The Greatly Extended War

Just a general question, really: How could World War I have been made to last longer, by how much, and what might the results have been on the societies of the major powers involved? Meaning Germany, Britain, France, and Russia if they were involved (I can't recall off-hand).
 
There was a phase, around late 1916 into early 1918, where it seemed on the Western Front that the war could go on forever. The trenches seemed so permanent- read the collected Wipers Times- that it would not be long before the men of the front would have built houses behind the lines and would be commuting to work by underground rail. That the process would gradually become normalised, simmer down to attrition at replacement level, and their grandchildren would still be there.

The breakdown of civilisation, slowly falling apart and degenerating to closed, inward- looking communities, villages in empty nations, seemed likely to follow. That was how it felt, anyway. There was a moment when it felt as if it could be a second Hundred Years' War, when both sides had done their offensive best and failed.

American nonintervention would have brought that a lot closer, and in the end the determinant would have been economic, or possibly environmental- a bad harvest combined with the blockade would have pushed Germany over the edge eventually, if the U- boats didn't do the same to Britain first. So, yes, the ultimate limiting factor was the ability of the nations' economies to sustain the war.

Without gambling for victory in the field, the war could have gone on until one side or other underwent complete collapse- as both nearly did- or until there is militant pacifist revolution.
 
1918 was already stretching it. Russia already had a revolution that knocked it out of the war, and some units in the French army were just about ready to kill each other.

To extend the war, an interesting notion would be to have one side or both marred by alternate forms of extremism in the years leading to the war. Britain and the Soviet Union took far more damage on the home front in World War II than they did in World War I, yet still held on to the end, as the Germany they would be surrendering to was demonstrably more extremist, intolerant of their own systems and set on the actual occupation and destruction of their countries, whereas Imperial Germany would at most demand colonies, economic concession and relatively little shifts in the borders of Europe. Making World War I the 'War of Annihilation' the propaganda made it out to be would do a good bit towards keeping the people 'on-side' for longer.

To do that, PoD before 1900 may be required. A 'Red Spring' could suffice, revolutions succeeding in some countries and failing in others. Communist Britain and France in the later 1800's seems like the most possible, with PoDs involving harsher reaction to union demands for worker's rights and the Franco-Prussian War's aftermath serving as the window for a revolution to begin. They'd both have trouble making the colonies follow suit, Canada almost certainly a lost cause, but Britain's navy keeps Australia and Asia close enough to keep hold of, French Africa is still close enough for an even more unstable France, and both would likely have each other for support, instead of having the Entente Cordiale signed only in 1904. Russia is tougher, they really needed to have a big war for the communists to get a window, and their position on the other side of Germany is crucial to not make the war a stomp for the German-centred anti-communists. A solution would be for the German army to decide upon a 'Russia First' strategy, or for the war to start off as a Russo-German war, and the Entente offering Russia a deal with 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

This could mould the main three deciding participants of the war into more extreme systems willing to take so much punishment for years on end (Britain and France as bold global pariahs trying to encourage a new world order, and Germany a powerful young force with a revolution to crush) and keep the fourth (the United States) out of the whole business. It would also help out Austria-Hungary, as Italy would more likely side with the Central Powers.

A more successful suffragette movement could, could, lead to a longer possible war. Putting women into the factories, or even on the front, means a greater utilisation of labour and longer before one side or the other breaks. The USSR made use of women as tank crews and pilots. It could easily fall into dieselpunk trappings :rolleyes:, although many of those stories are indeed inspired by imagining a longer Great War.
 

ROTS Anakin

Banned
When the war ended, France was *this* close on a communist revolution. The entire French army was planning a munity.

Had the war kept going, France would have collapsed.

The Irish are about to start a very bloody revolt. Meanwhile Germany was starving.

Throw in the Spanish Flu. If the war goes on another year without America, all of Europe goes communist.
 
Top