The Worst WW I Alternate History Cliche

For me there are two.

General Haig was in incompetent butcher who cared nothing for the men under his command. Not true the Somme and 3rd Ypres had to be kept going to take pressure of the French, and no general at the time knew how to break the stalemate. It was Haig who broke the German line and forced the Germans to retreat in the 100 days.

Britain was as broke at the end of WWI as it was after WWII and couldn't afford anything above what the actually spent. Money was tight but had they needed to there was money available. For one thing unlike 1945, in 1919 Britain was able to pay for enough wheat that bread didn't have to be rationed.
 
Last edited:
Just a word on the economics; German's economy shrank by ~27% during the war and France's by ~23%, but Britain's grew by about ~7%. If Britain runs out of money she can always consume herself like the Germans and French did, to a point as long as minimum standards for survival are met.

Another cliché is that a possible despite victory on land that has Germany shelling, bombing and blockading Britain from the French Channel coast Germany would never get any British colonies because of the Royal Navy. Obviously lower buttfuck Africa is as important as the Pas De Calais to British security and prosperity.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
@Peg Leg Pom, I believe that the reason for bread to go on ration at the end of WWII, wasn't so much lack of money. From what I have read and understand, there was a word wide shortage of both wheat and shipping to ship it with. And this along with the increased demand from recently liberated Europe, meant that Britain had to except bread rationing, to ensure that Europe didn't starve. Of all the nations affected, Germany which had effectively feed itself, by transferring food from the occupied nations, now had to rely on its own resources. And at one point could only provide 800 calories a day for its population from its own resources. Britain at the time even with bread rationing, was providing a minimum of 2,500.
 
Another cliché is that a possible despite victory on land that has Germany shelling, bombing and blockading Britain from the French Channel coast Germany would never get any British colonies because of the Royal Navy. Obviously lower buttfuck Africa is as important as the Pas De Calais to British security and prosperity.

And if France and Italy have fallen, she no longer has any continental allies (by end 1916 more like pensioners) to subsidise. Also w/o a continental war, a lot more shipping is available to supply the UK.
 
Another cliché is that a possible despite victory on land that has Germany shelling, bombing and blockading Britain from the French Channel coast Germany would never get any British colonies because of the Royal Navy. Obviously lower buttfuck Africa is as important as the Pas De Calais to British security and prosperity.
Germany wouldn't get any British Colonies by force, they might at a peace conference. If and how many British Colonies are lost depends on when in the war France collapses. Early on and the B.E.F can be evacuated as in WWII and Germany may get peace and their old colonies back but none extra. By 1916 when Kitchener's Army are in the field then a large part of the B.E.F are likely to be captured. Hundreds of thousands or even a million or more POWs is a powerful negotiating tool and serious concessions will be made to get them back.
 
@Peg Leg Pom, I believe that the reason for bread to go on ration at the end of WWII, wasn't so much lack of money. From what I have read and understand, there was a word wide shortage of both wheat and shipping to ship it with. And this along with the increased demand from recently liberated Europe, meant that Britain had to except bread rationing, to ensure that Europe didn't starve. Of all the nations affected, Germany which had effectively feed itself, by transferring food from the occupied nations, now had to rely on its own resources. And at one point could only provide 800 calories a day for its population from its own resources. Britain at the time even with bread rationing, was providing a minimum of 2,500.
I believe that most modern historians accept that the 1946 bread rationing decision was purely political, as well as being unnecessary and ineffective. For example Ina Zweiniger-Bargielowska (Bread Rationing in Britain, July 1946 – July 1948 in Twentieth Century British History) considers it to have been motivated purely by psychosocial and political reasons, part of the negotiations between the British and United States governments on the allocation of North American produced wheat, the terms of US loans and Marshall Aid. necessary to secure the revival of the British economy after the war.

Britain was under intense pressure, attempting to justify its high wheat and flour stocks, and high allocation of wheat imports, while the Combined Food Board cut allocations to others, including European food importing countries, India, the military and UNRRA.
The British government were also trying to persuade the US to take over responsibility for feeding the population in the British Zone in Germany, where there was an acute shortage of food. Rations there had been cut in MAR1946 to less than 1,000kcal per week, well under half the ration in Britain.
 
Even as a Byzantophile, I don't think Greece winning will create another Byzantine Empire. That's bull. Also, Ottomans did support the Germans by blocking the British from supporting Russia.
 
These two are true. The UK was out of money. And Germany still had cash for a very easy to understand reason. The blockade prevented Germany from importing as much as they had wanted to. If we make the ASB assumption the UK would allow unlimited imports via Holland, I would not be surprised if the German run out of cash faster than the British.

Yes But by 1917 Britain had its own quite extensive armaments industry (in particular artillery shells) and it itself does not run out of money as it controls it's own currency!

Also lets assume that the last $ is spent - what does the US do? Suddenly stop selling to Britain and France? What does this do to the US Economy that has been so buoyed by the war? I seriously suspect that had the US not entered the war then last British $ or not the US would still find a way to ensure that it was still supplying the Entente.

Its not an on / off switch
 
I think the worst one is the WWI had to happen. That the events proceeding from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand were a series of the most probable things happening with no way out. Or that the only options for differences in powers on each side being the UK and Italy. We never see a TL where Germany decides not to back up Austria-Hungary.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the Central Powers, an alliance of old style monarchies with a wimpf of military junta and proto-fascism, winning is actually gonna make the world a better place.

The idea that the allies would have been done for had the americans not joined the war.
And exactly those two are really nasty clichés. The first takes the OTL allied propaganda at face value and equates the Kaiserreich with the Nazis. Averting the second would require a lot of innovation on the Allied side. Or a pre-1900 POD for Russia, which in turn would probably butterfly an OTL-style WW I.

That said, my "favorite" WW I clichés (for me meaning overused, or improperly founded formulas) - it boils down to "Singular OTL behavior is the general mode of operation":
  • Kaiserreich == proto-Nazis, including its sub cliches
    • Septemberprogramm is official, final government policy
    • Military occupation equals civilian government
    • Mitteleuropa means Nazi-style treatment for eastern europe
    • Mitteleuropa will always fail
      • Nevermind the threat of Russia
      • Nevermind the possibility of a coop agreement
    • The germans always want war
      • Nevermind the Kaiser going on a jachting trip after he considered the july crisis resolved
    • The germans never can win the war
  • Versailles
    • Versailles will always be a fuck-up
    • The Only Way is to make it even harsher and behave like the USSR after WW2
    • The Entente will never accept a status-quo-ante peace
    • The Entente is in general unwilling to accept anything but complete victory
    • There can be no compromise peace
  • Sniffin' glue on either side
  • The INDOMINATBLE BRITISH WILL
  • Mitteleuropa will either be a hellhole or paradise
 
Yes But by 1917 Britain had its own quite extensive armaments industry (in particular artillery shells) and it itself does not run out of money as it controls it's own currency!

Also lets assume that the last $ is spent - what does the US do? Suddenly stop selling to Britain and France? What does this do to the US Economy that has been so buoyed by the war? I seriously suspect that had the US not entered the war then last British $ or not the US would still find a way to ensure that it was still supplying the Entente.

Its not an on / off switch


Yet the war cannot last forever, so it's not a question of if there'll be a postwar recession, but only of when.

And if there has to be one, isn't 1917 - with the next election still three years off - as good a time as any to have it?
 

longsword14

Banned
Yet the war cannot last forever, so it's not a question of if there'll be a postwar recession, but only of when.

And if there has to be one, isn't 1917 - with the next election still three years off - as good a time as any to have it?
I have forgotten the key reasons for American industrial outputs being needed.
British production had maxed out, but it was not enough for major offensives ? The Germans could somehow still manage.
 
I have forgotten the key reasons for American industrial outputs being needed.
British production had maxed out, but it was not enough for major offensives ? The Germans could somehow still manage.

From what I understand, US production was required because British industry was hopelessly out of date at the outbreak of war and their chemical industry almost non existent. A large part of the British purchases in the US went into upgrading their production base and meeting the shortfall while they did that.
 

longsword14

Banned
From what I understand, US production was required because British industry was hopelessly out of date at the outbreak of war and their chemical industry almost non existent. A large part of the British purchases in the US went into upgrading their production base and meeting the shortfall while they did that.
More than that, I imagine France would have been dependent to a great extent upon foreign goods due to industrial losses. If France cannot stay in the field, BEF is defeated by default.
 
Top