What single change would have given the best chance for the Central Powers to win World War 1?

Question

A common topic in alternate history fiction works is what would have happened if a major war had been won by the other side. These usually focus on the events after the war, and the change itself is not depicted realistically: it's either not discussed, or attributed to a superweapon or deus ex machina.

I know that WW1 was a very complex war, with a huge number of social and economic factors in it so that there was no single realistic "miracle" which would have guaranteed a certain different outcome. Therefore I list a number of disclaimers in order to make this question fit into the topic of this site.

1. It doesn't have to guarantee an Central Powers victory, but it has to increase its probability significantly.
2. A victory doesn't necessarily mean global domination. If Germany ends up with France, Russia, Britain and all the fish in Europe (As would say Bismark of weak countries) as a allied by treaties of peace, so Europe can counter the world domination ambitions of America, it counts as a victory for Germany.
3. The change has to be a single event, or a collection of tightly coupled and interdependent events. It has to happen either during the war, or not more than a few years before it. The war should, at least in the beginning, look very similar to what happened in real life: the Triple Entete should be roughly the same, etc.
4. The change should have a realistic justification (so no secret Kaiserreich super laser), I would think in the following changes: events progressing slightly faster or slightly slower than in real life, a single large battle or series of interconnected battles won by the opposite side (if that had even a small chance of happening)
5. And the new allies of Germany should join the Zollverin.

Edit:

For acomplish the requiriment number two (2), is required for the European powers to no be broke, or anything that resembles it. And no leftism founding campaings.

Answer 1

Make Woodrow Wilson not a Moron

For details i suggestThe Road Less Traveled: The Secret Battle to End the Great War, 1916-1917. Essentially by late 1916 the British, and by extension the Allies, as the Brits were basically footing the bill for France as well by that time, were out of money. They were literally seizing gold from British citizens to send to Canada to trade to america for stuff. They were desperate for a way out. The Central Powers had the finances to keep things going (and obviously they did another two years). However the Germans knew things were rocky on their end, especially Austria-Hungry, and did NOT know how close Britain was to bankruptcy. Enter Wilson.

Wilson wanted to be the statesman that ended the war. The Germans wanted a peace conference, and wanted Wilson to propose it. The British likewise. However Wilson (because he had no actual experience being a politician and used as proxy a man so ignorant he was worried about a UK/Japanese invasion of america DURING WWI) bungled the whole process until, because of the aforementioned proxy and several others who wanted the US in the war, the entire thing collapsed and the US decided to start funding the British government on the way to joining the war. Again this is all VERY "rough overview."

So what happens instead?

Wilson declares a conference at The Hague to discuss the end of the war, with a general ceasefire, lifting of all blockades, and the understanding that at the end of the conference Germany will evacuate and restore Belgium. (that was the Central power's offer to start talks) The British would be in a hard place to say no (since ostensibly they went to war to save Belgium) and also Wilson could simply deny them access to american money/materiel which would have crippled the allied war effort. The Germans also discussed (internally) returning captured french territory and part/all of Alsace/Lorraine in return for certain territorial concessions either in Europe or colonial holdings.

At this point in the war the German terms seem more than generous. The Western allies would almost certainly agree, because it gets what they want (more or less) and the Americans could pull their economic levers if they seemed hesitant. Wilson would have a lot of support in that too, as in 1914-1916 the American Populace is very pro-neutral and leaned more towards the central powers than the allies. (lots of Germans and Irish in the US!) The Central powers would likely get Poland/Balkan concessions and maybe even other bits of Russia they control. In 1916 Russia isn't collapsing, but it's certainly tottering and with the Brits/french pushing for peace would have little choice but to do a deal. The Brits/french would claim they'd won their defensive war and protected Belgium/restored France, the Central powers get to say they won THEIR defensive war (propaganda had ALL the major powers fighting defensive wars) and come out of it with some new territories. The only true losers would be the Russians.

I should point out that the above came CRAZILY close to happening. Literally twice Wilson gave a speech that had Allied/Central governments expecting a call to the peace table they could accept... and Wilson instead was an idiot, muddled the waters, and lost the moment. Everyone at the time agreed that if a peace conference took place fighting wouldn't start again no matter what. The Central powers were prepared to be generous and still "get theirs" which to my mind means they would have "won" the war.

Answer 2

The One-Front Option: start the war in 1905

Sarajevo was not the first powder keg that could have triggered the war.

The Tangier Crisis could have done so as well. Had Germany been intent on sparking a war to alter the European balance of power in their favor, this would have been their best opportunity.

Russia would have almost certainly sat out, being busy with the Russo-Japanese war. So the Central Powers would be free to throw everything against the west. This would put Germany in a very good position to take Paris before the battle lines solidify.

Answer 3

Make the Central Powers invent the Tank Early in the War

WWI started off as an absolute stalemate without either side having the ability to press a meaningful offensive. Each offensive was so costly that any strategic gain of footing was worth far less than the cost; so, each time one side believed they had the strength to push through, they weakened themselves so much trying that the other side had an immediate, and decisive upper hand.

All of this changed with the invention of the tank. By 1916, the first allied tanks started to cross over no-mans-land shielding infantry and soaking up machinegun fire, and by 1917 the MK-IVs became reliable enough to do so without constantly breaking down. This gave the Allies the ability to attack whereas the Central Powers could only defend. The Central Powers did not begin to field tanks until 1918 during the last 6 months of the war, but by then they were already too depleted to make a difference.

The reason early access to tanks would have been so meaningful to the Central Powers is that they never had the population to win a sustained war (a fact that was recognized by the Germans in WWII and dictated Blitzkrieg tactics). When you look at the casualty lists of WWI, nearly every battle favored the Central Powers with some estimates favoring the central powers by nearly 2-1 across the whole war. This better military performance puts them as the prime candidate for a quick victory IF they could have pushed their advantages in the early war, but they could not. Instead, they were stuck on the defense. Because the total populations of the allied nations were nearly 7 times that of the Central Powers, the Central Powers suffered greater proportional losses with each victory until they simply ran out of fighting aged men to send to the frontline.

Answer 4

I wonder if relatively small changes in the West could change the Battle of the Marne, and if that would lead domino-style to the fall of France. The latter part is the problem -- would a German victory in September get them into Paris by Christmas?

• A few airplane enthusiasts meet with a few general staff officers to integrate aerial reconnaissance with command and control. Headquarters knows much better where each own and enemy division is, on that day.
• Related to that, two-seater or three-seater airplanes to carry senior staff and even commanders on a tour of the forward command posts. Officers might crash every now and then, but the improved command and control is worth it.
• Unrelated, general staff officers who make more pessimistic assumptions on marching speed and resupply, and then do something about it. One more horse wagon per company, say, or more mobile light artillery. The result is to make the German troops move just a bit faster.
• An inventor comes up with a workable GPMG.

If that causes Germany to overrun France, Russia falls next.

Answer 5

Free speech in America: Espionage Bill is Defeated!

The World War was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight - one where any American drafted to face the machine guns and nerve gas for the Europeans could pay for a substitute to be sent instead, if they could pay. From the American point of view, the war was at best a chickenhawk's story of romantic adventure, and at worst an application of the new cutting-edge science of eugenics to remove some members of the lower class.

To popularize the war, the congress came up with the Espionage Act of 1917 (the same one Julian Assange has been facing extradition for). The war was almost over before the congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Supreme Court did not invent the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" to epitomize opposition to war and draft (even by religious groups such as the Watchtower Society) until 1919. Nonetheless, these developments illustrate the intensity of concern within the government that American citizens, who had opted for Wilson as the "peace candidate", might not be willing to keep going over the wire.

Without this extra support, it is possible that the allies would have had to accept some manner of negotiated defeat in 1917.

Answer 6

Germany's most successful wartime operation was releasing Lenin from prison and sending him back to Russia.

At the same time Germany should give free hand to Jozef Pilsudski and Kazimierz Sosnkowski. If they gave some meaningful autonomy to ethnic Polish regions annexed by Prussia years earlier they would immediately had secure Eastern Flank. Of course, long term it would be a problem for Germany, but it all depends. Anyway, that would allow concentrating on the West and it would somewhat alleviate food shortage problem stemming from Britain's blockade of Germany's ports.

Austro-Hungary should follow suit with their parts of Poland annexed at the same time.

Edit to address questions in comments.

It is very hard to come up with a solution that would have an impact on WWI outcome BEFORE it started. The war itself was a complex issue, as is rightly pointed out, but it also had many fathers. In my opinion, after reading quite a bit on the topic, Kaiser is equally at fault for starting it as was Britain and USA, though I also acknowledge it may be unpopular opinion. Regardless, there are some points that can be accepted:

1. German public opinion may not be fully aware of the treatment of ethnically Polish "citizens" of the Kaiserreich and if propagandized it may lead to autonomy or independence within customs union with Germany.
2. The same may be said of Austro-Hungary, but they would have to relinquish their claim to their part of Partition to the newly re-created Polish state.
3. The situation could develop further to encompass Russian part of former Poland and it may be possible that Russia would follow suit with independence for the Vistula Country, though it would be in customs union with Russia.

Poland to re-unite literally needs the war between Partition Powers (Prussia, Russia and Austro-Hungary), so that development may result in stalemate again if no war breaks out. In order for Polish independence to work in Germany's favor it needs to encompass as much pre-partition territories as possible, and for that Tsarist Russia needs to be weak.

Enter Lenin. He is the key to destabilizing Russia and making Eastern Front purely Polish-Russian one, but even then, not immediately. Some German support would be necessary, say until the end of 1917 or so. Contrary to popular belief, Russians fought well in WWI and Poles in Tsarist Russia needed the chaos of Revolution to actually make their way back to Poland (in our timeline there were Polish military units attached to US Expeditionary Corps in Siberia, for example, and on both sides of the Civil War in Russia - Whites (mostly) and Bolsheviks).

The main problem was that of Three Partition Powers Prussia/Germany were most hated and least trusted, with Russia being the literal opposite. Making the plan to grant independence to Poland would work only if Germany decided to roll back over a century of cultural extermination of Poles and with a series of moves that would confirm that sincerity. Unfortunately, since it was Germans who in reality could not hold up their end of any bargain with Poles, so with all good will gone I can't really see what they could do to confirm that sincere will to grant independence.

As for question on How Britain and France was enticing Poles to switch sides - in 1915 Germany actually announced it will create the Königreich Polen, but it was actually a ruse which involved also ethnic cleansing of Poles... You'd need to make the effort sincere. Anyway, same idea came to Entente, especially Russia. However there was, later in the war a so-called "Blue Army", which was raised in France, but as mentioned earlier included forces in Ukraine and Siberia. Central Powers were out-bid in Polish case by Allies, when Woodrow Wilson made his 14-point speech.

Answer 7

King Victor Emmanuel III (1869-1947) of Italy dies before the Italian decision to join the Entante in 1915, and preferably before the Italian decision not to join its allies in 1914.

That would make his son Umberto II (1904-1983) king as a child, with a regency.

Unfortunately Umberto's mother, and a logical choice for the regent, was Elena of Montenegro (1873-1952) was a daughter of King Nicholas I of Montenegro (1841-1921), who became an ally of Serbia in WWI in 1914. So maybe Elena would have to die also, or maybe King Victor Emmanuel III might have married an Archduchess or a German princess instead of Elana.

When World War I began, Italy at first remained neutral, despite being part of the Triple Alliance (albeit it was signed on defensive terms and Italy objected that the Sarajevo assassination did not qualify as aggression). However, in 1915, Italy signed several secret treaties committing her to enter the war on the side of the Triple Entente. Most of the politicians opposed war, however, and the Italian Chamber of Deputies forced Prime Minister Antonio Salandra to resign. At this juncture, Victor Emmanuel declined Salandra's resignation and personally made the decision for Italy to enter the war. He was well within his rights to do so under the Statuto, which stipulated that ultimate authority for declaring war rested with the crown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy

So if Victor Emmanuel III and and Prime Minister Salandra, and no doubt several other politicians who shared their desire for war against the central powers, died before Italy entered the war, and preferably before the war started in 1914, there would have been a much lower probability that Italy would have entered the war on the side of the Entante.

If Italy joined the war on the side of the central powers, or even if Italy remained neutral, a more or less "victorious" outcome for the central powers would have been much more probable.

Answer 8

A successful blockade of Britain.

Britain at the time was a net importer of food.

Imagine a successful blockade combined with an (outlandishly) effective propaganda campaign...and perhaps a few generous payoffs and other intrigues to key leaders.

One can imagine food riots leading to a strong pro-peace Parliament faction that becomes part of the Government. They negotiate a face-saving exit for the British Expeditionary Force in exchange for lifting the blockade, and perhaps even an overseas colony might change hands in order to capture headlines and distract from the real changes taking place. Secret money from Berlin keeps a cadre of pro-German Parliamentarians in power for the next decade.

As far as the British people are concerned, they feel like they won: No more blockade, no more worries about food, a peace treaty with Germany, the BEF came home, and they even got Cameroon out of the deal. And this new government seems to know what they are doing. Pity those poor French still fighting.

With Britain out of the war, the reciprocal blockade of German ports is lifted, and the USA becomes much less likely to enter the war.

With France effectively isolated, one can imagine a somewhat similar negotiation near Paris, with German troops eventually withdrawing in exchange for a new, friendlier French government. Again, a colony or two might change hands to make the French people excited about their wartime "success". Again, with many senior leaders secretly in the pay of Berlin.

Answer 9

The Austro-Hungarian Empire understands their power has gone

According to Kerensky the Russian offensive pushed by the government after the February revolution created the pretext for the Bolshevik uprising, but at the same time helped to determine the result of the war, because it forced the central powers to keep a lot of resources locked on the Eastern front and gave time to the Americans to deploy their troops.

I don't know whether it is true, but for sure the southern part of the eastern front was a weak point for a big part of the war. The problem is that the Checks, Moravian, Croats and even a lot of Hungarians were unwilling to fight to defend the empire that oppressed them. Had the Empire realised that their time was gone they could have promised to all the subjects to create a federation at the end of the war. This would have persuaded all those people to fight on the Eastern front to defend themselves from the Russian invasion and thus they could have moved the ethnic German troops on the Western front.

Another completely different idea: Krupp won't sell their armour

To be honest I don't know how the Krupp armor ended up in British hands, from what I understood reading around it seems that they immediately publicised their results and sold licences to the process all over the world. So, eventually in the battle of the Jutland the German navy faced many enemy warships equipped with an armour invented by the Germans themselves. Let's imagine that the Krupp kept their armour secret and they could even find some further improvements (adding molybdenum or vanadium?), then in the battle of the Jutland the German navy would have faced warships equipped with a weaker and heavier armour. That battle had quite a big impact over the course of the war. Winning it probably would not have meant a total reverse of the naval blockade, because the British navy was too big, but the necessity to resort to the unlimited submarine warfare would have been postponed.

Answer 10

Don't start the unlimited submarine warfare

One of the main considerations that brought the Americans into the war was the Germans exercising unlimited submarine warfare in the Atlantic in the early months of 1917. In late 1917 the Soviet revolution occurred, effectively ending the war in the western front. As soon as the treaty would be signed it would free Germany to fully commit to the eastern front without a new major force fighting against them.

This possibility is even slightly credible since kaiser Wilhelm didn't want to start unlimited naval war and only decided to commit at the urging of his navy chiefs. It should still be noted that the other reason for entry into the war was to protect the Americans investment in Britain and France, so the Americans would likely enter the war eventually anyway, the question being would they be able to commit enough forces fast enough.