Most threads I've seen approach the question of winning WWI from the angle of the Central Powers, or Germany doing something better which will get them a better out come. I've long thought there was no easily addresed way they could have done so. The Central Poweres were near the top of thei game & without large changes, many years earlier the war was not theirs to win. Conversely could it have been for the Allies to lose? That is were there any logical and fairly easily reached decisions or actions that could have lost the war for them. Realistically this includes one or more different leaders being chosen.
I guess this is not a standard WI, but rather a question about the actual ability of the Allied leaders & other factors on the Allied side.
My first thought on this is a little less adroit handling of the morale problems within the Allied armies in 1916 - 17 would have done it. As it was the Russian Army fell apart from the Brusilov Offensive in 1916 & the French Army had its mutinies in the spring & summer of 1917. Would just a bit more heavy handed & clumsy leadership on the part of a marshal or two have caused the Russian, French, or British armies discipline to fail faster or further?
I guess this is not a standard WI, but rather a question about the actual ability of the Allied leaders & other factors on the Allied side.
My first thought on this is a little less adroit handling of the morale problems within the Allied armies in 1916 - 17 would have done it. As it was the Russian Army fell apart from the Brusilov Offensive in 1916 & the French Army had its mutinies in the spring & summer of 1917. Would just a bit more heavy handed & clumsy leadership on the part of a marshal or two have caused the Russian, French, or British armies discipline to fail faster or further?