What if Interactive History V had happened? - German WWI victory

[Flavius Clemens]

For those of you who haven't followed Kraxis' excellent Interactive History V - The Duel of the Sea ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59564 ) , in it an aggresive campaign by the German Navy, combined with errors by the Royal Navy allow the Germans to block Calais, Dunkirk and Boulonge at a key moment in the 1918 offensive. The lack of supplies to the BEF allows the German army to push them back to Calais and threaten Paris, and the allies request an armistice.
In the course of the campaign the Kaiser developed some affinity with the Navy having been sidelined by the generals.

So, in these circumstances, what would the likely developments be? Could the Kaiser have continued in power in peacetime? The German economy would still have been in a poor state after the war, how would it have coped? What would the effect of this humiliation have been on Britain and France, especially given the magnitude of their losses in the war. Would they have been the cradle of fascism rather than Italy and Germany?

[King Henry V]

It is my opinion that if Germany had won the First World War, the world would be a happier place today with 60 million more people.
The German economy managed to recover after the war, and that was with the crushing terms of the Treaty of Versailles, thanks to American loans to the Weimar Republic. The peace terms with the Allies and the Central Powers would have been favourable to the Germans, and would have allowed their economy to recover rapidly. The Imperial Monarchy, strengthened by its victory, would have continued for at least several decades. Rebellios rif-raf such as the Nazis and Communists in German would not have been tolerated.
Germany would also have conserved the territories it had been granted under the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk, which would further have helped the German economy. The Kaiserliche government would not have regarded the turmoil in Russia with a favourable eye, and would probably have given much support to the White Russians and would maybe have committed its armed forces to the region. The fledgling Bolshevik republic would have fallen, and communism in Russia would have been nipped in the bud.
The Ottoman Empire was pretty much doomed anyway, and would have crumbled soon or later. Austria-Hungary would have taken its place of the sick man of Europe, however it could have survived as a constitutional monarchy with a sort of federal government with the Kaiser being the binding figure between the different nationalities.
Britain would probably not have been affected by communism or fascism, as the British are not all that keen on such religious politics.
France, on the other hand, was affected by a fairly strong communist movement in reality, so it would not be implausable to say that the commies would have garnered much support after the country's defeat in the war. As the rise of communism invariably leads to the rise of fascism, there would have been the same conflict between the two groups as that which had marked Italy and Germany. Like the latter, France could have gone fascist. Italy would probably have gone fascist in defeat as it did in victory. However, the duo of France and Italy would have been the military equivalent of Laurel and Hardy, so I doubt the world would have had much to fear from these two nations.
Germany would have superseded the Royal Navy under the terms of any treaty and colonies would also have been given over, such as perhaps Nigeria, Zanzibar, Kenya and chunks of French West Africas, as well as Asian possesions such as British New Guinea.

So, no communism, no naziism, and no holocaust.

[Csargo]

I agree with King Henry.

[Gurkhal]

I myself do mostly agree with Henry, however I still think that a second major war would shake Europe. The sheer humiliation of defeat might well lead both and France and Italy to fascism (sp?) and Great Britain seeking revange to find each other in a new major war with Germany. Also combined that all those countries do have a military potential, in particiler France which is very often overlooked it would mostly like be a very bloody war. Who would win that war is hard to say, although it's possible it could've gone either way. My beat would however be on Germany with increased resources in the east.

[King Henry V]

France was traumatised so much by the two wars, even when the last one was a victory, that it collapsed like a house of cards when Germany invaded in 1940. I think the effects of a second defeat would have been disastrous for French military morale and added an aura of invincibility to the Germans which would have been tough to overcome.
I believe that Great Britain, on the other hand, would have been somewhat repulsed by any notion of further involvement on the continent after such a defeat and would have turned increasingly isolationist. The country would have licked its wounds and vowed to regain its naval superiority. However, whether it would have been able to do so is another matter.
A second war could have flared up, though in such an instance I believe that Britain would only have been prepared to offer token assistance to the French and concentrated its efforts at defeating Germany at sea. It may or may not have won, but on land Germany would have been the undoubted master.

[Gurkhal]

I do not agree with your statements about France. First and foremost France would be in a kind of similer situation like Germany was after the WW1. Germany changed their military machine and with forthinking generals like Guderian and Rommel they changed the way of warfare and manage to overcome severe econimical problems, I see no reson as to why France couldn't manage the same.

France, Britan and Italy had forth thinking men like Germany. Yet the old school generals didn't want to lisen to their arguments about the new time. The old school won the WW1 (although with a certain degree of modernization), why then change a winning concept which worked in the last war? The reactionery military thinking which prevented the former victorers of WW1 from going forward like Germany would most likly disappere from the ranks of France, as well as England while it would most certain prove much stronger in the noble-dominated generalship of Germany. It's even entirly possible that the Germans wouldn't even evolve a tank corps, thinking that since they did without it in the last war, they could do without it again.

The trauma that is mention could also be evolved into many things, bitter hatred is one which given the patroitism of France during the war is a very likly evolution. Something which a skilled demagog might use to drive the people forward, similer to Hitler. Also lets not mistake the French initial involvement in the WW2 with the French involvement in WW1. During 1914-1918 the French bore the brunt of the fighting on the western front. To my knowledge never rivalled by any other of her allies except Russia in the number of troops committed and the casulties sustained.

Regarding Great Britain I think that London might happily engage themselves again if possibly if they thought they could win, most likly armed with the weapons of the new age, to win back their lost colonies.

[Keba]

Now, while the French would have adapted and accepted new ideas, one has to keep in mind, the German war machine was open to new ideas for a longer time, thus, the two would be in a nearly similar situation.

It would remain to be seen whether France would be able to make up the lost ground, considering that, if Germany was on the winning side (and the US on the losing one), they would be saddled with extreme amounts of reparations, not to mention damage and losses from the Great War. Keep in mind, the US was the one who kept the reparations smaller, the European way was always: Vae Victis. France would not be able to recover soon.

Britain would probably get involved, if they thought they could win, however, following a defeat in WWI due to Naval power of Germany, the Royal Navy would have been limited and weakened in the aftermath, not to mention the loss of colonies which would probably happen with that. Germany, with the massive increase in colonial holding, and the victory through the Navy, would probably vastly increase their own naval power. It would be a close battle for control of the sea.

The US, having been forced to sign a peace treaty, would probably become increasingly isolationist, and wouldn't get involved in such a conflict. On the other hand, it might shift to more extremist positions, but in that case, it would mostly keep itself centred on the Americas.

Italy itself was fairly fragile, and it's fate following WWI would be uncertain. Keep in mind, despite the victory, Italy was unstable, leading to the rise of Fascism, Italy was only united for a brief time ... and the defeat might even have caused it's collapse, akin to that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which, probably, would have survived, albeit greatly weakened and in a different, more diffuse form.

Russia would keep out of any such war, and considering that Germany would probably interevene in the Civil War in support of the Whites, they might even favour the Germans, thus adding the vast resources of Russia to their war effort.

Thus, as I see it, a second war would have, in this series of events in a German victory and a second defeat of France and Britain. Something, I believe would have led to the collapse of both countries.

[Csargo]

I think it is possible that France would have developed more into tanks if they would have lost the war but so would have Germany since the generals would have seen the potential of them like they did during the Second World War.

If you don't recall the French had tanks during WW2 they just didn't know how to use them. They were spread too thin along the front and therefore pretty much useless. I think that would have been the same if Germany would have won WW1.

Also I agree with KH's thought's on the British. The Germans would have made the British have a smaller Navy and taken some if not all of there colonial Empire. Then the Germans would begin to strengthen there Navy alot. Then the British would probably try to avoid another war with Germany as it would be almost unwinnable without a powerful Navy.

[Flavius Clemens]

Interesting thoughts.

In the specific context of the Interactive History the Germans won short term tactical advantage in the North Sea, allowing the interruption of supplies, but after the climactic battle the RN did still have superiority in ships (though not as great as at the start of the war), they just weren't in position to intervene. So I suspect that in negotiations Britain would have been in a rather stronger position than France, safe behind the 'best anti tank ditch in Europe' and wouldn't necessarily have lost colonies or had the navy limited by treaty. (As for what the French would have thought of us as a result...)

I'm not sure it's safe to assume "Britain would probably not have been affected by communism or fascism, as the British are not all that keen on such religious politics." The likes of Oswald Mosley would have had more to play with given the loss of life in the war without the consolation of victory to make it seem more bearable.

It sounds entirely plausible that the USA would wash it's hands of its failed allies. What would be interesting is whether they would have been motivated ideologically to intervene against the Bolsheviks in Russia, especially if the Germans did as King Henry V suggests.

[King Henry V]

I do not agree with your statements about France. First and foremost France would be in a kind of similer situation like Germany was after the WW1. Germany changed their military machine and with forthinking generals like Guderian and Rommel they changed the way of warfare and manage to overcome severe econimical problems, I see no reson as to why France couldn't manage the same.

France, Britan and Italy had forth thinking men like Germany. Yet the old school generals didn't want to lisen to their arguments about the new time. The old school won the WW1 (although with a certain degree of modernization), why then change a winning concept which worked in the last war? The reactionery military thinking which prevented the former victorers of WW1 from going forward like Germany would most likly disappere from the ranks of France, as well as England while it would most certain prove much stronger in the noble-dominated generalship of Germany. It's even entirly possible that the Germans wouldn't even evolve a tank corps, thinking that since they did without it in the last war, they could do without it again.

The trauma that is mention could also be evolved into many things, bitter hatred is one which given the patroitism of France during the war is a very likly evolution. Something which a skilled demagog might use to drive the people forward, similer to Hitler. Also lets not mistake the French initial involvement in the WW2 with the French involvement in WW1. During 1914-1918 the French bore the brunt of the fighting on the western front. To my knowledge never rivalled by any other of her allies except Russia in the number of troops committed and the casulties sustained.

Regarding Great Britain I think that London might happily engage themselves again if possibly if they thought they could win, most likly armed with the weapons of the new age, to win back their lost colonies.

Though perhaps in not so many words, I did acknowledge the fact that the rapid collapse of the French army in 1940 was partly due to the heavy toll it had taken during the First World War, which was only natural as they were defending their own country.

However, I disagree with your views on France and Germany.

Firstly, there is only so much revanchism that one can take. The defeat of France after four years of bloody war where they put evertything they had and more into the fight, would have a profoundly demoralising effect. While it is true that the old school of officers could have been severely disgraced and removed from their positions allowing a new breed of soldiers such as De Gaulle to come forward, it is equally possible that they could have come to the conclusion that what was needed was an even more static defence, with extra fortifications along the the frontier. Such thinking is hardly foreign to the French military mentality: during the Hundred Years War, after the English successes of the longbow over the heavy French knight, the latter responded by adopting even heavier armour until the last thirty years of the war.

Germany, on the other hand, was always relatively open to new technology: one need only look at the rapid adoption of the machine gun in the Imperial Army and the innovation in the infiltration tactics. Germany did indeed begin to build their own tanks towards the end of the war, however, materials were short so the production was only on a small scale. If a war in the east against the Bolsheviks had been pursuied, it would have given the High Command great opportunities to develop a mobile warfare strategy.

Of course, all this is ignoring the very likely possibility that Germany could and would have imposed very exacting terms on the French, such as a severe limit on the French military. Naturally, all this sounds very similar to Germany during the '30s, and fascism would in likelyhood have developped in France as it did in Italy. HOwever, I am not sure whether Britain would have been keen to support a fascist state in such an instance and may have brokered a deal with Germany where Britain would receive certain gains in exchange for neutrality during a war with France. Remember how perfidious we are . Furthermore, I do not see any chance of France winning a war. With Germany holding Alsace-Lorraine (Elsass-Lothringen), the border is fairly narrow, not leaving much room for armies to manoeuvre. I believe that Germany would be in a position of military superiority anyway, however it has one further strategic advantage compared France: its capital along with centres of goverment are far removed from the Germano-French border, unlike Paris.

In the specific context of the Interactive History the Germans won short term tactical advantage in the North Sea, allowing the interruption of supplies, but after the climactic battle the RN did still have superiority in ships (though not as great as at the start of the war), they just weren't in position to intervene. So I suspect that in negotiations Britain would have been in a rather stronger position than France, safe behind the 'best anti tank ditch in Europe' and wouldn't necessarily have lost colonies or had the navy limited by treaty. (As for what the French would have thought of us as a result...)

In that case the terms for Britain may well have been more favourable than it had been defeated outright on land and may well have negotiated a withdrawal from the conflict, though there would probably have been some sort of cap on the size of the Royal Navy, to allow the German navy to expand.

I'm not sure it's safe to assume "Britain would probably not have been affected by communism or fascism, as the British are not all that keen on such religious politics." The likes of Oswald Mosley would have had more to play with given the loss of life in the war without the consolation of victory to make it seem more bearable.

What I meant to say was not that fascism or communism would have been non-existant, however even with a defeat in WWI I doubt that the BUF would have been a major political player. One of the virtues of the first-past-the-post system is that fringe parties stand a lesser chance of winning power. The BUf may have held a handful of seats, but hardly much more than the Communists did in reality. Like I said, the British people are not that keen on such devout politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Firstly, there is only so much revanchism that one can take. The defeat of France after four years of bloody war where they put evertything they had and more into the fight, would have a profoundly demoralising effect. While it is true that the old school of officers could have been severely disgraced and removed from their positions allowing a new breed of soldiers such as De Gaulle to come forward, it is equally possible that they could have come to the conclusion that what was needed was an even more static defence, with extra fortifications along the the frontier. Such thinking is hardly foreign to the French military mentality: during the Hundred Years War, after the English successes of the longbow over the heavy French knight, the latter responded by adopting even heavier armour until the last thirty years of the war.

The Maginot Line concept would have been unworkable in such a context. Had Germany forced the armistice, they would have retained Longwy for the Iron as well and acquired the remainder of Alsace (along with all of Luxembourg and some/all of Belgium). That border would have been altogether too long and difficult/expensive to defend. The whole point of the Maginot was to channel the German offensive into the low countries where it could be met by superior forces.

Moreover, it is not unreasonable to posit either a quasi-fascist France or an aggressively communist one. Spain would have been much different, and the prospect of an alliance France/Spain/Italy under fascist rule would have been one possibility.

Germany, on the other hand, was always relatively open to new technology: one need only look at the rapid adoption of the machine gun in the Imperial Army and the innovation in the infiltration tactics. Germany did indeed begin to build their own tanks towards the end of the war, however, materials were short so the production was only on a small scale. If a war in the east against the Bolsheviks had been pursuied, it would have given the High Command great opportunities to develop a mobile warfare strategy.

I doubt imperial Germany would have pursued a war against the Reds in Russia all that assiduously. Even if the scenario had worked that way, they were nearly exhausted by the Spring of 1918, and would have been expending a lot of effort to turn the Brest-Litovsk acquisitions into food and stabilize that region. PLUS they would have had to have intervened to assist the Hapsburgs to kepp AH afloat. So I don't see them going mobile quite so quickly. Still, you're right about their innovative streak and blitzkrieg was a logical extension of the strosstruppen concept, so it would have happened.

[Franconicus]

So Germany has won the war, right?

First of all Germany would have created some buffer states between Germany and the USSR. These states would have been more or less satelites. The Balkans too would depend on German economy and polocy.

In the west the situation would be different. England would have been undefeated. So there would have been a compromise. England would not ahve lost anything. If the English put the blame on the French, they might have taken some parts of the French colonies as well as some parts of the Ottoman Empire.

Germany would have tried to make the French pay, by parts of France, the French colonies and money.

Of course Germany would have received his colonies back.

German economy would have recovered very fast. This, plus the victory would have stregthened the Kaiser. However, the country would have been very militaristic. The policy would have been led by the idea that war could solve every problem.

France would have been damned poor, without any allies and no chance for revange. Propably, France would have turned to communism. Or to a kind of conservative republic.

England would have recovered pretty soon. They would have concentrated on their Empire. Maybe here the policy would have turned away from Democracy as well.

[Kagemusha]

Or then maybe with harsh peace conditions the things that happened in German after the great war,would have happened in France. And France would have turned into a fascist country.Ofcourse this is all just speculation.

[Gurkhal]

In the west the situation would be different. England would have been undefeated. So there would have been a compromise. England would not ahve lost anything. If the English put the blame on the French, they might have taken some parts of the French colonies as well as some parts of the Ottoman Empire.

Since England would have to make peace on favouroble conditions to the Germans I would say that they were defeated. I don't think it's likly that a victorious Germany would allow a foe to take territorials for their own in the peace, and certainly not from one of Germany's own allies.

[The Wizard]

There could have been so many possibilities. Certainly, for the East it would've meant little, except perhaps that the Reds would not have been able to profit from the momentum they would've gained following the Russian Civil War (what with German garrisons and kinglets still strong in Eastern Europe).

I've seen one scenario which was incredible appealing to me. It was a mod for Paradox Entertainment's Hearts of Iron, and in it the maker(s) speculate that a Central victory could've (if we believe Murphy's Law, would've ) led France to become syndicalist (the Western European version of being a soviet republic), the USSR to come under Trotsky's tutelage instead of Stalin's, and other incredible alternative historical outcomes. Check it out!

On the comments of Henry V: make it simpler. What if the United States had been able to reign in the vengeful and ruthless demands of the French regarding Germany's after-war fate? Surely, as the post-WW2 period proved, it would have led to a far less vengeful German populace and thusly a far smaller supporter base for the NSDAP? Speculation, especially considering the fact that Black Thursday would probably still have happened, but interesting nevertheless.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think it would have saved a lot of lives.

[King Henry V]

On the comments of Henry V: make it simpler. What if the United States had been able to reign in the vengeful and ruthless demands of the French regarding Germany's after-war fate? Surely, as the post-WW2 period proved, it would have led to a far less vengeful German populace and thusly a far smaller supporter base for the NSDAP? Speculation, especially considering the fact that Black Thursday would probably still have happened, but interesting nevertheless.

Though the exactions of the Treaty of Versailles was a major catalyst for the rise of Hitler, it would be foolish to put the blame solely on that treaty. There were many other factors involved, such as as the rise of communism (one extreme provokes the growth of another) and the economic turmoil of 1930s. Of course the reparations could have been a lot more limited, Northern France, the industrial heartland of the country, was afterall devastated by four years of war and the US would not have been able to restrain the French that much. Therefore, there would still have been reparations for Germany to pay, which would still have caused resentment.

[The Wizard]

Note the fact that I said it was pure speculation, as well as the fact that I acknowledged that Black Thursday (the 1929 Wall Street crash) still would've happened.

But consider this. What if Germany had won? What would they have done with their implacable enemy, France? The United Kingdom would've likely escaped the dance with a serious dent in their international prestige (giving serious momentum to anti-colonial movements), but what about France?

Germany joined the war so quickly to try and smash Paris's head in. So, say France got the same treatment from Germany that Germany got from France in real life. What would we have seen? What I linked to -- a communo-syndicalist France? Fascist? Or just weak?

Oh, the possibilities...

[Csargo]

I think that the war would have ended up differently if the Germans wouldn't have invaded through Belgium. Like in the AAR Bopa posted. Britian would have most likely stayed neutral in the conflict and therefore the US would most likely have stayed neutral the entire conflict but still would have sold arms to both Germany and France. The Germans would not have had the RN blockading their ports then they would have been able to sustain the war longer with food imports and other imports.

If they would have turned their attention towards Russia instead of France. I think Russia would have been defeated in 2 to 3 years. Then being able to turn their full attention on France then could have defeated them. If this were to happen then Europe would be a very different place today.

[King Henry V]

However, German would then have lost the advantage in outflanking the French and bypassing their major fortresses built along the Franco-German border.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The problem with adopting a defensive posture in the West and turning East was a matter of time/distance/logistics.

France would still have begun their "offensive a outrance" and would have been brought up short just as calamitously. Germany would have been unable to push forward through the heart of the French defenses. Stalemate.

In the East, however, 2 year to defeat Russia would have been way too omptimistic. AH forces were notoriously ineffective in the attack and under coordinated. Russian forces were incredibly numerous and surprisingly brave/resilient -- especially in defense. Russian logistics, production, and transport were all excreble and would have (did) led to their defeat in the field. But the same vast distances, huge numbers of men, and miserable transportation net would have made decisive action against Russia exceedingly slow. This was the original reason for the decision to attack France with the bulk of the German army in the first place.

Historically, Germany's defeat of Russia was more a product of Russia's internal dissolution than German success on the field. Germany did win most of the battles, but the numbers they faced were daunting and slowed any real forward progress despite the poor equippage and leadership. The Russia would break apart was nearly inevitable. The level of corruption under the last Romanov's was staggering and the whole society teetered on the brink. Even so, defeat from those causes took nearly 3 years.

[Csargo]

The problem with adopting a defensive posture in the West and turning East was a matter of time/distance/logistics.

France would still have begun their "offensive a outrance" and would have been brought up short just as calamitously. Germany would have been unable to push forward through the heart of the French defenses. Stalemate.

In the East, however, 2 year to defeat Russia would have been way too omptimistic. AH forces were notoriously ineffective in the attack and under coordinated. Russian forces were incredibly numerous and surprisingly brave/resilient -- especially in defense. Russian logistics, production, and transport were all excreble and would have (did) led to their defeat in the field. But the same vast distances, huge numbers of men, and miserable transportation net would have made decisive action against Russia exceedingly slow. This was the original reason for the decision to attack France with the bulk of the German army in the first place.

Historically, Germany's defeat of Russia was more a product of Russia's internal dissolution than German success on the field. Germany did win most of the battles, but the numbers they faced were daunting and slowed any real forward progress despite the poor equippage and leadership. The Russia would break apart was nearly inevitable. The level of corruption under the last Romanov's was staggering and the whole society teetered on the brink. Even so, defeat from those causes took nearly 3 years.

Yes but you have to remember that the Germans were better trained, better armed, and IMHO had better commanders. With the Germans on the Defensive on the Western Front and never going through Belgium the British would have most likely not entered the war at all. If that would have happened then the Russian would have been worse off. Without the supplies given to the Russians by the rest of the Entente it would have went worse than it did.

I think all this would have led to the collapse of the Romanov's. Even more rapid then it already was. You have to remember that a major cause of the breakdown was because of the horrific loss of life on the Russian side. I don't know about you but I wouldn't have wanted to go over the top charging at the enemy with no weapon and told by my superiors to take one off one of my dead comrades or a German soldier. That wouldn't have made my morale any higher if anything it would have made me think my leadership was incompentent.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd still argue that time and distance were against a German victory versus Russia as rapidly as was suggested. I am definitely NOT of the opinion that Russia would somehow have won -- we're arguing about the pace of collapse.

Moreover, it is uncertain that Belgium neutrality was the only cause that could have brought England in. It was, certainly, the only thing that would have brought them in rapidly (as occurred). But the pre-war naval agreements with France putting all of the French fleet in the Med, Germany's historically successful efforts to bring the Ottomans in as well as the spectre of continued growth of German Naval Power resulting from a successful war would have also exerted some influence -- possibly even triggering British intervention.

[Csargo]

You don't think that the collapse of Russia would have went faster if the Germans concentrated on the Eastern Front.

I'de have to agree with you there but I think it was a major cause of them entering the war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't think that the collapse of Russia would have went faster if the Germans concentrated on the Eastern Front.

Faster, yes. Over and done with in mid-'16, no. France would still have been exerting considerable pressure in the West, even if it was largely futile in terms of strategic success.

As to the East, Russia was a wasteland by comparison to France. Russia had barely 10% of the railways possessed by Germany, all constructed to a different gauge -- and that was THE means of supply for mass armies of the era. The distance from Coblenz to Paris is less than 260 miles. To reach "decisive ground" in Russia involves distances (from Konigsberg) of 770 miles to St. Petersburg, 952 miles to Moscow, or 710 miles to Kiev. In 1914, the Russians could mobilize more than 6 million, over triple Germany's total. Even if 100s of thousands were armed with pointy sticks, they would still represent a formidable obstacle. Even following the collapse of Russia -- garrison duties alone required millions of Central Powers soldiers. So, the German Army of 1914 was facing huge distances over which it would have to completely redo the entirety of the transportation infrastructure to move forward, supply its troops, and consolidate any gains. I just don't see that happening quickly enough to create a 24 month victory scenario. Germany put its best efforts Eastwards in 1915 and made substantial gains, but could not generate the decisive result needed for a quick victory. I don't see an earlier focus in this direction as generating a better result. Germany's incomparable combat advantages over Russia were nothing compared to the strategic/logistic disadvantages of trying to swallow something that size. It takes a lot of effort for the snake to eat the guinea pig.

[Csargo]

Faster, yes. Over and done with in mid-'16, no. France would still have been exerting considerable pressure in the West, even if it was largely futile in terms of strategic success.

As to the East, Russia was a wasteland by comparison to France. Russia had barely 10% of the railways possessed by Germany, all constructed to a different gauge -- and that was THE means of supply for mass armies of the era. The distance from Coblenz to Paris is less than 260 miles. To reach "decisive ground" in Russia involves distances (from Konigsberg) of 770 miles to St. Petersburg, 952 miles to Moscow, or 710 miles to Kiev. In 1914, the Russians could mobilize more than 6 million, over triple Germany's total. Even if 100s of thousands were armed with pointy sticks, they would still represent a formidable obstacle. Even following the collapse of Russia -- garrison duties alone required millions of Central Powers soldiers. So, the German Army of 1914 was facing huge distances over which it would have to completely redo the entirety of the transportation infrastructure to move forward, supply its troops, and consolidate any gains. I just don't see that happening quickly enough to create a 24 month victory scenario. Germany put its best efforts Eastwards in 1915 and made substantial gains, but could not generate the decisive result needed for a quick victory. I don't see an earlier focus in this direction as generating a better result. Germany's incomparable combat advantages over Russia were nothing compared to the strategic/logistic disadvantages of trying to swallow something that size. It takes a lot of effort for the snake to eat the guinea pig.

Yes France would have made gains at a tremendous loss of life with minimal gains.

That would go both ways for them with the railway gauges. Russian would of had the same problem with that. I said 2-3 years if I implied 2 I'm sorry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

3 years, a.k.a. a few months faster than reality -- I'd buy that.

Russia's few significant offensive successes were all at the expense of the AH forces.

Yes the rail gauge thing was a problem going both ways -- but even worse for a Russian attack since they had less of an industrial base for modifying/laying rail.

Had to love the Russian pilots of that war though....attacking kraut obs birds with a grapnel on a line.....cojones!

[Csargo]

3 years, a.k.a. a few months faster than reality -- I'd buy that.

Russia's few significant offensive successes were all at the expense of the AH forces.

Yes the rail gauge thing was a problem going both ways -- but even worse for a Russian attack since they had less of an industrial base for modifying/laying rail.

Had to love the Russian pilots of that war though....attacking kraut obs birds with a grapnel on a line.....cojones!

Yeah 2-3 years would have probably been all Russia could have taken.

Yep A-H was in a weakened state at the beginning of the war and throughout it.

Yep

Yes that had to have cojones or just crazy

[spmetla]

So could we assume then that with a German/Austrian victory over Russia looming in 1916 that Italy would either of remained neutral or joined against France?

[Kralizec]

However, the duo of France and Italy would have been the military equivalent of Laurel and Hardy,

France wasn't a paper tiger on the eve of WW2. In terms of raw military power they were at least the equal of Germany. The Germans actually ran into trouble defeating some of the heavier French tanks. France was defeated because they had no adequate answer to Blitzkrieg.

Putting France down there with Italy is wrong, IMO. Especially considering most of the succeses France did have in fighting the invasion were against Italians.