AH Gurps setting WW1 stilling going in 1964

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by lwhitehead

Hi this is my second idea for AH Gurps setting WW1 still going on strong in 1964, inspired by Iron Storm video game and Tannhauser board game by fantasy flight games.


What problems I have with this setting is this, both sides would have would have problem with manpower, suppiles and funding.


One the Allies side there would be very strong Anti German feelings among the nations, also amnong both the Centeral Powers and Allies there would be suppression of Labor and Socialist unions and problems. In America it would be Hyphenated and have Prohibition still going on, there is no American Lager or Cigarates don't have filters and chemical addtives.

Romania is with the Centeral Powers, due to the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen being the royal family of that nation,

LW

Prohibition was post WWI successfully becoming law by a surreal alliance of varied political interests in the 1910s, one of which was getting the amendment that legalized the income tax passed. Why would a continuing war setting have it?

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

Prohibition was post WWI successfully becoming law by a surreal alliance of varied political interests in the 1910s, one of which was getting the amendment that legalized the income tax passed. Why would a continuing war setting have it?

Because among other factors it was the returning troupes the pushed political balance back.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by chimchim

The problem with this is that i do not think the UK, France or Germany could even contemplate going back to all out war again in five or even ten years.

Do they have to? The key to running a marathon is pacing yourself. We don't need all out hostilities. We need to keep people shooting, even if it isn't all that many people. A few naval battles, a little air war, and above all, expansion. Bring new nations into the war, or let them drop out out again and take a breather for a generation. Any time two nations go to war, it gets merged into the great war. Any time a colonial possession rebels, they do it with the backing of the other side even though it's the locals doing the lion's share of the fighting.

In any case, all that's really necessary is for an actual general peace treaty to never be signed so that every resumption of hostilities is still the same war.

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

Prohibition was post WWI successfully becoming law by a surreal alliance of varied political interests in the 1910s, one of which was getting the amendment that legalized the income tax passed. Why would a continuing war setting have it?

IIRC it was touted as a "win the war" measure, like the pub closing times in the UK. A drunken worker is an inefficient worker . . . and in a war industry this wasn't allowed.

There was, of course, the hidden motive of ruining the urban political machines that were often based in and funded by saloons. No saloons, and Tammany and others take a hit. The machines were disliked by the progressives as opponents of the reform of the US (i.e., having a US run by intelligent, disinterested groups dedicated solely to the public good.)

Oh -- and Marshal Foch noted that the Versailles treaty wasn't a peace, it was a twenty-year armistice. he was off by a few months. Versailles was harsh enough to make the Germans feel aggrieved but not harsh enough to keep them from preparing for Round Two in 1939. The German rulers were starting their preparations before the ink dried on the treaty in 1919. It was not all A. Hitler's fault.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No. In the Versailles Treaty the Germans lost too much. The kind of truce I'm talking about is more like the ones which concluded the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The Germans would remain in their positions in France still controlling the territory they occupied, the Kaiser would remain as government head.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea that Germany got a raw deal (namely, no Anschluss with the remains of Austria), the Kaiser had already abdicated. In fact, a big reason why Germany didn't do as well as France did in the same position a hundred years earlier was that there was a revolution going on in Germany, and they were unable to negotiate much since there was an absence of a stable government.

I've posted this elsewhere, but instead, have the Russian Provisional Government get an accurate read on its troop morale and resources and throw in the towel in March 1917. Germany and Austria-Hungary can wipe up in the Balkans and Italy (both places where the war was going fairly well for the Central Powers at that point) and now only fight on one front. Russia loses Courland to Germany as the Duchy of Courland in Prussia, Poland and Lithuania become independent German puppet states with a strip of land along the Prussian-Polish frontier becoming Prussian, letting Germany kick out its Polish population, Romania loses a little frontier land to Hungary and Dobruja to Bulgaria but gets Bessarabia, Bulgaria gets all of Macedonia, Albania gets Kosovo, the Habsburgs incorporate Serbia and Montenegro with Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia to make the Triple Monarchy, Austria proper gets a little bit of the Venice area back.

Now you can decide what happens in the main theatre: Germany and maybe Austria-Hungary-Serbia against France, the UK, Belgium and maybe America. And whoever winds up winning there gets to knife the Sick Man; Germany and Austria would suddenly get upset about the Armenian situation if they were to win in France, since the Ottomans are no longer useful with France and Russia neutralized.

[Mysterious Dark Lord v3.2]

The First World War had it's roots in the imperial expansion of the 19th century. The empires ran out of planet to expand onto, and were divided between older, smug empires and brash young upstart empires. 1914 was just the age when tempers reached the boiling point; at that point, almost anything would have triggered total war. If Archduke Ferdinand had been in another country, some other violent event would have been seized upon as an excuse and the secret treaty network would have dragged everyone else in.

If the signatories of the treaties that created the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente didn't honor their commitments, then the assassination of the Archduke would have been a purely internal Ottoman Empire matter. This would have caused a reshuffling of alliances, much behind-the-scenes complaining, and may have delayed WWI by years.

If the start of the war was delayed until 1925-1930 and the lesser powers committed their resources piecemeal instead of in a zerg rush, the war might be dragged out until the 1960's. It would be a "floating war", with small sub-wars beginning and ending, allowing the various combatants to fight then regroup. In practice, not unlike the Hundred-Years War. American participation might be similar to the commitments in Asia in the 1950's and 1960's (Korea and Vietnam).

[Anders]

The only way to get a semi-equal truce is if the U.S. keeps out of the war. Otherwise, the influx of fresh U.S. troops will trounce the Germans.

[Apache]

Simple.

Make the Kaiser not quite as stupid as in reality (or make Bismarck, et al, better at handling him...), and have the Zimmerman Telegram never happen.

Even with unrestricted sub warfare, Wilson was enough of an incompetent imbecile to keep the US out of the war, Britain collapses due to the blockade and sues for peace in late 1918/early 1919. Russia drops out of the war in 1917 (and becomes the USSR), France agrees to an armistice with Germany, new Cold War ensues for the next 10-20 years with various brushfire incidents and proxy wars. Japan annexes Korea and most of China.

Then, in 1938, something happens......

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Apache

Simple.

Make the Kaiser not quite as stupid as in reality (or make Bismarck, et al, better at handling him...), and have the Zimmerman Telegram never happen.

I hope you realise that Otto von Bismarck had been dead for 16 years when World War I broke out?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Apache

Simple.

Make the Kaiser not quite as stupid as in reality (or make Bismarck, et al, better at handling him...), and have the Zimmerman Telegram never happen.

Even with unrestricted sub warfare, Wilson was enough of an incompetent imbecile to keep the US out of the war, Britain collapses due to the blockade and sues for peace in late 1918/early 1919. Russia drops out of the war in 1917 (and becomes the USSR), France agrees to an armistice with Germany, new Cold War ensues for the next 10-20 years with various brushfire incidents and proxy wars. Japan annexes Korea and most of China.

Then, in 1938, something happens......

The problem seems to be that you have ended WWI on variant terms and then begun WWII also on an alternate basis. The design goal appeared to be to extend WWI for c.50 years with minimal evolution in the situation.

Of course, I hadn't posted to this thread yet because I could think of no way to do these things.

Extending WWI (which had stretched the developed world's economy so near to the breaking point that the great depression became inevitable IMHO) is extremely difficult and preventing the tech evolution that marked the changes between WWI and II might even be harder

You want this setting to occur I'm afraid your going to need to load everything into your GM Fiat and avoid slowing down enough for the players t get a close look at what "really" happened.