Reverse WI- Continuous WWI

Greetings. This is my first post here, so I'm not entirely savvy to all the forum's unwritten policies, so if I come off as an idiot, go easy on me.

I am interested in what would have been required in terms of historical events to have happened in order to realize a continuous World War I, even into present time. What would have happened to prevent the the Treaty of Versailles? What would have happened to kept the world in a state of perpetual total war?

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to imagine a story that takes place in a 2009 in which World War I never ended and had thrust us into a dark, wartorn dark age, what is a believable alternate history?
 
Technically the Korean War never ended, there's just been a 50 ceasefire. You would have to have a similar thing to extend WWI, probably with fresh fighting every 5 years or so.
 

MrP

Banned
If I'm correctly imagining what you have in mind - trench warfare, futile assaults, barbed wire everywhere - it's pretty much impossible, I'm afraid. War is an expensive business, especially a World War, in money, materials and men. The frightful casualty figures of the Great War weren't sustainable IOTL - the European powers were running low on available manpower by 1918, after only four years of such warfare, and the impact on morale of the casualties was not to be overlooked, both for soldiers being shelled or shot at and for their families at home.

There are also technological problems to be overcome. The popular view is that WWI was a primitive war, but in fact it was filled with military innovations: tanks, the aeroplane as fighter, reconnaissance aircraft and bomber, the ubiquitous machine gun, massive leaps in the employment of artillery, and so forth. Warfare in 1918 was vastly removed from that of 1914 at both the strategic and tactical level, as soldiers and generals learned better ways of doing things.

To drag anything approaching such a war to the present day is very difficult. One would be best off with a series of shorter, cheaper, less crippling wars, but even they would take their toll on the home front, and martial technology would improve both between and during the wars.
 
Good stuff to wrap my head around. So, it would probably be more realistic to setup a fragile ceasefire and allow time for the powers to build up their war resources and periodically break the treaties with massive bloodshed to keep everyone at each other's throats. Sounding more plausible?
 

mowque

Banned
Good stuff to wrap my head around. So, it would probably be more realistic to setup a fragile ceasefire and allow time for the powers to build up their war resources and periodically break the treaties with massive bloodshed to keep everyone at each other's throats. Sounding more plausible?

Sounds like OTL? Or do you mean they attack each other for the same reasons each time? How do you stop someone from winning?
 
Germany captures Paris in the beginning months of the war and forces the French to surrender. Belgium, Luxembourg and the coal-rich areas of France are annexed as German territory. British troops are stationed in the Netherlands in anticipation for a German invasion.

In the East it does not take long for the Russians to collapse. Poland and The Ukraine are created as German puppet states. Germany supports the White Russians and by now Italy is firmly in the Central Powers camp.

Austria-Hungary has annexed Serbia, Montenegro and northern Bulgaria (Romania receives southern Bulgaria). Italian, Austrian, Hungarian and Ottoman soldiers shift their focus to fighting a demoralized force of ANZAC soldiers in North Africa.

Meanwhile Japanese Marines have captured all German colonial holdings in the Pacific.

With most European nations leaning towards Germany and the virginity of the Netherlands intact, the first of The Great Wars comes to a close despite the war as a whole still continuing.

All the British have to show is a massive naval victory over the Germans in Jutland and a strong show of force in the Netherlands.

The ongoing Russian Civil War is seen as some sort of intermission between the conflict to come.
 
Not very probable, neither Germany, nor Austria-Hungary, nor Russia were stable enough to hold out.
Germany was bound to become a democracy anyway, A-H was bound to break apart und Russia was due for the next two or three revolutions.

However, an early decision (CP lose in 1915) might bring about a hardening of stances - if the Entente goes for their outragious war aims. Rest Germany and Rest A-H remain defiant monarchies, Russia evades revolution. The three eagles come together again. That perhaps might work.
 
Greetings. This is my first post here, so I'm not entirely savvy to all the forum's unwritten policies, so if I come off as an idiot, go easy on me.

I am interested in what would have been required in terms of historical events to have happened in order to realize a continuous World War I, even into present time. What would have happened to prevent the the Treaty of Versailles? What would have happened to kept the world in a state of perpetual total war?

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to imagine a story that takes place in a 2009 in which World War I never ended and had thrust us into a dark, wartorn dark age, what is a believable alternate history?

Belongs in the ASB forum
 
Sounds like OTL? Or do you mean they attack each other for the same reasons each time? How do you stop someone from winning?

No, ATL was more of what I had in mind. Basically I'm looking for a situation where a stalemate is in effect, but with far, far, less casualties than the early years of the war. The war is still in effect, but slower.

Anybody have any links to a similar TL?
 
No, ATL was more of what I had in mind. Basically I'm looking for a situation where a stalemate is in effect, but with far, far, less casualties than the early years of the war. The war is still in effect, but slower.

Anybody have any links to a similar TL?

Thats difficult as the intial military philosophy of all sides was to exact a short a swift blow and make some territorial grabs without completley upsetting the balance of power.
 
Thats difficult as the intial military philosophy of all sides was to exact a short a swift blow and make some territorial grabs without completley upsetting the balance of power.

Well, a "swift blow" by Germany would have completely upset the balance of power (by removing France as a truly independent first-rate power and handing Germany domination of western Europe), and although the Germans saw the war in the same terms of preventative salvation of civilisation as everyone else, this fact was quietly acknolwedged and lay behind much of the diplomacy that took place during the war.

Germany captures Paris in the beginning months of the war and forces the French to surrender. Belgium, Luxembourg and the coal-rich areas of France are annexed as German territory. British troops are stationed in the Netherlands in anticipation for a German invasion.

The Germans didn't intend to annex Belgium in 1914 (the September program involved economic and political domination and border adjustments, and in 1917-18 they were actually in cahoots with radical Fleming movements, IIRC, rather than planning to just annex everything), and the Netherlands were Germanophile, allowing German troops to skip across their territory in retreat and sheltering "Onkel Willie", which was why the Germans altered the Schlieffen plan to tiptoe around them. German victory and domination in Belgium would mean the inclusion of the Netherlands in the economic bloc securing German hegemony in Europe outlined by Hollweg in the September program. Germany has no motivation to invade its friend, and the Netherlands no motivation to invite in British troops.

In the East it does not take long for the Russians to collapse.

In the event of German total victory in the west, the Russians would make peace on the quick. They were even attempting to do the opposite and sell out the western Entente in 1916, when Sturmer took over the government and tried to save the regime by any means. This will have interesting consequences for Russia, but 1917-style physical disintegration isn't on the table. The Russians were still in full control of their own territory (the CP only occupied odds and end until after Gorlice-Tarnow), the army existed and had discipline (and in late 1914 wasn't even at the worst of the supply crunch), the government had power and prestige left in it, and state infrastructure was in working order. The Bolsheviks, who given your references to "whites" I imagine feature in your scenario, would have no opportunity for a coup under such circumstances.

Poland and The Ukraine are created as German puppet states. Germany supports the White Russians and by now Italy is firmly in the Central Powers camp.

Ukraine? How did the Germans get there? Its still under the control of the Russian state, thought of by pretty much everyone as an integral part of Russia (far more than Lithuania, which actually was on the German program as early as 1915, I believe). Do remember that Ukrainian nationalism at this point in time tends to be exagerrated. The creation of a (brief and doomed) united Ukraine claiming full sovereignty was a result of a very specific circumstances. Various important nationalists, including such diverse fellows as Skoropads'kyj and Hrushevs'kyj, advocated a Ukraine autonomous within Russia, and Kiev, like most large Dniepr Ukraine cities, was majority Russophone.

Austria-Hungary has annexed Serbia, Montenegro and northern Bulgaria (Romania receives southern Bulgaria).

The Austrians had no intention of creating still more trouble for themselves by annexing more south Slavs. Serbia was to be occupied and placed under a cliant government, and slabs of it to be awarded to Bulgaria. Speaking of which, you appear to have gotten Bulgaria and Romania mixed up, and neither was in the war at this point.

Italian, Austrian, Hungarian and Ottoman soldiers shift their focus to fighting a demoralized force of ANZAC soldiers in North Africa.

The Ottomans aren't in the war yet. Britain can certainly beat Italy in Libya alone, but why hasn't Britain made peace?

Meanwhile Japanese Marines have captured all German colonial holdings in the Pacific.

So the Germans have captured Paris the there is somehow still a war?

With most European nations leaning towards Germany and the virginity of the Netherlands intact, the first of The Great Wars comes to a close despite the war as a whole still continuing.

Err, what?

All the British have to show is a massive naval victory over the Germans in Jutland and a strong show of force in the Netherlands.

Jutland? First months of the war? :confused:

The ongoing Russian Civil War is seen as some sort of intermission between the conflict to come.

So Germany has become European top dawg... and the main cadidate to oppose it has rather inexplicably fallen into civil war. That's pretty much the opposite of a reicpe for future conflict.
 
Last edited:
I Blane Communism - Let me first thank you for replying to my post, by rebuking me you have at the same time educated me.


The Germans didn't intend to annex Belgium in 1914 (the september program involved economic an political domination and border adjustments, and in 1917-18 they were actually in cahoots with radical Fleming movements, IIRC, rather than planning to just annex everything), and the Netherlands were Germanophile, allowing German troops to skip across their territory in retreat and sheltering "Onkel Willie", which was why the Germans altered thhe Schlieffen plan to tiptoe around them. German victory and domination in Belgium would mean the inclusion of the Netherlands in the economic bloc securing german hegemony in Europe outlined by Hollweg in the September program. Germany has no motivation to invade its friend, and the Netherlands no motivation to invite in British troops.

I had no idea that The Netherlands was so tender towards the Germans. Their friendlyness would keep British troops of the European continent. Unless Denmark was looking to require Schelswig-Holstein.


In the event of German total victory in the west, the Russians would make peace on the quick. They were even attempting to do the opposite and sell out the western Entente in 1916, when Sturmer took over the government and tried to save the regime by any means. This will have interesting consequences for Russia, but 1917-style physical disintegration isn't on the table. The Russians were still in full control of their own territory (the CP only occupied odds and end until after Gorlice-Tarnow), the army existed and had discipline (and in late 1914 wasn't even at the worst of the supply crunch), the government had power and prestige left in it, and state infrastructure wa sin working order. The Bolsheviks, who given your references to "whites" I imagine feature in your scenario, would have no opportunity for a coup under such circumstances.

Very well then, with Russia seeking peace with Germany there would be no civil war. But would not Germany take the land it wanted from Russia? Poland and The Ukraine?

Ukraine? How did teh Germans get their? Its still under the control of the Russian state, thought of by pretty much everyone as an integral part of Russia (far more than Lithuania, which actually was on the German program as early as 1915, I believe). Do remember that Ukrainian nationalism at this point in tiem tends to be exagerrated. The creation of a (brief and doomed) united Ukraine claiming full sovereignty was a resuklt of a very specific circumstances. Various important nationalists, including such diverse fellows as Skoropads'kyj and Hrushevs'kyj, advocated a Ukrain autonomous within Russia, and Kiev was majority Russophone.

They didnt "get there" but would rather create Ukraine to buffer Russia from Austria. But seeing how the Russians wanted peace and Ukraine wasnt totally nationalistic at this point I would say there wouldnt be an independent Ukraine.

The Austrians had no intention of creating still more trouble for themselves by annexing more south Slavs. Serbia was to be occupied and placed under a cliant government, and slabs of it to be awarded to Bulgaria. Speaking of which, you appear to have gotten Bulgaria and Romania mixed up, and neither was in the war at this point.

Was not Bulgaria leaning towards Germany from the start? With a victorious Germany wouldnt they just leap over the river and into the CP camp? On second though, if Germany was doing so well Romania might want to just stay nuetral at this point.

The Ottomans aren't in the war yet. Britain can certainly beat Italy in Libya alone, but why hasn't Britain made peace?

Britain would still enjoy naval supremacy. Again, on second thought, with Germany not needing to tie Britain down so much they would probably not need to conclude an alliance with the Ottoman Empire.

Jutland? First months of the war? :confused:

Well not Jutland per say, but a similiar naval victory for the British. This one would be overwhelming.

So Germany has become European top dawg... and the main cadidate to oppose it has rather inexplicably fallen into civil war. That's pretty much the opposite of a reicpe for future conflict.

Nuh uh! Great Britain and her colonies still remain in the war... Though I was planning on making the United States enter the war but I dont see how they would, being so isolationist and all. So yes, you are correct.
 
I once tried to keep WW1 going for as long as possible by assuming that the USA entered the war a few months late https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=2121668#post2121668. My POD was that the Germans do not send the Zimmermann Telegram and divide their steel between tanks and U-boats (in addition, we could have Conrad keeping more forces opposing Russia in 1916, so that the Brusilov Offensive failed and Rumania started to calculate that it was more likely to gain territory from Russia than Austro-Hungary). The idea was that the French Army collapses just as the first Americans arrive, so that we reach a 1944 like position in the West with Russia locked in civil war to the East. With 1918 strategic bombers and no chance of nuclear weapons, it could be a long war!
 
I Blane Communism - Let me first thank you for replying to my post, by rebuking me you have at the same time educated me.

Thanks, old boy.

I had no idea that The Netherlands was so tender towards the Germans. Their friendlyness would keep British troops of the European continent. Unless Denmark was looking to require Schelswig-Holstein.

Interesting question, that. On one hand, they did want Schleswig (not Holstein: "let the -H go and keep the S" had been their policy since 1848, pretty much), and there was a bit of a political upset after the war when the southern half of Schleswig voted German and Denmark just went along, which the king didn't like (I may have drastically misreprestened this, mind).

On the other hand, during the war Denmark was too sensible to get itself invaded and so behaved as a pro-German neutral, allowing Germany to seal the Baltic entrances with mines. So I'd say Denmark is unlikely to bring in German troops with Germany victorious in Europe.

Very well then, with Russia seeking peace with Germany there would be no civil war. But would not Germany take the land it wanted from Russia? Poland and The Ukraine?

Germany had no defined eastern policy. The September program pretty much said "leave that to the generals". Hollweg was still willing to give everything back in 1916, but that was sabotaged by Ludendorff proclaiming his sham Kingdom of Poland. The German military, after Gorlice-Tarnow, pretty much wanted what they actually had in military terms: Polish, Lthuanian, and Courlandian puppet states. This was their initial offer to the Reds. The occupation of the Ukraine happened because the Bolsheviks were, for very curious reasons which I don't fully understand, explicitly refusing to make either war or peace, leaving Germany nothing to do except keep advancing and make agreements with local anti-Bolshevik forces such as the Ukrainian Central Rada.

So in summary, if Germany beat France early on, it would at most demand Poland, Lithuania, and Courland, and you might even see an Austro-Poland without the Brusilov offensive.

They didnt "get there" but would rather create Ukraine to buffer Russia from Austria. But seeing how the Russians wanted peace and Ukraine wasnt totally nationalistic at this point I would say there wouldnt be an independent Ukraine.

Indeed. Ukraine, it should be noted, hasn't been "totally nationalistic" at any point, and certainly isn't now! The situation is very complex.

Was not Bulgaria leaning towards Germany from the start? With a victorious Germany wouldnt they just leap over the river and into the CP camp? On second though, if Germany was doing so well Romania might want to just stay nuetral at this point.

Bulgaria was leaning towards whoever could fulfill its irredentism, which was indeed clearly the CP, since they were invading Serbia and everything. However the actual government was just about able to keep the revolutionary ex-terrorists in Thrace and Pirin Macedonia under control, and didn't go over until the Ottomans did, considering it too risky. However, I should certainly think that Bulgaria would make an agreement with the Central Powers to grab parts of Serbia, probably becoming an effective junior member.

Romania wasn't going to join the war against Germany at all until the king, a Hohenzollern raised German, died in '16 and his fully Romanianised succesor took over. In fact, if Germany was winning, Romania could jump in on the Russians to get Besserabia.

Britain would still enjoy naval supremacy.

But there's no viable source of succour in 1914. Britain in 1940 had powerful potential allies to reach out to (America and the Russians), not to mention that we were up against a megalomaniacal loon who had torn or would tear up every treaty signed with him. In late '14/early '15, American intervention was a thousand miles away and the Russians were in no position to fight Germany alone. Britain would have done the sensible thing and make as good a peace as could be found.

Again, on second thought, with Germany not needing to tie Britain down so much they would probably not need to conclude an alliance with the Ottoman Empire.

Well, the alliance came from the Ottoman end just as much as the German. I'd have to know an exact date of the end of the war to say what will happen with the Ottomans.

Well not Jutland per say, but a similiar naval victory for the British. This one would be overwhelming.

Thing is, the circumstances that brought about Jutland were change of policy in Germany. For the whole of '14-'15. the German fleet was skulking in port to preserve itself, and with victory on land there's no motivation to risk the Kaiser's great showpiece.

Nuh uh! Great Britain and her colonies still remain in the war... Though I was planning on making the United States enter the war but I dont see how they would, being so isolationist and all. So yes, you are correct.

A differant scenario, however, without a Russian collapse, and with Britain making an uneasy peace, is interesting, however. Future developments in Russia, Germany, and Britain are all very interesting. I see echoes of 1812 and 1941 in the overall situation. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
Top