WWI fought in vain

I know there's a lot of TL;DR around here so I'll try to make this first part short. I want to explore a 20th century in which both sides see little hope of victory and even incentive to try to achieve it. Please give me some ideas about what you think would happen to the governments, societies and future objectives of the various participating countries.
 
WWI offered a rare chance for a truce. It's obvious that by the end of WWI, the armies of every major participant ,except perhaps the Americans, were thoroughly exhausted. The civilians at home were quite tired of the war as well. It is equally obvious however, that no side wanted to call it quits after throwing so many years, resources and lives into the war lest these lives be given in vain. Whichever side won planned to make absurd demands on the losing side.

Influenza, which, unlike most diseases, struck hardest at able bodied young adults, was clearly a terrifying disease. Men in the Trenches had already endured years of unrelenting disease and infection without the help of antibiotics or modern medical equipment. Influenza, striking just slightly earlier than it did in reality, brings yet another horror to the Western front as well as the home front. The disease spreads quickly in the ranks of soldiers and just as quickly among civilians.

Of course, the influenza might not be the best POD here, though I find it the most dramatic as it is likely to be taken as a divine sign of the need to end hostilities and an event beyond control any side's control) in which case I would be open to other possible PODs leading to a relatively equal peace if not a true stalemate.

The destructive potential for the disease is not in question. What is in question is its effect on the war effort. I expect most of you to say something along the lines of "it wouldn't have made much difference, it might have hurried the defeat of the Germans but they were going to lose no matter what." This may be true. It is also possible that it would have spread among the allies first, thus allowing the Germans to succeed in their 1918 Spring offensive (or whatever final attack they would have mounted). It is also possible however that it would have led to a genuine attempt at a truce, though not necessarily one that preserves the status quo. In fact, there is no way the status quo could have been preserved because of Russia's collapse and revolution.


What I imagine occurring instead is a period of chaos, as regimes try to hold on to legitimacy or topple, as some countries break up, some attempt to enlarge themselves and others are born anew. I am not certain whether the depression is lost due to the butterfly effect but I think we have every reason to believe that, at the very least, Europe will be in shambles economically as well as socially. I imagine a world in which fear of calamitous war is balanced against a need to avenge unrealized objectives. There are so many possible routes that a country could take. Please share what you feel to be the most plausible.
 
One underconsidered option is a truce in reaction to sticker shock in late 1914/early 1915. When you consider that no country entered WWI with clear objectives or war aims, and that nobody had expected the war to be so destructive, it shouldn't be surprising that the idea was mooted. Quite forcefully, in fact. German, French, Austrian and Russian generals all could not believe the casualty figures of 1914 and believed that they were watching their armies fall to pieces. Turned out they didn't, but with just a slight shift in assumptions, the belief could move them to accepting a white peace. The soldiers and civilians would certainly appreciate it.

Of course, the aftermath will be rough, especially for the German and Austro-Hungarian government.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I assume you mean the war started, but then we have an early negotiated peace. IMO, this has to happen when the fronts are relatively stable, so this means over a winter. I also assume you are not changing the outcomes of battles. Unlike carlton bach, I don't see it being ended before the winter of 1915 and 1916. The fronts are very fluid, and at any given time one sides looks like it is just another major push from victory or a better place to negotiate peace from. First the Germans have success in France, but this stalls. Then the Russians lose 1.5 armies to the Germans. Then the Russians take the two major A-H fortress cities and look like they are about to break into the central Hungarian plain. Then couple months later, the Germans counter attack, and it looks like Russia is collapsing. Finally by September 1915, the fronts look stable. To have peace in this time frame, means the winner must have a very generous offer to whoever looks like it is losing in a given month. This implies a prewar plan to do this, since coming up with an offer is a complicated internal issue for even one power, much less a coalition. If you get a peace here, I think you guarantee a stabbed in the back myth (perhaps a lot of truth to this one), and a second war, probably faster than OTL. This is an ugly scenario with much bigger armies fighting part 2 probably in the late 1920's. There has not been enough suffering to drive the needed changes.

Now over the Winter of 1915/16, there are starting to begin to see calls for peace. The front is fairly static for about 6 months. With the right mediation (Wilson is effective agent for peace, Pope gets heavily involved), I can see it being done. So what does a peace deal look like.

1) Minor symbolic reparations.

2) Either minor colonial adjustments or status quo prewar, excluding what Japan takes.

3) Poland ends up as some type of neutral buffer state or DMZ. Belgium goes back to neutral status.

4) The western Front is more of an issue. France wants A-L. Germany wants to keep it gain, so I guess we go back to status quo prewar. At this point, Germany has feels it is winning, so it has given up a lot. It needs something back, and I have trouble seeing where this goes. Maybe some colonial concessions such as French Equitorial Africa is enough to make it workable for all sides.

Now what do we get here. Probably enough suffering to get people to accept, but we still have stabbed in back issues. Russia will have another deep crisis like after its war with Japan. A Polish buffer state will help both sides, but will be hated by both German and Russia. France will have suffered greatly, and will be fearful of future. It has to keep its large army, and builds some type of massive defensive line. Naval race continues, we see the 17" guns. UK will need to keep a large standing army, and likely does due to strategic realities. USA stays much more isolationist, but does build large navy. We end up with a lot of European countries that are poorer than prewar, and this causes stability issues. A-H can go a lot of ways. Italy will feel betrayed.

But don't get me as too pessimistic. The worst of the Great Depression is avoided. The demographic issues are largely avoided. Europe still exports a lot of people, but less than prewar. Algeria is still a part of France,and is majority Christian. As is Libya. Tunisia could well be in this category. A lot of African colonies and South America are whiter.

You asked a pretty broad question. Is there some area you are more interested in. It basically butterflies away OTL, so we could write thousands of pages on the topic.
 

sharlin

Banned
WW1 was a war fought in vain, for near pointless reasons, a crown princes of europe production that with luck will never be repeated.
 

Cook

Banned
I want to explore a 20th century in which both sides see little hope of victory and even incentive to try to achieve it.
The major powers went into World War One largely by accident and through a fear of being overwhelmed by the other states if they hesitated; not being confident of outright victory would not be likely to change this, they’d be fighting to secure their position prior to negotiations, which is largely what they were doing anyway.
 
It basically butterflies away OTL, so we could write thousands of pages on the topic.

Precisely. Our timeline is butterflied away quite thoroughly. What better place to start than the immediate close of hostilities. I don't anticipate some kind of German wank or something along those lines, just a continuation of the multipolar world predating the war.


First of all, how will the Austrian Empire break up as peacefully and orderly as possible. (I don't care what everyone else thinks, that country is going to break up and fast.) I believe Germany will be happy to break it into tiny states thereby appearing to be working in favor of self-determination and appearing to show a lack of aggression but actually keeping much of central and Eastern Europe weak (except maybe Hungary) and necessarily dependent upon Germany.

What happens to German overseas territories? I'm not sure that they'll be getting them back.

Perhaps most importantly, what happens to the middle East? I really don't know the answer here. Will the Germans let the British have it in exchange for something, such as the return of colonies, tacit hegemony over Eastern Europe or a token German protectorate in the area alongside the British and French ?(doubt it) Will they go back to the Ottomans? (fat chance!) Or will something else happen? It seems plausible that the British will just take and nobody will object. At least they'll feel like they got something out of the war.
Nothing seems quite certain but something would have had to have happened to these vitally important places.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
First of all, how will the Austrian Empire break up as peacefully and orderly as possible. (I don't care what everyone else thinks, that country is going to break up and fast.) I believe Germany will be happy to break it into tiny states thereby appearing to be working in favor of self-determination and appearing to show a lack of aggression but actually keeping much of central and Eastern Europe weak (except maybe Hungary) and necessarily dependent upon Germany.

What happens to German overseas territories? I'm not sure that they'll be getting them back.

Perhaps most importantly, what happens to the middle East? I really don't know the answer here. Will the Germans let the British have it in exchange for something, such as the return of colonies, tacit hegemony over Eastern Europe or a token German protectorate in the area alongside the British and French ?(doubt it) Will they go back to the Ottomans? (fat chance!) Or will something else happen? It seems plausible that the British will just take and nobody will object. At least they'll feel like they got something out of the war.
Nothing seems quite certain but something would have had to have happened to these vitally important places.

A-H can go a lot of ways, and what Germany wants to happen is critical. Germany strongly supporting any particular plan goes a very long way to making it happen. I tend to think Germany would prefer a united A-H that needs Germany as an ally. Breaking apart created a lot of issue for Germany, such as a Polish Issue in Posen.

Colonies: There are two basic points one can start a negotiated peace. Status quo prewar or status quo cease fire lines. And people need deals they public can tolerate. Status quo prewar means Germany gets it colonies back, but I doubt Japan will do it without another war. And South Africa will not be eager to give back SWA. I think to make the deal work using this as a base means France/Belgium has to give colonial concessions to German of a non-trivial nature. IMO, France is a lot more likely, and we see some type of connection between Kamerun and German East Africa so the Kaiser can claim a win. If we go status quo cease fire, I think we back into the same dynamic. Germany will have obviously lost colonies, but then they get to keep Belgium and a chunk of France as client states or annexation. Belgium trading the Congo for its independence is a great deal for Belgium. I think the UK has to throw in some sweateners and give some of the German colonies back. France will trade 1 square km of land for 1000 or even 10,000 square km of colonial land. Again, assuming both sides want peace, some type of colonial arrangement looks likely. Again, MittelAfrika.

Ottomans are doing ok in 1916, and they do better than OTL by a wide margin. The Sinai being a DMZ type area as it was prewar is an easy solution. So we now have to deal with the parts of Turkish Armenia lost and the southern 1/3 of Iraq. It seems like Arabs have not even revolted yet. A lot depends on Germany, which has the bargaining chips. For concessions on where the Polish border would be in the east, Russia would gladly give back Turkish Armenia. The UK would likely give up some sand in Arabia for no giving the Germans colonies back, or as many colonies back. Or you could just be the cease fire lines are the new borders. Either one is workable. The Germans have prime real estate the Entente wants (Belgium, France, Poland), so the CP will not lose any prewar land not already lost to the Entente. And with oil becoming more important and the Entente losing its trade concessions in the Ottoman empire, expect heavy German investment in the Ottoman areas, especially the Kurdish oil fields.

The UK will not have a hegemony over the middle east, unless you mean Basra, Aden, and Egypt. And given 20 years, the renewed power of the Ottoman army paid for by oil revenues will be a strategic threat to the British.
 
1917 Nivelle Mutinies result in a French military and political collapse. With Russia already out of the war thanks to the revolution there Britain has little choice but to negotiate with the Central Powers

Or German 1918 Spring offensive is far more succesful before the Americans arrive in force to stabilise things At this point both sides might be agreeable to a peace based on German withdrawls from occupied territory in France and Italy. The treaty of Brest Litovsk has to be recognised by the Western Allies as must Central Powers territorial gains in the Balkans. Maybe defeated nations suchh as Serbia and Roumania willbe allowed to stay independent but in effect will be dominated by the Central Powers.

Germany and Austria will have won the war in either case but not by much.
 
1917 Nivelle Mutinies result in a French military and political collapse. With Russia already out of the war thanks to the revolution there Britain has little choice but to negotiate with the Central Powers

Or German 1918 Spring offensive is far more succesful before the Americans arrive in force to stabilise things At this point both sides might be agreeable to a peace based on German withdrawls from occupied territory in France and Italy. The treaty of Brest Litovsk has to be recognised by the Western Allies as must Central Powers territorial gains in the Balkans. Maybe defeated nations suchh as Serbia and Roumania willbe allowed to stay independent but in effect will be dominated by the Central Powers.

Germany and Austria will have won the war in either case but not by much.

If the Western powers agree to such demands, I think they might be inclined to keep the German colonies.
 
Top