If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

[Yodasgrandad]

With the greater emphasis on mobilized tanks and air assaults as well as more portable automated weaponry.

Would the warfare in a WW1 that lasted a couple more years been closer to the fighting of WW2 than that of the start of WW1?

[MLW]

The answer is probably no, but not in the way you are thinking of it. If WWI had lasted longer and not ended with the Versailles Treaty then there probably would have been no WWII as we know it. However, the flip side of your question is yes in the sense that combat in the first years of WWII, namely 1939 and 1940, had a closer resemblance to 1918 they did than to combat in 1945. What this all shows that history, to include military history, is a continuum with connections from one era or war to the next. It is likely that the long view of history will see WWI and WWII as one conflict with a 20-year pause in the middle. There is also a strong argument that WWII and hence WWI did not end until the fall of the communist Soviet Union in 1989, which itself had its roots in WWI.

Regards,
Marc
www.digitalhistoryarchive.com

[Sheldrake]

With the greater emphasis on mobilized tanks and air assaults as well as more portable automated weaponry.

Would the warfare in a WW1 that lasted a couple more years been closer to the fighting of WW2 than that of the start of WW1?

Warfare in 1918 was in many ways much closer to that of 1940 than 1914. Certainly the allied attacks in July and August were launched with surprise, accompanied by massed armour and close air support from hundreds of aircraft. Infantry moved quickly in small all arms units with automatic weapons, grenades and light mortars.

BUT.

Armour was a tactical not operational asset. About 50% of tanks broke down after each operation. Exploitation was with wheeled armoured cars and cavalry. Vehicle mounted wireless was in its infancy, precluding any form of mobile armoured warfare.

[maltesefalcon]

In order to fully understand how the war would progress through 1920, it would be helpful to know why it was necessary. i.e. Who is still left and how did this happen?
Russia was out by 1918, and the Turks and Hapsburgs were on the ropes. What changed from IRL?
It would be easy just to exclude the USA but its likely a war without the US would have ended sooner, not later. Both sides were exhausted and a negotiated peace with better terms for Germany may have emerged.

[pugsville]

It would be easy just to exclude the USA but its likely a war without the US would have ended sooner, not later. Both sides were exhausted and a negotiated peace with better terms for Germany may have emerged.

The German economy was in poor shape as was the German army. The US direct impact on the fighting was rather minimal, if the US does not enter the Entente does not have to equip and transport the US forces which would have freed up a lot of resources, thought US loans were a significant factor than were a small proportion of overall spending, the Entente could have economised some of their spending, a lot of the British capital ship building late war really wasn't needed,

The British and French political leadership was both strong and fairly hardline and unlikely to accept a settlement more favourable to germany., and if fact feeling more threatened could quite conceivably been more harsh.

The Other factor is the Germans my not have launched their spring offensive which basically broke the remaining strength of the German army. But if they had fought defensively their allies would have quit the war in 1918 anyway and their economy would have nose dived.

[maltesefalcon]

I could reflect on some of the points above, but I am waiting to hear from the original poster, to whom my comments were actually addressed.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Unlikely you will hear from him. His posts are minimal & suggest this may be a sock puppet for starting threads.

[NBrotz]

Here, let me lure the original poster out of hiding:

While the Treaty of Versailles seems to have stopped most large-scale fighting, aside from the Russian Civil War, plenty of local conflicts started up or continued on. Their contribution to the progression of military technology, at least until the Spanish Civil War in 36', seems to have been minimal. Although WWI could've been drawn out if Germany fought on as fanatically as it did in WWII, Germany had run out of strategic resources and manpower reserves with which to do anything more than delay the inevitable.

The only result might've been further decimation of the German population and destruction of German cities by the Allied armies (and likely airpower). The terms of surrender might've been even harsher, with possible de-industrialization and even splitting of the German state (a pre-Morgenthau Morgenthau Plan). Even if Germany survived all this intact, the Weimar Republic might've succumbed to a communist revolution in its (literally) weakened state. This gives the communists a springboard with which to spread into Central and Western Europe. Add this with the protracted war exacerbating the global depression, and the world becomes ripe for a global revolution. You could then anticipate technological regression as civil society degenerates, and military organizations are too preoccupied putting down domestic disputes to consider future international warfare.

In contrast, one could actually argue that the peace helped accelerate technological development. The mass demobilization of armies, particularly the German Army, forced their armed force(s) to find ways to remain combat effective with reduced manpower. It also gave theoreticians time to articulate their ideas into writing, time for military organizations to experiment and run test-trials on those ideas, and time for production of new war-machines to begin. Economies managed to not only stabilize - but grow, and the industrial base of the primary combatants of WWII greatly expanded to a level that could support the employment of largely motorized armies.

The conventional wisdom is that war is good for technological growth. In partial agreement, I'd argue this is only for short wars taking place away with civilian infrastructure. Even if the Allies had temporarily increased the mobility and firepower of their armies, as well as brought strategic bombers to the forefront, sheer exhaustion was going to cripple every nation involved.

[Yodasgrandad]

Apologies have been at college, I reply sometimes but not all the time incase I get shot down for my inferior knowledge which I have in the past

[jesk]

The Germans took a 14-point bluff Wilson. Then the Versailles world appeared. They were simply deceived, imposing the difficult conditions of a separate peace. But unlike the second world, no one thought to reach Berlin or force the Rhine.

[BDV]

The Germans took a 14-point bluff Wilson. Then the Versailles world appeared. They were simply deceived, imposing the difficult conditions of a separate peace. But unlike the second world, no one thought to reach Berlin or force the Rhine.

How quickly the lessons of the "100 Day Offensive" were forgotten.

[jesk]

How quickly the lessons of the "100 Day Offensive" were forgotten.

How?

[maltesefalcon]

Apologies have been at college, I reply sometimes but not all the time incase I get shot down for my inferior knowledge which I have in the past

You had time to write this. Perhaps that means you could also find the time to expand on your premise as requested, so we can make an appropriate reply to you?

[BDV]

How quickly the lessons of the "100 Day Offensive" were forgotten.

How?

because the utterance

They were simply deceived, imposing the difficult conditions of a separate peace.
(Dolchstosslegende, that is)

=> does not account for the disasters in Flanders and Champagne, and the disasters in the South and the South-East. The military defeat of the Allies in Fall 1918 was utter and total, no less total than that say of the French in 1870.

They were not "simply deceived", they were simply defeated.

[jesk]

How quickly the lessons of the "100 Day Offensive" were forgotten.

How?

because the utterance

They were simply deceived, imposing the difficult conditions of a separate peace.
(Dolchstosslegende, that is)

=> does not account for the disasters in Flanders and Champagne, and the disasters in the South and the South-East. The military defeat of the Allies in Fall 1918 was utter and total, no less total than that say of the French in 1870.

They were not "simply deceived", they were simply defeated.

Losses of the parties are comparable. I do not think that the defeat was the result of this offensive.

http://www.worldwar1luton.com/event/hun ... -offensive

8 August – 11 November 1918

Killed, wounded and prisoners:
531,000 French
411,636 British Empire
127,000 American
Total: 1,070,000

Killed and wounded:
785,733
Total prisoners:
386,342
Total: 1,172,075

British forces took 188,700 prisoners and captured 2,840 guns
French forces took 139,000 prisoners and captured 1,880 guns
American forces took 44,142 prisoners and captured 1,481 guns
Belgian forces took 14,500 prisoners and captured 414 guns

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Потери_в_ ... овой_войне
Historian Volkov cited data that the proportion of mobilized Germany to the total number of men aged 15-49 was 81%, while for every thousand mobilized 154 killed and died, respectively, for every thousand men aged 15-49, Germany lost 125 people , and the losses in recalculation for each one thousand inhabitants of Germany were 31 people.