The Ultimate, Unanswered Question in Post-1900 Forum: Quick Entente or CP Victory?

Which one is better?

  • Quick/Early Entente Victory

    Votes: 49 59.8%
  • Quick/Early CP Victory

    Votes: 33 40.2%

  • Total voters
    82
Yes...I remember that it has been only a while ago when I posted a similar poll, but this very question has been left unanswered in said thread: Which one is the best WWI outcome for the world as a whole, quick Entente or quick CP victory?

Proposed scenarios:

Quick/Early Entente Victory
1914
August 17: The Russian Army enters East Prussia.
August 20: The Germans attack the Russians in East Prussia. The attack is a failure in addition to being a violation of the Schlieffen Plan.
August 17 - August 30: Battle of Tannenberg. After an unfortunate series of events, the German army undergoes a heavy defeat by the Russians. An almost complete destruction of German Eight Army.
August 23 - August 25: Russian Fourth Army defeats Austro-Hungarian First Army at Galicia.
August 25: Japan declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary.
August 26: Emboldened by their recent victories, Russia declares war on Ottoman Empire after finding evidences that the Ottomans gave safe harbour to German ships that fleeing from British ships.
August 27: France and the United Kingdom declare war on the Ottoman Empire.
August 28: British and Japanese forces capture the German-controlled port of Tsingtao in China.
September 5 – September 12: First Battle of the Marne. The German advance on Paris is halted, marking the failure of the Schlieffen Plan.
September 7: Sultan Mehmed V declares jihad on the Entente.
September 10 - September 20: Ottoman troops suffer major casualties in Caucasus Campaign.
September 15: London Pact between the Entente and Italy.
October 8: Italy officially revokes the Triple Alliance, and subsequently declares war on Austria-Hungary.
October 10: First Battle of Isonzo. Major Italian victory over Austro-Hungarian troops.
October 18 - October 31: The Ottomans fail to capture Suez Canal.
November 10 - November 17: British and French naval attack on Dardanelles, and the subsequent landings of Entente forces on Gallipoli.
November 25 - November 30: Several squadrons of Kaiserliche Marine are destroyed by British Grand Fleet.
December 1 - December 20: Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman Empire keep trying to do their best in order to hold the Entente forces in multi-front wars, yet it becomes more and more apparent that the Entente holds the upper hand in this conflicts.
December 24 - December 25: An unofficial Christmas truce is declared between Entente and CP. Leaderships of the Central Powers begin discussing whether this war is worth continuing or not.
1915
January 2
: Governments of Central Powers ask the Entente for an armistice, and quickly accepted. Peace Conference begins.

Quick/Early CP Victory
1914
August 7
: British Expeditionary Force arrives in France.
August 14 - August 24: Using swift movements and maneuver, French Third and Fifth Armies, as well as the majority of BEF are successfully encircled and subsequently destroyed by the Germans. The Race to the Sea begins.
August 16 - August 19: Battle of Cer. The Austro-Hungarians defeat the Serbs, and continue to advance toward Belgrad.
August 17: The Russian army enters East Prussia.
August 20 - September 5: German counterattacks in East Prussia are major successes. The Russians are retreating eastward with heavy casualties.
August 23: Japan declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary.
August 25 - September 11: Battle of the Yser. German forces secure the coastline of Belgium.
August 28: British and Japanese forces capture the German-controlled port of Tsingtao in China.
August 30 - September 20: First Battle of the Ypres ends the Race to the Sea. The British and the French are prevented from reaching Calais and Dunkirk.
September 1: Austro-Hungarian troops enter and occupy Belgrad.
September 5 - September 12: Major German victory at Battle of the Marne. The Germans continue their march toward Paris.
September 7 - September 14: First Battle of the Masurian Lakes. The Russian army are forced to completely withdraws from German soil, yet with another heavy casualties.
September 8: The Austro-Hungarians successfully encircle and subsequently destroy Russian Fifth Army at Galicia.
September 10: The Ottomans, eager to take advantage from continued Russian military defeats, declares war on Russia.
September 13: Italy declares war on France, hoping to gain Nice, Savoy, Corsica, and Tunisia.
September 15 - September 29: The Ottomans win some major victories in the Caucasus, albeit with heavy casualties.
September 25: Fall of Paris to German Army. French governments flee to Bordeaux.
October 1 - October 10: Both Germans and Austro-Hungarians continue their march through Russian territories.
October 20: Realizing that the situation is hopeless, the French governments ask for an armistice to the CP. Russia follows the suit immediately afterwards. The British, seeing their two major allies in the continent have already surrendered, reluctantly ask for armistice as well.
October 30: The Peace Conference begins.

Is there anything wrong with the two scenarios above, anyway?
 
Well no war is "quick and easy" if you're on the losing side. There is always that national desire for retribution.

Seems both scenarios would permit modest gains by the victors without completely crippling the defeated though.

Ironiclly I could see either scenario as "better" for the sole reason a Russian Revolution(at least a successful one) is highly unlikely in either.
 
A quick Entente victory, and ideally a quicker one then you proposed. I suggest a scenario where Germany's advance is halted early in Belgium(which means they don't have access to the nitrates of Antwerp, and are thus completely fucked in a long drawn out Western front, a fucking they would be keenly aware of as inevitable) coupled with their being routed in the East with the destruction of the 8th army and a Russian march on Berlin(Russian advance probably wouldn't reach Berlin, but might be enough to get Germany to call it quits right early on- they know they're ultimately fucked without nitrates, after all).

Assuming Germany does decide to try and hold on a little while longer, the Ottomans would not enter the war(or if they did would on the Allied side) since it would be quite transparent to them which way the winds were blowing. Furthermore Italy and Romania probably jump in much sooner when they see Russia advancing on Berlin for fear on missing out on an easy opportunity- come to think of it Austria-Hungary might bail early on in exchange for a lenient treaty(no point sticking with Germany who's defeat seems inevitable when their are opportunists like Italy that are liable to jump on the Allied bandwagon any given day).


I find this scenario preferable to your scenario for 3 reasons: it means less devastation of Belgium and France, we avoid the disastrous partition of the Ottomans, and it means less deaths and economic/psychological damage to Europe).

Why is this better then an early CP victory? It undermines German militarism, and it strengthens the Russian regime which was poised on the cusp of an economic and demographic boom prior to WW1 and the revolution. It also ends the naval race decisively putting Britain in a position of firm naval dominance, whereas the naval buildup race between Germany and Britain possibly continues with an early CP victory.
 
Last edited:
I would say the Tripe Entente victory is more likely. I could also see a kind-of white peace during the Christmas Truce;
As in, the soldiers lay down their arms during the Christmas truce and then refuse to take up arms.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Quick Entente victory. The result of any German expansion into Eastern Europe would be ... unpleasant.
 
Quick Entente victory is better, simply because it maintains the balance of power. To your timeline, throw in the fact that is theoretically possibly for France and the BEF to win a Tannenberg-like decisive victory over Germany at the Marne.

Quick Central Powers victory will be destabilizing in the long-run.
 
How do the Russians win in East Prussia? Their historical plan was intended for four armies but in practice only two were used and those two deliberately underutilized their manpower relative to those of Germany. Altering why that happened requires some pretty hefty PODs of the sort that alter the entire background to WWI.
 
How do the Russians win in East Prussia? Their historical plan was intended for four armies but in practice only two were used and those two deliberately underutilized their manpower relative to those of Germany. Altering why that happened requires some pretty hefty PODs of the sort that alter the entire background to WWI.

Now that's another hole in my scenario...but I guess Caesar Australis' proposal is much better than mine.
 
In your CP victory scenario, with the Austrians doing better, I don't think it would take a number of weeks for them to take Belgrade. I believe their war plans called for the abandonment of the capital and the north of the country in case the Imperial Army was successful. Also, in this case I think Bulgaria would be even more enthusiastic about jumping on the 'beat up Serbia' bandwagon.
 
In your CP victory scenario, with the Austrians doing better, I don't think it would take a number of weeks for them to take Belgrade. I believe their war plans called for the abandonment of the capital and the north of the country in case the Imperial Army was successful. Also, in this case I think Bulgaria would be even more enthusiastic about jumping on the 'beat up Serbia' bandwagon.

Then I admit that I'm not an expert in Serbian and Bulgarian history...:eek:

Anyway...looking from the poll result, it looks like that this forum has turned its back on Central Powers, so I feel that I'll bring again some points about why I think quick/early CP victory is relatively better than quick/early Entente one.

1. It's much more difficult to imagine a WWII analogue after CP victory, since both France and Russia will be broken beyond their ability to wage a successful offensive war against Mitteleuropa. In early Entente victory world, we'll have an angry Germany and strong Entente...not a good recipe to create a peaceful Europe.
2. In regards to Balkans and Middle East, they will be ended up much better in CP world than in early Entente victory world, no doubt. In the latter, we will have the Entente watching Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman territories with hunger, while in the former we will have strong Germany as their (Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire) ally. So no artificial states in the Balkans, no Islamist-Extremism, no Terrorism...
3. About Colonialism...there is no way the Germans can take the Royal Navy, so I guess Britain and France will still be colonial powers. In fact, in CP victory world both Britain and France will be more bankrupt than in Entente victory world, which means the colonies are either made independent, or granted self-autonomy. The latter may actually be more beneficial in the long run, because they'd have preferential access to the markets of Britain and the White Dominions, and more investment flowing into them from said areas and the United States. At best, the Third World will be richer than OTL or any other Entente victory world, and at worst, this is just a shamefully optimistic dream.
4. In the moral ground, both Entente and CP are more or less equal. They were horrible ouside Europe and even to the minorities in their own homelands as well. Both sides bullied neutral powers in the war,and neither treated their prisoners of war well. So...I guess there is not much difference here.
 
Just re-read this thread again, so...bump.
Any Entente-lovers here want to counter my arguments in the above post?

PS: Sorry for bumping four-months old thread...just curious whether someone here can give arguments against mine...
 
1) It wasn't exactly easy to imagine a post-WWI WWII IOTL. Sure, it might be difficult to prevent a Second Sino-Japanese War, but nothing whatsoever said that Germany being able to do what it did IOTL was inevitable or guaranteed. Germany overstretching itself imperially will offer a mirror to what happened with France IOTL after WWI: France overstretched itself trying to do things far beyond its reasonable ability to do so. Germany is likewise going to have this problem as it's the greatest single power in Europe, economically, but its power is not inexhaustible.

2) Agreed on this one, I don't think anyone would argue the OTL Balkans and Middle East were happy funland or that the changes brought by WWI were some paradise.

3) I rather doubt it. Germany was not very pleasant as an imperial overlord, what it did to the Herero illustrates that much. Exchanging Allied influence for CP for the poor people on the receiving end will be six of one and half a dozen of the other.

4) Sure, this point is arguable but it hardly means a CP victory will be better, it simply indicates that this is an area that would be the same instead of different.
 
It first bares pointing out that these are particular scenarios. That's probably better than leaving it vague, but it must be kept clearly in mind, since the whole point of choosing a quick victory in previous polls on this subject might have been keeping some countries out of the fighting and so limiting the spread of destruction. The Ottomans seem the obvious example, since there's a strong case, often made, that their survival for a longer time would have benefitted the Middle East; and an even stronger one that it would be hard for it to be worse than what actually happened to all the people of the region from 1914 to the middle 20s.

That out of the way:

I don't think it's possible to make long-term guarantees about whether anything short of say, Nazi empire or nuclear holocaust makes for a better world. So I'm thinking short-term.

In the short term, it seems to me that a quick CP victory strengthens the worst elements in German society and leaves Germany an overmighty power whose ambitions seem likely to stretch out the period of European victimisation of everybody else. The Entente are better not so much by virtue of what they are as what they aren't.

Now, Russia. Any quick victory saves millions of victims from civil war; and without the really catastrophic social strain of the long war, it seems to me possible that Russia could have a revolution against the political autocracy and social inequality without falling into destructive totalitarianism, and that would be cool; and it's what the majority of the Russian opposition (even a few Bolsheviks) meant by giving vague assent to the war-effort.

But strengthening the regime as opposed to avoiding Leninism is no good thing. Tsarism wasn't Stalinism - because it didn't live in the age of such extremes. But it was getting ready to enter it. This was a country where the government was giving money to paramilitary Jew-baiting thugs and the MPs were observed by the secret police. Who, by the way, were not cuddles: they behaved themselves in Peterburg, which was supposed to be a European Capital, but there were a lot of sadists in the provincial jails. Where do you think the young Chekists-to-be learned their tricks? In fact I understand that the KGB was using substantial Okhrana training material in the 1980s.

I think that any result of the war is going to weaken the tsarist state as much as strengthen it, hence my vote; but the tsarist state was no mister-nice-guy.
 
1) It wasn't exactly easy to imagine a post-WWI WWII IOTL. Sure, it might be difficult to prevent a Second Sino-Japanese War, but nothing whatsoever said that Germany being able to do what it did IOTL was inevitable or guaranteed. Germany overstretching itself imperially will offer a mirror to what happened with France IOTL after WWI: France overstretched itself trying to do things far beyond its reasonable ability to do so. Germany is likewise going to have this problem as it's the greatest single power in Europe, economically, but its power is not inexhaustible.

2) Agreed on this one, I don't think anyone would argue the OTL Balkans and Middle East were happy funland or that the changes brought by WWI were some paradise.

3) I rather doubt it. Germany was not very pleasant as an imperial overlord, what it did to the Herero illustrates that much. Exchanging Allied influence for CP for the poor people on the receiving end will be six of one and half a dozen of the other.

4) Sure, this point is arguable but it hardly means a CP victory will be better, it simply indicates that this is an area that would be the same instead of different.


A few points. Of all the major participants, Russia is the most autocratic and repressive, and the tensions in that society, even in victory, are not going away. Germany not so autocratic as Russia, nor as democratic as Britain and France. However, I would argue, that Germany's continued economic development will lead to reform. The Prussian voting system was already a subject of contention OTL before the war.

Recall, for all the participants, they expected a 19th century war, which also implies a 19th century peace. I'm voting for quick CP victory, for the precise reason as someone else voted for Entente, essentially preserves a balance of power in Europe. By that I mean Britain and Germany as antagonists. That could be problematic for the future. . .

However, Britain still has the biggest navy, biggest empire, and London is still likely to be the financial center of gravity for the world, especially after a quick war. Britain will have "lost" but will have had likely the least damage economically and the least number of casualties of all the belligerents.

However, Germany was looking and now found a "place in the sun." Wilhelm did not expect his Navy to be a *threat* to Britain OTL, but something you were supposed to have if you had a big overseas empire. At some point, you will have four major naval powers all potential rivals: Britain, USA, Japan and Germany. Probably in that order as a large part of the German budget is going to be spent underwriting the new buffer states between Germany and Russia. (In OTL the Polish mark was guaranteed by the German central bank.)

Africa:

Germany as a colonial master was on balance no worse or better than the other powers in comparison. (Boer war, Leopold's Congo, Algerian independence -- are not great examples of civilization) In some respects though, late to the game, there was some colonial innovation: e.g. the Henry George tax in Kiautschou. There were some successes, the education system in East Africa, and the integration of the local chiefs in Samoan government. We haven't addressed Japanese participation in this TL's peace process, but I'd expect in either situation they don't give back what they've taken. I'd expect New Zealand, to be forced to give back Samoa however.

Germany is not likely to be in a strong position to demand (nor in a financial position to absorb) significant colonial concessions from the Entente. There will be some, but Germany is starting out from a "give me back" (except East Africa) and then "give me more." This leaves the Entente (Britain/France I'm assuming the Congo goes to Germany) and Germany and Italy, still with competing empires in Africa, although Britain may be forced to leave Egypt (i.e. Egypt and Sudan) Also, in OTL Portugal may have sold Angola and Mozambique to Germany and Britain if WWI hadn't begun. Portugal doesn't seem to be a participant in this TL, but economic considerations may still cause that sale at some point in this TL, possibly even still to both. This competition in Africa has the potential to increase development in the colonies (or conversely repression to keep them in line) or a mixture of both.

Russian empire:

I don't recall who said it, (Pilsudski?) but "with the Germans we lose our land, with the Russians we lose our soul" or something like that. OTL brought an independent Finland, Baltics, and Poland. Seems likely to occur in this TL as well. To some extent, the German speaking upper class called the shots in the Baltics, even under the czars, and all got German princes as elective monarchs briefly in OTL.

Western and Central Europe:

An Irish Free State seems inevitable in this TL. Franz Josef will still likely die around 1916, bringing the reform minded Karl to the throne. He will not likely want to resort to force to keep A-H together, so you either get some sort of federal reform, or a peaceful dissolution or partial dissolution of A-H.

Asia:

Japan and China and the USA seem destined for a collision at some point. However, Japan doesn't have Nazi Germany as an ally, and possibly Germany still as an enemy. With no colonial possessions in China, this probably leads to closer Sino-German cooperation as in OTL, and probably means German advisers at the least in China and the Sino-Japanese War if that occurs.

Berlin to Baghdad railway gets built. That equates to considerable German investment in Turkey. Arabs must come to a settlement with the Turks, probably an Arab kingdom with fealty to the Porte. Pograms in Russia seem likely to continue and may lead to a Jewish state in or about the Vilayet of Beirut/Mutesarrifiyyet of Jerusalem. Zionists will get backing in both Britain and Germany, which may lead to pressure on the Porte for such a Jewish homeland.

USA has a colonial interest in Asia, and will likely continue to develop as an economic power and cannot help but develop as a naval power. From a USA perspective Britain, may be more of a "threat" given its naval power then Germany. A "League of Nations" is probably not on the table, but the world will likely be "multilateral" for some time.
 
Top