WWI a stalemate?

Onyx

Banned
So what would happen? THe Allied and Centrals would realize that there losing too many lives and that they've been fighting for over 4 years with no improvements.

Would they actually work it out? ANd what would the territorial and results be?
 
I don't think that could happen. After all the lost lives they wouldn't want to end it with none of them getting anything out of it. A slight possibility could be a perpetual armistice like that which exists between North and South Korea, or between Israel and Syria. But I still don't think of that as very likely. You don't invest as much as they did into something without getting something out of it.
 
In An Alternate History of the Netherlands, I end up creating a Great War which results in a more-or-less status quo ante bellum.

But in reality, I find it difficult that any nation that sacraficed as much as the Europeans did during the Great War would settle for anything less than crushing their enemies to make sure the deaths of their countrymen were not in vain. Sure it might be logical to stop the fighting, but our species has (or had) too much pride to give so much then throw it all away.
 

Deleted member 1487

The easiest way is to kill of Hindenburg and Ludendorff. No Americans without the sub campaign that those two advocated and no Hindenburg Program that helped destroy Germany's economy (not as much as the blockade, but still). Without the Americans and the mismanagement of the economy, it is likely that the war ends in stalemate, as the Germans are unlikely to launch Kaiserschlacht without the threat of the Americans and instead negotiate after a series of sustainable offensives.
 
The problem was that the Entente never was willing to negotiate. Their war aims were such that they only could be implemented when the Central Powers were crushed. They had agreed not to undertake individual or separate peace talks, a pledge which Russia kept until her end. It took them several months to sort their war aims out between themselves for the peace treaties of 1919, no way this could have happened in any other scenario. - And on the German side the chance for a negotiated peace was also gone with the demise of Falkenhayn and the arrival of Hindenburg/Ludendorff.
 
The problem was that the Entente never was willing to negotiate. Their war aims were such that they only could be implemented when the Central Powers were crushed. They had agreed not to undertake individual or separate peace talks, a pledge which Russia kept until her end. It took them several months to sort their war aims out between themselves for the peace treaties of 1919, no way this could have happened in any other scenario. - And on the German side the chance for a negotiated peace was also gone with the demise of Falkenhayn and the arrival of Hindenburg/Ludendorff.

The Silent Dictatorship are indeed one of the principal obstacles: without Ludendorff's sham declaration of Polish independence, there was hope for a status-quo peace with Russia in 1916. This rather gives the lie to some of your other comments, however, since it means the Russians were willing to make a seperate peace, and so leave Germany the hegemony of Europe, when it seemed that this was the only way to save Russia's borders and monarchy.
 
Top