The Worst WW I Alternate History Cliche

From what I understand, US production was required because British industry was hopelessly out of date at the outbreak of war and their chemical industry almost non existent.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.
Which was a better way to spend scare foreign currency than simply buying the end products from the USA like France did.

BTW: a general AH cliche is that British industry is always out of date; post Napoleon.
 
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.

OK,

As for the first point you would note that the I said proto-fascist with a wimpf of military junta, that's very far from the Nazis. That the Central powers where old style monarchies can't really be denied, nor can't it denied that by the end of the war it was Luddendorf and Hindenburg who called the shots in Germany and that a similar phenomenon existed in Vienna and Istanbul (with the young turks).

As for the proto-fascists accusation, there was definitely ultra-nationalists ideologies develloping in the latter part of the war in Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman empire (Austria-Hungary admitedly stayed out of that trend) with pan-germanism, pan-turkism becoming all but official ideologies and Lebensraum-like projects (yes I know they didn't want to kill all the slaves unlike the nazis but forced germanisation was very much in the cards) for the territory captured under the Brest-Litovsk treaty. The Ottomans also did began to practice disturbingly WWII-like persecutions against minorities deemed untrustworthy, most infamously during the Armenian Genocide but also against the Greeks of the Pontus Region and the Assyrians of Northern Irak.

All that doesn't make a country fascists but there is definitely elements of facism already there, hence why I used the term proto-fascism. While the allied propaganda was definitelly exagerated it doesn't make modern attemps at withewashing Germany (as those who do so tend to be silent when it come to other Central powers) any less ridiculous. Usually it come from a ''German victory in WWI = No nazis, so German victory in WWI is good!'' or from the weird fascination some tend to have with old style monarchies. Simplistic and rather peculiar is probably the most positive thing I can say about them.

Sure, World War I Central powers where quite mild compared to the Axis but that really isn't a high mark to go over.

As for the supposed imposibility of an allied victory in WWI without direct american involvement that's both adhering far too much to the america save the day trope and projecting WWI on WWII.

Without adressing all the earlier POD's that could have boosted the allies the fact is they would probably have won WWI without direct involvement in OTL. Without american involvement you still have the blockade slowly strangling Germany and while they could probably have been spared more ressources without the american involved the clock was still ticking. The blockade might not got Germany to the point where she just didn't have the ressources to keep going in November 1918 like in OTL but its still gonna happen eventually.

Besside, Germany wasn't alone here either. For all her growing leadership over the Central powers she still needed her allies to prevent her from being completely overwhelmed by numbers and both the Hapsburgs and the Ottoman where in very bad shape even before the US joined the war. Problems where bound to happen eventually if a bit latter then OTL.

Against all that the Germans needed a knockout blow on the western front to have a shot at victory, wheter the americans participated or not. Unlike what popular belief would tell you the Spring Offensive didn't even come remotely close to achieve that. It is possible that an ATL Spring offensive would do better but considering the americans, at the time, formed only a small fractions of the total allied forces (their massive build-up came immediately after that) I find it doubtfull the germans are gonna get the complete victory they need.
 
Last edited:

BlondieBC

Banned
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

Several points.

One - USA did not know the UK was out of cash, so we will cut off the UK before we realize what has been done.

Second - Yes, we stop selling to Britain and France. The incentives then flip for the USA. We will start putting serious pressure on the UK to weaken the blockade. As to the US economy, it is a smoother transition than OTL since instead of a full stop from mobilized US war economy to severe recession, we instead go from major export boom to moderate recession in steps.

Third - it was an on/off switch since it was what would be called in WW2 - Cash and Carry.

Fourth - While the UK will still be able to purchase in the combined UK/French empire for paper currency, the Western Entente will face a sudden shortage in excess of 25% of supplies. It will be crippling to the war effort compared to OTL.

The UK likes to build monuments to the architects to its wins. In the case of WW1, the statues in Trafalgar square should be for the U-boat command structure who fudge the sinking numbers. Winning WW1 was simply a gift from the senior German leaders.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

Yes, but the numbers give you a key indicator of what is likely to happen. The UK would lose around 30% of economic output with outside supplies (23+7).
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Gallipoli is predestined to be either a bloody failure or win the war in 1916.

That is largely true. Gallipoli was attacking the Ottomans at their logistical strongest while the UK was on the long end of a logistical supply chain. And it was attacking into easily defended terrain.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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.

Grains, metals, military supplies.

The Germans did not lose their industrial areas. Neither did A-H. France did lose it industrial core, so the UK was both supplying itself and a large % of French needs. Plus Italy took a lot of imports.
 
Does the Russian Civil War, or anything in China during the period count as well?

I don't think China comes up in too much detail in these TL's, so make of that what you will. Russian Civil War, I think Whites winning with more foreign support is a cliche, since it presupposes a significantly higher burden than any of the other Great Powers were willing to bear IOTL somehow fixing all the problems with infighting they had.
 
Several points.

One - USA did not know the UK was out of cash, so we will cut off the UK before we realize what has been done.

Second - Yes, we stop selling to Britain and France. The incentives then flip for the USA. We will start putting serious pressure on the UK to weaken the blockade. As to the US economy, it is a smoother transition than OTL since instead of a full stop from mobilized US war economy to severe recession, we instead go from major export boom to moderate recession in steps.

Third - it was an on/off switch since it was what would be called in WW2 - Cash and Carry.

Fourth - While the UK will still be able to purchase in the combined UK/French empire for paper currency, the Western Entente will face a sudden shortage in excess of 25% of supplies. It will be crippling to the war effort compared to OTL.

The UK likes to build monuments to the architects to its wins. In the case of WW1, the statues in Trafalgar square should be for the U-boat command structure who fudge the sinking numbers. Winning WW1 was simply a gift from the senior German leaders.

I disagree - the US would have found a way like WW2 to continue to supply the Entente

The USW might have tipped the balance and brought the US into the war but that 'pendulum' was hardly stuck in neutral beforehand and I note that even at its strongest the Central powers were unable to defeat Britain and France and by end of 1917 Britain has its continental army fully stood up and trained and war industry to back it up.

If the the Entente were not going to lose in 1914-1917 and even Micheal before the AEF arrived in significant numbers then why would they suddenly lose when they are at their strongest in 1918!

I appreciate that we would not see the large Entente offensives in late 1918 but by then German is in serious trouble itself!
 
My two:

The losers of the first world war will always be slapped with some manner of Versailles-type treaty, after which they will always fall to either radical communism or radical nationalism, will always initiate a second world war against the victors of the first, and will always be crushed to the extent that the OTL ww2 axis were crushed(bonus points if the victors have to drop exactly two nukes somewhere to force a surrender).

Any German victory in WW1 will result in the WW1 Allies being eternally neutered, unable to ever achieve any level of relevance again. The German lead world order will last pretty much forever, unchallenged(except of course, for a victorious ww2 style kerfuffle with the losers of the first world war).
 
I disagree - the US would have found a way like WW2 to continue to supply the Entente

It's not about the way, it's about the will, and you're definitely too blase about Wilson's will to, well, the only way to continue supply would be for him to do something really expensive, like have the US government guarantee unsecured loans, which would be an unprecedented amount of government spending at this point and throw his campaign promises of neutrality into the garbage.

The USW might have tipped the balance and brought the US into the war but that 'pendulum' was hardly stuck in neutral beforehand

And yet Wilson still felt the need to campaign for re-election on the premise that he had protected American neutrality. Absent more German provocations, he wouldn't have the pretext to reverse course so dramatically.

and I note that even at its strongest the Central powers were unable to defeat Britain and France and by end of 1917 Britain has its continental army fully stood up and trained and war industry to back it up.

The reverse is also true. If the French were unable to win at their strongest in 1914 and 1915, then how will they continue past the OTL mutinies in 1917 without the promise of not going on the offensive again until American troops arrive?

If the the Entente were not going to lose in 1914-1917 and even Micheal before the AEF arrived in significant numbers then why would they suddenly lose when they are at their strongest in 1918!

Here they'd likely face severe shortages before 1918, which means that if a Michael was attempted (no longer a certainty), then their chances of losing to it are significantly higher. As it is, the offensive was halted less than 20 kilometers from Amiens. If it had gotten that far, the entire BEF position would have been compromised.

I appreciate that we would not see the large Entente offensives in late 1918 but by then German is in serious trouble itself!

Oddly enough, the German troubles from the blockade were a lot less severe before the American DOW - combine that with a likely butterflying of Ludendorf's economic mismanagement (if he had anything to say about it, USW would happen), and you'll see why I'm not convinced that Michael would have necessarily happened at all. So long as the Germans were occupying French territory and overwhelming Entente reinforcements weren't in the offing, time was on their side.
 

Perkeo

Banned
The Schliefen Plan was not per se a bad idea, just change this and that and Paris will fall and France and the BEF will surrender unconditionally.
 

longsword14

Banned
The Schliefen Plan was not per se a bad idea, just change this and that and Paris will fall and France and the BEF will surrender unconditionally.
The first part is diffcult, the second would follow from the first (unconditionally is debatable). The Germans mucked up their recon else there were good odds that BEF could have been encircled and badly beaten.
Oddly enough, the German troubles from the blockade were a lot less severe before the American DOW
This. Neutrals' trade completely shrank with the US formally in the war.
 
Oddly enough, the German troubles from the blockade were a lot less severe before the American DOW - .

Nothing odd about it. The main weak spot in the blockade was the Northern neutrals - Holland and Scandinavia - whose imports were largely from the US. The latter's DoW meant that exports to the NN could be controlled at source, thus tightening the blockade drastically. Also, US entry meant there weren't enough neutrals left to provide employment for their shipping lines. The latter now had to play ball with the Entente or go out of business.

Incidentally, conditions in Austria-Hungary - food, desertions, anything you care to name - were far worse than in Germany, yet A/H, despite endless bleatings about being at the end of its tether, didn't throw in the towel until Germany did - and then as a result of purely military factors, principally the collapse of the Macedonian Front. The blockade may well have accelerated the loss of morale after the military defeats began, but it did not cause them, and was never likely to bring the CP down without them.
 
Nothing odd about it. The main weak spot in the blockade was the Northern neutrals - Holland and Scandinavia - whose imports were largely from the US. The latter's DoW meant that exports to the NN could be controlled at source, thus tightening the blockade drastically. Also, US entry meant there weren't enough neutrals left to provide employment for their shipping lines. The latter now had to play ball with the Entente or go out of business.

Incidentally, conditions in Austria-Hungary - food, desertions, anything you care to name - were far worse than in Germany, yet A/H, despite endless bleatings about being at the end of its tether, didn't throw in the towel until Germany did - and then as a result of purely military factors, principally the collapse of the Macedonian Front. The blockade may well have accelerated the loss of morale after the military defeats began, but it did not cause them, and was never likely to bring the CP down without them.

I think the fall of the USSR has given us this false sense of fragility in states whereby they'll buckle if their economy is doing badly - the more authoritarian, the more brittle. The truth is, of course, that Great Powers didn't get that way by being easily breakable, and the fact that they shouldered the massive burdens that were the World Wars shows how tough they in fact were.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
The Schliefen Plan was not per se a bad idea, just change this and that and Paris will fall and France and the BEF will surrender unconditionally.
A possible "This" : better intel about the manning of Liege and the conditions between the forts for even faster fall of it. (But that alone wouldn't have helped too much, IMO)
A rather impossible "That" : 2-6 additional fully active army corps including their reserve corps, as demanded by the "Schlieffen"-memo.


Aaand "unconditional" or any surrender of the BEF ... sry but : no way.
IF the Brits decide to go in they would also stay for quite some time in - the war. The actual BEF might be beaten, crushed, annihilated, but "britannia rules the waves" and therefore they would stay in the war on their secure island, building up a new BEF and wait ... for whatwever opportunity might arise (maybe even a white peace with germany).
 
How about post-WWI Lithuania ruled by the Urachs? I fucking hate that. It's both impossible and boring.
 
A possible "This" : better intel about the manning of Liege and the conditions between the forts for even faster fall of it. (But that alone wouldn't have helped too much, IMO)
A rather impossible "That" : 2-6 additional fully active army corps including their reserve corps, as demanded by the "Schlieffen"-memo.


Aaand "unconditional" or any surrender of the BEF ... sry but : no way.
IF the Brits decide to go in they would also stay for quite some time in - the war. The actual BEF might be beaten, crushed, annihilated, but "britannia rules the waves" and therefore they would stay in the war on their secure island, building up a new BEF and wait ... for whatwever opportunity might arise (maybe even a white peace with germany).

Depends when it gets beaten. In 1914 the BEF is six infantry and one cavalry division. Losing that just won't cripple the British
 
Top