Make WW1 go for longer.

Kongzilla

Banned
I was just wondering if it is possible for the First World War to last longer than it did in OTL. Is it possible for there to be lull in the war but a Western Front Remains in place.
 
I think having it last longer is easy. Just have the CPs be stronger (easily done with 1914 PODs), yet not strong enough to win (so no capture of Paris and the US still supports the Entente).
 
I'd say the opposite, WW1 was one continuous engagement and 4 years is about as long as a country can handle this for. WW2 went for 6 years because of the long gaps between the invasions of Poland, France and Russia.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I think having it last longer is easy. Just have the CPs be stronger (easily done with 1914 PODs), yet not strong enough to win (so no capture of Paris and the US still supports the Entente).

What kind of PODs are we looking at. And would it be possible for the Germans to reach the outskirts of Paris and stay there. If not that's fine. I just wanted to add some not so subtle symbolism.
 
What kind of PODs are we looking at. And would it be possible for the Germans to reach the outskirts of Paris and stay there. If not that's fine. I just wanted to add some not so subtle symbolism.


Peferably have all of the things below:

King Carol I of Romania puts his foot down and has the country honor its secret obligations and join the CPs. Unpopular with the public, but will throw a big monkey wrench in the Russian mobilization plans, making their initial offensives vs Germany and A-H less efective.

The orders to Admiral Essen to turn back are delayed as a butterfly, and he gets into a fight with the Swedish navy in Gotland, bringing Sweden into the CP camp.

A-H and its commander, Conrad von Hotzendorf sticks to the initial plan of mobilizing in Galicia and even launch minor offensives against the not-yet-mobilized Russian units in the area. When the Russians finally attack, A-H is dug in and waiting. Galicia and the cream of the A-H army (including the all-important multilingual officer corps) isn't lost. The A-H now has a chance to expand far more effectively and be way more efficient as a fighting force.

The above leads to Serbia being the one to launch disastrous offensives against dug-in troops on hilltops, not the austrians, AND, Bulgaria isn't spooked by the Russian advance, meaning it joins the CP's right then in 1914.

This spells the end for Serbia, and a joint A-H - Bulgarian offensive (with some limited German support) in early 1915 should finish them off with little CP losses. If they're lucky, they might even cut off the Serbian army from escaping.

In the west, the French fith army is trapped and encirled (as nearly happened).

Battle of the frontiers goes as OTL (as a huge French defeat)

At the Marne, the Germans draw with the French instead of being pushed back, as they don't panick and send troops back east to contain the Russians. They then swing north-west and win the Race to the Sea. The BEF is deployed too far off east into Belgium, cut off and destroyed.

Antwerp's nitrate stocks are captured as OTL.

In Prussia, the Russian manage to lay siege to Konigsberg and outlying German fortresses, but suffer a huge defeat ala OTL Tannenberg once the Germans transfer forces from France.

The Goeben and Breslau still escape to Constantinople, and the Ottomans join the CP's.

Italy should by now realize that the CP's will win and don't enter the war. Greece however (with its pro-CP King and military) does after CP forces give the King the support needed to kick PM Venizelos out.

On the naval side:
In the Atlantic, Admiral Graf Spee and his squadron manages to ambush the British fleet in the Falklands (almost happened) and subsequently enjoys a lucky escape to Europe.

ATL Jutland is still a draw.

In spring 1915, after a failed offensive against Paris and the unsuccessfull battle of Jutland, Germany commits to a long-term war. They prioritize Russia while keeping a defensive posture in the west and start building (both in their and in neutral shipyards) merchant subs which they use to trade for critical materials with the Americans.

Russia finally gives up in the closing days of the 1917 winter after morale on its home front collapses following defeats in the field. German attempts to defeat France however fail in 1917 and 1918, due in part also to American backing and later entry into the war.

In 1919, the Allies regain the initiative but fail to break the German defensese. By 1920 however, with the Americans pouring more and more men, Italy finally joining and not enough grain coming in from the Ukraine, the Central Powers finally collapse.

Is two extra years of carnage enough ?
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I feel like with all that going right they would have the ability to defeat the Allies. Wouldn't Italy also enter on the side of the CP like you said it looks like they are going to win and they had pre war agreements anyway so they might hop on the bandwagon as soon as they can.

Is it possible to extend the war until 1923-24 It really would make it the war to end all wars the since it would have gone on for almost a decade.
 
I feel like with all that going right they would have the ability to defeat the Allies.

Attacking on the western front is an extremely bloddy business, given the huge concentration of units and firepower into such a small space. Thus, while the Allies may suffer large losses in the 1915-1917 period, so would the Germans in 1917-1918.

Granted, the French might call it quits before significant American help arrives, but only on the condition of reasonable German terms or the fall of Paris (or more likely both. However, IMHO, neither are likely to happen in 1917-1918.

Wouldn't Italy also enter on the side of the CP like you said it looks like they are going to win and they had pre war agreements anyway so they might hop on the bandwagon as soon as they can.

Italy has irredentist claims mainly against Austria, and are hugely vulnerable to having their critical imports cut off by the Entente. They have little to gain and everything to loose by joining the CPs unless they were 110% sure of a CP victory.

Instead, what they might do is trade with both sides for their own benefit, and join at the very last second.


Is it possible to extend the war until 1923-24 It really would make it the war to end all wars the since it would have gone on for almost a decade

Maybe if France collapses but Britain keeps fighting. Then, it would only be a U-Boat war, minor air raids, small engagements limited by logistics in the Middle East and nothing more. Germany looses its colonies and slowly starves to death with the blockade still going on.
 
Hello. Newbie here.

If the Germans never started unrestricted submarine warfare and the USA never entered the war, wouldn't that do the trick? That probably would mean one or two more years of fighting until one side collapsed or the two sides finally decided on a negotiated peace, I guess.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
If the Americans never got involved at all, then it would be the entente that collapsed. The French were about to call it quits and they were all running out of money. I think the war would end around the same time as OTL. Also I think it's still incredibly hard to keep the USA out because I beleive they will end up funding the Entente even without USW.

Anyway what I was thinking is the Germans win the Race to the Sea. Make a lot more headway than OTL. The use of Gas is reversed. The Germans use tear gas and what not to keep the front moving and in an act of Desperation the French use chlorine. Anyway front bogs down Germans decide to Focus on the Eastern Front. Kick ass as OTL. Anyway they carve up eastern Europe like they were going to. They can pull all of their troops out of Russia thanks to their buffer states they have armed. To help with the starving can they grab Food from Russia as concessions. Anyway France decides to pull out thanks to increased losses. It's effectively a UK/USA war with only token French forces. And by 1922 it's like you said only U-Boat war and small air raids. Offensives consist of 1 or 2 divisions. Although the Germans do relatively well at this for the next year or so because of Stormtroopers and that stuff.

I don't know what I'm talking about though so correct me if any of this is tottally impossible.
 
Hello. Newbie here.

If the Germans never started unrestricted submarine warfare and the USA never entered the war, wouldn't that do the trick? That probably would mean one or two more years of fighting until one side collapsed or the two sides finally decided on a negotiated peace, I guess.

IMVHO, no. It would, at most, prolong the war by 0-4 months. American boots on the ground made little actual difference in the fighting, besides boosting French morale that help was coming.

Less acces to American credit caused by no war entry might mean one or more allied offensives have less stuff to throw at the Germans, might mean that the 1918 German offensives gain some more ground and cause more casaulties, might even mean that the 1918 Entente counteroffensive fails to break the German lines.

What it doesn't change however is that Germany, and to much, much bigger extent Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria, are starving, and are unlikely to survive the winter of 1918 as coherent states unless they drop out of the war. Their drop out of the war is what caused the Germans (along with, to a lesser extent, the succesfull entente counteroffensive) to throw in the towel OTL.

Also, welcome to the board!!!
 
Just a thought ... if the war was extended what effect would the huge Flu Pandemic have had on the frontline troops ... I'm guessing the war would have ended at that point anyway ...
 

Kongzilla

Banned
Would it have spread. I think it started with troops returning home and they had all the bugs and stuff from the Trenches and what not. If they are all still in the Trenches would it spread to all corners of the Earth.
 

Flubber

Banned
If the Germans never started unrestricted submarine warfare and the USA never entered the war, wouldn't that do the trick?


No, it won't. It will make the war end sooner.

WW1 is discussed nearly as often as WW2. The many members responding in this thread should already know thanks to those many discussions that the Entente was facing a credit crunch in January of 1917.

In late 1916, the US Federal Reserve had recommended higher collateral requirements for any future US bank loans to the Entente. The new collateral requirements meant the UK was facing a looming credit crunch and, because the UK was subsidizing France, France would be effected too. Purchases of US goods, raw materials, and food by the Entente were going to have to be severely cut back.

Then Germany relaunched USW and sent the Zimmerman Telegram.

US entry in the war meant the Entente now had access to US government backed, collateral-free loans. With those new loans, Entente was able to stay in the war until Germany exhausted itself.

No loans or smaller loans means the Entente is exhausted first and sooner.

Check out the search function. It works better than many people claim and can provide you with days of reading.
 
No, it won't. It will make the war end sooner.

WW1 is discussed nearly as often as WW2. The many members responding in this thread should already know thanks to those many discussions that the Entente was facing a credit crunch in January of 1917.

In late 1916, the US Federal Reserve had recommended higher collateral requirements for any future US bank loans to the Entente. The new collateral requirements meant the UK was facing a looming credit crunch and, because the UK was subsidizing France, France would be effected too. Purchases of US goods, raw materials, and food by the Entente were going to have to be severely cut back.

Then Germany relaunched USW and sent the Zimmerman Telegram.

US entry in the war meant the Entente now had access to US government backed, collateral-free loans. With those new loans, Entente was able to stay in the war until Germany exhausted itself.

No loans or smaller loans means the Entente is exhausted first and sooner.

Check out the search function. It works better than many people claim and can provide you with days of reading.

I'm sorry. As I said, I'm new here. Although I've been reading a lot from the forum since I got here, I'm more than a little overwhelmed by the amount of material. As you said, "days of reading". I didn't think it would be so bad to post a question in the thread without first reading everything there is to read in the entirety of the forum about the topic. I'll be more careful in the future.
 

Flubber

Banned
I'm sorry.


There's nothing to be sorry about or to apologize for.

I was answering your question and then expressing shock that other members who have been here for hundreds of posts would have told you the war would last longer without US intervention.

I'll be more careful in the future.

There's nothing for you to be careful about as you did nothing wrong.
 
There's nothing to be sorry about or to apologize for.

I was answering your question and then expressing shock that other members who have been here for hundreds of posts would have told you the war would last longer without US intervention.



There's nothing for you to be careful about as you did nothing wrong.

Oh. Thanks for clarifying on that.

Continuing with the discussion, what kind of fighting should be expected from a prolonged war? I remember reading that the British had two plans for 1919, one predicting extensive mechanization (which they had no hope of funding) and another planing for HEAVY use of poison gas.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I believe The plan was to start bombarding German cities with Gas, but I don't exactly know how they would do that. It doesn't seem like Zeppelins and those early bombers could handle it. And I don't believe Mechanization would do so well either. Although I'm not sure what kind of Mechanization they would be after, Until better armour is on tanks thats just a waste of money because a German Anti-tank gun could put one of those out of action.
 
smaller loans means the Entente is exhausted first and sooner.


Why are you so sure of this ? Why the arrogance ?

There are lots of arguments against this hypothesis, and you, having been here "for hundreds of posts" should be aware of them.

The entente can and would cut back its war effort, but that doesn't mean it would collapse.

Rations for the general population can be lowered, less shells can be expended on the front, India can be stripped of food if need be, less stuff can be sent to Russia, disasters like the Nivelle offensive can be cut back or cancelled entirely, alternative sources of income can be found, a deal with the US Government can be reached etc. The Entente was by no means on the brink of collapse in 1917.

If fewer and smaller Entente offensives entice the Germans to attack, then its even better.

EDIT: Not that it's not entirely possible the Entente might seek terms or even collapse, just that it's not a certainty, merely one of many possibilities
 
Top