WI: One 30-years long World War instead of two separate WWs?

Maybe with the following premises:

- No US involvement in WWI
- USSR does not withdraw from WWI in 1917/8
- France is partially occupied by Germany
- Earlier victory of the fascism in Italy

WWI could have been extended many years with WWII (as IOTL) not happening, maybe just being a second phase of a unique long World War.
 
-no US would require no unrestricted U boat compaign, with the problems this would pose;
-USSR vs Germany would grind down into an atrition war; superior russian numbers would win this (assuming there is not total colapse of russian morale)
-USSR still in the war would, I think, prevent any german large-scale ofensive in the west. Afaik, these were made possible by the massive transfer of troops, equipment and supplies from the east to the west. This would allow the western allies to carry out their own tank-led offensives either late in 1918 or early 1919.
-France was allready partially ocupied, since 1914
-one of the main reasons for Italy to turn it's back on France and UK was the outcome of the treaty of Versailles; since this doesn't happen here, and, in this scenario, Italy is still stuck in war with Austria, I don't see how this would happen.

None of these countries would be able to sustain the war much longer, specially Germany under the allied blockade, made now even worse by the USSR staying in the war. Say 3-4 years for Germany to colapse internally, or a French/UK ofens
 
-USSR vs Germany would grind down into an atrition war; superior russian numbers would win this (assuming there is not total colapse of russian morale)
-USSR still in the war would, I think, prevent any german large-scale ofensive in the west.

Mind that USSR still in WWI does not mean it would prevent the civil wars with the whites in the West of the Union (Poland, Ukraine etc.). Maybe Germany could sustain a buffer of 'white' territories (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus) in permanent civil war with the USSR without handling a direct front of war Germany vs USSR in the East, allowing the transfer of part of the military resources to the West, anyway.

-France was allready partially ocupied, since 1914

I was thinking about a model of occupation like 1940-44, rather than the WWI one.

-one of the main reasons for Italy to turn it's back on France and UK was the outcome of the treaty of Versailles; since this doesn't happen here, and, in this scenario, Italy is still stuck in war with Austria, I don't see how this would happen.

This could be triggered by other alternate events: Italy discovers that France/UK have no intention to fulfill their war demands and feels betrayed; or Germany/Austria succeed on occupying Northern Italy and the rest of Italy falls into fascism as they feel abandoned to their fate by the Allies...many options.

None of these countries would be able to sustain the war much longer, specially Germany under the allied blockade, made now even worse by the USSR staying in the war. Say 3-4 years for Germany to colapse internally, or a French/UK ofens

Maybe Germany could break the allied blockade under the right circumstances, at least partially.
 
Mind that USSR still in WWI does not mean it would prevent the civil wars with the whites in the West of the Union (Poland, Ukraine etc.). Maybe Germany could sustain a buffer of 'white' territories (Poland, Ukraine, Belarus) in permanent civil war with the USSR without handling a direct front of war Germany vs USSR in the East, allowing the transfer of part of the military resources to the West, anyway.

True, but never to the extent they did. Afaik, at least 400.000 troops were moved. In a situation where the German/USSR is a multi-war chaos, a strong defensive line would be necessary.

I was thinking about a model of occupation like 1940-44, rather than the WWI one.

They'd have to ocupy a lot more of France and the general condition of the french forces would have to be almost as bad as in 1940...

This could be triggered by other alternate events: Italy discovers that France/UK have no intention to fulfill their war demands and feels betrayed; or Germany/Austria succeed on occupying Northern Italy and the rest of Italy falls into fascism as they feel abandoned to their fate by the Allies...many options.

Italy was left in the blind untill the treaty was signed; I doubt any real decisions were made by France/UK untill after the fighting was over. And Italy and Austria had too much bad blood. I very much doubt Italy would quit. As for Austria winning, by 17/18 it was as worn out and blockaded as Germany

Maybe Germany could break the allied blockade under the right circumstances, at least partially.

Impossible, I think. By 1918 the U-boat threat was checked enough to make any counter-blockade impossible, and the RN/Royale in the Atlantic and Royale/Italian navy in the med had the maritime traffic closed up. Eastern trade would be blocked by Russia.
 
I think you were thinking about too late PoDs (1917/8 or so).

A sketch of the TL for such long war would be something like this:

- Germany is able to crush France in the autumn of 1914: not full invasion, but let it temporarily inoffensive.
- Russia falls into pre-revolutionary anarchy and chaos earlier (maybe during 1915) than OTL and in a harsher mood (maybe triggered by some Rasputin-related scandal and anticipated famine in some areas), which allows Germany and A-H to perform a deeper invasion into Russian territory (West is under relative control), while the Bolsheviks start to control other areas, leaving a Russian puzzle of 'white' revolutionary areas, 'red' revolutionary areas and Central Powers' controlled areas, in a long and devastating situation of warfare.
- The earlier and bigger successes of the German/A-H in this WW TL boost more ambitious and aggressive military plans in the West (maybe invasion of NL or Denmark), which the UK can't halt.
- However, the prolonged war in the East starts to damage the internal social climate of the Central Powers by teh early 1920s: A-H finally implodes and the Habsburgs have to exile in Bavaria. Germany is too busy dealing with the political aftermath of the A-H implosion, which finally also affects German stability. France and UK are able to counter-attack.
- A Nationalist Republican revolution overthrown the Kaiser and the other German Princes by 1922-23 and take the leadership of the counter-offensive against UK and France. Russia is still taken by the chaos and civil war.
- After a couple of years of war in the West Front, the German Nationalists are able to subdue France again and the UK calls for a ceasefire, which might save France from total occupation.
- In the meantime, the resulting entities from A-H implosion have been fighting against Italy and Serbia: after France is defeated, Germany occupies Northern Italy by the late 1920s, avoiding any further conflict between them and the new Balkan states, which fall into the German orbit.
- At some point during the 1930s, the Bolsheviks are able to complete their control over non-occupied Russia and calls for a treaty of peace, as they are in too bad shape for fighting against Germany any longer.
 
I think you were thinking about too late PoDs (1917/8 or so).

Your original post:
Maybe with the following premises:

- No US involvement in WWI
- USSR does not withdraw from WWI in 1917/8

So...

- Germany is able to crush France in the autumn of 1914: not full invasion, but let it temporarily inoffensive.
- Russia falls into pre-revolutionary anarchy and chaos earlier (maybe during 1915)

A combination of these two is probably your best bet. Defeating France in the original assault would also force the BEF out of France in a hurry, resulting in a quasi-Dunkerque; so the UK would be left alone. An armistice would probably ensue within a few months, because neither opponent could really hurt the other.
 
IMHO you can't sustain a Thirty Years War fought with WWI technology, it's too easy to destroy the enemy's farmland and infrastructure with artillery. And all the nitrates you need for fertilizer are going to munitions instead.
 
Maybe if Russia withdraws, Germany gets close to victory but then the soviet rejoin?

Idk, maybe if the war became a "phony war" with no real large offensives after trench warfare sets in? 30 years is a really long time.
 
Um...frankly isn't that the same thing? The two WWs are really just one 30 year's war. After all the Thirty Years War, War of the Roses etc. were all in reality a series of conflicts.
 
Top