What sort of Peace Treaty would occur in a late CP victory?

[LordIreland]

Here is the PoD:

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that America joining the Entente is a death knell for any chance of a German victory. So I decided to butterfly away the Zimmerman telegram. Likewise the sinking of the Lusitania (apparently is was a random ‘lucky break’ for the U-Boat involved anyway). The unrestricted submarine warfare campaign is a little tougher, but can be done, I refer you to OWs latest TL for an inventive way of doing this.

As Susano pointed out a late CP victory will make sure that all the combatants are ‘mortgaged to the hilt’ with war-loans and weary from four years of industrialised manslaughter. So, events proceed pretty much the same as in OTL with exceptions mentioned above. Russia is defeated and humiliated at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Germany is able to transfer around 50 or so divisions to the western front for a knock out blow.

This is the real POD. Unlike in OTL Ludendorf actually has a vague gameplan in mind. He is quoted as saying ‘we just punch a hole in their line and the rest will follow’. Whilst this proved true in Russia, it wasn’t the case in OTL. But now, Ludendorf has a vague idea of what happens after the hole has been punched. He plans to pin the BEF against the channel and threaten Paris. It’s a close run thing, losses are heavy, but in the end the Germans win through and manage to isolate the BEF and threaten Paris.

Things don’t look great for the Entente at this point and its about to get worse. On the Italian front Von Straussenberg backs Von Hotzendorf (arguably the best of the Austrian WW1 generals) over Boroevic as supreme commander of the Austrian offensive. Von Hotzendorf concentrates his forces for a pinpoint style attack on 15th June 1918 (in OTL VS couldn’t decide between the two generals and divided his forces evenly and allowed both to attack along the entire front, unsurprisingly it was a disaster for the Austrians). The Italian lines are ruptured and after heavy fighting the Italians are forced to retreat. The Austrian breakthrough dislocates the Italian lines and leads to a general withdrawal/route. This is the final straw for the Italians, their army in tatters and the Austrians seemingly about to burst into northern and central Italy, the Italian government requests a cessation of hostilities.

The Italian ‘betrayel’ is the final straw for France. Many units simply refuse to move, when ordered to counter-attack the Germans. First Paris and then the rest of France explodes into violence. Within a few days, what is left of the French gov’t requests an armistice with the CPs.

German sends out peace feelers to Britain and points out that the BEF is still intact…for now, oh and btw they want their colonies back!

Re other fronts, Allenby is at Jerusalem and by the time of the failures in Italy & France is getting ready for his advance towards Meggido. Although he may be unable to do this if troops have been siphoned off to bolster the 'Channel Pocket' (the BEF basially)

The Grand Fleet is intact, the Hoch See Flotte is in pretty much the same state as in OTL and needs an extended period of tlc;)

So, France and Italy are prostrate before a victorius Germany & A-H (A-H is currently riding high in the 'Great Power prestige stakes' seeing as how it was her victory that led to the cascade collapse of Italy & France.

Great Britain is still essentially in a strong position, her fleet is intact, the restricted submarine warfare has hurt her less than the unrestricted attitude of OTL. She holds all the German African possesions bar East Africa where Von Lettow-Vorbeck has worked his magic. But, obviously, she can't fight the entire CP on her own.

Bulgaria is intact, victorious and looking forward to a chunk of Serbia, that may be washed down with a bit of Greece.

The Ottomans are perhaps in the weakest position of all, having part of their land occupied by a foreign power, rebellious subjects (Armenians & Arabs) and potentially about to face a serious British & Empire attack.

The Treaty of B-L is in force in the east. So, do the CPs treat with the Entente powers seperatly or as a group? What conditions will be imposed, what lands will change ownership and how much blame is to be assigned via reperations etc?

[Beer]

Well, the american war entry is not in all cases the end for the CP, but only if the Central Powers can hit the european Entente critically before Summer 1918. After that no way.
In this scenario the US stayed home, so this problem is not existing. I´m sure the CP would like to bundle the treaty negotiations, but that depends on british attitude. If the UK fights on, the Central Powers will make treaties with the Entente at hand and concentrate on Britain later. But it would be in London´s interest to get to the table as soon as possible, since her relative strong position will weaken more and more when the CP concentrate their forces against GB. The fall of the mainland Entente nations opened up the world markets for the CP again, since even Britain cannot blockade all of Europe, giving Germany and the other CP nations access to much needed supplies.
Whether Britain is at the table from beginning or not, the CP will not accept any bargain without ratification of Brest-Litovsk. This is a must.
Likewise the incorporation of Luxemburg into the German Empire as a Grand Duchy with some additional perks.
More later, I have a to go to work.

[Mikestone8]

The fall of the mainland Entente nations opened up the world markets for the CP again, since even Britain cannot blockade all of Europe, giving Germany and the other CP nations access to much needed supplies.
.

And might be in trouble with the US if she tried to.

OTL, the demands of the Allied war effort provided Americans with a huge market far exceeding what they lost through the blockade of the CPs. So for all their irritation they could live with it. But would an isolated Britain be a big enough customer on its own? If not, and she persists in trying to close the Continent to neutral ships, Washington could get quite nasty.

[Anaxagoras]

Britain obviously gets off lightly, since it might be said that she won "her" war against Germany by taking the German colonies, keeping the High Seas Fleet cooped up, and subjecting Germany to a tight blockade. But beating the BEF on the ground in France certainly gives the Germans extra cards, especially if there was a large haul of prisoners. One expects basically a status quo ante bellum agreement between the British and the Germans, including a return of African colonies and and maybe some help from Britain in persuading Japan to return the German colonies she captured in the Pacific. Also, there would probably be some sort of free trade agreement between the two, and an agreement not to interfere if Germany wants a better deal in China.

The French take a beating, though. I would expect a heavy indemnity similar to what she paid in 1870, the loss of some of prime colonial real estate (French Equatorial Africa for sure) and prhaps some small terrorial adjustments on the Franco-German border to bring the important coal and iron ore fields under German control. If the Germans were REALLY stupid, they might insist on military limits similar to what the Allies imposed on Germany IOTL. Much wiser would be some sort of agreement that their border remain unfortified.

Let's not forget little Belgium, by the way. So long, Belgian Congo!

Italy loses some territory up on its border with Austria-Hungary, and perhaps the choice bits of its small African possessions go to Germany. An indemnity to Austria-Hungary, too.

Bulgaria, as you say, gets some bits of Serbia and Greece, securing an outlet on the Aegean. Serbia and Montenegro are likely absorbed into Austria-Hungary, which will lead to severe indigestion, to say the least.

In addition to getting the territory it lost to the Allies back, Turkey really wanted the Suez Canal and the oil fields of Baku. Obviously, it will only get the latter, which will have pretty immense consequences. Turkey remaining in effective control of the Middle East at the beginning of the oil age will be a very interesting development.

We'll see a lot of newly-independent states popping up in Eastern Europe (Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine), and the question will be what level of influence Germany will be able to maintain over them.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Hmm, very basic idea of what I think a peace treaty could entail.

Britain gets to keep her African and Pacific conquests, but hands the middle eastern ones back to the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans regain Thessalonica and Crete, but not a lot else aside from their possessions conquered by the British. No matter, with a few years, this will lead to Turkey becoming a real petro-superpower.

Germany has a vast swathe of vassal states in the east, but loses her overseas colonial empire.

France has a few small bits of land taken by Italy, and is forced to pay reparations. She does however keep much of her colonial empire, as no-one else will really want it. Italy might get Tunisia, but this will be about it.



After fifteen years or so, Germany's control of the continent begins to slip, as Britain, being Britain, starts to stir up trouble.

[Lokari]

If Entente leaders are smart, the French colonial troops will declare that the government in Paris "betrayed the French people" and continue to oversee the colonies. Perhaps even more soldiers and military equipment "disgusted" by the acts of Paris ministers will evacuate from France before the peace negotations are over. And, terrible as it is, the merchant smugglers from Britian and USA and other countries will continue to support those rebels with merchandise, weapons and money in exchange for colonial goods.

Of course, under the condition that Germany really would really want to take French colonies.

[imperialaquila]

I think a more moderate version of OTL's Septemberprogramm is likely. No British colonies will be taken, but Belgian Congo and French Equatorial Africa are definitely going to be annexed. A few French border regions, such as Briey, will probably be annexed as well.

[Hades]

given OTL's Brest litovsk for a framework, i'd imagine that germany would not be letting britain keep all its colonies in Africa, and A-h might get a slice of the pie as well.

[Anaxagoras]

given OTL's Brest litovsk for a framework, i'd imagine that germany would not be letting britain keep all its colonies in Africa, and A-h might get a slice of the pie as well.

But Britain hasn't really been defeated, and the Central Powers are not in a position to dictate to the British the way they are to the Russians, French and Italians.

[Anaxagoras]

If Entente leaders are smart, the French colonial troops will declare that the government in Paris "betrayed the French people" and continue to oversee the colonies. Perhaps even more soldiers and military equipment "disgusted" by the acts of Paris ministers will evacuate from France before the peace negotations are over. And, terrible as it is, the merchant smugglers from Britian and USA and other countries will continue to support those rebels with merchandise, weapons and money in exchange for colonial goods.

If anything like that happened, the Germans would show the French what the real world is like and simply step on their throats in France until the colonies were turned over to them as agreed upon in the treaty.

[Douglas]

Which CP victory do you have that includes the Germans stepping on the French throats? You need such serious PODs involving the mind-bogglingly unrealistic German diplomatic team and the war situation in 1916 and 1917 and 1918 to have any real situation where Germany can "dictate" to France. Lets face it: Germany knocked out the biggest, most populous Entente member with the biggest army, and was still starving in 1918. The German troops in the last gasp of Michael were astonished that the Allied troops had butter. If the French are beaten out of Paris (how?!?), there will still be no food. The French and their British allies will wait. The harvest from the Ukraine is never coming. The only thing worse than a trite Schlieffen Plan Success CP Victory is some sort of late POD that miraculously gives the CP a victory. Michael had an outside shot at a draw; victory was no longer in the cards, realistically.

In 1918 they were asking for an annexation of East Belgium, a puppet state in West Belgium, and an annexation of the Belgian coastline around the Channel Ports. This was as mild as it got, without getting into "New Burgundy" and their other insane proposals.

Also, Hotzendorf as the savior against Italy is...odd, to say the least. His resume up to this point includes planning the opening of the Serbian Campaign (advance, disaster, retreat), the actual command of the opening offensives against Russia (advance, disaster, retreat), command during the Brusilov Offensive (disaster, retreat), and command (IIRC) during the Alpine offensive (advance, heavy casualties, stall). Boroevic was almost without a doubt the Austrian commander who knew best what his troops, divided by language and ethnicity, could realistically accomplish.

[Lokari]

and the Central Powers are not in a position to dictate to the British the way they are to the Russians, French and Italians.
Come to think of it, was there anything that Germans could do that to "push" Italy ?

As to France-they dealt a major, decisive blow-but are they able to press forward with occupying the whole country ?

[LordIreland]

given OTL's Brest litovsk for a framework, i'd imagine that germany would not be letting britain keep all its colonies in Africa, and A-h might get a slice of the pie as well.

Yes, this is what I am wondering, a harsher treaty would gain Germany more african colonies. However, given the large acquisitions in the east, the fact that the German government had already started printing 'paper money' and the general poor state of the CPs economies, would Germany want any more acquisition beyond a few french colonies?

[Anaxagoras]

Which CP victory do you have that includes the Germans stepping on the French throats?

As to France-they dealt a major, decisive blow-but are they able to press forward with occupying the whole country ?

They don't really need to take any more than they would already have ITTL (the most important French industrial production areas, IIRC) to step on their throats. They simply need to say that they're not leaving until the treaty terms are implemented.

[Lokari]

They don't really need to take any more than they would already have ITTL (the most important French industrial production areas, IIRC) to step on their throats. They simply need to say that they're not leaving until the treaty terms are implemented. Weren't they asking for those areas anyway ?
And Germany needs their troops now to ensure food supplies and control in the strife ridden East, and to stop communist uprisings and riots.
France can use the industrial production later to rearm. It isn't starving. French can bluff their way out of this.

And like I asked-is there anything really that Germans can pressure Italy with ?
Certainly Great Britain is beyond their reach.
The German Empire isn't in the best condition to demand concessions from Western Allies besides case-fire and limited territorial concessions.

[Douglas]

They don't really need to take any more than they would already have ITTL (the most important French industrial production areas, IIRC) to step on their throats. They simply need to say that they're not leaving until the treaty terms are implemented.

You're suggesting that after the Germans do only slightly better than Michael IOTL (pinning the BEF in a manner separate from the French being practically impossible) that they stop, completely exhausted, and say "OK, give up colonies and territory", that the Entente will just throw in the towel?

This would be the first serious German diplomatic attempt to end the war in the West. "Why now, after serious gains, are the Germans asking for peace? Why don't they really blow the BEF off the continent and make the peace?" There's no reason for anyone to say "yes": the Germans aren't offering "Peace Without Victory", which could get some politicians to just call it a war. Instead, they demand the spoils of a victory which they haven't earned! No French politician is going to say yes unless there are German boots clanging underneath the Arc d'Triomphe, and no British politician is going to say yes while the French army is in the field. Even this fully-wanked Michael hasn't appreciably changed the strategic balance: there is a British army and a French army fully intact in the field. The Entente says "no", and the Germans can't bluff. There will be no further German offensive; their army is spent. The British blockade starves Germany, an Allied counteroffensive sends the Germans reeling back, the fleet mutinies, etc.

[Douglas]

Weren't they asking for those areas anyway ?
And Germany needs their troops now to ensure food supplies and control in the strife ridden East, and to stop communist uprisings and riots.
France can use the industrial production later to rearm. It isn't starving. French can bluff their way out of this.

And like I asked-is there anything really that Germans can pressure Italy with ?
Certainly Great Britain is beyond their reach.
The German Empire isn't in the best condition to demand concessions from Western Allies besides case-fire and limited territorial concessions.

Agreed...and those territorial concessions would have to be something along the lines of "sign off on Brest-Litovsk and hand back some colonies"...and even that would be a tall order.

[Nivek]

Well against beside the discussion of the power of negotiations of the CP(who gonna be very limitated, and i recgonized two very prominent Britainwaker in the disertors) i think, you should read rast separate treaties in his TL(A Shift in priorities), that is the best outlook for a Hard battleled CP Victory in West(in fact the french morale was almost unexistance before the american comes and that is a relaity, in fact, neither having a death Starving what germany haves they have their society ready to implode more early if doesn't was for both american spare support and later the general failure of Michael), In general, Neither big rewards nor big punishent in general(The Luttich Area in Belgium will be annexed for germany, both a demilitarizion of the North france area, maybe the anexation of Belgium Congo but Asia colonies is a total lost, maybe indemities for that can be extracted, and the Ottomans area will gonna be more dificult to negotiate but Status quo ante bellum can be obtained)

well, i gonna read something and complement

Att
Nivek Von Beldo

[lothaw]

If we're talking 1917-18 scenario in which Imperial Germany "wins", the only plausible scenario I can think of is a white peace on the Western Front, Germany's colonies are kaputt, and the allies ratify Brest-Livorisk.

Possibly A-H making territorial concessions to Italy, and maybe British withdrawl from the Ottoman Empire.

[Douglas]

snip

I don't know what you mean when you say "Where's Eurofed when you need him," unless its that Eurofed has in the past said that very improbable things (Italy surviving without British coal during WW1, Italy succeeding militarily against France in 1870) are possible during the general late 19th century-early 20th century time frame.

As for being a "Britainwaker", I can assure you that I am no wanker of any sorts, and certainly not British, as 67th Tigers can readily attest. WW1 just happens to be part of history that I really enjoy studying.

[Mikestone8]

Here is the PoD:]

The Grand Fleet is intact, the Hoch See Flotte is in pretty much the same state as in OTL and needs an extended period of tlc;)

Actually, what the HSF really needs is probably a bit more work. Sitting idly in port leaves the sailors with nothing to do but contemplate their grievances - a dangerous situation.

If the fall of France has given Germany control of the Atlantic ports, she would be well advised to move part of the fleet there and use it for commerce raiding. This keeps the seamen busy, and forces the RN to use up precious fuel oil chasing after the raiders.

Incidentally, might the Germans see this as a good moment to start unrestricted u-boat warfare, if they haven't already done so? The US will be annoyed, but with the European war seemingly over, are unlikely to intervene so late in the day. Also, if the Germans have gone on building subs during the interval, they have considerably more of them - perhaps 200 against the 130 of April 1917 - and having French bases means that far more can be "on station'" at any given moment.


The Ottomans are perhaps in the weakest position of all, having part of their land occupied by a foreign power, rebellious subjects (Armenians & Arabs) and potentially about to face a serious British & Empire attack.

Some years ago, I recall reading in The Times that documents had been found revealing that Emir Faisal, the leader of "Lawrence's" Arab revolt, was in touch with Constantinople almost to the end of the war, keeping open the option of reverting to the Turkish side if the CPs won. Might this be his moment of decision?

[kellineil]

okay

So the situation as I've read it is as follows:

CP have knocked out all the Entente powers except the UK. However the UK is getting pretty close to knocking the Ottomans out and it's quite probably the rest of the CP couldn't transfer enough troops to the middle east quickly enough to prevent this

In naval terms the CP surface forces are effectively out of action, they're not going to be able to go up against the Grand Fleet in 1918 and survive. Lack of unrestricted submarine warfare has kept USA out of the war but has also relieved a lot of the pressure that was on UK in OTL

In overall terms, the UK could probably fight on for a number of years before exhaustion sets in barring revolution. The CP are already approaching exhaustion and revolution however they do have the potential to truly defeat UK if they have enough time.

Overall both the UK and CP will at this stage realise that the war is effectively won and peace is inevitable sooner or later. The question is going to be exactly what sort of peace it is

A few things to consider - the CP cannot take any colonies off the defeated Entente powers, nor retake theirs without either the defeat of the RN (not likely for a number of years) or British acquiescence

Germany will want colonies - it's own and other countries too. So will A-H to a lesser degree. They may get some of what they want, but Britain really wants a Cape to Cairo railway and they currently control virtually the entire route. They won't give it up with out (quite literally) a fight

The Ottomans are going to want all the territory taken from them back and the Arab revolt crushed. I don't think this will happen but they may get some of what they want

Belgium - UK entered the war 'to protect Belgian neutrality', in truth a convenient excuse. However if the UK can get the CP to withdraw from Belgium and guarantee it's neutrality in future conflicts then the British could argue that this, along with the acquisition of new colonies means they won the war even if their allies lost (not really true but a useful propaganda line to head of popular discontent)

So here's how I see things being divided up:

The Treaty of Brest-Livorst stands

UK will gain a route for the Cape to Cairo railway, probably by gaining the interior of German East Africa.

Japan and Australia will split Germany's pacific colonies between them.

The Belgian Congo will be split between UK and Germany

The Ottoman Empire will keep Mesopotamia but loose the Holy Land. What in OTL became Saudi Arabia will become an independent Arab kingdom under British influence

The Ottoman Empire will regain Libya from Italy

Eritrea and Italian Somaliland - these will either be handed to the Germans, or perhaps if Abyssinia decides to join the CP late in the war they will gain these areas instead

A-H will gain portions of Italy (ideas?)

France will be the big looser. The UK will trade French colonies instead of their own. French North Africa is about to be distributed between Germany (the lions share) A-H and maybe the Ottomans. France may retain Algeria however

Italy and France will face severe restrictions on their militaries and large reparations. Both will loose European territories in addition to lost colonies

I expect that the CP would withdraw from Belgium whilst Germany annexes Luxembourg. Belgium will be obliged to become a perpetual neutral, this may include a complete ban on having a military

The UK won't face reparations of restrictions on their military. However both sides will probably recognise the part the naval arms race had in causing the war. If Japan and US can be persuaded to come on board there will probably be a naval arms limitation treaty at some point

That's how I see things panning out. And this treaty would nicely prepare the stage for the next war.

[Beer]

As for being a "Britainwaker", I can assure you that I am no wanker of any sorts, and certainly not British, as 67th Tigers can readily attest. WW1 just happens to be part of history that I really enjoy studying.
HI!
You might be no "Britwanker" but you definitely see the Entente side in the most rosy light and the CP side only the negative things. And there are some serious "Ententewankers" in this discussion if you like this better. Maybe not you, but there are. I don´t know out of the which was the one who came with B-L like. This is old propaganda spoonfed.

For one thing, even as bad the foreign ministry was in WW1, no one in Germany believed that you can force the west to anything like Brest (Besides B-L was made under special circumstances and came after a much tamer first proposal). And Berlin never wanted something like that. Unlike what you may think, no one goes into negotiations with their lowest expectations, there have to be room. Berlin never thought Germany can get the max. from Belgium in the negotiations. All this "We want all" is mostly from fringe groups without much influence and blown out of propotion by Entente propaganda.If you don´t believe me, there are several archives where you can read about it.
Germany had problems with supplies, but got only really, really desperate during Summer 1918. In this TL war is over before that point. And the CP can buy foodstuff on the world market now. So keeping the armies fed again is possible.
You overestimate the internal situation of the Entente. They were spent, too, esp. France. A full successful spring offensive would have been the last drop. There had been mutinees in France before and with the BEF encircled and the Heer before Paris Doors, tilt.
By the way, even in OTL with the US in the war London believed to be going down loosers lane during the spring offensive 1918. They were ready to go to the tables and only after the stop of the offensive morale went up. With Michael successful the war would have been over with the CP victorious. How serious the problems of CP were, coming out only after the war.

[Lokari]

Germany had problems with supplies, but got only really, really desperate during Summer 1918. In this TL war is over before that point.

German soldiers fought off rats from mould infested bread in their trenches.
French trenches had crates with wine...
And the CP can buy foodstuff on the world market now.
With what ?

[Mikestone8]

And the CP can buy foodstuff on the world market now. With what ??

What had they been buying Swedish iron ore with over the last few years?

And if you control Europe from the Bay of Biscay to the Don, you can probably extract some money from the areas you hold.

[Lokari]

And if you control Europe from the Bay of Biscay to the Don, you can probably extract some money from the areas you hold.
Germany has been extracting money and resources throughout the whole war from areas it occupied.
It could continue.
The reactions of conquered nations is of course predictable.

[Mikestone8]

Germany has been extracting money and resources throughout the whole war from areas it occupied.
It could continue.
The reactions of conquered nations is of course predictable.

Perfectly predictable but how much would it matter?

In WW2 the Germans would also make huge demands on occupied countries (I've heard it claimed that Barbarossa would have been impossible without the resources extracted from France) which did indeed provoke resistance, but save perhaps in Yugoslavia, this was never more than irritating to the Germans, and certainly came nowhere near expelling them.

This is likely to be even more the case in 1918, when most of the conquered countries have gone down only after three or four years of bloody fighting, so are exhausted and weary. By contrast, most of the occupied countries of WW2 had been overrun in a matter of days or weeks, so their populations were still relatively "fresh".

[LordIreland]

Wow, i didn't realise i'd start a wankers war:D

But joking aside, here is a little extra clarification about the end of the war that may or may not help with the general discussion. I'll put it in chronological order:

Kaiserschlact - Ok, Ludendorff had no real plan beyond battering GB & France into submission, 'we just need to punch a hole in their lines and it'll all fall into place'...he said. Well, clearly OTL shows that didnt happen, but it was still a close run thing, with the fate of the west hanging in the balance for several critical days. But, this was with four seperate offensives that lacked any real coherency. I'm proposing that he had a vague game plan in mind beyond punching a hole in the French/British lines. As I stated in the PoD it is a close run thing, but Germany acheives a basic seperation of the BEF & the French army. German guns are now comfortably in range of Paris (well the larger calibres at any rate). This in itself is not a war winning position. Its more advantageous than the end of OTL Kaiserschlact, but Douglas is correct, this is not a foot on throat situation yet. Indeed, if this was all, it would probably end in a treaty of mutual exhaustion between France & Germany. Both countries are suffering severe economic dislocation, GDP per capita has dropped significantly and they are suffering the effects of 4 years of warfare, both physically and emotionally.

The Austrian offensive in northern Italy is the deal clincher. I've simply had the austrian commander be a little more deceisive and actually decide on a single commander for the offensive. I choose Von Hotzendorf purely because all the sources that I read had him pegged as the best of the Austrian generals (a decent commander by German standards). However, if, as has been implied Boreovic was the better commander, please quote some sources that I can check and I will amend the PoD so that he runs the show instead. The premise here is surprisingly simple, by concentrating the Austrian Stosstruppen in a pinpoint attack a breakthrough can be acheived. Tbh, the breakthrough doesn't have to be that big, but it has to be enough to cause dislocation in the Italian line, enough so that the battle suddenly becomes more mobile as the Italians seek to stop their remaining forces being outflanked and destroyed piecemeal.

Now, this is the start of the cascade effect. The big picture:

Entente Viewpoint - Russia is gone, the BEF are in trouble (GB will go into a panic here, historically Britain really hates loosing her expeditionary forces), Paris is threatened, Italy is in full retreat. The only front where the Entente could be said to be winning is the middle east. But all the major combatents regard this is a sideshow, western front is seen by all as the deceisive one.

America is NOT coming, the promised changes to the French army have NOT happened, indeed France has once again NOT won a major battle. Italy looks like she is NOT going to survive for much longer. All in all, French morale is suffering badly and everybody has a pet theory as to whose fault that is;)

Italy has had a disastrous war, I forget how many Isonzo offensives there actually were, but they were bloody failures, followed by two serious defeats. Considering the opportunistic nature of Italy's entry into the war, I believe that it is very likely that at this point Italy will seek a negotiated armstice with the CPs. The reasons for this are very simple: the Austrians seem unstoppable, as do the Germans and Italy does not want to go the way that Russia went. Perceptions are very important in war (Remember Percival at Singapore) and by now the perception will be very much that this was a BIG mistake for Italy and she needs to get out now.

So Italy seeks a negotiated armstice with the CPs, when Foch hears this, he informs the government that they must seek an armstice with the CPs whilst we still have an army to use as a bargaining chip. Perhaps the French & BEF will try to effect some form of link up, perhaps not. But, unfortunately for Foch, his memorandum is leaked to the papers. At this point the following happens...shit + fan = big mess. The Italian 'betrayel' is the end, first Russia, now Italy, this cannot go on. France begins to disintegrate politically and economically. Strikes/anti-war demonstrations paralyse France, army units refuse to follow orders when ordered to counter-attack etc. Communist insurrections etc etc.

Britain is stunned by the sudden disintegration of Italy followed by France in quick succession, the German offensive has pinned the BEF and Whitehall is considering a negotiated peace. This throws the British plans into disarray, 'I say chaps, this is a trifle inconvenient, the bloody Wops & Frenchies have just surrendered'.....'Good god man, whatever next?'

Central Powers Viewpoint - Germany is exhausted and really has very little immediate ability to push any further into France, in fact they were probably very likely to be considering a peace of mutual exhaustion (before the subsequent Italian collapse). She still has to station nearly a million men in the east, food production has dropped to critical levels, 750,000 people died in the 17/18 winter from malnutrtion in Germany proper, paper money is being printed to keep the war going, its in Germany's best interests to end the war and quickly.

Austria-Hungary has actually had quite a good war, the late victories have in many ways reinvigorated belief in both the army and the state, but she is still suffering and the victories will only temporarily gloss over the series of domestic issues that plague her. She seems to stand triumphantly at the gates to all of northern and central Italy. Ofc, she is unable to realistically pursue another offensive for some time (if indeed ever).

Bulgaria, good war, not much else to say really.

Ottomans - has gained land from Tsarist Russia, but the war has taken a toll and she is struggling to equip and maintain the forces that she has, they know that Allenby is coming and at this stage would be greatful to get out of the war essentially intact.

So, to round up, the fall of Italy changes the geo-political situation in favour of the CPs. The Entente has lost two major members in quick succession and suddenly everyone wants out. The CPs appear to be victorious everywhere and essentially unstoppable.

Remember - its the perception at the time that counts (the British people actually believed the Maginot line would stop the Germans:D).

[yourworstnightmare]

Depend of how total the victory is. I doubt the Germans could achieve total victory this late in the war.

Scenario 1: Germany manges to force France to surrender, signs white peace with Britain. Germany annex some French Colonies and Belgian Congo. Habsburgs getting some border areas from Serbia and annex Montenegro. Bulgaria annex both Greek and Serbian Macedonia as well as north Dobrudja from Romania. Ottomans would probably annex Kars and the Armenian territories of Russia and set up a puppet in Azerbaijan. Australia and Japan would refuse to leave terrritory they occupy in the Pacific, Germany can do nothing about that. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus and Finland created from the failing Russian empire a pro German regimes.

Scenario 2: Negotiated settlement
This would probably be a settlement where Gemrany would lose all her colonies, but the 1914 borders remain, as well as victory in the east, meaning Bulgaria, Habsburg Empire and Ottomans would get the same gains as above, and Eastern Europe would secede from Russia a pro- German regimes.

[Mikestone8]

Depend of how total the victory is. I doubt the Germans could achieve total victory this late in the war.

Scenario 1: Germany manges to force France to surrender, signs white peace with Britain. Germany annex some French Colonies and Belgian Congo. Habsburgs getting some border areas from Serbia and annex Montenegro. Bulgaria annex both Greek and Serbian Macedonia as well as north Dobrudja from Romania. Ottomans would probably annex Kars and the Armenian territories of Russia and set up a puppet in Azerbaijan. Australia and Japan would refuse to leave terrritory they occupy in the Pacific, Germany can do nothing about that. Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Belarus and Finland created from the failing Russian empire a pro German regimes.

Scenario 2: Negotiated settlement
This would probably be a settlement where Gemrany would lose all her colonies, but the 1914 borders remain, as well as victory in the east, meaning Bulgaria, Habsburg Empire and Ottomans would get the same gains as above, and Eastern Europe would secede from Russia a pro- German regimes.


I can also believe in a Scenario 3, in which Britain and Germany fail to reach agreement, and things drag out in a "fish and fox" contest a bit like 1940/1, but with a lot less (though some) aerial bombing. There would be a "Battle of the Atlantic" analogous to WW2, but tilted more Germany's way as the Kaiser's naval power, though still inferior to Britain's, was considerably greater than Hitler ever had.

America's attitude could be crucial here. Does she take panic at Germany's overweening power, and declare war after all, despite it being too late to save anything on the European continent? Or does she accept the German win as a fait accompli, and twist Britain's arm to get her to make peace and stop disrupting everybody's trade with blockade measures? After all, the German demands on Britain will be mostly for colonies (though she may try for reparations payments as well) and how many Americans really want to wage war so that the British Empire can keep Egypt or the Persian oilfields?

Also, any bets on the future of the Anglo-Japanese alliance? Maintaining it is likely to strain Anglo-US relations, a very serious matter in this postwar world. OTOH, to abandon it pushes Japan straight into Germany's arms. Could get verray interresting.

[Lokari]

Perfectly predictable but how much would it matter?

In WW2 the Germans would also make huge demands on occupied countries (I've heard it claimed that Barbarossa would have been impossible without the resources extracted from France) which did indeed provoke resistance, but save perhaps in Yugoslavia, this was never more than irritating to the Germans, and certainly came nowhere near expelling them.
.
Precisely my point. The goals of Germany in WW1 and in WW2 were different-in WW1 Germany wished to create a string of puppet states for exploitation and establish a buffer zone between it and Russia. In WW2 it was primarily interested in ruthless exploitation. Since as you mentioned, Germany would be forced to disregard interests of those states to safeguard its existence...
Well you can't eat the cake and have the cake. Germany can't exploit those countries for resources and hope to have loyal puppet regimes. It will have to make a choice-exploite them to have stability at home and fuel its industry, or to relinquish control, and have them slip away from its grasp.
So this means, that the whole Mitteleuropa program will fail-German troops and police will be forced to occupy those states and enforce German demands, thus creating an oppressive rule over them, and creating even more resistance(easy to use by new Entente coalition).
Additionally such situation will drain German resources both in manpower, political attention and intelligence.

[Mikestone8]

Precisely my point. The goals of Germany in WW1 and in WW2 were different-in WW1 Germany wished to create a string of puppet states for exploitation and establish a buffer zone between it and Russia. In WW2 it was primarily interested in ruthless exploitation. Since as you mentioned, Germany would be forced to disregard interests of those states to safeguard its existence...
Well you can't eat the cake and have the cake. Germany can't exploit those countries for resources and hope to have loyal puppet regimes. It will have to make a choice-exploite them to have stability at home and fuel its industry, or to relinquish control, and have them slip away from its grasp.
So this means, that the whole Mitteleuropa program will fail-German troops and police will be forced to occupy those states and enforce German demands, thus creating an oppressive rule over them, and creating even more resistance(easy to use by new Entente coalition).
Additionally such situation will drain German resources both in manpower, political attention and intelligence.


A lot like the bind Napoleon got into a century earlier.

Because he couldn't cut a deal with Britain, he was continually forced to ruin his allies by dragooning them into that Continental System - and "Mitteleuropa" sounds a lot like the Continental System with a German accent.

Of course Britain was able to keep up the war against Napoleon for fifteen years. Could we keep it up against Wilhelm II for anything like that long? If not, then Germany can start treating her vassals properly as soon as the British war ends - though whether her leaders would have the smarts to do so is another matter.

[LordIreland]

From what i've read Mitteleuropa is the poisened chalice of WW1. Some historians such as Fritz Fischer claim that Mitteleuropa was a continous and deliberate war aim to:

1 - Ensure Germany her place in the sun.

2 - Dominate France & Russia thus preventing them from ever becoming a major threat again.

3 - Remove Britain as Europe's power broker.

4 - Create a series of German dominated buffer states that would effectively service German economic and expansionist needs

Basically a plan to ensure that Germany had her place in the sun.

Others claim that it was simply a customs union that would unite the european states together to form a competing trade bloc. An early EU if you will.

Then ofc we musn't forget that there was an Austro-Hungarian variant as well, centered on Vienna.

As is so often the case, the truth seems to be somewhat blurred by CP apologists and Entente propagandists and probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The question remains, how much does Germany think she can get away with in this scenario, after all, a good bluff will probably work on the French at this stage.

Germany - 'So France, are the hotels in Paris empty? I'd like to book reservations for 500,000 please'

[stevep]

Actually, what the HSF really needs is probably a bit more work. Sitting idly in port leaves the sailors with nothing to do but contemplate their grievances - a dangerous situation.

Actually, while the HSF was in a dire state it was an order for the fleet to go on a death ride, for the honour of the navy, that sparked the mutiny. If the German forces, which have been largely languishing in port since the capture of Riga, they are very likely to get stomped and they will know this.

If the fall of France has given Germany control of the Atlantic ports, she would be well advised to move part of the fleet there and use it for commerce raiding. This keeps the seamen busy, and forces the RN to use up precious fuel oil chasing after the raiders.

France hasn't fallen. The scenario is that it has signed an armistice or at least a ceasefire after the sudden collapse of resistance in Italy. The Germans don't have Paris and will know that France can recover fairly quickly, to at least fight further, if peace is not concluded quickly.

Incidentally, might the Germans see this as a good moment to start unrestricted u-boat warfare, if they haven't already done so? The US will be annoyed, but with the European war seemingly over, are unlikely to intervene so late in the day. Also, if the Germans have gone on building subs during the interval, they have considerably more of them - perhaps 200 against the 130 of April 1917 - and having French bases means that far more can be "on station'" at any given moment.

They might do so but it would be wrong. It will cause widespread anger, especially since it will seem so unnecessary and excessive, as well as the OTL reaction to the campaigns. The resultant sinkings will cause serious problems until Britain introduces convoying. They may have more subs, if they have continued building a weapon they have decided not to use while the country is desperately running short of everything but they won't have French points.


Some years ago, I recall reading in The Times that documents had been found revealing that Emir Faisal, the leader of "Lawrence's" Arab revolt, was in touch with Constantinople almost to the end of the war, keeping open the option of reverting to the Turkish side if the CPs won. Might this be his moment of decision?

Its a possibility but a number of the Arabs will have found themselves committed to the cause of independence. Also the Ottomans in the region are already pretty much broken and the allies have a large army deep into their territory and past the key block-point of the Sinai. If Britain did decide to continue fighting despite the situation on the continent I think they could advance pretty much to the Cilica region and the central powers could do relatively little to stop it because of logistics.

Not saying that Britain will fight on alone even if France gives up but its neither impossible nor totally doomed given the state of the opponents.

Steve

[lothaw]

So here's how I see things being divided up:

The Treaty of Brest-Livorst stands


If Germany can get the Western powers to ratify Brest-Livorsk, whatever else happens, they probably have won.


UK will gain a route for the Cape to Cairo railway, probably by gaining the interior of German East Africa.

Japan and Australia will split Germany's pacific colonies between them.


This pretty much happened OTL. No issue there.

The Belgian Congo will be split between UK and Germany

Uh.. Germany couldn't even hold on to her own colonies in Africa. How are they going to force Britain to aquiesece to a new gain in Africa, despite the fact they occupy Belgium? For that matter why is Brtain going to take a colony from it's own ally?

The Ottoman Empire will keep Mesopotamia but loose the Holy Land. What in OTL became Saudi Arabia will become an independent Arab kingdom under British influence

I could see this happening. The Ottomans were in bad shape by the end of the war. However the Ottoman regime could hold on to power with this end.

The Ottoman Empire will regain Libya from Italy

Uh, the Turks couldn't even hold on to their own territory? How are they going to force Italy, a power that really wasn't beaten in any way, to give up colonies?

Eritrea and Italian Somaliland - these will either be handed to the Germans, or perhaps if Abyssinia decides to join the CP late in the war they will gain these areas instead

Again, Italy, while they didn't win much during the war, they didn't give up that much territory either. They were still very much in the fight when the armistice came along.

A-H will gain portions of Italy (ideas?)

If anything, I see the opposite happening. Italy gaining Trentino and Tyrol in exchange for western ratification of Brest-Livorsk. The Austrians won't like this, but there is plenty of territory out east to compensate them for it, not to mention Serbia being conquered.

France will be the big looser. The UK will trade French colonies instead of their own. French North Africa is about to be distributed between Germany (the lions share) A-H and maybe the Ottomans. France may retain Algeria however

Well, getting France to come to the bargaining table, for whatever reason, is what's going to end the war in 1917-18 in Germay's favor. Though I can't see too many border changes on the western front, being this is basicly going to be a treaty of mutal exhaustion.

The CP's taking France's African colonies is out of the question completely. Oh and they'd likely gain Togo from Germany.

Italy and France will face severe restrictions on their militaries and large reparations. Both will loose European territories in addition to lost colonies

I see France and Italy's colonial empires going untouched. France would likely gain Cameroon and Togoland from Germany though. Certainly no military restrictions for either though.

I expect that the CP would withdraw from Belgium whilst Germany annexes Luxembourg. Belgium will be obliged to become a perpetual neutral, this may include a complete ban on having a military

Germany withdrawing from Belgium will have to happen for a peace with the West. They might gain Luxemborg though. Again, no military restrictions.

So basicly the big losers of the war are Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Brest-Livorsk cedes away all Russian claims to eastern europe and the Turks get cut in half, though the Sultanate would likely stay in power. There may be a strong nationalist movement in the years to come to reclaim their lost lands from Britain/France.

The big winners are Germany and Britain. Britain and the Commonwealth gained a large chunk of Germay's colonial empire, while Germany becomes the undisputed master of eastern Europe.

As for the smaller winners/losers...

Austria can say it won because it gained Serbia, even if it lost some chunks of land to Italy. Though it seems that the Balkans are going to be less than stable in times to come. Enough to collapse the Empire? Maybe not.

Italy can say it won, getting Trentino and Tyrol from Austria. Is that worth all the blood they paid in getting it though? Seems to be the grounds will still be paved for Mussolini's group to come. Interesting to see where a Fascist Italy, without a Nazi Germany, would take itself.

France can pat itself on the back saying they beat back the German invasion and gained a few colonies. Maybe they'll even get Syria like they did OTL. Is that worth over a million dead? Seems the grounds are there for extremists to the right or the left to start beating a drum.

So when the map of alliances after this hypothetical peace is done shuffling, you could see some interesting times.

[stevep]

kellineil

A lot of this may well happen if you get the events you propose, with a more successful 1918 German offensive and then the skittles going down with Italy's political collapse triggering France going for a ceasefire. However some things I'm more doubtful about.

a) Will Germany still want non-European colonies? They have been shown that in the face of British hostility they are hostages to fortune, not to mention pre-war they were money holes that Germany will struggle to afford, along with holding its European gains.

b) I'm not sure Britain will be able to prevent Germany annexing at least parts of Belgium. As you say what's left of the state will lose any real independence so that doesn't make a great difference, although Britain might be able to get a German withdrawal from the Belgium coasts.

c) I could see the Ottomans gaining from Russia, or at least having a claim to the Baku area but they might struggle to hold it. Also there might be political problems here given the recent history and it would mean the Ottomans gaining control over the remains of Armenia and also Georgia. [Even the Germans raised objections to the Ottoman behaviour during the Armenian massacres]. Similarly think its more likely that Britain will want to keep the Basra area to keep the enemy away from the Gulf and cover the flank of the Persian oilfields. In this case I could also see the Arab kingdom you suggest but I think its capital would be Damascus as that would be the political centre of a unified British Arab protectorate as France won't be interfering. I can't see the Ottomans getting Libya back either but there's an outside chance it might go to Austria. [Although doubtful it would be that interested in extra-European colonies].

d) I think Britain would very strongly object to a German presence in the Red Sea, threatening the link between Suez and India. Could see them going to Ethiopia as a compromise however.

e) Both France and Italy will be unable to maintain sizeable forces in the near future simply because of the state of their economies and because France especially will probably see a peace that makes OTL Versailles look very mild. [Loss of much of its most important industrial region, displacement of a lot of people and a huge indemnity on an already badly weakened economy]. In the longer term however France and Italy if Austria makes territorial gains will be looking for revenge.

f) I suspect that a naval agreement is highly unlikely. Without involvement in the war, but with it being ongoing, the US will probably be more advanced in their 1916 programme. That will mean that Japan will be forced to follow. Between those two and the continued threat from Germany that looks very powerful [but may not be] Britain will be unwilling to cut back so savagely. Also under the circumstances it is far more likely to continue the alliance with Japan.

g) Possibly the other key point is what happens in Russia and Germany. In the former will there be intervention to depose the Bolsheviks? In the latter will the military and aristocracy seek to keep political power and hold onto their new empire or will you see social change and a giving up of much of its empire. There will be strong pressure for change but on the back of a 'victorious' war strong opposition to it as well.

Steve

okay

So the situation as I've read it is as follows:

CP have knocked out all the Entente powers except the UK. However the UK is getting pretty close to knocking the Ottomans out and it's quite probably the rest of the CP couldn't transfer enough troops to the middle east quickly enough to prevent this

In naval terms the CP surface forces are effectively out of action, they're not going to be able to go up against the Grand Fleet in 1918 and survive. Lack of unrestricted submarine warfare has kept USA out of the war but has also relieved a lot of the pressure that was on UK in OTL

In overall terms, the UK could probably fight on for a number of years before exhaustion sets in barring revolution. The CP are already approaching exhaustion and revolution however they do have the potential to truly defeat UK if they have enough time.

Overall both the UK and CP will at this stage realise that the war is effectively won and peace is inevitable sooner or later. The question is going to be exactly what sort of peace it is

A few things to consider - the CP cannot take any colonies off the defeated Entente powers, nor retake theirs without either the defeat of the RN (not likely for a number of years) or British acquiescence

Germany will want colonies - it's own and other countries too. So will A-H to a lesser degree. They may get some of what they want, but Britain really wants a Cape to Cairo railway and they currently control virtually the entire route. They won't give it up with out (quite literally) a fight

The Ottomans are going to want all the territory taken from them back and the Arab revolt crushed. I don't think this will happen but they may get some of what they want

Belgium - UK entered the war 'to protect Belgian neutrality', in truth a convenient excuse. However if the UK can get the CP to withdraw from Belgium and guarantee it's neutrality in future conflicts then the British could argue that this, along with the acquisition of new colonies means they won the war even if their allies lost (not really true but a useful propaganda line to head of popular discontent)

So here's how I see things being divided up:

The Treaty of Brest-Livorst stands

UK will gain a route for the Cape to Cairo railway, probably by gaining the interior of German East Africa.

Japan and Australia will split Germany's pacific colonies between them.

The Belgian Congo will be split between UK and Germany

The Ottoman Empire will keep Mesopotamia but loose the Holy Land. What in OTL became Saudi Arabia will become an independent Arab kingdom under British influence

The Ottoman Empire will regain Libya from Italy

Eritrea and Italian Somaliland - these will either be handed to the Germans, or perhaps if Abyssinia decides to join the CP late in the war they will gain these areas instead

A-H will gain portions of Italy (ideas?)

France will be the big looser. The UK will trade French colonies instead of their own. French North Africa is about to be distributed between Germany (the lions share) A-H and maybe the Ottomans. France may retain Algeria however

Italy and France will face severe restrictions on their militaries and large reparations. Both will loose European territories in addition to lost colonies

I expect that the CP would withdraw from Belgium whilst Germany annexes Luxembourg. Belgium will be obliged to become a perpetual neutral, this may include a complete ban on having a military

The UK won't face reparations of restrictions on their military. However both sides will probably recognise the part the naval arms race had in causing the war. If Japan and US can be persuaded to come on board there will probably be a naval arms limitation treaty at some point

That's how I see things panning out. And this treaty would nicely prepare the stage for the next war.

[stevep]

Perfectly predictable but how much would it matter?

Quite possibly a hell of a lot.

In WW2 the Germans would also make huge demands on occupied countries (I've heard it claimed that Barbarossa would have been impossible without the resources extracted from France) which did indeed provoke resistance, but save perhaps in Yugoslavia, this was never more than irritating to the Germans, and certainly came nowhere near expelling them.

The problem is that the Germans can get away with it while their at war or a state like the Nazis. Such brutality in Europe while at peace will cause a lot of hostility, not least in Germany itself. At the same time they have the tiger by the tail in that removing their boot from those states will pose risks itself.


This is likely to be even more the case in 1918, when most of the conquered countries have gone down only after three or four years of bloody fighting, so are exhausted and weary. By contrast, most of the occupied countries of WW2 had been overrun in a matter of days or weeks, so their populations were still relatively "fresh".

Because their exhausted they have a lot less to loot and more, in terms of their lives and those of their families, at stake from such looting. Also with a less developed technology making widespread occupation more difficult and the war having brutalised far more people and giving many at least some military experience Germany could find itself in a quagmire if it tries to take too much.

Steve

[Beer]

kellineil

A lot of this may well happen if you get the events you propose, with a more successful 1918 German offensive and then the skittles going down with Italy's political collapse triggering France going for a ceasefire. However some things I'm more doubtful about.

a) Will Germany still want non-European colonies? They have been shown that in the face of British hostility they are hostages to fortune, not to mention pre-war they were money holes that Germany will struggle to afford, along with holding its European gains. I doubt that Germany will want many colonies back. They are a burden for the now ravaged economy, but some have to come back. East Africa is a must, since the Schutztruppe there is still in the field. And Southwest too, since there is a relatively large number of colonists. The others I see as negotiation material, but some small possessions might come back.

b) I'm not sure Britain will be able to prevent Germany annexing at least parts of Belgium. As you say what's left of the state will lose any real independence so that doesn't make a great difference, although Britain might be able to get a German withdrawal from the Belgium coasts. Contrary to what many think, Germany was not that keen on Belgium. It was mainly "negotiation mass". If the "negos" go well for the CP on other parts Belgium becomes secondary.

e) Both France and Italy will be unable to maintain sizeable forces in the near future simply because of the state of their economies and because France especially will probably see a peace that makes OTL Versailles look very mild. [Loss of much of its most important industrial region, displacement of a lot of people and a huge indemnity on an already badly weakened economy]. In the longer term however France and Italy if Austria makes territorial gains will be looking for revenge. What is it with this "France will get a reverse Versailles"? It will depend on if France wants to fight on. e.g. B-L was only made because Russia fought on after a much tamer first peace proposal was on the table.
If France is not too headstrong, they will get a far more lenient peace than Germany got in OTL.
Italy has to fear more than the french! They are turncoats, broke the alliance with the CP. Rome has to pray that Germany´s future plans need Italy in a halfway intact state, else it won´t be pretty.

g) Possibly the other key point is what happens in Russia and Germany. In the former will there be intervention to depose the Bolsheviks? In the latter will the military and aristocracy seek to keep political power and hold onto their new empire or will you see social change and a giving up of much of its empire. There will be strong pressure for change but on the back of a 'victorious' war strong opposition to it as well.
Steve With a late victory for the CP reforms in both Germany and A-H are a given. The pressure started from well before the war and has grown too strong. Germany has a bit more time than Austria, which has more problems internally. Both will become const. monarchies, universal suffrage nationwide (several german Länder had it internally already) and other things will pop up.

[LordIreland]

What is it with this "France will get a reverse Versailles"? It will depend on if France wants to fight on. e.g. B-L was only made because Russia fought on after a much tamer first peace proposal was on the table.
If France is not too headstrong, they will get a far more lenient peace than Germany got in OTL.
Italy has to fear more than the french! They are turncoats, broke the alliance with the CP. Rome has to pray that Germany´s future plans need Italy in a halfway intact state, else it won´t be pretty.


The whole Reverse versaille is ostensibly a product of the confusion that surrounds the Mitteleuropa concept. It depends on who you believe really, if you're in the Fischer camp, then a prostrate France is a must. If you're in one of the many other camps, then Germany's war aims range from, hey we just want a nice customs union that can rival Britain and America that will usher in a new golden age all the way to, Germany planned to cynically annex all the central and eastern european states into a German dominated customs union that would benefit Germany and the Germans first and foremost.

I haven't reseached it in any great depth, but what I have found is quite confused and no two sites seem to say the same thing. I must admit to not realising what a hot potato the whole Mitteleuropa thing actually is:eek:

[stevep]

I doubt that Germany will want many colonies back. They are a burden for the now ravaged economy, but some have to come back. East Africa is a must, since the Schutztruppe there is still in the field. And Southwest too, since there is a relatively large number of colonists. The others I see as negotiation material, but some small possessions might come back.

Contrary to what many think, Germany was not that keen on Belgium. It was mainly "negotiation mass". If the "negos" go well for the CP on other parts Belgium becomes secondary.

What is it with this "France will get a reverse Versailles"? It will depend on if France wants to fight on. e.g. B-L was only made because Russia fought on after a much tamer first peace proposal was on the table.
If France is not too headstrong, they will get a far more lenient peace than Germany got in OTL.
Italy has to fear more than the french! They are turncoats, broke the alliance with the CP. Rome has to pray that Germany´s future plans need Italy in a halfway intact state, else it won´t be pretty.

With a late victory for the CP reforms in both Germany and A-H are a given. The pressure started from well before the war and has grown too strong. Germany has a bit more time than Austria, which has more problems internally. Both will become const. monarchies, universal suffrage nationwide (several german Länder had it internally already) and other things will pop up.

The whole Reverse versaille is ostensibly a product of the confusion that surrounds the Mitteleuropa concept. It depends on who you believe really, if you're in the Fischer camp, then a prostrate France is a must. If you're in one of the many other camps, then Germany's war aims range from, hey we just want a nice customs union that can rival Britain and America that will usher in a new golden age all the way to, Germany planned to cynically annex all the central and eastern european states into a German dominated customs union that would benefit Germany and the Germans first and foremost.

I haven't reseached it in any great depth, but what I have found is quite confused and no two sites seem to say the same thing. I must admit to not realising what a hot potato the whole Mitteleuropa thing actually is:eek:

My argument for a reverse Versailles is because:

a) The Germans imposed a large indemnity in 1870/71 in part to seek to cripple France as a potential threat for quite a while.

b) After such a long and costly war they also need to get everything they can to both reduce their own debts and to appease their own population. I.e. 'look, we got this money from the nasty French to pay for the war'.

Similarly with the probable territorial gains. While probably not as great as some of the ones suggested earlier they would seek to weaken France economically and geographically.

On the other points:

i) As I say I've got doubts myself about Germany regaining colonies outside Europe. I suspect it will be an either-or situation. They will decide that their not worth the hassle of maintaining and trying to protect or they will seek to get most/all of them back and a lot more. Probably depend on which internal faction has most influence in Germany and how far they can push France and Belgium especially.

ii) I would expect some losses for Belgium simply because the industrial region is bordering Germany and is too valuable for them to easily give up.

iii) I rather doubt there would be any annexation of Italian home territory as Germany has no adjacent borders and I think Karl is too intelligent to try it. Austria already has the best borders for defence against Italy and knows that seeking to hold say the Venice region again will be more trouble than its worth. Similarly even before the war many in the empire considered the last thing it needed was more Slavs to rule and while they will want to punish Serbia and bring it more under economic and political control I don't think they will want to annexe any significant areas.

iv) I suspect social change will come in Germany but it could be difficult and bloody. A lot will depend on whether the old junker/military elements give ground gracefully. If they seek to maintain power, both internally and having sizeable armies occupying much of the territorial gains for economic advantage things could get nasty. If L & H can be removed from control of the economy and reforms made Germany may quite possibly make the progress that Beer suggests.

Steve

[Beer]

The whole Reverse versaille is ostensibly a product of the confusion that surrounds the Mitteleuropa concept. It depends on who you believe really, if you're in the Fischer camp, then a prostrate France is a must. If you're in one of the many other camps, then Germany's war aims range from, hey we just want a nice customs union that can rival Britain and America that will usher in a new golden age all the way to, Germany planned to cynically annex all the central and eastern european states into a German dominated customs union that would benefit Germany and the Germans first and foremost.

I haven't reseached it in any great depth, but what I have found is quite confused and no two sites seem to say the same thing. I must admit to not realising what a hot potato the whole Mitteleuropa thing actually is:eek:
Yeah, it´s really annoying what propaganda-soaked dung is out there. The english wikipedia entry is so biased anti-german(last time I looked), it could come from Lokari and made me think quite a while back to get an account to rectify the worst misconceptions. It´s just that I dislike wikipedia, which in many entries (in all kinds of topics) is not an enzyclopedia, instead individual PoVs reign. A stroll into a university library is more useful!

[Mikestone8]

Actually, while the HSF was in a dire state it was an order for the fleet to go on a death ride, for the honour of the navy, that sparked the mutiny. If the German forces, which have been largely languishing in port since the capture of Riga, they are very likely to get stomped and they will know this.

That of course was even truer in WW2, when Hitler's Kriegsmarine was miniscule compared to the HSF, but it didn't stop German raiders doing quite a bit of damage.



France hasn't fallen. The scenario is that it has signed an armistice or at least a ceasefire after the sudden collapse of resistance in Italy. The Germans don't have Paris and will know that France can recover fairly quickly, to at least fight further, if peace is not concluded quickly.
Steve

Is it just me, or is there some confusion here about the extent of the CP victory? I get the impression that some of the messages I've read assume a far more decisive one than others.

Personally, I find a "cease fire in place" hard to credit. Once French soldiers learn that their government has asked for an armistice, ie no longer expects to win the war, their top priority will be personal survival. I'd expect a collapse a la 1940, or, more relevantly, as Germany's will to fight crumbled after the request for an armistice in October 1918.

Basically, neither side in WW1 would consider accepting the other's minimum terms until decisively defeated. And then, of course, the victor wouldn't give them the minimum terms. He'd raise his demands. This was the catch-22 which ensured that the war would be fought to a finish.

[LordIreland]

Is it just me, or is there some confusion here about the extent of the CP victory? I get the impression that some of the messages I've read assume a far more decisive one than others.

Personally, I find a "cease fire in place" hard to credit. Once French soldiers learn that their government has asked for an armistice, ie no longer expects to win the war, their top priority will be personal survival. I'd expect a collapse a la 1940, or, more relevantly, as Germany's will to fight crumbled after the request for an armistice in October 1918.

Basically, neither side in WW1 would consider accepting the other's minimum terms until decisively defeated. And then, of course, the victor wouldn't give them the minimum terms. He'd raise his demands. This was the catch-22 which ensured that the war would be fought to a finish.

Think you have a very valid point here. I personally feel that the Italian surrender will lead to a general French collapse once Foch's memo is circulated. The French will to fight has collapsed, thats big trouble for them imho;)

[stevep]

That of course was even truer in WW2, when Hitler's Kriegsmarine was miniscule compared to the HSF, but it didn't stop German raiders doing quite a bit of damage.

Except in WWI they didn't have the ships or facilities for raiding by naval units and moral was already on the floor. Not to mention your changing the argument from where you were talking orginally about moving the bulk of the fleet to ports still outside German control.;)




Is it just me, or is there some confusion here about the extent of the CP victory? I get the impression that some of the messages I've read assume a far more decisive one than others.

Personally, I find a "cease fire in place" hard to credit. Once French soldiers learn that their government has asked for an armistice, ie no longer expects to win the war, their top priority will be personal survival. I'd expect a collapse a la 1940, or, more relevantly, as Germany's will to fight crumbled after the request for an armistice in October 1918.

Basically, neither side in WW1 would consider accepting the other's minimum terms until decisively defeated. And then, of course, the victor wouldn't give them the minimum terms. He'd raise his demands. This was the catch-22 which ensured that the war would be fought to a finish.

Some of the wilder assumptions do. However the basis of the OP was that the Germans are more successful than OTL and isolate the British and French forces from each other - for the moment. The French are still holding a continuous line and in front of Paris and there's no way they will give up Paris without a fight. Their government may well look for a cease-fire leading to an armistice on unfavourable terms if Italy then collapses as suggested. However its still in a superior position to Germany OTL and the Germans are not going to get a massive occupation of northern France your suggesting without a lot more fighting, which they probably can't afford.

You don't seem to have a clear knowledge of what happened in 1940. The French were rolled back initially in large part because they couldn't respond to the new German tactics. However, after Dunkirk, when the Germans fought their way to Paris and beyond, despite being heavily outnumbered the French fought damned hard. It would actually be similar here except that with the lesser technological development, a German army nearly as knackered as the French and allies in the field France would bled the Germans very white if they tried upping the anti.

Similarly, if an armistice was signed you might see desertions in the French army. You're probably far more likely to see unrest in the German army if, having achieved a limited victory, the German leadership throw it all away by getting greedy and insisting on fighting on longer. For the French its simple. A hostile army is on their soil, threatening their homes and is now demanding more. What are the Germans fighting for if their government rejects limited gains in the west on top of the massive ones their struggling to hold in the east?

Plus every day an armistice lasts the allies will have the chance to regroup, strengthen their defences and move reinforcements to France. Germany can pull more forces in, if it can find them, develop lines of supply and communications through the wilderness its fought through and try and build up some stockpiles in case it needs to attack again but it is already suffering very badly from imperial overstretch.

Steve

[stevep]

Think you have a very valid point here. I personally feel that the Italian surrender will lead to a general French collapse once Foch's memo is circulated. The French will to fight has collapsed, thats big trouble for them imho;)

LordIreland

The French will to attack yes. Possibly even to concede further territorial gains in the west. But to surrender everything the Germans have been unable to take in 4 years of war when the Germans start upping the ante as Mikestone8 suggests? That's a totally different thing. They will be weakened yes, but doubt if they will be out of it yet if the Germans insist on another round.

Steve

[Douglas]

LordIreland

The French will to attack yes. Possibly even to concede further territorial gains in the west. But to surrender everything the Germans have been unable to take in 4 years of war when the Germans start upping the ante as Mikestone8 suggests? That's a totally different thing. They will be weakened yes, but doubt if they will be out of it yet if the Germans insist on another round.

Steve

And that's my point. The Germans will press too hard...any they have nothing left! They have not one iota of offensive capability after Michael, especially a thoroughly wanked one as proposed earlier.

[LordIreland]

LordIreland

The French will to attack yes. Possibly even to concede further territorial gains in the west. But to surrender everything the Germans have been unable to take in 4 years of war when the Germans start upping the ante as Mikestone8 suggests? That's a totally different thing. They will be weakened yes, but doubt if they will be out of it yet if the Germans insist on another round.

Steve

And that's my point. The Germans will press too hard...any they have nothing left! They have not one iota of offensive capability after Michael, especially a thoroughly wanked one as proposed earlier.

SteveP & Douglas, you are both quite correct, my apologies for not being specific enough in my earlier post. Its not so much that I think Germany will want to go another round, as I stated in an earlier post she will want to end the war sooner rather than later. I was rather repsonding to Mikestone8's comment that there seemed to be a split in opinion as to how serious France's positon is.

So Italy seeks a negotiated armstice with the CPs, when Foch hears this, he informs the government that they must seek an armstice with the CPs whilst we still have an army to use as a bargaining chip. Perhaps the French & BEF will try to effect some form of link up, perhaps not. But, unfortunately for Foch, his memorandum is leaked to the papers. At this point the following happens...shit + fan = big mess. The Italian 'betrayel' is the end, first Russia, now Italy, this cannot go on. France begins to disintegrate politically and economically. Strikes/anti-war demonstrations paralyse France, army units refuse to follow orders when ordered to counter-attack etc. Communist insurrections etc etc.

Britain is stunned by the sudden disintegration of Italy followed by France in quick succession, the German offensive has pinned the BEF and Whitehall is considering a negotiated peace. This throws the British plans into disarray,

What I am interested in, is what people think is the likely outcome of peace negotiations. There have been a couple of posters who seem to feel that the CPs would deal with the Entente as a whole. Given the domino effect of Italy, France and ultimatly GB asking for armstices, would they be dealt with as a bloc or seperatly? Perhaps GB might be able to tie itself to France and lessen the harshness of the French's terms. Maybe the BEF will re-enter the fray at the expense of Allenby's Palestine campaign.

It strikes me that Italy will get a harsh treaty in terms of reperations, war guilt & force limitations, after all, Germany & A-H will regard her as a turncoat and i'm sure that France & GB will blame her for their predicament. Italy may well spend several years as a pariah nation as a result.

But France, wounded, beaten, but not out of the fight yet, what happens to her. Does she really have the will to 'go another round'? What sort of mood will the French negotiation team be in when they reach the negotiations? Cap in hand? Belicose and belligerent? Hopeful? What do the French consider acceptable, what not?

I have stated over and over that all sides are exhausted by the 4 years of industrialised manslaughter. All the major combatents societies are starting to unravel at the seams. But and this is a very important point (imho at least) how strong do they appear to the other side.

For example, France. Germany appears to be about to push to Paris, never mind that they realistically can't, what do the French think? France is realing from the leaked memorandum, civil unrest, anti-war demonstrations and strikes, mutinies within the French army. Do her leaders believe that she can go another round. Do the Germans comprehend how bad the French position really is?

So, considering all of the above, what will germany demand, what will France offer, how much will GB use its position to buy leniency for France?

[Douglas]

Unless the Germans propose a "white peace" with respect to the Western and Italian fronts, the Allies will go on the offensive once more, if only for bargaining chips. Only the chips they will receive will be victory in the war, because the German army in the West will crumble.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

CP have knocked out all the Entente powers except the UK. However the UK is getting pretty close to knocking the Ottomans out and it's quite probably the rest of the CP couldn't transfer enough troops to the middle east quickly enough to prevent this.

The Ottomans are going to want all the territory taken from them back and the Arab revolt crushed. I don't think this will happen but they may get some of what they want.

The Ottoman Empire will keep Mesopotamia but loose the Holy Land. What in OTL became Saudi Arabia will become an independent Arab kingdom under British influence.

The Ottoman Empire will regain Libya from Italy.

First of all, the British are not "close to knocking the Ottomans out." It was the Battle of Megiddo late in 1918 that caused the Palestine front to collapse, and it was the Salonika Front which caused the Ottomans to leave the war, and that's not happening in this scenario.

The Ottomans get all their territory back, period. There is no way the Germans are going to allow their ally to lose territory when they have been victorious. Everyone always has to create an Israel in every scenario, even when the CP Win! Ay, chihuahua!

It's possible the Ottomans could regain Libya, but unlikely - although the Italians only control a couple of coastal enclaves - but they would probably at least get the Dodecanese back. Cyprus is an outside possibility - the British may trade it for some other consideration since it's strategically worthless with their presence in Egypt.

For everyone who keeps bringing it up, the Arab revolt is irrelevant. It had no support in the Arab territories of the empire except the Hijaz, and it was opportunistic on the part of the Sherif, who as people have pointed out was perfectly ready to switch sides again. The bigger Ottoman problem was the amount of privation the Arab population had to suffer, but a victory in the war would go far to deal with that issue.

[Mikestone8]

Incidentally, can someone remind me exactly where the BEF is?

Last I heard, it had been separated from the French Army and pinned into a small pocket along the coast, like so many fish in a barrel. Presumably that's where it still was when the ceasefire sounded.

Leaving aside the unlikelihood of the Germans agreeing to such a ceasefire if they appeared to be in sniffing distance of pushing the British into the sea, what has it done since? Is it still sitting in its isolated pocket, or has it been recalled to Britain with a view to redeploying it in a more secure location, should hostilities resume?

[Beer]

Except in WWI they didn't have the ships or facilities for raiding by naval units and moral was already on the floor. Not to mention your changing the argument from where you were talking orginally about moving the bulk of the fleet to ports still outside German control.;)
Some of the wilder assumptions do. However the basis of the OP was that the Germans are more successful than OTL and isolate the British and French forces from each other - for the moment. The French are still holding a continuous line and in front of Paris and there's no way they will give up Paris without a fight. Their government may well look for a cease-fire leading to an armistice on unfavourable terms if Italy then collapses as suggested. However its still in a superior position to Germany OTL and the Germans are not going to get a massive occupation of northern France your suggesting without a lot more fighting, which they probably can't afford.
You don't seem to have a clear knowledge of what happened in 1940. The French were rolled back initially in large part because they couldn't respond to the new German tactics. However, after Dunkirk, when the Germans fought their way to Paris and beyond, despite being heavily outnumbered the French fought damned hard. It would actually be similar here except that with the lesser technological development, a German army nearly as knackered as the French and allies in the field France would bled the Germans very white if they tried upping the anti.
Similarly, if an armistice was signed you might see desertions in the French army. You're probably far more likely to see unrest in the German army if, having achieved a limited victory, the German leadership throw it all away by getting greedy and insisting on fighting on longer. For the French its simple. A hostile army is on their soil, threatening their homes and is now demanding more. What are the Germans fighting for if their government rejects limited gains in the west on top of the massive ones their struggling to hold in the east?
Plus every day an armistice lasts the allies will have the chance to regroup, strengthen their defences and move reinforcements to France. Germany can pull more forces in, if it can find them, develop lines of supply and communications through the wilderness its fought through and try and build up some stockpiles in case it needs to attack again but it is already suffering very badly from imperial overstretch.
Steve
Hi, Steve!
I know you are a die-hard Entente guy, but this makes you overestimate the situation of the Entente and underestimate the CP.
The moral of the CP main parts went to hell only late in 1918. There were problems before, but as long as there was a glimmer of hope, moral was acceptable. In this TL Germany has an even better outlook, so moral is not the problem.
Able to concentrate their operations on one enemy, if Britain would choose to fight on (which is brit-wank territory), would tilt the balance in favour of the CP. More U-Boat/U-Cruisers for example, access to the world markets again, since GB can´t blockade all of Europe.
French moral was toast far earlier than in the CP. I think you are too much influenced by later times, with fighting on, regrouping, etc.. We have relatives in France, so I know quite well how the situation was on the french side. France was even more bled dry than Germany at that point. With the Tommies pocketed, the French would have to hold on alone and their reserves were far more non-existent. The CP might not be able to push that much more, but France can´t counter, there is nothing left in their pool that could change the outcome.
By the way, it´s a lot of Entente-wank to say Germany would get too greedy. (Please don´t come with B-L, since there special circumstances not found in the west) Yes, most of the foreign ministry was a disaster, but what is overlooked far too often, that there was a learning process, too late, but there was. In such a late victory, the situation on the homefront is nearly as bad as OTL, even the hardliners know it has to be over as soon as possible.

[LordIreland]

LordIreland

The French will to attack yes. Possibly even to concede further territorial gains in the west. But to surrender everything the Germans have been unable to take in 4 years of war when the Germans start upping the ante as Mikestone8 suggests? That's a totally different thing. They will be weakened yes, but doubt if they will be out of it yet if the Germans insist on another round.

Steve

Unless the Germans propose a "white peace" with respect to the Western and Italian fronts, the Allies will go on the offensive once more, if only for bargaining chips. Only the chips they will receive will be victory in the war, because the German army in the West will crumble.

Haha, as usual you two are keeping me honest:D Good point, so what is a realistic expectation of what France is willing to offer? A couple of colonies, Luxembourg, a few minor border adjustments and recognition of the Treaty of B-L?

I still believe that Italy will get harsher terms because both sides are angry at her, albeit for different reasons.

First of all, the British are not "close to knocking the Ottomans out." It was the Battle of Megiddo late in 1918 that caused the Palestine front to collapse, and it was the Salonika Front which caused the Ottomans to leave the war, and that's not happening in this scenario.

The Ottomans get all their territory back, period. There is no way the Germans are going to allow their ally to lose territory when they have been victorious. Everyone always has to create an Israel in every scenario, even when the CP Win! Ay, chihuahua!

I give you my solemn word that if this TL goes anywhere, that it will not happen;)

Incidentally, can someone remind me exactly where the BEF is?


The BEF are pinned in a pocket bsed on Calais, Dunkirk & Boulogne. The second Kaiserschlact offensive (and the third and the fourth) was developed on from the first one aiming at hitting the coast somewhere aound Abbeville, rather than at attacking the BEF in Flanders, beyond some local pinning operations.

As to what the British are actually doing, as I see it, they have 3 basic options:

1 - Reinforce the Channel Pocket in an attempt to attack SE and effect a link with the French, this has the double advantage of potentially trapping some German forces, a powerful bargaining chip at the negotiations. But troops would have to come from somewhere and this would mean an almost indefinite postponement of Allenby's offensive in Palestine.

2 - Withdraw the BEF and embark them back in Entente controlled France. If the war goes for another round, its possible they could do a '100 days' equivalent.

3 - Say, 'France is screwed' and massively reinforce Allenby in an attempt to knock the Ottomans out of the war before negotiations get under way (have to say imho, this is the least likely option).

[Mikestone8]

The BEF are pinned in a pocket bsed on Calais, Dunkirk & Boulogne. The second Kaiserschlact offensive (and the third and the fourth) was developed on from the first one aiming at hitting the coast somewhere aound Abbeville, rather than at attacking the BEF in Flanders, beyond some local pinning operations.



Any thoughts on the dimensions of the pocket, and in particular what proportion of it will fall within range of German artillery?

If it's a large part, then the carnage within that pocket will be hideous even by WW1 standards. I can imagine the situation leading to a Dunkirk at best, or at worst a kind of "Yorktown on steroids". Either way, Britain is at least temporarily out of play as far as the Western Front is concerned, and France will be fighting alone. Not good.

[Douglas]

First of all, the idea of the BEF in a "pocket" or even separated from the French army is ASB. Even Michael on a good day is going to maybe take Amiens and screw up the supply situation for a few months, but that's it. The successful Austrian offensive isn't terribly likely, but let's run with it.

If the Germans call for a white peace, with no colonial or territorial concessions regarding Britain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, or Italy, and a grumpy recognition (or semi-recognition: "The undersigned Powers agree to respect German considerations in the regions formerly belonging to the Russian Empire", etc) of Brest-Litovsk and the de-facto vassalization of Serbia and Romania from the remaining Entente Powers, then that is the best-case scenario. Germany would probably be fine with losing places like PNG and Togo, while probably keeping German East Africa ("forces in the field", etc.).

If the Germans offered that peace treaty, without making any demands for British, French, Belgian, or Italian* territory anywhere in the world, which would result in an immediate resumption of hostilities, then you could have peace. I'd say it's very unlikely, considering how nutty the German diplomatic team was, but if the "reason and logic" bug bites them at the right time, especially after relatively unlikely successes in the West and in Italy, and the Entente feels like its reeling a bit, that's how you get peace.

*The only exceptions being the Dodecanese and/or Libya, from the Italians to the Ottomans.

[stevep]

Beer

I have read that there were serious signs of problems before the Michel offensives. [Propaganda on rail trucks carrying troops west from the eastern front that the troops were cattle being send to slaughter for the kaiser]. Also the Germans were shocked by the material available to the allies as they drove them back. There were some cases reported of troops failing to press the advance because they were too busy gorging themselves on captured food and drink. This probably made clear to them how bad things were in Germany.

I agree that a prolonged conflict by Britain against Germany would be bad for Britain and probably not good for Germany either. However I'm thinking of the situation after the German breakthrough. Their in striking distance of Paris and have reached the Channel but will have suffered a lot of casualties in the process. They may well be able to get some peace agreement that is favourable to them, especially since the allies don't realise how exposed the German position is. However if the Germans push too hard in any peace talks the allies are likely to fight on and then things could get very difficult for the Germans. If they drive north they will fight a well dug in British army on a narrow front, the coastal flanks of which will also be supported by naval bombardment. If they drive south the French will fight hard for their capital and the likelihood of a British drive south. The British army will have almost certainly developed the tactics, doctrines and forces that broke the over extended German army in OTL and are likely to do so again, threatening the force that have reached the channel and the rear of any drive to Paris.

I think under the circumstances the German may be able to make peace in the west but I don't think they will be able to push for serious gains over the 1914 borders. The question is does L & H realise this?

Steve


Hi, Steve!
I know you are a die-hard Entente guy, but this makes you overestimate the situation of the Entente and underestimate the CP.
The moral of the CP main parts went to hell only late in 1918. There were problems before, but as long as there was a glimmer of hope, moral was acceptable. In this TL Germany has an even better outlook, so moral is not the problem.
Able to concentrate their operations on one enemy, if Britain would choose to fight on (which is brit-wank territory), would tilt the balance in favour of the CP. More U-Boat/U-Cruisers for example, access to the world markets again, since GB can´t blockade all of Europe.
French moral was toast far earlier than in the CP. I think you are too much influenced by later times, with fighting on, regrouping, etc.. We have relatives in France, so I know quite well how the situation was on the french side. France was even more bled dry than Germany at that point. With the Tommies pocketed, the French would have to hold on alone and their reserves were far more non-existent. The CP might not be able to push that much more, but France can´t counter, there is nothing left in their pool that could change the outcome.
By the way, it´s a lot of Entente-wank to say Germany would get too greedy. (Please don´t come with B-L, since there special circumstances not found in the west) Yes, most of the foreign ministry was a disaster, but what is overlooked far too often, that there was a learning process, too late, but there was. In such a late victory, the situation on the homefront is nearly as bad as OTL, even the hardliners know it has to be over as soon as possible.

[stevep]

Haha, as usual you two are keeping me honest:D Good point, so what is a realistic expectation of what France is willing to offer? A couple of colonies, Luxembourg, a few minor border adjustments and recognition of the Treaty of B-L?

I think a lot depends on the exact situation and also how the various powers see their actual positions. Matters of moral and leadership are always very difficult to judge when your asking what if.

Most of what I have seen in discussion of possible German victory plans include gains from both France and Belgium and reducing the rump of the latter to a protectorate. [Mind you don't do as much reading as I used to - internet excepted - and that was some distance again. The French might settle for something like that or decide to fight on. It would depend on how far the Germans push and possibly how much France and Britain will support each other and think their allies is capable of. [Since if either thinks the other won't fight on that would be a big pressure to make a quick peace, even if it isn't true]. Hence, if the French government is feeling fragile enough about the state of the army and/or support from Britain they might be willing to make territorial concessions. Economic ones are more problematic as France, even less than Germany, can't pay and Germany can't claim, like the allies could OTL that France has occupied and devastated their territory. At the same time Germany is in a desperate economic plight as well once the war ends. As lot of internal debts to be paid off that will be basically worthless.

There have been suggestions of big colonial gains for the Germans but I'm not sure if that's in their interests. Both because such gains would be vulnerable in a future war and because they would come at political costs. Both inside Germany where left wing elements would decry the conservatives for going to war for such gains and in the powers who had lost the territories and want revenge. Also it would be dififcult to get some of the Pacific ones back, especially those in Japanese hands.

Similarly it has been suggested that France would be the big loser in such circumstances while Britain wouldn't lose anything and could well even make some gains from Germany or Turkey. That's a possibility but would be short-sighted by Britain I think. Such a move would be sure to drive a wedge between Britain and France and the two would need each other more than before unless and until the enlarged German empire is reduced. Even more than OTL Versailles this is going to be a truce and probably not for 20 years.

As I said to Beer, presuming that no major butterflies other than the more successful offensives making the stated territorial gains, the German forces are in a difficult position. They have made big gains but at heavy losses. Their supply situation is going to be difficult, especially for those in the west of the new salient. If the make a drive for Paris and the French don't collapse then they will have a damned tough fight on their hands will also facing a potentially shattering British offensive from the north. If they try driving the British into the sea they will likely fail and suffer very heavy losses while the French get vital time to regroup.

I still believe that Italy will get harsher terms because both sides are angry at her, albeit for different reasons.

It could be but not sure whether those will have a territorial element. Other than possibly basing some garrisons in key areas the central powers would be stupid to make territorial gains at Italian expense. The Austrians know from bitter experience how costly that would be and how much unrest it would call. Furthermore even before the war started I think they had decided they didn't want any gains giving them more minorities to rule. I think Karl would be far too intelligent for this. Also as the war has shown they have about the best borders they can get in terms of defences.

Similarly I can't see the Ottomans getting Libya back as it would be virtually impossible for them to support. Possibly the Dodecanese, especially since Greece hasn't been an active allied power. However I think that would be about all. You could play around with Germany getting Sardinia or Sicily as a colony but I don't think it would be practical. Similarly as I said before I couldn't see Britain allowing the transfer of the E African colonies to Germany as their too important a location.

I give you my solemn word that if this TL goes anywhere, that it will not happen;)

Actually I think its only the Pasha that has suggested something like that.;) Britain might be willing to trade back the lands its taken in return for compensation elsewhere, or possibly more moderate terms for France or it might decide to keep them. A lot would depend on how much weight Britain puts on the gains and Germany on getting them back for the Ottomans. Possibly some deal where Britain makes small gains in the Gulf to protect the oilfields, what's now Saudi Arabia becomes some sort of co-dominion and Palestine is returned to Ottoman rule.

The BEF are pinned in a pocket bsed on Calais, Dunkirk & Boulogne. The second Kaiserschlact offensive (and the third and the fourth) was developed on from the first one aiming at hitting the coast somewhere aound Abbeville, rather than at attacking the BEF in Flanders, beyond some local pinning operations.

As to what the British are actually doing, as I see it, they have 3 basic options:

1 - Reinforce the Channel Pocket in an attempt to attack SE and effect a link with the French, this has the double advantage of potentially trapping some German forces, a powerful bargaining chip at the negotiations. But troops would have to come from somewhere and this would mean an almost indefinite postponement of Allenby's offensive in Palestine.

2 - Withdraw the BEF and embark them back in Entente controlled France. If the war goes for another round, its possible they could do a '100 days' equivalent.

3 - Say, 'France is screwed' and massively reinforce Allenby in an attempt to knock the Ottomans out of the war before negotiations get under way (have to say imho, this is the least likely option).

In that case I would say option 1 is the most likely. Probably not withdrawing forces from Palestine as they have the advantage there and chances [as history shows] of markedly bigger gains. Also not sure if there would be time to ship them over. Furthermore the 'pocket' poses a serious threat for the German army. Also withdrawal would be difficult. If there's a cease-fire it means giving up a sizeable chunk of France and the only free bit of Belgium without a fight. If no cease-fire withdrawing most/all of the ~1.8M men would be very difficult. Not to mention either way you would have to leave a huge amount of supplies, equipment and infrastructure behind. [Defensive positions, railways, supply dumps, hospitals etc].

Steve

[stevep]

Any thoughts on the dimensions of the pocket, and in particular what proportion of it will fall within range of German artillery?

If it's a large part, then the carnage within that pocket will be hideous even by WW1 standards. I can imagine the situation leading to a Dunkirk at best, or at worst a kind of "Yorktown on steroids". Either way, Britain is at least temporarily out of play as far as the Western Front is concerned, and France will be fighting alone. Not good.

Mikestone8

By a rough reading of LordIreland's reply and quick look at a map I think its a section about 50x60 miles. As such most would be outside German artillery range - at least for front line guns. Also if they did decide on a artillery dual with the British that would rule out any real attack to the south and be very expensive in terms of men and munitions. Not to mention supplying the forces on the western section of their salient, which could be under a lot of pressure itself, or the monitors that could easily be operating off Abbeville and the vicinity.:D

Steve

[Beer]

Beer
I have read that there were serious signs of problems before the Michel offensives. [Propaganda on rail trucks carrying troops west from the eastern front that the troops were cattle being send to slaughter for the kaiser]. Also the Germans were shocked by the material available to the allies as they drove them back. There were some cases reported of troops failing to press the advance because they were too busy gorging themselves on captured food and drink. This probably made clear to them how bad things were in Germany.
I agree that a prolonged conflict by Britain against Germany would be bad for Britain and probably not good for Germany either. However I'm thinking of the situation after the German breakthrough. Their in striking distance of Paris and have reached the Channel but will have suffered a lot of casualties in the process. They may well be able to get some peace agreement that is favourable to them, especially since the allies don't realise how exposed the German position is. However if the Germans push too hard in any peace talks the allies are likely to fight on and then things could get very difficult for the Germans. If they drive north they will fight a well dug in British army on a narrow front, the coastal flanks of which will also be supported by naval bombardment. If they drive south the French will fight hard for their capital and the likelihood of a British drive south. The British army will have almost certainly developed the tactics, doctrines and forces that broke the over extended German army in OTL and are likely to do so again, threatening the force that have reached the channel and the rear of any drive to Paris.
I think under the circumstances the German may be able to make peace in the west but I don't think they will be able to push for serious gains over the 1914 borders. The question is does L & H realise this?
Steve
Hi, Steve!
I never said that the moral in 1918 was good, it was acceptable. There were problems because of the blockade and there was alot simmering under the surface, but as long as there was hope for a victory, the moral held.
I know the british were fed up with the war, too, but I don´t know how down the barrel the BEF was. It can´t be too good, since any substancial reinforcements would have come from other fronts. But I agree, smashing the BEF would have been costly. Doable, but costly. In any case, the Heer would have pushed against the french lines. Several independent sources agree that France was spent worse than the CP. The german army might not be able to push much further, but France alone would have been unable to hold the lines.
As I wrote, the foreign ministry was not the disaster from earlier and knew, don´t push too far when the negociations come.

[Beer]

First of all, the idea of the BEF in a "pocket" or even separated from the French army is ASB. Even Michael on a good day is going to maybe take Amiens and screw up the supply situation for a few months, but that's it. The successful Austrian offensive isn't terribly likely, but let's run with it.

Pardon me, Douglas, but this is Entente-wank. In OTL (with the US on board) during the spring offensive 18 the british government thought they were going to loose. The Americans still not fully in the field, the supplies good, but the BEF was low on manpower reserves and France was totally spent. A successful Michael would even in OTL given us at least a white peace, because the Entente did not know until later in 1918 how desperate the supply situation for the CP was. This was the plan, beat the Entente to the table before the american numbers make a difference and pull the hell out of the war.
In TTL the Americans are not in the war, so a successful spring offensive leaves the Entente even fewer options. They don´t know how equally down the CP are. OTL France was considering in 1917 to ask for a peace proposal, only the entry of the US into the war stopped that. Without the US entry, I doubt that France would hold under this kind of pressure, even if they did not ask for peace before.

[kellineil]

The basis of my suggested treaty is that Russia, France and Italy have all collapsed and are incapable of fighting any further. This leaves the UK the only Entente member standing. Whilst the UK can fight on, probably for a number of years they probably won't want to. The war would in this scenario fizzle out as both sides jockey for the best possible negotiating position. It's quite possible that the USA would act as a neutral arbiter. Could the treaty become know as the Treaty of Washington?

My suggestion of Germany taking colonies is based on the perceived prestige factor they represent in this period. In many ways it was considered that unless you had colonies you weren't a Great power. They are the peacocks tail of Realpolitik. If Germany took a hard headed look at them though the 'correct' decision would be to write them off

The slicing and dicing of Entente colonies by the UK and Germany is based on the idea that Germany will want colonies back and UK won't want to give any they've taken. The logical way to square this circle is to take colonies off of UK's defeated allies. The UK taking part of the Congo can be seen as 'payment' for coming to Belgium's defence. On the subject of Belgium, I suspect that if UK can maintain the independence of the Belgian coast and most of the interior then this would be seen as a victory

On the subject of the lands I propose that UK takes of the Ottomans. Taking the Holy Land has nothing to do with creating an Israel and everything to do with achieving greater defence in depth for the Suez Canal. The British at this point have already taken Jerusalem and Baghdad. they may well trade some of Mesopotamia for the rest of the Holy Land but may also give land around Basra to Kuwait. Giving Libya back to the Ottoman Empire would compensate them for this territorial loss. Especially once oil is discovered. They get it not because they won, in fact they are the only Central Power in this scenario who can be said to have lost the war, but because they are on the winning side.

[Mikestone8]

Pardon me, Douglas, but this is Entente-wank. In OTL (with the US on board) during the spring offensive 18 the british government thought they were going to loose.


As late as June 1918 (see John Toland's "No Man's land") Lord Milner wanted preparations to be made for Britain and the US to defend Africa and Asia from the CPs. once France and Italy had collapsed.

[LordIreland]

First of all, the idea of the BEF in a "pocket" or even separated from the French army is ASB. Even Michael on a good day is going to maybe take Amiens and screw up the supply situation for a few months, but that's it.

Don't just throw the term ASB please, explain why you think it is impossible.

[stevep]

Beer

It might be that we're slightly at cross purposes. I'm not saying that some deal is impossible. What I'm saying is if the Germans push too hard things will fall apart for them.

On reinforcements for the British army don't forget that Lloyd-George had kept reserves back in Britain to avoid Haig pulling another Passendale. They can be called up and if Italy surrenders but France hasn't yet made peace British and France can pull forces back from Italy and Salonika. [Depending on the time available].

The big problem with this discussion is we're talking about what might happen, how various nations might respond to those events and equally importantly how others might thing they will respond. As such laying several layers of might have beens, possibilities and chances on top of each other. As such a lot can happen with enough changes.

Steve

Hi, Steve!
I never said that the moral in 1918 was good, it was acceptable. There were problems because of the blockade and there was alot simmering under the surface, but as long as there was hope for a victory, the moral held.
I know the british were fed up with the war, too, but I don´t know how down the barrel the BEF was. It can´t be too good, since any substancial reinforcements would have come from other fronts. But I agree, smashing the BEF would have been costly. Doable, but costly. In any case, the Heer would have pushed against the french lines. Several independent sources agree that France was spent worse than the CP. The german army might not be able to push much further, but France alone would have been unable to hold the lines.
As I wrote, the foreign ministry was not the disaster from earlier and knew, don´t push too far when the negociations come.