OH BOY AN UPDATE.
AND IT"S REALLY GOOD TOO.
AND IT"S REALLY GOOD TOO.
I think the author covered this in a post about how he (I'm assuming that your a guy ET, don't take offence if I'm wring) is going to try and make the reason as realistic as possible.30 years of WW1 is not something I can believe. With the weapons and loss of life it is not like the 30 year war in the 1600's. England, France, Germany and Russia were all sick of war after 4 years no way could this go on for another 26 years
I wonder how the new reinforcements will affect the West.My current problem with keeping the Great War going on for thirty years is that the people of Europe would eventually be too demoralized to continue fighting. We saw this a bit in OTL in France, Russia, and Germany, so I plan on getting the people of the belligerents to hate each other so much that they will not rest until the enemy is defeated. It's suffice to say that once one side does defeat the other the post-war situation in Europe will not be pretty.
IMVHO only if it's 30 years of continued fighting, no amount of hate can support this kind of massacre as we will see a collapse of society and economy well before; something like the Korean war it's more realistic, basically there is an armistice not a peace treaty with conflict remaining in the periphery and after a period of cold war/incidents (both armed and diplomatic) a resuming of the hostility.Do you find what I have thus far ASB or the concept of World War One lasting thirty years ASB?
The 30 years count come out as the Historians normally consider the conflict from the start of the war in 1914 to the end of the second part (plus the armed conflict in between and just after as direct consequence, maybe like a Japanese-USA war) as a single event.
It's not an unheard thing, there are a lot of historian that consider the period between 1914 and 1945 a single great european civil war
Basically you need the people of Europe at time of rest so to resume the fight; you must consider that even if victorious the French Army morale will soon go down if the trech warfare continue and in OTL by the end of 1917 the Entente had no more way to secure loan to the USA.
I too suspect that this thread is somehow about such a scenario. The negotiations for a peace break down, members of both sides remain in an uneasy truce(s) while proxy conflicts continue to pop out, enabling the appearance of continuation until the war is finally settled in 1944 with an unconditional surrender of Germany.30 years of WW1 could feasibly come about if it settled into a sort of semi-Cold semi-Hot war on the Western Front. Both sides double down on the defensive to such an enormous extent that offensives become impossible and both sides spend decades staring at each other across no man's land and occasionally conducting trench raids or air raids. Neither side wants to back down because the Entente demands a free Belgium and Germany demands their African colonies returned, with neither side viewing the other's demands as equivalent to their own.Belgium becomes a de facto part of Germany and the African colonies a de facto part of the British Empire.
I agree in that I can't see a high intensity war lasting for 30 years.
Thanks for the constructive criticism! I'll be sure to make some edits after taking this into account.Such a great detail on this... Bravo! However, let me rain a bit on your parade, about Italian matters.
First and foremost, Italy had interest in a Mediterranean policy, but not in Turkey; OTL intervention was more a Prestige matter, borne out of the idea that if Turkey is to be divided, Italy ought to partake in the spoils.
Also, the Austrians would sooner give up South Tyrol eather than Trieste - their main, fully built and well-connected, railway and naval hub for the whole Austrian Littoral. The point is, neither part would really accept that bargain; Italy because it's almost certain that A-H would try to renege, and the fear Germany would back the reliable Ally
orthe fairly serious effects in case they may actually be forced to honor the deal.
The OTL attempted Treaty between Rome and Wien to keep Italian neutrality will have seen the cession of the land west of the Isonzo and Trentino (and the island of Pelagosa), plus control of Albania...Giolitti was ready to accept that even if he know that the Austrians were almost assured to not follow that (even with the Kaiser personal assurance), the idea was that at least they will at least obtained something else like Tunisia (Albania by 1915 was already half controlled by the italians due to the collapse of the goverment).Also, the Austrians would sooner give up South Tyrol eather than Trieste - their main, fully built and well-connected, railway and naval hub for the whole Austrian Littoral. The point is, neither part would really accept that bargain; Italy because it's almost certain that A-H would try to renege, and the fear Germany would back the reliable Ally
orthe fairly serious effects in case they may actually be forced to honor the deal.
First and foremost, Italy had interest in a Mediterranean policy, but not in Turkey; OTL intervention was more of a Prestige matter, borne out of the idea that if Turkey is to be divided after all, Italy ought to partake in the spoils as befitting of a Great Power.Back in Europe the Kingdom of Italy was in an awkward situation. Italy had in fact been a member of the Central Powers since the declaration of the Triple Alliance in 1882, however, the Italians had always been the odd man out next to the sister nations of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Simply put, Italy had aligned with Berlin and Vienna because it feared the Entente and in a world where it seemed as though France could potentially lose the Great War, or at the very least, by occupied for the foreseeable future, what was the point of sending young Italian men to an early grave?
Worse yet for the Central Powers, Italy strongly desired territory within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, territory that Austria-Hungary stubbornly held onto and the growing Italian Empire enviously eyed land in Anatolia, land under the control of Germany’s ally, the Ottoman Empire. And yet despite all this, the Kingdom of Italy stayed away from the trenches possibly because of one man. This man? None other than Italian Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti, a staunch neutralist in the face of calls to betray the Triple Alliance, some calls that were echoed within Giolitti’s very own cabinet.
Prime Minister Giovanni Giolitti of the Kingdom of Italy.
Through stalling and outright avoidance of interventionists Prime Minister Giolitti managed to avert any entrance into the Great War, a war that Giolitti argued Italy was not yet ready for. However, there was only so much that stalling alone could do to avoid combat and the popularity of Giolitti was gradually declining while the voices of the right-wing in the Liberal Union Party, voices of intervention, grew. However, Prime Minister Giolitti did find a way to satisfy the interventionists by coming to the negotiation table with Austria-Hungary over disputed land between the empires.
Similar agreements between Italy and Austria-Hungary that had been made in the past were typically not honored by the Austro-Hungarians so to trust Emperor Franz Joseph would be naive on the Italians’ part, however, what was different at the Treaty of Vienna was that the Germans oversaw negotiations as well. The entry of Italy into the Great War on behalf of the Entente could have had disastrous consequences for the Central Powers’ war effort and thus the Kaiserreich was keen on keeping Italy out, regardless of whether or not the Austrians would have to make some concessions. According to the Treaty of Vienna, which was signed on June 17th, 1915, Austria-Hungary would have to cede the area around Trieste and recognize Italian ambitions in Albania by 1920, and the German Empire agreed to make sure Vienna actually went through with the cessions to Italy in five years. There was much heated debate over the fate of South Tyrol, an Austro-Hungarian territory extremely desired by Italy, however, no agreement could be reached so it was decided that in 1920 a final solution was to be found in a second round of negotiations.
While Giovanni Giolitti had averted entrance into the Great War for the foreseeable future he could not avoid his declining popularity within his own administration and was pressured to resign on January 8th, 1916. In his place was another member of the former Giolitti administration and, thankfully a neutralist, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.
Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of the Kingdom of Italy.
Giolitti continuing to be Presidente del Consiglio at the time of the July crisis will probably be enough, in OTL his goverment fall in March and he decided to not create another and give the place for the time being at one of his protegè/follower aka Antonio Salandra an extremely believer in going to war; without him at the helm but instead Giolitti getting the treaty signed with Austria is much more possible.Such a great detail on this... Bravo! However, let me rain a bit on your parade, about Italian matters.
First and foremost, Italy had interest in a Mediterranean policy, but not in Turkey; OTL intervention was more of a Prestige matter, borne out of the idea that if Turkey is to be divided after all, Italy ought to partake in the spoils as befitting of a Great Power.
The proposed bargain would be bad for both parties, however:
The Austrians would sooner give up Trento, or even South Tyrol, rather than Trieste - the fourth city of the Empire and the main, fully built and well-connected, railway and naval hub for the whole Austrian Littoral. They would just not even promise it - OTL the most that was obtained, after much discussion, was approval for the long-desired construction of an Italian-language University in the city.
Similarly, for Italy it's guaranteed that A-H would try to renege, and there would be fear Germany would back the more reliable Ally (mostly unfounded, but only in hindsight). And assuming they actually manage to coax Austria into such a promise, it would be milked for all its worth - one group pointing to the possibility of obtaining Trieste without bloodshed, the other becoming even bolder in wanting to jump an Empire that seems very willing to give concessions.
If you really want a patch to delay Italian entry, I would advise a different pact:
- first and foremost, either it comes earlier than OTL, Italy's rearmament gets delayed, or Entente propaganda somehow is far less strong (I would say, it must happen before the end of 1914)
- Italy is given a free hand in Albania immediately (the occupation will distract them a lot)
- promise to give Trentino before 1918 (in hopes that Franz Joseph, who regarded it as his personal fiefdom, kicks the bucket soon and Tizla is somehow induced to understand that without concessions to Italy, she would go to war and bring in Romania too)
- vague promises on Trieste and South Tirol, to be discussed 'before 1920' (throw in OTL University approval for good measure)
- promise to respect Montenegrin independence, under pre-1912 borders though
This might be enough to give neutralists a few extra months to a year, before the opportunity of going to War becomes too strong to refute.
This confirms the hypothesis that TTL great war will be a multi-stage conflict like the 30 year war or 100 year war. This will be interesting.While the epic chaos of Phase Two of the Great War obviously resulted in the absence of much of Africa from the conflict in Europe, the origins of African neutrality throughout Phase One is far more obscure and and not justified by the events of Phase Two.
Correct. Each phase will introduce new belligerents and have others leave the war, however, the war itself will never completely pause.This confirms the hypothesis that TTL great war will be a multi-stage conflict like the 30 year war or 100 year war. This will be interesting.