World War One is a stalemate

Alright, I'm working on a TL and I'm kind of stuck due to my lack of knowledge on European politics during WWI. In my TL, WWI persists a few extra years as an extremely bloody stalemate, with neither side gaining any ground, as a result of the US not entering the war. What I'm stuck on is all of the governmental collapses. During and shortly after WWI, the Ottoman, Austria-Hungarian Empires collapsed; and Russia and Germany succumbed to revolution. I'm trying to determine if they would have followed a similar course in my TL. Please help! The future of my timeline is at stake.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Ok, Germany and France both had strong Socialist movements, if Russia goes OTL and the war just drags on and on, these would grow extremely powerful. Italy also had strong leftist movements.

Austria- Hungary might (if they're very lucky) prevail in some form, but they would lose most of their territory. The war had made the different Ethnic Groups dead tired of the Habsburgs.

The Ottomans were a goner, if they can't win the war they won't survive.
 

MrP

Banned
It's possible it could be worse. A peace of exhaustion might see everyone suffering internal dissent that cripples the war effort and topples the government. Just make sure there's a nice build up of disaster for each government to cause the collapse. If you can have one stupidly cling to power as did the Tsar, without any replacement regimes, then popular annoyance should reach a nice boiling point.
 
It's worth bearing in mind that World War I was technically a stalemate anyway in 1918.
One way of delaying the end for Germany is perhaps if you can get rid or delay the first Russian Revolution in 1917 - I think Nicholas II surviving a bit longer delays American entry into the war (Imperial Russia was the real stumbling block for American public opinion - it would have been very difficult for Wilson to get a war declaration through Congress to defend in many people's view a tyrant). If you can delay the March Revolution and Nicholas' abdication you can in turn delay the October Bolshevik Revolution which in turn delays Russia's exit from the war which probably lengthens it a bit.#

What was inevitable or not is questionable - but Russia was going to face Revolution at some point the Romanovs were done for and the Bolsheviks oppositition to the war was a key factor in their success in unseating the provisional government that replaced Nicholas II.

For many Europeans the Great War finally dispelled the mystique of absolute or semi absolute monarchy and the idea that their interpersonal family relationships would keep the peace. For the great mass of the working class it also dispelled the idea that those born to rule always knew best. The collapse of the three great European Empires - Austria, Germany and Russia also unleashed a wave of ethnic identity that was no longer able to be supressed from a far distant imperial capital - Finland and the Baltic States, Poland, Bosnia and Croatia, the middle east escaping the Ottoman yoke etc.

If you can add a couple of years and have no US involvement then I think you get Revolution in Germany and some form of Republic that sues for peace. No US involvement in any treaty does mean changes to the European Map though

Alright, I'm working on a TL and I'm kind of stuck due to my lack of knowledge on European politics during WWI. In my TL, WWI persists a few extra years as an extremely bloody stalemate, with neither side gaining any ground, as a result of the US not entering the war. What I'm stuck on is all of the governmental collapses. During and shortly after WWI, the Ottoman, Austria-Hungarian Empires collapsed; and Russia and Germany succumbed to revolution. I'm trying to determine if they would have followed a similar course in my TL. Please help! The future of my timeline is at stake.
 
It's worth bearing in mind that World War I was technically a stalemate anyway in 1918.
One way of delaying the end for Germany is perhaps if you can get rid or delay the first Russian Revolution in 1917 - I think Nicholas II surviving a bit longer delays American entry into the war (Imperial Russia was the real stumbling block for American public opinion - it would have been very difficult for Wilson to get a war declaration through Congress to defend in many people's view a tyrant). If you can delay the March Revolution and Nicholas' abdication you can in turn delay the October Bolshevik Revolution which in turn delays Russia's exit from the war which probably lengthens it a bit.#

What was inevitable or not is questionable - but Russia was going to face Revolution at some point the Romanovs were done for and the Bolsheviks oppositition to the war was a key factor in their success in unseating the provisional government that replaced Nicholas II.

For many Europeans the Great War finally dispelled the mystique of absolute or semi absolute monarchy and the idea that their interpersonal family relationships would keep the peace. For the great mass of the working class it also dispelled the idea that those born to rule always knew best. The collapse of the three great European Empires - Austria, Germany and Russia also unleashed a wave of ethnic identity that was no longer able to be supressed from a far distant imperial capital - Finland and the Baltic States, Poland, Bosnia and Croatia, the middle east escaping the Ottoman yoke etc.

If you can add a couple of years and have no US involvement then I think you get Revolution in Germany and some form of Republic that sues for peace. No US involvement in any treaty does mean changes to the European Map though

The POD of my TL (the link is in my sig btw) is Wilson dying in 1906 and the US electing a super-isolationist President who avoids the war at all costs. The war goes just as OTL up until April 6, 1917, when the US chooses not to get in. So the Russian Revolution is basically a done deal. I figured that since WWI was essentially a stalemate until the Spring Offensive (a direct effect of the US entering the war), it would continue to be a stalemate without the US. My original idea was going to be to have a neutral US broker the peace deal, but that is totally up in the air at this point. Then I started thinking that the European governments might all start collapsing just like they did in OTL, but since I'm somewhat weak in early-1900s European politics, I didn't know which ones and when. How long can a boring yet bloody stalemate last before the people start getting restless? I was hoping the war would last until 1920 or 1921. Is that even remotely possible?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The POD of my TL (the link is in my sig btw) is Wilson dying in 1906 and the US electing a super-isolationist President who avoids the war at all costs. The war goes just as OTL up until April 6, 1917, when the US chooses not to get in. So the Russian Revolution is basically a done deal. I figured that since WWI was essentially a stalemate until the Spring Offensive (a direct effect of the US entering the war), it would continue to be a stalemate without the US. My original idea was going to be to have a neutral US broker the peace deal, but that is totally up in the air at this point. Then I started thinking that the European governments might all start collapsing just like they did in OTL, but since I'm somewhat weak in early-1900s European politics, I didn't know which ones and when. How long can a boring yet bloody stalemate last before the people start getting restless? I was hoping the war would last until 1920 or 1921. Is that even remotely possible?

Nope, both sides were starving and restless already in 1917, I can't see the war lasting past 1919 at most.
 
I think you need to have German decide against unristricted submarine warfare. Otherwise the American public will make the president do something no matter what his stance is. I totally agree that there is no way the war was going to last past 1919 for two reasons.

1. Both armies were starving and undersupplied, most nations had not consieved that the the war would last more then six months and had equipped their armies accordingly. This means that eventually someone is going to have to start nagotiating a cease-fire.

2. By 1918 the stalemate was breaking, the introduction of tanks was allowing the allies to break lines with relative ease. The lines were breaking, without the Americans to stop them the Germans might even have pulled off their spring offensive, and when they get to Paris chances are the British are going to pull out and the French are going to have to start a cease-fire.

There is no way it can go on farther then 1919.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Without unrestricted submarine warfare Germany has no weapon to use against the UK. The British continue to controll the seas, the Germans starve.

But you're right, with the submarine warfare you get American intervention. US would not be able to stand still if their ships are attacked.
 
I hadn't thought about the unrestricted sub warfare. I thought that the two things that brought America into the war were the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram, so those are the only two things I dealt with in the TL. After the Lusitania, I sort of figured that the US simply abandoned any notions of trading with Europe, and advised American ctizens against traveling there. With no US ships in the area, the Germans only are sinking British and French ships, which ITTL, the US cares very little about. Does unrestricted submarine warfare mean that there absolutely must be war between the US and Germany, or could the scenario I just outlined work?

As to Checkmate113's second point, I always though that the Germans only tried the Spring Offensive because they wanted to get a quick victory before the US forces arrived. Without the US getting in, would they really have tried something that early? I can see one of the two sides trying for a quick victory eventually, when the effects of being undersupplied take hold, but I'm thinking that would not be in the Spring of 1917 like in OTL.

BTW, thanks for all of the help guys. Wikipedia can only do so much.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I hadn't thought about the unrestricted sub warfare. I thought that the two things that brought America into the war were the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram, so those are the only two things I dealt with in the TL. After the Lusitania, I sort of figured that the US simply abandoned any notions of trading with Europe, and advised American ctizens against traveling there. With no US ships in the area, the Germans only are sinking British and French ships, which ITTL, the US cares very little about. Does unrestricted submarine warfare mean that there absolutely must be war between the US and Germany, or could the scenario I just outlined work?

As to Checkmate113's second point, I always though that the Germans only tried the Spring Offensive because they wanted to get a quick victory before the US forces arrived. Without the US getting in, would they really have tried something that early? I can see one of the two sides trying for a quick victory eventually, when the effects of being undersupplied take hold, but I'm thinking that would not be in the Spring of 1917 like in OTL.

BTW, thanks for all of the help guys. Wikipedia can only do so much.

How do you get the US to abandon trade with Europe because of the war. The war caused the demand for goods (and munitions) from the US to increase. Also many Americans OTL travelled on foreign ships. Did you put William Jennings Bryan in the White House??
 
How do you get the US to abandon trade with Europe because of the war. The war caused the demand for goods (and munitions) from the US to increase. Also many Americans OTL travelled on foreign ships. Did you put William Jennings Bryan in the White House??

No, I put in Champ Clark. Total isolationism. The US basically puts out a "travel at your own risk" notice, advising people that if you go anywhere near Europe, the US is not going to have your back. This would prevent all but the most adventurous American merchants from trying to trade with Europe. Even assuming that a lot of trade still happen, the warning serves to absolve the US government of any responsibility if merchant ships are sunk. President Clark can just say, "hey, I told you not to, it's not my fault you got sunk." I actually have Bryan playing even less of a role than he did in OTL. He's not secretary of state, A. Mitchell Palmer is.
 
You could always have Haig killed and all of his bloody offensives get butterflied away. His replacement doesn't utilise tanks and artillery properly. Germany and British Empire forces only fight in low intensity battles and by 1918 both still have a healthly supply of men. Of course you would still have to fix Germany's food problems.


By 1918 the stalemate was breaking, the introduction of tanks was allowing the allies to break lines with relative ease. The lines were breaking, without the Americans to stop them the Germans might even have pulled off their spring offensive, and when they get to Paris chances are the British are going to pull out and the French are going to have to start a cease-fire.

I was under the impression that the spring offensive was stopped at the second battle of the Marne, where the Americans contributed only 8 of the 58 allied divisions.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
No, I put in Champ Clark. Total isolationism. The US basically puts out a "travel at your own risk" notice, advising people that if you go anywhere near Europe, the US is not going to have your back. This would prevent all but the most adventurous American merchants from trying to trade with Europe. Even assuming that a lot of trade still happen, the warning serves to absolve the US government of any responsibility if merchant ships are sunk. President Clark can just say, "hey, I told you not to, it's not my fault you got sunk." I actually have Bryan playing even less of a role than he did in OTL. He's not secretary of state, A. Mitchell Palmer is.

With demands as high as they were in Britain and France the chance would be too good to pass. Many Americans merchants would still trade with Europe. OTL America gained a lot from the war trade. I think a lot of American ships would still be sunk, and the pressure would be on the administration to do something.
 
Without unrestricted submarine warfare Germany has no weapon to use against the UK. The British continue to control the seas, the Germans starve.

But you're right, with the submarine warfare you get American intervention. US would not be able to stand still if their ships are attacked.

But if there is a ultra isolationist US President then the war could end sooner rather then later.
US money and industry kept the Entente fighting.

What happens if the US doesn't supply guns, munitions and sundry other items that they consider to be contraband.

Remember the US sold battleship guns and submarines to the entente in contravention of the hague.

A truly neutral US would cause immense problems for the Entente as the US might just force GB to allow Neutral to Neutral trade.

And some of those neutrals Sweden, Holland and Denmark are next door to Germany and in the first two cases oh so friendly with Germany and wouldn't mind on selling to make enormous profit.

In the case of Holland, Queen Wilhelmina was very anti British because of the British action in the Boer wars to the extent that she supplied cheese to the German troop to stave off hunger.

Another biggie is that the US might force GB to allow Direct trade between the US and the CP.
Wilson lost a lot of support and had to strong arm GB to buy some of the cotton that was contracted to be sold to Germany

Another problem with the US and GB is if GB causes problems like seizing US ships it might get the US into the war on the CP side.
I'm quite sure the GB would trade Canada and its Atlantic territories to try to defeat Germany.
The end result would be a German win or draw with FRance and GB losing big time.
 
It's hard to imagine 'total isolationism'... because even at this time, too many people in the US make money off of international trade. Plus, it's hard to imagine that even if the US doesn't enter the war, they wouldn't gleefully make piles of cash by selling everything they can to the allies (US public opinion was mainly on their side).
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It's hard to imagine 'total isolationism'... because even at this time, too many people in the US make money off of international trade. Plus, it's hard to imagine that even if the US doesn't enter the war, they wouldn't gleefully make piles of cash by selling everything they can to the allies (US public opinion was mainly on their side).

Correct, too many Americans would make money out of the war, America would never ban profit. Profit is the American religion.
 
The idea that the USA could force Britain into stopping the sea blockade is ridiculous. The Royal Navy could take on the High Seas fleet and the US atlantic fleet at the same time while also controlling the med and pacific. The US army in 1914 is pathetic. It's air force is even more so. To start a war with Britain would be beyond stupid.
 
Top