Nature of a decisive Entente victory?

Emperor of Halton

In a thread about the Ottoman Empire remaining neutral a few weeks ago, I pointed out that Ludendorff believed that the CP would have been defeated two years earlier if that had been the case. Reasons:
  • Russia could have been supplied through the Straits
  • Entente armies not tied down by Ottoman army, could have been used on other fronts
  • Bulgaria does not join the war
  • Serbia lasts longer, or does not fall
So, what would happen in this scenario? Who would eventually join the war? Romania, perhaps? Would Italy still join eventually? AHP has suggested that the Ottomans may have joined the Entente once it was apparent that Germany was going to lose. May Serbia receive assistance?

And how would the CP lose? Would they begin negotiations once it's apparent they're going to lose, or are they going to have to suffer decisive military defeats deep inside their own territory to accept defeat?

What would be the nature of the post-war world? What territorial adjustments would be made? With the war shorter, I assume European debts will be less than OTL, will a Great Depression still occur?

Emperor of Halton
 

Emperor of Halton

Well, more decisive if you like. Have Germany militarily defeated rather than just have their war effort run out of steam. And have it apparent to the German people that their nation has actually been defeated, rather than believing in the "stab in the back" myth.
 

GTAmario

Banned
Uhhh... Are you talking about an Entente march in Berlin? Because Germany was powerless to stop an invasion, they surrendered. Unconditionally. And they accepted the crappy treaty of Versailles.
 

Emperor of Halton

Not necessarily, but possibly if it is necessary. I was talking about the above scenario which involved the Ottomans remaining neutral, and everything else that I listed.
 
Jape

Jape

Keeping the Ottomans neutral is technically easy but would require different thinking in London and Paris.

By 1914, the Entente treated Constantinople horribly, despite apparently being the Empire's traditional allies.

In early 1914, pressure was mounting across Europe for Armenian autonomy, which was the last thing the Young Turks wanted to conceed after two disasterous wars. Add to that, their efforts to remain strictly neutral rather than belligerant towards Germany made the Entente suspicious leading to numerous Ottoman ships and subjects being detained as a precaution.

Feeling under threat as a soveriegn state, the Turks looked to Germany as a protector.

So basically get Britain and France to act less like bullies and you'll probably get neutrality - remember the OE is hardly in a desirable strategic position between Russia, pro-British Persia and Anglo-Egypt. As long as a little political tact is used, and some nice 'promises' are made about Mesopatamian oil and Armenia, it shouldn't be too hard to see the ANZACs steaming up to Odessa instead of Galipoli. Aussie cavalry on the Galician steppe, now there's an image.
 

Tyg

Emperor of Halton said:
What would be the nature of the post-war world? What territorial adjustments would be made? With the war shorter, I assume European debts will be less than OTL, will a Great Depression still occur?
Click to expand...

This depends on exactly how much shorter the war was, and how many fewer casualties there were.

I presume Russia would have wanted to absorb Austrian Galicia, and would support Romania and Serbia in making at least limited demands in Transylvania and Bosnia, respectively. France wouldn't settle for anything less than Alsace-Lorraine, and the British absorb most of the German colonies.

If the war is short enough, territorial compensation might be enough to avoid the crushing burden of reparations payments (save maybe to Belgium) on Germany, which in addition to the vastly lower levels of war debt and far less disrupted international trade, greatly reduces the potential of a Great Depression-style crash.

There would still be difficulty in reconstructing the world financial system after the war, but it would probably be easier and far less crippling for the UK to return to the gold standard ITTL, though that return probably still wouldn't be optimal. As Russia remains open to trade, overall volumes in Europe ought to do much better than OTL, and Russian growth could be an engine of European recovery.

If a quicker, more decisive peace allows for the survival of Austria-Hungary, that would be even better in allowing for comparative economic stability--Hungary wouldn't be abruptly cut off from former markets, ports, and so on. Simpler customs zones as a result of A-H and Ottoman survival probably would be helpful as well.
 

giobastia

Emperor of Halton, we are looking for the same thing.


The Entente could have achieved a decisive victory in three scenarios:
  1. Ottoman Empire remained neutral or was knocked-out of war in 1915 (after a succesfull Dardanelles campaign); this scenario could provide Russians with another opportunity to break the Austro-German Eastern Front, not only because of Allied supplies (both Britain and France, in 1915, have the same problems of shortages), but because of the introduction of a new front in the Balkans, when Serbia was still invicted and Russian armies were on the Carpatians Mountains. This scenario can provide you with an Entente victory in 1916 and a really strong tzarist Russia after the war. It could be better then the OTL Soviet Union (especially for Russian people...), but a strong Tzarist Russia could ignite a new rivalry with British Empire, paving the way for a different cold war in mid-XX Century.
  2. Russia didn't collapse in 1917, because there is no February revolution or the February Revolution doesn't provoke the collapse of the Russian army or someone (like Kornilov) restores order in the Army before the October Revolution. Keeping Russia at war means having another chance for a two-fronts assault against the CP in 1917. A second and stronger "Brussilov offensive", launched while the Allies were attacking in Flanders, France and Italy, could provoke the collapse of Austro-Hungarian empire and then Germany in the end of 1917 or early 1918. This scenario could lead to a three-polar post-war world (Russia, Great Britain and Usa). The three rival powers could cooperate or compete, depending on circumstances. But it could be a much more stable world then OTL cold war.
  3. Germany stand still in 1918. If Kaiser Wilhelm II accepted Ludendorff exortations for an ultimate resistance and there was no revolution in Kiel, the war would end in summer 1919 with the invasion of Germany, 1945-style. This scenario could include also some changes in Russia, because Bolshevik regime was a partner of Germany in 1918 and Allies could plan a large intervention (larger then OTL) in Russia supporting White Armies. This scenario causes the political collapse of Central and Eastern Europe, Britain and France are bled white and the only surviving superpower remains Usa. Woodrow Wilson could dictate his conditions to Europe
When we speak about WW1, I think we have to keep in mind two things, basically:
  1. Entente learned really how to fight a modern war in 1917. Before 1917, obsolete tactics and insufficient reserves of ammos and weapons prevent any great exploit. An ATL Entente victory is more realistic if set after 1917.
  2. Resistance of the internal front and morale of troops are fundamental in WW1. The Great War was not at all like all the other wars. Basically it's a war of attrition and you don't have to achieve a victory to destroy the enemy forces, or occupy the enemy capital, but you have to create a situation which breaks the enemy determination. Thus the WW1 ended in 1918 because CP collapsed (morally, economically and militarily) that year, but in sligtly different circumstances, they could have endured in 1919 or could have already collapsed in 1916 or 1917.
 
Last edited:

MarkA

Jape said:
Keeping the Ottomans neutral is technically easy but would require different thinking in London and Paris.

By 1914, the Entente treated Constantinople horribly, despite apparently being the Empire's traditional allies.

In early 1914, pressure was mounting across Europe for Armenian autonomy, which was the last thing the Young Turks wanted to conceed after two disasterous wars. Add to that, their efforts to remain strictly neutral rather than belligerant towards Germany made the Entente suspicious leading to numerous Ottoman ships and subjects being detained as a precaution.

Feeling under threat as a soveriegn state, the Turks looked to Germany as a protector.

So basically get Britain and France to act less like bullies and you'll probably get neutrality - remember the OE is hardly in a desirable strategic position between Russia, pro-British Persia and Anglo-Egypt. As long as a little political tact is used, and some nice 'promises' are made about Mesopatamian oil and Armenia, it shouldn't be too hard to see the ANZACs steaming up to Odessa instead of Galipoli. Aussie cavalry on the Galician steppe, now there's an image.
Click to expand...

The Light Horse were actually mounted infantry rather than true cavalry.

But it would be interesting if they worked in concert with Russian Cossack regiments.
 

Typo

Banned
I think giobastia covered pretty much it all, with the exception of Gallopoli succeeding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top