Questions about an extended WWI

I am curious if there are any time lines on here I could be pointed to or what would lead to the Great War lasting unto the 1920s. This has always been an interest of mine, but I don't claim to be enough of an expert in that time period to know what would lead to a longer war. Thoughts?
 
The Central Powers literally collapsed in 1918. Short of Frederick Barbarossa coming back and instituting a policy of eating dissidents and Slavs, I'm not sure what is going to keep them going.
 
WW2 lasted 6 years because it went in fits and starts and continuous fighting that did occur was between small forces. For example while Poland took most of Germany's military the Phoney War was very low activity. Similarly the Blitzkrieg and Norway took most of Germany's forces for a short time, but the war in the Desert only took a handful of divisions. Only after 1941 was all of Germany's and the Soviet's forces fully engaged and from 1943 or when almost of Britain's forces were engaged. When looked at like that the heavy duty fighting was of a similar duration of WW1.

So the answer to a WW1 lasting into1920 is for big parts of the fighting to cease for prolonged periods, perhaps defeating Russia and Italy in early 1917 and leaving the western front as the only theatre for some time. Or perhaps have Britain under the pump at sea so they don't build up the BEF as big and as fast.
 
I am curious if there are any time lines on here I could be pointed to or what would lead to the Great War lasting unto the 1920s. This has always been an interest of mine, but I don't claim to be enough of an expert in that time period to know what would lead to a longer war. Thoughts?

Very difficult. Both sides' troops were getting pretty tired.

Best way is for the US to stay neutral and the Germans, with no AEF to worry about, sticking to a defensive strategy on the western Front. Even then however, it is unlikely to extend the war beyond 1919, if the Entente has continued to bash it's head against what (given the reinforcements moved from Russia) will now be a brick wall. I doubt if the troops would endure this beyond 1919, and it's not even certain that they would do so beyond 1918.
 
It is very difficult indeed. If the US stays out then the Entente is crippled and can probably be defeated in 1918. Germany is suffering too and needs to end the war, so the idea that they just sit there in 1918 doing nothing is really quite improbable. There's no need to ask for an Armistice if the enemy isn't advancing. It wasn't coincidence that the German request for an Armistice came after the Hundred Days, not beforehand.

Hang on, here's a thought. No USW in 1917, no US entry, Entente finances and industrial production crippled.
1918 - Germany redeploys west but, misjudging the Entente's strength, either does not attack or makes a half-arsed effort that the Entente manages to repel, but refuses to ask for an Armistice. Germany decides that the war cannot be won on land and so the USW lobby, saying it can end the war in six months with minimal loses, gets the go-ahead, resulting in US entry and reinvigoration of the Entente.

That probably leads to an Entente... well, American... victory in 1919. Alternatively, the USW lobby loses, and in 1919 Germany realises that she wasted 1918 and does a proper attack that succeeds and forces an Armistice request.
 
It is very difficult indeed. If the US stays out then the Entente is crippled and can probably be defeated in 1918. Germany is suffering too and needs to end the war, so the idea that they just sit there in 1918 doing nothing is really quite improbable. There's no need to ask for an Armistice if the enemy isn't advancing. It wasn't coincidence that the German request for an Armistice came after the Hundred Days, not beforehand.

OTOH that's not how they did it in Russia. Apart from the recovery of Eastern Galicia and the capture of a couple of islands in the Baltic, the Eastern Front in December 1917 was still pretty much where it had been in March - or indeed in December 1915.

The CP didn't beat the Russians primarily by attacking, but by simoly keeping them at bay until they despaired of ever winning. Take away the AEF, and the same tactic could also have worked in the West.

The request for an Armistice came because Germany had gambled everything on an offensive - and failed. Their soldiers (rather like Nivelle's a year before) had been promised that this would be the last battle, which would end the war and allow them to all go home. And by the end of July they knew it hadn't, so their morale cracked, and from August to November they were surrendering at the rate of three or four thousand per day, where previously (bar a couple of "blips" around the time of Arras and Third Ypres) it had been flatlining around one or two thousand per week. With no AEF coming, the High Command doesn't have to gamble.
 
Last edited:
It is very difficult indeed. If the US stays out then the Entente is crippled and can probably be defeated in 1918. Germany is suffering too and needs to end the war, so the idea that they just sit there in 1918 doing nothing is really quite improbable. There's no need to ask for an Armistice if the enemy isn't advancing. It wasn't coincidence that the German request for an Armistice came after the Hundred Days, not beforehand.

Hang on, here's a thought. No USW in 1917, no US entry, Entente finances and industrial production crippled.
1918 - Germany redeploys west but, misjudging the Entente's strength, either does not attack or makes a half-arsed effort that the Entente manages to repel, but refuses to ask for an Armistice. Germany decides that the war cannot be won on land and so the USW lobby, saying it can end the war in six months with minimal loses, gets the go-ahead, resulting in US entry and reinvigoration of the Entente.

That probably leads to an Entente... well, American... victory in 1919. Alternatively, the USW lobby loses, and in 1919 Germany realises that she wasted 1918 and does a proper attack that succeeds and forces an Armistice request.

I see this repeated time after time on this site that some how the Entente will collapse but the Germans - virtually isolated from international trade and supplies are not affected in the same way and will therefore win!

The fact is that people were starving in Germany in 1918 and they were short of everything - people were not staving in Britain and France at the same period and by 1918 the Entente war industries were fully stood up and operating efficiently and producing a staggering amount of munitions and weapons - yet somehow Germany can endure.

As for Half arsed attempts you seem to have forgotten Michael which was a maximum effort in 1918 that failed.
 
OTOH that's not how they did it in Russia. Apart from the recovery of Eastern Galicia and the capture of a couple of islands in the Baltic, the Eastern Front in December 1917 was still pretty much where it had been in March - or indeed in December 1915.

Well, I must be missing something here. I don't understand why you've cited December 1917, because that isn't the end of the war in the east. Yes, the Bolsheviks asked for a ceasefire, but negotiations went on for about a month, and then failed, with agreement unable to be reached. Germany, understandably fed up and wanting to end the war, subsequently attacked. This new offensive was successful and the Bolsheviks were forced to accept terms.

So essentially what we have is the same as in the west - a state hanging on for grim death, until military defeat on the field forced it to accept dictated terms.

If we try to apply this situation to the west, then we have Germany sitting there waiting for the Entente to collapse in revolution or another political crisis, which may or may not happen. But, from the eastern example, even if this does happen, it still didn't end the war and a further offensive was required anyway!
 
Last edited:
Ok, so it's been mentioned that in 1918 Germany was starving. With Brest-Livotsk guaranteeing an independent Ukraine, do you think some sort of deal could be reached in which Ukraine supplies food to the central powers in return for military supplies or something of that nature? Furthermore, could the Germans call in favors with another party such as Mexico or something?
 
Ok, so it's been mentioned that in 1918 Germany was starving. With Brest-Livotsk guaranteeing an independent Ukraine, do you think some sort of deal could be reached in which Ukraine supplies food to the central powers in return for military supplies or something of that nature?

There was such a 'deal' - the problem is that much of Ukraine was in open revolt and anarchy, and in any case the Ukrainian peasants had no intention of giving away their grain. The Central Powers tried extracting food supplies with coercion and violence, but the results were...unimpressive. A lot of enemies made but little food acquired.

The other problem is transport. Ukraine's infrastructure was in bad shape, but that wasn't even the main problem. Germany's own railways were in such a poor state near the end that, IIRC, they couldn't even successfully distribute the food that Germany did have.
 
It would only have demonstrated it.
Well, I must be missing something here. I don't understand why you've cited December 1917, because that isn't the end of the war in the east. Yes, the Bolsheviks asked for a ceasefire, but negotiations went on for about a month, and then failed, with agreement unable to be reached. Germany, understandably fed up and wanting to end the war, subsequently attacked. This new offensive was successful and the Bolsheviks were forced to accept terms.

So essentially what we have is the same as in the west - a state hanging on for grim death, until military defeat on the field forced it to accept dictated terms.

If we try to apply this situation to the west, then we have Germany sitting there waiting for the Entente to collapse in revolution or another political crisis, which may or may not happen. But, from the eastern example, even if this does happen, it still didn't end the war and a further offensive was required anyway!


But Dec 1917 was when Russia was effectively through. The subsequent advance to compel signature of the Treaty was not what defeated Russia. It merely drove home the fact that she had been defeated. The same would have been true had the Entente resumed hostilities in 1919 following a German refusal to sign the ToV. This would not have changed the fact that Germany had actually been defeated in 1918. It would merely have demonstrated it.

It was not offensive action (post-1915) that brought about Russia's defeat
 
It would only have demonstrated it.


But Dec 1917 was when Russia was effectively through. The subsequent advance to compel signature of the Treaty was not what defeated Russia. It merely drove home the fact that she had been defeated. The same would have been true had the Entente resumed hostilities in 1919 following a German refusal to sign the ToV. This would not have changed the fact that Germany had actually been defeated in 1918. It would merely have demonstrated it.

It was not offensive action (post-1915) that brought about Russia's defeat

Effectively through? Probably. But effectively is not good enough, it needs to be actually over! In the east, the historical record shows that Brest-Litovsk required a further offensive. Sorry, but you can't spin it any other way!

Now, in the context of the west, the problem is even greater. Germany's problem is that she needs the blockade lifted. Since the blockade is likely to be the Entente's main weapon and hope at this point, it will be the last weapon that they relinquish. Sitting there doing nothing will not force them to relinquish it, it will have to be torn from their hands.

Offensive pressure is required to achieve this, and until it happens, the war will not be over, Germany will not have actually won and the suffering and economic paralysis under the blockade will continue. And every day that this farce continues, with one side capable of winning but refusing to do so, the voices calling out for a final, war-winning offensive will grow louder. Both from the Army and the U-boats...
 
Effectively through? Probably. But effectively is not good enough, it needs to be actually over! In the east, the historical record shows that Brest-Litovsk required a further offensive. Sorry, but you can't spin it any other way!

Now, in the context of the west, the problem is even greater. Germany's problem is that she needs the blockade lifted. Since the blockade is likely to be the Entente's main weapon and hope at this point, it will be the last weapon that they relinquish. Sitting there doing nothing will not force them to relinquish it, it will have to be torn from their hands.

Offensive pressure is required to achieve this, and until it happens, the war will not be over, Germany will not have actually won and the suffering and economic paralysis under the blockade will continue. And every day that this farce continues, with one side capable of winning but refusing to do so, the voices calling out for a final, war-winning offensive will grow louder. Both from the Army and the U-boats...

What if the blockade was never fully instituted in the first place? What if instead of building up the BEF to 60 divisions the British instead have to defend the Channel Coast/Dover Strait from long range shore batteries and light naval forces and blockade the Channel from about Cherbourg/Portland Bill?
 
Effectively through? Probably. But effectively is not good enough, it needs to be actually over! In the east, the historical record shows that Brest-Litovsk required a further offensive. Sorry, but you can't spin it any other way!

Only if an advance into a vacuum against negligible opposition counts as an "offensive". The Russian armies weren't defeated by an offensive.

Now, in the context of the west, the problem is even greater. Germany's problem is that she needs the blockade lifted. Since the blockade is likely to be the Entente's main weapon and hope at this point, it will be the last weapon that they relinquish. Sitting there doing nothing will not force them to relinquish it, it will have to be torn from their hands.

Depends what you mean by "need". The Germans would certainly have welcomed an end to it, but as long as their front was unbreakable, they were perfectly capable of holding out in spite of it. The blockade alone was not likely to bring Germany down at any foreseeable date.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As an aside, people are going to start dying like flies from the Spanish Flu, especially the troops. Unlike the seasonal flu the Spanish Pandemic was particularly lethal for those in the "prime" of life (the H1N1 virus attacked the immune system, causing it to over-react). The H1N1 mutation now appears to have originated, as is often the case, on the Asian steppe in China (recent speculation is the dispatch of 90,000 Chinese laborers to work behind the front lines in France may have been the vector, but no one really knows).

H1N1 in 1918 was remarkably lethal, with at least 50M, perhaps 100M dying (Converted to today's populations that would be 175-350M). Overall death rates were serious but much higher among those between 17-40 with up to 20% of those infected in that age group succumbing, than with the very young or very old.

Here is a quote from an American doctor with the AEF

These men start with what appears to be an ordinary attack of LaGrippe or Influenza, and when brought to the Hosp. they very rapidly develop the most vicious type of Pneumonia that has ever been seen … and a few hours later you can begin to see the Cyanosis extending from their ears and spreading all over the face, until it is hard to distinguish the colored men from the white. It is only a matter of a few hours then until death comes…. It is horrible. One can stand it to see one, two or twenty men die, but to see these poor devils dropping like flies…. We have been averaging about 100 deaths per day…. Pneumonia means in about all cases death…. We have lost an outrageous number of Nurses and Drs. It takes special trains to carry away the dead. For several days there were no coffins and the bodies piled up something fierce…. It beats any sight they ever had in France after a battle. An extra long barracks has been vacated for the use of the Morgue, and it would make any man sit up and take notice to walk down the long lines of dead soldiers all dressed and laid out in double rows…. Good By old Pal, God be with you till we meet again

This was not even simply an exceptionally lethal flu. The symptoms were such that it was initially though to Dengue Fever, Typhoid, or Cholera. Terrifying stuff.

War is going to end by 1919. Not enough troops left to fight.

https://www.nap.edu/read/11150/chapter/3#59
 
Last edited:
Only if an advance into a vacuum against negligible opposition counts as an "offensive". The Russian armies weren't defeated by an offensive.

Depends what you mean by "need". The Germans would certainly have welcomed an end to it, but as long as their front was unbreakable, they were perfectly capable of holding out in spite of it. The blockade alone was not likely to bring Germany down at any foreseeable date.

It was clearly an offensive, and it was necessary to force Brest-Litovsk and actually politically settle the war in the east. Debating over whether the Russian armies had already been defeated or not (I agree that they basically had) misses the key point that it was the political settlement that was required.

I agree that Germany can probably tolerate the blockade, especially a leaky one with the US out and with some loot arriving from the east. But simply holding out isn't their objective, they want the war ended and the blockade gone! The blockade is still inflicting great hardship and everyone, from industrialists to workers and soldiers, will be looking forward to the end of the war, when they can go home, return to their families and rebuild the normal peacetime economy. But this requires the blockade gone, which will almost certainly require a political settlement in the west, and the example of the east is that a final offensive was required.

If Germany attacks in the summer of this 1918, she can probably do her own version of the Hundred Days against the weak Entente forces and force an Armistice in the autumn. If she choose to sit and wait, things will drag on longer, into 1919, because of the absence of pressure on the Entente.
 
You would have to have Germany not implement the disastrous Hindenburg Programme, and then they could probably hold out into 1920-1921 if they didn't collapse militarily.
 
It was clearly an offensive, and it was necessary to force Brest-Litovsk and actually politically settle the war in the east. Debating over whether the Russian armies had already been defeated or not (I agree that they basically had) misses the key point that it was the political settlement that was required.

I agree that Germany can probably tolerate the blockade, especially a leaky one with the US out and with some loot arriving from the east. But simply holding out isn't their objective, they want the war ended and the blockade gone! The blockade is still inflicting great hardship and everyone, from industrialists to workers and soldiers, will be looking forward to the end of the war, when they can go home, return to their families and rebuild the normal peacetime economy. But this requires the blockade gone, which will almost certainly require a political settlement in the west, and the example of the east is that a final offensive was required.

If Germany attacks in the summer of this 1918, she can probably do her own version of the Hundred Days against the weak Entente forces and force an Armistice in the autumn. If she choose to sit and wait, things will drag on longer, into 1919, because of the absence of pressure on the Entente.

Though there would be pressure on the Entente of a different kind.

Is it really politically possible for them to stay on the defensive, given the huge chunks of territory under German occupation? If the war ends with a cease fire in place, they go into peace talks with no bargaining chips except a sliver of Alsace, some mostly worthless German colonies, and two corners of the Ottoman Empire. So at some point they have to take the offensive to try and dislodge the Germans from at least some of their conquests. This seems me the difference. An offensive is an option for the Germans, but at least they have a choice about it. Afaics the Entente doesn't. And assuming that the Entente offensives, when they come, achieve no more, territorially, than those of previous years, then at some point aren't their soldiers going to come to the conclusion that "C'est impossible". Then the stage might indeed be set for a Hundred Days in reverse.
 
Top