Least Destructive World War I

The destruction and social upheaval caused by the first World War planted the seeds for the even more destructive second World War. What scenario could lead to a less destructive war? I know this is a broad, open ended question, but I look forward to hearing your ideas!
 
Make that shorter. Quiet easy. In OTL WW1 lasted pretty much as long as it was possible. So someone should win earlier.
 
Make that shorter. Quiet easy. In OTL WW1 lasted pretty much as long as it was possible. So someone should win earlier.

I have thought about that and I believe a short war would take some extraordinary luck. For Germany to get a quick victory in France would require everything to go their way, Great Britain would have to not get involved, something highly unlikely once German troops enter Belgium. The French armies would have to do everything wrong while the German armies do everything right, also highly unlikely. The German navy inflicting a decisive defeat on the Royal Navy? Not unless the entire British fleet is asleep or drunk. Is a quick victory possible? Yes, but I cannot see a quick path, but I am sure there are people here more knowledgeable and intelligent than I am.
 
1. war tech is less advanced
2. less soldiers
3. likely, you have a shorter war

I would think a later war, with more technological advances, would lead to a shorter war. The faster you can move your armies, the more ground you can cover, the quicker a decision can be reached.

Perhaps you could also have one side become more innovative. Germany conquered France in 1940 not because their armies were bigger or better, but because they had superior tactics.
 
I see a few points, of varying probabilities, though some are VERY low. Here's one.
Battle of the Marne is a decisive German victory...would the French fight on if Paris fell? IIRC (lack time right now to dig it out, and I could be wrong) one German army missed both the Marne and Tannenburg because it was en route from one front to the other.

This is early enough in the war that there might be a willingness to talk peace without outrageous demands.
 
Prittwitz isn't replaced by the Hindenburg/Ludendorff duo, retreats behind the Vistula? That'd be tough, East Prussia produced a good part of the grain and milk for Germany.
 
Britain is not as aligned with France as per OTL or the Great game with Russia is slightly more gnarly

The upshot being that Britain does not take part and before the situation degenerates so much that they might change their minds and join the Entente the thing is over with Paris Surrounded/threatened and the Russians and French coming to terms.
 
1. war tech is less advanced
2. less soldiers
3. likely, you have a shorter war
Medicine would be worse, though, and disease was a significant killer.

Also, at the outbreak of World War I, none of the combatants provided steel helmets to their troops. Soldiers of most nations went into battle wearing cloth, felt, or leather headgear that offered no protection from modern weapons. The change to steel helmets was informed by studies of large scale data collected about casualties. Would this be figured out as quickly in earlier version of WW1?
 
Top