounding the development of a better catalyst, the process also required piping and reaction vessels that could handle pressures near 40,000 kPa and temperatures around 600 degC. The physical engineering alone was a marvel for the time, Bosch quite literally invented many of concepts and ideas I still use today in my boiler/pressure vessel inspection work.


Bill
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Have Franz Ferdinand assasinated by a German instead of a Serbian Nationalist. (he could also be a socialist, just imagine a fundamental terrorist Susano ;-)
 
Around Christmas would be better for irony, I suppose ;)


Or rather revert to that status. The Great Game renewed, I suppose. I seem to recall a lot of statistics quoted in other WW1 threads saying that the Russian Empire would be in a much more powerful position a few years down the line re. industrialisation and technological capabilities if the Russian Revolution didn't happen.


Yes, the German military high command believed that a war with Russia sooner rather then later had a better chance of sucess. The Germans felt that Russia would build up their Baltic Sea Fleet, build up their strategic railways, with such improvement in infrastucture Russia would be able to use its superior manpower more efficently.
 
Have Franz Ferdinand assasinated by a German instead of a Serbian Nationalist. (he could also be a socialist, just imagine a fundamental terrorist Susano ;-)
That could work, but would that actually start WWI?

I think the Austrian-Hungarian leadership was wise enough to know they couldn't beat Germany, and would have no allies to help them.
 
The German/Austrian attitude shocks Italy and the British or French sense an opportunity and make an offer...

Only days after Germany attacks Belgium Italy enters the war with British and French units arriving in early 1915 to press against AH while Russia diverts forces from Germany to the weaker foe. AH crumbles in 1915, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire never join the war.

By late 1915 Germany sues for peace, with private assurances that it will be defeated Austria-Hungary which pays the heavy part of the bill...
 
Didn't German capture a lot of Nitrates in Amsterdam?? Antwerp?? at the beginning of the War. This was enuff to hold them till the Haber process came on Line.

Have them fail to Take the city, or have the Nitrates not there.
Germany has to slow operations, without it's Artillery advantage, it loses several battles it won OTL. This snowballs into a earlier Entreat Victory.

No Versailles treaty. As the war war much shorter and less vicious, a gentler Treaty

Austro-Hungary collapses postwar, With no Versailles restriction Austria joins Germany, bringing Bohemia, and the remains of Austrian Poland with it.

If Russia was plainly winning before Christmas, Maybe the Ottomans don't enter the war in Novembre.

If the War lasts long enuff for the Ottomans to enter, but is over by 1916, No Balfour declaration. No secret treaty with France & Russia to divide up the OE.

No US entry, Maybe Pershing and Mexico get more attention. No Doughboys, the VFW remains a Phillipino War organization, and loses power as members age and drop out.
 
What an interesting topic! Here's my two cents' worth...
... One thing I haven't seen much is an Entente victory in 1914 or 1915. So, two questions:
1) How could this come about? No PODs before 1914 - i.e. you can have a country stay neutral or join the other side, but you can't say 'the Entente would be in a better position if the war was delayed to 1920' or whatever

Perhaps a different outcome involving the Ottoman Empire could shorten the war in the Entente's favor. Two possible examples:

(1) The British do not requisition the two battleships they were building for the Turks which had been paid for by the Turkish public. Hence the resulting OTL outrage does not happen, the entire Goeben/Breslau affair does not occur which indirectly led to the Ottoman Empire joining the Central Powers.

With the Ottoman Empire thereby probably remaining neutral or possibly even joining the Entente, this scenario results in Russia being assured a constant supply of arms and materials from Britain and France. Bulgaria probably won’t join the Central Powers.

(2) Churchill’s Gallipoli gambit succeeds in early 1915, thereby keeping the arms and material lifeline open to Russia and depriving the Central Powers of the Ottoman Empire as an ally and providing a second backdoor (along with Russia’s) to attacking Austria-Hungary. (three backdoors if you include Italy who declared war on Austria-Hungary in May 1915 OTL)

Other possibilities perhaps leading to an early Entente victory…

(3) Especially if the arms and material lifeline is kept open for Russia, there could be a chance for a devastating exploitation of Russia’s successful attack on Austria-Hungary in Galicia, with the victories of the Battle of Lemberg and of Przemysl. Couple this with an unambiguous declaration by the Tsar to establish an enlarged Kingdom of Poland, under the Romanov scepter, which includes Polish lands occupied by Germany and Austria-Hungary.

(4) The Lusitania attack leads to the United States entering the war on the Entente side in May 1915.
... 2) What might the aftermath be like? One would assume it would be much less punishing than Versailles, and presumably a lot of countries that in OTL were overthrown in revolutions wouldn't be.
Ideas?

Since the Slavs in Austria-Hungary wouldn’t have had as much time as in OTL to organize, Italy would have absorbed much more territory than she did per the secret treaties probably most of what became coastal Yugoslavia.

Germany, with the United States’ support buoyed by Wilson‘s strong sense of morality, insists upon a plesbicite in Alsace-Lorraine. In a big surprise, considering Allied propaganda, the Germans win the plesbicite, angering the French but some of the almost purely French-speaking parts of Alsace-Lorraine, including Metz, are nevertheless ceded to France by Germany, in a bid to curry favor with President Wilson.

There is no Schleswig-Holstein plesbicite.

Like a Humpty-Dumpty, Austria-Hungary breaks up and cannot be put back together. The aged Habsburg Emperor becomes solely the King of Hungary as German Austria and what later became known as the Sudetenland join the German Empire.

Hungary loses territory to Rumania but retains Ruthenia and adjacent Magyar-populated areas. The Czechs and Slovaks unite under a Romanov ruler to be determined. Slovenia and Croatia, along with Bosnia-Hercegovina are ceded to Serbia. Montenegro retains her independence.

Austrian Poland (Galicia) is annexed to Russian Poland. However the Tsar has second thoughts about a completely revived, albeit dependent, Poland consisting of all Polish lands. During the peace talks, Germany and Russia diplomatically align, similar to Talleyrand’s maneuvering France to side with Britain and Austria at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. Therefore Germany retains her Polish lands, all of which have been under German rule since at least 1795.

All German colonies are to be returned to Germany except for Kiauchau, and the Marshall, Mariana and Caroline islands which Japan refuses to give up but agrees to a be-to-determined financial compensation for Germany.

In another bid to win the United States’ favor for post-war maneuvering purposes, Germany scuttles her U-Boat fleet, promising to permanently refrain from submarine building and proposes to Great Britain naval limitation talks which the British seethingly resent.

Germany promises war reparations for Belgium and France.
 
Thande

Another option, and I'm very surprised someone else hasn't mentioned it already, is that the French don't adopt Plan 17. Instead they meeting the Germans in a massive encounter battles, roughly as the latter seek to advance from southern Belgium into France. In this case French losses might be similar as more on the defencive they are however fighting the main German forces rather than seeking to storm fortified positions. However the Germans, who have to attack and keep on attacking, will suffer horrendous losses. Coupled with a supply line through the Ardennes which mean that their logistics suffers, especially probably being unable to push the demanded amounts of artillery ammo through to the front. Also the French 75's, too light for bombarding trenches, will slaughter troops seeking to advance across open country.

After some very heavy fighting and possibly some early gains the Germans are forced to call off their offensive with terrible losses and probably moral badly affected. Also in this scenario they probably don't have a chance to occupy Antwerpt and the Belgium coast. [This eases allied logistics, means more troops available and also denies them that nitrates boost that DuQuense mentioned].

From this point on a desperate Germany/A-H are in a hopeless position. Hence even Enva Pasha isn't willing to bring the Ottomans in on their side and the supply lines to Russia stay open. You might see desperate offensives in the east failing as Tom_B mentioned, a lunge by the HSF also mauled and Italy jumping in quickly before the war's over and a total collapse of Central Power moral.

Alternatively, while a successful Gallipoli would greatly boost the allied position I doubt if it would decide the war by the end of 1915, as your OP asks for. However what if say Troubridge gambles and succeeds or a different deployment by Milne and Goeben doesn't reach Constantinople? A British naval victory in the Med would boost allied prestige and it was only the Goeben attacking Russian positions that enabled the war party to bring the Ottomans into the conflict. If their out Russia and to a lesser degree Britain have less fronts to worry about and the exchange of Russian grain and western munitions greatly boosts all 3 main allied powers. Also with Turkey neutral Bulgaria might not join the fray and if the Serbs are still fighting heavily, possibly with British support, and the Russians attacking in Galicia when Italy joins the allies then A-H's position is very grim.

Steve
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
That could work, but would that actually start WWI?

I think the Austrian-Hungarian leadership was wise enough to know they couldn't beat Germany, and would have no allies to help them.

It probably wouldn't start a war, it probably has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but reading it I suddenly had the idea and felt like posting it, and since we have so many threads already....
 
Top