Trying for a REALISTIC Central Powers victory

[Grey Wolf]

From 'The New Penguin Atlas of Recent History' by Colin McEvedy, a map to be followed by some links and information focusing on the East

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/royalty/houses/estonia.htm

Adolf Friedrich, Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1873- ). Nominated Duke of the United Baltic Duchy in accordance with a 1918 resolution by the General Provincial Assembly in Riga that called upon the German Emperor Wilhelm II to recognize the Baltic provinces of Latvia and Estonia as a monarchy and German protectorate.

http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/royalty/houses/lithuania.htm

Duke Wilhelm Karl of Urach, Count of Württemberg (1864-1928), who was elected King Mindove II of Lithuania by the Lithuanian Taryba in July 1918 and recognized by Germany in November 1918

Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/royalty/houses/finland.htm

Wolfgang Moritz, Prince of Hesse (1896- ). Potential claimant to the throne of Finland upon the succession of his father, Prince Friedrich Karl, to the title of Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel in 1925 (according to his father’s order of 1918 that Finland would always pass to the second son of the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel to avoid the union of the two titles).

I realise I am linking the WW2 pages but the info on them from WW1 is what I am focusing on, and for Finland here it provides the explanation of what would have happened to have kept it separate from Hesse-Cassel

Grey Wolf

[Kabraloth]

Realistic would be a scenario where this peace of Brest-Litovsk does not even come up, because Trotsky realizes that Germany is not going away when the post-Tsarist Russia ignores it.
The argument of his was that Germany did not wage war with the USSR, but with Tsarist Russia; as there was no war, why should there be peace?

If Trotsky decides to swallow the frog and accepts the first peace offer, only Poland and Lithuania will become independant (Lithuania will likely be smaller, maybe as small as OTL's) and that is that.

(Yay, thread derailment!)

[Grey Wolf]

Ukraine was set up under Hetman Skoropadsky, tho' Archduke Wilhelm of (Habsburg) Teschen had hoped for the crown at one stage

His father was the man in line for the Polish crown, Archduke Stefan if my mind remembers these things correctly. Things had gone a bit screwy with Poland, tho', due in part IIRC to the Polish nationalists not being as keen to fight in Central Powers colours as they had been supposed to. IIRC again by 1918 there were a couple of rival governments in CP-occupied Poland, each with different remits. The Kingdom HAD been officially proclaimed, but without a king been announced. I remember that bit clearly...

Georgia I don't know what the plans were ? Apparently not a monarchy, tho' the idea of setting up an independent REPUBLIC seems a bit odd for the Central Powers who went to great lengths to find kings for places like Finland and Lithuania

Grey Wolf

[Sertak]

The only realistic scenario of Central Powers Victory should be based on Germany winning the Marna operation in 1914 and prevailing over France in several weeks. That is the only realistic condition for the Centrals to win.

[Grey Wolf]

Well...


732457895974

[Grey Wolf]

I was hoping to use real details of what was intended to come up with a real post-war map of what the East was intended to look at, that was all

Grey Wolf

[iocane]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/tanks.htm
"By the time the war drew to a close the British, the first to use them, had produced some 2,636 tanks. The French produced rather more, 3,870. The Germans, never convinced of its merits, and despite their record for technological innovation, produced just 20."
Germany builds more tank and starts before the war even begins. They then use tanks and tunneling against trench warfare. The French and British can do the whole charge against the machine gun suicide charge. Germany moderates its submarine warfare campaign, no unrestrictive warfare. No sinking Lusantania. It also does not try to turn Mexico against the USA (which didn't work wanyway). So no United States in the war. Also Germany gets better intelligence on British operations. So they don't end up sinking the ship that has the head of the British army on board. Best to keep people who don't know what they are doing alive (when there on the other side). Keeps them from being replaced by someone with a brain.

[Damar1]

Yes a more successful Schlieffen Plan could have helped Germany.

Also, the CP could have found a way to get Italy to honor its previous alliance to A-H and Germany--or at least keep it neutral (past 1915 anyway). W/o an Italian Front, A-H can focus more on the Balkans and Russia, and maybe not collapse as quickly. Things would get easier for Germany too, come to think of it--they can also concentrate their forces elsewhere, and not have to help out A-H there as in OTL.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I was hoping to use real details of what was intended to come up with a real post-war map of what the East was intended to look at, that was all

Grey Wolf

With regard to Georgia, I don't think it had really been worked out. Working from memory, the Germans rushed a small force there to prevent the Ottomans from occupying the country, and the two powers were starting to really fall out over the disposition of the Caucasus. Germany had been very keen to control the Baku oil, but the Ottomans got to it first. This would all depend upon when and how the CP won... if early on, the Caucasus would likely be largely shaped by the Germans; if later, the Ottomans will have to be taken into consideration.

[Grimm Reaper]

What if the Germans move entirely onto the defensive in the West and all of the manpower squandered at Ypres and Verdun is used elsewhere?

By mid 1915 Serbia and Montenegro are crushed, northern Greece occupied and the Army of the Orient destroyed or forced to flee, and German sends a few units of specialists with top equipment to aid the Ottomans against the British, resulting in the British desperately trying to hold in the central Sinai?

The stunning December 1915 offensive sunders the Italian line and only the frantic arrival of Anglo-French divisions prevents Italy from collapsing entirely, and the entire northeast including Venice is lost.

Falkenhayn's masterstroke, however, would be the spring 1916 offensive which forced the Tsar to the negotiating table and which brought a reluctant Romania into the Central Powers, in return for Bessarabian spoils.

In this event, with Russia forced out 6-9 months earlier, the Balkans entirely under German control, Italy much weaker, and US entry(if it happens) still nearly a year in the future, could Germany win the day?

For that matter, would this be plausible?

[luakel]

Grimm, the main problem I see with that scenario is even the Allies should be able to see that there are better areas to use their manpower against, most notably the places they're losing in. Then again, given their brilliant plans in OTL...

[Riain]

The CP could have won the long war, if not comfortably than convincingly. Does anyone want me to slap up a TL with minimum changes which sees the CP win WW1 easily enough? It will have all the early combattants involved from the start and only human decisions will differ. And the Schleiffen plan will still fail.

[Wendell]

The descendants of its historical pre-Tsarist hereditary rulers lived in Italy IIRC, and may have had ties to the House of Savoy.

That said, might the Central Powers win if Italy goes their way in the war?

[Johnnyreb]

Before 1914, the UK enters into a secret treaty with germany over such matters as the Navies and spheres of influence in Europe. As a result the UK does not enter the War.

So we don't get any of these bloody poets.

[Nick Sumner]

The CP could have won the long war, if not comfortably than convincingly. Does anyone want me to slap up a TL with minimum changes which sees the CP win WW1 easily enough? It will have all the early combattants involved from the start and only human decisions will differ. And the Schleiffen plan will still fail.

Can't agree here, the only realistic CP victory scenarios are short war ones. One reason - Blockade, its fatal to industrial societies

[Dean_the_Young]

Can't agree here, the only realistic CP victory scenarios are short war ones. One reason - Blockade, its fatal to industrial societies

Correction: Blockade is fatal to foreign-trade reliant industrial societies who don't have strategic materials. Nations with their own resources can shrug it off.

Though the economy was crippled, the what was really hurting the Germans was a lack of food supplies, not a lack of bullets.

[Shadow Knight]

Correction: Blockade is fatal to foreign-trade reliant industrial societies who don't have strategic materials. Nations with their own resources can shrug it off.

Though the economy was crippled, the what was really hurting the Germans was a lack of food supplies, not a lack of bullets.

That last part is only partially true. Had Germany not captured the large ammonium-nitrate stocks in Antwerp which gave them time to build up their synthetic plants they would have run out of bullets due to the the blockade.

[Wendell]

That last part is only partially true. Had Germany not captured the large ammonium-nitrate stocks in Antwerp which gave them time to build up their synthetic plants they would have run out of bullets due to the the blockade.

Thus German crises could be solved on land, whereas Britain's would have to be fought on sea for a favorable outcome.

Where the Germans went wrong was in lifting their blockade.

[Riain]

This TL depends on a serious weakening of the British position by a reduction of its geographic strength over Germany. Plus going to Russia in 1916 instead of Verdun. Sept-Oct 1914). Germany wins the 'Race to the Sea', gaining possession of the French Channel coast from the Dutch border to between Abbeville and Dieppe. Winter 1914/5) Tirpiz battery-4x11" guns is installed on Cap Griz Nez, TBs, Uboats and destroyers are deployed to forward French ports. The British decide to abandon most colonial campiagns of our OTL and concentrate on ejecting Germany from their new strategic position in which the Dover St. Gallipolli is never contemplated, Italy fails to be swung to the Allied side and stays neutral. AH and Turkey's extra contributions, as a result of no Dardenelles and Italian fronts in OTL, to the combined CP offensive against Russia in 1915 give it greater success, including the capture of Riga in 1915. The German gun positions on Cap Griz Nez and light naval forces on the Channel coast halt British shipping through the St of Dover, slowing shipping into London to a trickle. 1915) 1/4 of London's population is evacuated to cities and towns in the west, where food can be distributed to them. (Adml Roger Bacon; The Dover Patrol.) The BEF and Dominion forces are concentrated in France as soon as practicable, howver these are smaller and slower to build up compared to OTL. The supply line is pushed back to Chebourg and Brest, as compared to Calais-Le Harve as OTL. This requires many light RN forces to protect them from German navy interdiction, made possible by the forward German position on the French Channel coast, unlike OTL where they were stuck behind the mine infested Dover narrows. After being chastened by Amercian threats following the sinking of the Luistiania the Uboats concentrate of BEF troop and supply ships going to France, sinking many and further complicating and slowing the growth of the BEF. Large French and small BEF offesnives in 1915 are bloodily repulsed by the tactically superior German army, adding to France's huge casualty list from 1914. 1916) The BEF reaches it max size, with 2 million men operating the supply lines this is a truncated 45 divs instead of 60 in OTL. The CP undertake another combined offensive against Russia, by chance discovering and spoiling preparations for the Brusilov offensive, Russia's last chance of good news in the War. The High Seas Fleet and Grand Fleet meet in battle in the North Sea. While enjoying a preponderance in capital ships the Grand Fleet lacks a correct proportion of light forces, which have been stripped from the GF in the absence of fleet action to be engaged in more active naval conflict zones further south. The Germans have surged their light forces home and sortied the HSF before the RN could respond in kind. Lacking good scouting and light forces the HSF dominates the intial stages of the engagment, and disengages and reengages twice, using their battle turnaway to maximise this advantage. This causes an unambigious tactical defeat for the GF, despite the strategic stalemate remaining. The RN reinforces the GF with light forces from the active combat zone in the Channel, and the German light forces ruthlessly exploit this vulnerablitiy in what they name the 'uboat happy time'. In addition the forward postion enables the Germans greater freedom for blockade runners and ocean raiders, further diluting the BEF contribution to the Western front and slowing American anger toward German actions. The Anglo French forces launch a combined offensive against the german lines at the junction of their armies. This causes massive casulties to the Allied forces, and the Germans are shocked by the power of the combined power of these armies. Late 1916, following the crushing success of the CP offensive, the Czarist govt is overthrown by a provisional govt headed by Kerensky. 1917) After a hard winter, complete with shortages of everything Russia undergoes another revoltion. The new Bolshevik govt immediately opens peace negotiations with the CP. The western allies launch an offensive, somewhat prematurely to influence the negotiations in the east. Thus is replused with heavy casualties as a result of new German defensive techniques, putting the hard pressed French army on the verge of mutiny and refusing to undertake any further offensives. The Russians accept a harsh peace at Brest Litovsk at this time, further depressing the morale of the western allies who are now fighting alone. The Germans respond with an offensive of their own against the Verdun salient, after being reinforced with troops removed from the eastern front and retrained in new offensive techniques. These new techniques of hurricane bombardment and infantry infiltration the Germans quickly reduce this salient, despite savage French resistance. The mood of the French army and populace is now angry, after 3 years of war and appalling casualties the Germans seem to be able to undertake successful offensives at will in areas of great national significance to France. Under considerable pressure on all fronts the French governemnt falls and is replaced with a new govt which opens armistace negotiations with Germany. German leaders, fearful of the social changes which the new styles of decentralised warfighting will bring about if the war continues to be radicalised, agree to a peace along the lines of the stauts quo ante in the west in exchange for recognition and active diplomatic support for German gains in the east. Britain, seeing that it is unable to effectivley prosecute a war against Germany alone, and with Germany withdrawing from the Channel coast reluctantly agrees to these conditions.

[LordKalvan]

The descendants of its historical pre-Tsarist hereditary rulers lived in Italy IIRC, and may have had ties to the House of Savoy.

That said, might the Central Powers win if Italy goes their way in the war?

The reigning line of the Savoy house held the hereditary right to Georgia and Armenia, IIRC (possibly together with a number of other European noble houses :D ): matter of fact, both thrones were offered to Victor Emmanuel III in 1920 or 1921 by a "delegation" which visited Rome (luckily the idea of accepting never became serious).

My best guess for CPs winning is UK staying out of the frame (because Belgium is not invaded). It would obviously take a reversal of German strategy (Russia first, holding the French on the Rhine) which is difficult enough.
However, if CPs have to win, "it were better it were done quickly". Italy joining the CPs would change the equation (because France would have another front to protect) and would go well with a reversed strategy.

I don't believe a masterminding by the German General Staff (who was quite set in their own ways) is possible.
The doctrine called for an offensive on the Western front, and that happened. However, the Entente strategy (meet any offensive with an offensive on a different front) worked, and the Russians played ball gamely. IMHO, it must be played from the beginning (Russia first) to change the final result.

[Nick Sumner]

I don't mean to be a wet blanket but Napoleonic France, Wilhelmine Germany, Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan were all fatally weakened by blockade.

Blockade is fatal to foreign-trade reliant industrial societies who don't have strategic materials.

This is a definition of Wilhelmine Germany

Nations with their own resources.

This isn't

Though the economy was crippled, the what was really hurting the Germans was a lack of food supplies, not a lack of bullets.

Which was one result of the blockade.

[Slacker]

Well, didn't they have relatively secure access to large numbers of foodstuffs after they forced the Russians out of the war? I imagine they could have coerced large shipments out of Poland and the Ukraine if nothing else. Might not be enough, but it might help. *shrug*

[Riain]

The CP food problem stemmed from overmobilisation of farmers, and diversion of too much chemical inustry away from fetilisers etc. Between them, with rationing, the CP were mostly immune to blockade in all major raw materials. That's what makes a superpower so powerful, being mostly self sufficient.

[Tom_B]

Hmm. I think you did not get into a discussion of how the Germans won but rather what would be the result of such a victory. Unfortunately how and when they won makes a difference to the shape of the peace. Imagine a TL where things go better for the KuK in 1914 (eg. there was an opportunity to seriously envelop Russian Fifth Army at one point) and Przemysl is not enveloped at year end and there are no suicidal offensives in the Carpathians. Perhaps then the Tsar listens to Falkenhayn's suggestions for a seperate peace which fell into the category of a favorable border adjustment. No Lithuania/Finland. France though is in deep trouble. (The British blockade is a bargaining chip at the peace conference not the magical Excalibur which yields victory)

[Grey Wolf]

Hmm. I think you did not get into a discussion of how the Germans won but rather what would be the result of such a victory. Unfortunately how and when they won makes a difference to the shape of the peace. Imagine a TL where things go better for the KuK in 1914 (eg. there was an opportunity to seriously envelop Russian Fifth Army at one point) and Przemysl is not enveloped at year end and there are no suicidal offensives in the Carpathians. Perhaps then the Tsar listens to Falkenhayn's suggestions for a seperate peace which fell into the category of a favorable border adjustment. No Lithuania/Finland. France though is in deep trouble. (The British blockade is a bargaining chip at the peace conference not the magical Excalibur which yields victory)

True, I just had a nice map I rather wanted to use :)

Seriously, tho', given that all these plans WERE hanging around by Summer 1918 and that the Central Powers were organising things on the back of an assumption of either victory in the West or stalemate there, I thought it would make an interesting discussion about whether all these plans actually do hang together, what the result of implementing them would be etc

I suppose, really, this was in essence a REAL history question and I just put it in the wrong place. Many apologies all

Grey Wolf

[Max Sinister]

@Riain: They still lacked one important thing - oil. (Not as important as in later wars, but still.)

[Nick Sumner]

Don't want to start a big fight but I have to disagree with your sanguine view of German prospects in 1917/18 and in particular about the effectiveness of the blockade.

Let’s take a look at the economic, industrial and geopolitical situation in Germany in the first half of 1918.

Germany’s allies Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria are collapsing forcing Germany itself to bear an increasing war burden. Germany is, or soon will be, alone against the world.

The blockade is proving highly effective, which causes increasing chaos and dislocation in the German economy, industrial output is falling and there are harsh and increasing shortages of all basic industrial commodities. The Turnip Winter of 1917-18 is a nightmare for the German people and Hindenburg and Ludendorff have established a dictatorship. The civil situation in Germany is extremely serious, it is doubtful that the German army can be maintained in the field past April 1919 due to the blockade not only because of a lack of munitions and supplies but also because of the starving civilians and a probable crisis of morale among the troops. During the offensives, the moral of their best troops was shaken when they captured British and French supply dumps. The amount of food and booze astonished them. They had seen nothing similar since 1915 behind their own lines!

The HSF is rotting at anchor, achieving nothing but the spread of communism. Scheer could have tried to use the HSF to break the blockade but there would have been only a slender hope of success. The blockade was strangling Wilhelmine Germany, the war would have ended by May 1919. Ludendorff had no choice but to try and win quickly with the offensives of March 1918 because the German economy was going down too fast. The Michael offensives were forced by the blockade.

Germany was too poor a condition economically to endure the blockade in to 1919. They had to attack in 1918 if they wanted to win the war but even if they had stood on the defensive they could not have prolonged the inevitable for long. The ruin of the German economy was the achievement of the blockade. There was no realistic military possibility of the German Field Army surviving 1918 against the Anglo French forces because the Grand Fleet was throttling the second Reich.

Everything else was secondary. If Italy had collapsed after Caporetto, and the USA remained neutral, Germany would still have had to attack and still have been destroyed in Flanders in 1918. They might have fought on at rapidly worsening odds. But the Allies would have taken the Ruhr in 1919.

[Riain]

Blockade against continent spanning superpowers is highly overrated. The major problem for the CP was the removal of too many men from farming into the army and the diversion of too many chemicals from fertiliser to explosives. The Hindenburg programme ignored the sustinence of the population when going for broke with war production. A bit more attention paid to food production would have seen the main 'result' of the blockade ameliorated. In contrast a strategic strength of the allies was that they could import food from overseas when they neglected their own agriculture. But with more scope for naval action it would have been Britian which starved before Germany. Britain and France had no oil either, their shipments were vulnerable to naval interdiction, hence the massive value of controlling the Dover St from the French side and having sea room in the Channel.

[Dean_the_Young]

Mostly what Riain said. Germany didn't prepare economically for the long run, and the lack of organization (typically a german trait) hit them in the balls. Could trade have solved their problems? Yes, but so could better long term planning. This is the strength of continental powers: they require less imports for bare survival than island nations like Britain.

Britain can and could only wage war as long as they could receive shipping, hence why for hundreds of years their focus has been on having a superb navy that could keep the oceans safe(r) for British shipping. Food, raw materials, specialized chemicals, you name it, these are things only a continent can produce in self-sufficient quantities. Blockade against Britain is death by strangling; blockade against Germany is the major inconveniance of having weights strapped to your arms as you try to swim. Possible, but not fun or easy.

And don't worry, 'debating' is half the fun of AH.com, no? :)

[Riain]

The basic self sufficiency and security of resources is what makes a superpower 'super'. Britain lacked room to grow enough food, France lacked the coal and iron deposits to have a huge heavy industrial base. Germany had enough of both, they were merely mismanged by the military dictatorship of Luddendorf.