WI: Mutiny on the Western Front Develops Into Revolution

BlondieBC

Banned
Why bother holding them? If Brtiain is relying oin the blockade to win the war for her, this bridgehead idn't really needed.

BTW, if France has been overrun then the u-boat war has just got orders of magnitude worse, since French Channel and Atlantic ports can now be used as bases.

If you don't hold Dover, you lose the Dover Barrage, which makes it a lot easier for the U-boats to get to the Irish Sea and English Channel. Also, it will not be long before torpedo boats and torpedo planes from Dover are hunting in the English Channel. If you lose Dover, you like have to start using ports only west of Normandy.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
In 1917 during World War I there was an absolutely massive mutiny in which much of the French army refused to follow orders and led to mass strikes amongst industrial workers, What If the government had not given into the demands of the soldiers and instead caused a revolution on the western front as well?

Italy has harsher justice in OTL. For a while, the harsh punishments prevented issues, then on one attack about 300,000 troops surrender, and 300,000 retreated without orders. So it could work better, or if the breaking point is reached, a couple of armies might disappear.
 
If you don't hold Dover, you lose the Dover Barrage, which makes it a lot easier for the U-boats to get to the Irish Sea and English Channel. Also, it will not be long before torpedo boats and torpedo planes from Dover are hunting in the English Channel. If you lose Dover, you like have to start using ports only west of Normandy.

I think you mean if you lose Calais not Dover. If Dover fell I'd want to know how the heck the Germans got across the channel.
 
The attitude of French soldiers wasn't a revolutionary one. They wanted better conditions, more effective generalship, and an end to pointless and costly offensives. Note that IOTL many of the more radical members of the Mutiny were willingly given up by the rest for execution or imprisonment. Clearly they weren't looking to overthrow the system; the majority were very conservative. What they wanted was for their concerns to be recognized by their leaders.
 
The channel ports were a major reason for Britain getting involved in the war in the first place, they aren't going to abandon them unless they have to. WWI U-boats just aren't capable of the kind of large scale co-ordinated wolf pack attacks their WWII successors were, and once the British started using convoys their effectiveness was severely curtailed. On the other hand there's noting to stop the British maintaining their blockade and starving Germany. In essence by this stage of WWI it's Britain not France that Germany needs to bring to terms and they don't have the means to do it.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The channel ports were a major reason for Britain getting involved in the war in the first place, they aren't going to abandon them unless they have to. WWI U-boats just aren't capable of the kind of large scale co-ordinated wolf pack attacks their WWII successors were, and once the British started using convoys their effectiveness was severely curtailed. On the other hand there's noting to stop the British maintaining their blockade and starving Germany. In essence by this stage of WWI it's Britain not France that Germany needs to bring to terms and they don't have the means to do it.

The U-boats were capable of wolfpack attacks, and in facts, some captains did co-ordinate attacks, but it was not the doctrine of the U-boat admirals.

Once Russia falls, the Ukraine gives the German the potential to avoid food shortages in 1919 and 1920 if wisely used.

Once France is out of the war, Germany would have had a win. The war may go on for a decade or more, but Germany no longer can lose with Russia and France out of the war.
 
While the submarines may be capable of co-ordinated strikes in theory, in practice they need airial recconaisence to make the most of those tactics. Aircraft at that time had neither the endurance or reliability to meet that need. Zeppilines though built for scouting were too fragile to risk over the Atlantic in any but the best weather.

About the food situation, while the Ukraine had the potential to feed the central powers in practice the small peasent farmsteads were too inefficient to do so, and in the wake of the war and revolutions the large estates had lost their workforce. Given the chaos that was the revolutionary Russian empire it is doubtful that any significant food could be sent west.
 
That's wrong to so many level.

No it isnt, just because it is a mutiny doesnt mean that they where not right. This is a mutiny under military law, I still think they should have mutinied but it is a mutiny.


The attitude of French soldiers wasn't a revolutionary one. They wanted better conditions, more effective generalship, and an end to pointless and costly offensives. Note that IOTL many of the more radical members of the Mutiny were willingly given up by the rest for execution or imprisonment. Clearly they weren't looking to overthrow the system; the majority were very conservative. What they wanted was for their concerns to be recognized by their leaders.

Yeah but in a situation where France's government cracks down on the soldiers the radicals are going to come to the forefront and be the ones effectively dictating the situation, I know its a bit of a stretch but socialists did make up a large portion of the army and that portion only got larger as more people died because of the war.
 
What you have in the French mutiny is thousands of heavily armed angry men. If those men belive that the Government is going to order a crackdown they will fight back. Once the first shots have been fired then things will spiral out of control very quickly, and thats without taking into account the troops that have been ordered to but down the Mutiny, many of those units would probably refuse the order not wanting to fight other Frenchmen. The French government could not under any circumstances ask it's allies to do the job. The last thing they can do is appear to be only kept in power by foriegners.

The situation reminds me of something I read about how one of the Chinese Dynasties was toppled, it's probably not true but does illustrate the dangers of being too harsh toyour army.

A group of soldiers are heading to meet up with the rest of the emperors guards. It's pouring with rain, they're exhausted and thouroughly fed up and huddled round a fire.

Soldier 1 Whats the penalty for rebelion?

Other Soldiers Death.

Soldier 1 Whats the penalty for being late?

Other Soldiers Death.

Soldier 1 Well lads I hate to break it to you but we're late.

They then start a rebellion that topples the dynasty.

Moral When even the most trusted troops are left with nothing to lose they will fight back.
 
Last edited:
If the mutiny and its subsequent brutal crackdown causes a huge internal conflict as worst as described I could see the OHL giving order for general advance across all of the Western Front. Since, the BEF is going to withdraw to the Channel Port, I assume they would not be giving any meaningful resistance at all and thus the German could capture Paris. Once Paris or the majority of France is under German control certainly there would a high amount of morale boost to the German and the Central Power.

In this case I find it quite hard to believe that with the victory in the Western Front, the morale boost, and all continental Europe under its control the German would succumb just because of the British blockade. Is there really no other way in which the German could get their supplies of food? Massive breakout operation launched by the High Seas Fleet? Could Germany focus all of their effort in an attempt to harness food in Ukraine? Or simply, arrange a compromised peace with Britain. Now that France is conquered I don't see the reason why the German would persist in keeping Belgium in their hand.
 
Top