World War One German Victory

[Gass3268]

Here is my take to a German WWI Victory, post 1917. The POD is that the Germans were about to break through the French/British lines during the Spring Offensive which started March 21, 1918 (How? I don’t know yet. Suggestions?). Within a few weeks they surround Paris and commence in a bombardment of the city extremely similar to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

By the beginning of July the French realized that the war was over and they approached the Germans with the intent to surrender. The armistice was signed on July 11, 1918. With the French out of the war the British and American presence on mainland Europe was over. The armistice said in detail that the British and American forces must leave by the end of September and may not engage the Germans from France. Any such action against the Germans would result in repercussions against the French people.

After about two months of naval warfare, the Germans sent representatives to the British and Americans with the intention of ending the rest of the war. The Germans guaranteed the British that they would only want minor monetary compensation as long as the British ended there blockade on Germany. The British not wanting to continue a war they had no chance in winning decided this was there best offer. All hostilities effectively ended at 9 a.m. September 9, 1918.

On January 18, 1919 post war discussions took place at Ludwigsburg Palace in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Participants were all of the members of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) plus some of the nations from the losing side that did not suffer any humiliating or major (United Kingdom and her Domains, United States, Japan). There were many nations that were not allowed presence at the Conference of Stuttgart (France, Italy, Russia/Soviet Union, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro).

The Treaty of Stuttgart was signed by participating members along with the non-attending defeated nations even though France originally protested the measures in the treaty by not signing it right away, but was forced to when they were not supported by the United Kingdom and the United States.

Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany
France
• Loss of the remained of Lorraine to Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army
• Military restrictions (identical to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles)
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this)
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Allowed to keep all land that they captured from the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Extremely small financial repercussions

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Baltic State (help with a name???)
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany

Here is a map!:)

[Michel Van]

Note to Belgium and Luxemburg

After WW I The German Empire had this plans

Belgium cut in two
the Walloon province of Liège and Luxembourg (of Belgium)
and East Part of Province of Namur at long river The Meuse.
this land become a New province of The German Empire

the rest of Belgium become a tributary state to The German Empire
With city of Antwerpen, Brugge, Zeebrugge, Ostende under Direct German control.

Note West Europe

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg become a New province of The German Empire

France
a small Stroke from Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to Nancy to Province Elsaß-Lotringen.
also the Frence City Dunkrichen, Calais, Boulogne (next to Calais) under Direct German control.
and ALL Fortress atlong Belgium, German Empire frontier has to be destroyt

The Principality of Liechtenstein become also a province of The German Empire

See Attached Map

Note for Zentral Europe "Mitteleuropa" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa)
Mitteleuropa was conceptualised as a geostrategic buffer zone between Germany and Russia to be filled with puppet states.

East Europe
the German Empire want create new Country like Finnland, Baltic State: Estland, Lettland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Polen.
then New tributary states Next to Baltic State atlong Russian Froniter
Ukraine woud look look this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/West_ukraine.png

Note for Afrika
The German Empire had plans called "Deutsch-Mittelafrika" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/e/e2/Mittelafrika.png/546px-Mittelafrika.png

[Atreus]

Here is my take to a German WWI Victory, post 1917. The POD is that the Germans were about to break through the French/British lines during the Spring Offensive which started March 21, 1918 (How? I don’t know yet. Suggestions?). Within a few weeks they surround Paris and commence in a bombardment of the city extremely similar to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

By the beginning of July the French realized that the war was over and they approached the Germans with the intent to surrender. The armistice was signed on July 11, 1918. With the French out of the war the British and American presence on mainland Europe was over. The armistice said in detail that the British and American forces must leave by the end of September and may not engage the Germans from France. Any such action against the Germans would result in repercussions against the French people.

After about two months of naval warfare, the Germans sent representatives to the British and Americans with the intention of ending the rest of the war. The Germans guaranteed the British that they would only want minor monetary compensation as long as the British ended there blockade on Germany. The British not wanting to continue a war they had no chance in winning decided this was there best offer. All hostilities effectively ended at 9 a.m. September 9, 1918.

On January 18, 1919 post war discussions took place at Ludwigsburg Palace in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Participants were all of the members of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) plus some of the nations from the losing side that did not suffer any humiliating or major (United Kingdom and her Domains, United States, Japan). There were many nations that were not allowed presence at the Conference of Stuttgart (France, Italy, Russia/Soviet Union, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro).

The Treaty of Stuttgart was signed by participating members along with the non-attending defeated nations even though France originally protested the measures in the treaty by not signing it right away, but was forced to when they were not supported by the United Kingdom and the United States.

Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany
France
• Loss of the remained of Lorraine to Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army
• Military restrictions (identical to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles)
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this)
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Allowed to keep all land that they captured from the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Extremely small financial repercussions

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Baltic State (help with a name???)
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany

Here is a map!:)

If you want a pod, Have Luddendorf halt the preparitory offensives. After the second, it was clear that stormtrooper tactics worked, and the others did nothing except gain useless land and eat away at the corp of experienced Stormtroopers. This means Luddendorf launces the Spring offensive witha full force of vetrean stormtroopers. The front line collapse more than in otl. The Germans are within miles of Paris, France sues for an armistice.:D

[Michel Van]

Damm I forgot one thing :mad:

The Eiffel Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower) !
It Play a Major rolle in 1914 Germans Invasion

Why ???

the Eiffel Tower was build for for the Exposition Universelle 1989
The tower was met with resistance from the public when it was built, with many calling it an eyesore.
so Eiffel had a permit for the tower to stand for 20 years, meaning it would have had to be dismantled in 1909

1909 The City had planned to tear it down. but a Commission vote with one vote for Save the Eiffel Tower
and use the Tower as an antenna for Radio experiments by French Military (the Vote came from a Miliitary :D )

For French Military the tower proved valuable for communication purposes,
The German not knowing of the Eiffel Tower as Radiostation. and Send they Radio messages in Clear (no Code)
and with personel from Elsaß-Lotringen had French a fast Translation of German Army messages

The military Eiffel Tower Commander used it to dispatch Parisian taxis to the front line during the First Battle of the Marne,
and it therefore became a victory statue of that battle.

so No Eiffel Tower, the German they surround Paris and commence in a bombardment of the city extremely similar to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

On January 18, 1919 post war discussions took place at Ludwigsburg Palace in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany

I think that post war discussions took place, were the proclamation of the German Empire happend 1871
the Palace of Versailles at Paris
were in OTL German Empire end with the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.

[snerfuplz]

here is a POD i always want to try. Admiral Jackie Fisher dies in the China Wars of 1859-1860. Much is changed in the Royal Navy.
-Many old ships are kept in the line
-Almost no long range gunnery practice
-Dreadnaught not made by the British at first. Probally by the Germans first
-Channel Fleet not as big
-Not many torpedoes in the Royal Navy
-Submarines not very well used in the Royal Navy

This would result in a weaker Royal Navy. The German High Seas Fleet would blockade the channel and English reinforcemnts will be stalled to getting to France. This could lead to the Germans taking Paris and probally the fall of France.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There is no way the British get to keep all that Ottoman territory. First of all, when your war ends they had gained virtually none of that - you've even given the British territory they never gained in OTL. Second, Germany would never completely sell out an ally like that.

Regarding the war in general, if France leaves, Britain and the US are out. There is no way they will continue the fight alone. How could they? If the French sign an armistice, the Germans will quickly completely destroy all British and American forces in France.

[Ridwan Asher]

First, I would like to say "Excuse me". I don't agree with your opinion about the result after the war. Especially for the Ottoman's territory. The British would never be allowed to keep the lands their captured from the Ottoman Empire. In my opnion, the outcome should be like this :

[Wendell]

While I largely aregg with what others have said in this TL thus far, I wish to comment on your proposed peace terms.


Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia

Is it to be a monarchy with its own king, or is it to come under a Hapsburg ruler? By the way, watch your spelling of Hungary.
[/quote]Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany[/quote]
Why not have the British un their RR through the Belgian Congo, and leave Ostafrika fully under German control?
France
• Loss of the remained of Lorraine to Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)Indochina, surely becomes three separate countries rather than just one.
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army
• Military restrictions (identical to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles)Unli9kely IMO. This TL still leaves France with a colonial empire, even if reduced. Versailles imposed those terms IOTL under circumstances wherein Germany lost all of her colonies.[/quote]
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)[/quote]Italian Somaliland, if given to someone else, should go to Austria IMO.
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
The property damage seems unlikely IMO
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States I don't think that this war would really involve the U.S., especially after France departs from the war.
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this) What will constitute the additional areas lost, a puppet Kingdom of Georgia?
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad) See my comments on Belgium
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific Even Nauru?
• Allowed to keep all land that they captured from the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East no.
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Extremely small financial repercussions

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Baltic State (help with a name???)
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany

Here is a map!:)

Nice work overall. My own interests and research for a different but not completely dissimilar TL leads me to suggest that your Baltic State should be called the Kingdom of Livland.

[Wendell]

Note to Belgium and Luxemburg

After WW I The German Empire had this plans

Belgium cut in two
the Walloon province of Liège and Luxembourg (of Belgium)
and East Part of Province of Namur at long river The Meuse.
this land become a New province of The German Empire

the rest of Belgium become a tributary state to The German Empire
With city of Antwerpen, Brugge, Zeebrugge, Ostende under Direct German control.

Note West Europe

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg become a New province of The German Empire

France
a small Stroke from Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to Nancy to Province Elsaß-Lotringen.
also the Frence City Dunkrichen, Calais, Boulogne (next to Calais) under Direct German control.
and ALL Fortress atlong Belgium, German Empire frontier has to be destroyt

The Principality of Liechtenstein become also a province of The German Empire

Do you mean provinces or states? They were two vastly different terms with different meanings during the Second Reich.

Also, why is Liechtenstein changing its prewar status ITTL?:confused:

[Gass3268]

Thanks for all of your suggestions and ideas. I am leaving to go to college tomarrow, so don't expect changes or comments to come for a couple of days. I really want to make this good.:)

[LordKalvan]

Thanks for all of your suggestions and ideas. I am leaving to go to college tomarrow, so don't expect changes or comments to come for a couple of days. I really want to make this good.:)

I'd been missing a good German wank for some time. Congratulations.
Completely disjointed from reality (OTL reality as well as any other one), obviously, but why let reality come across a good idea?

Hope you're not studying history at college :p

[rcduggan]

just one thing: there is no way that the germans would let the japs keep their captured colonies. they would have demanded them back (and possibly more) as part of japan's surrender terms.

[LordKalvan]

just one thing: there is no way that the germans would let the japs keep their captured colonies. they would have demanded them back (and possibly more) as part of japan's surrender terms.

Sure thing. And if the Japanese had refused (someone years ago made a point in telling me that "japs" is a racist appellation), Imperial Germany would have sent a stern letter of complaint.

[Atreus]

here is a POD i always want to try. Admiral Jackie Fisher dies in the China Wars of 1859-1860. Much is changed in the Royal Navy.
-Many old ships are kept in the line
-Almost no long range gunnery practice
-Dreadnaught not made by the British at first. Probally by the Germans first
-Channel Fleet not as big
-Not many torpedoes in the Royal Navy
-Submarines not very well used in the Royal Navy

This would result in a weaker Royal Navy. The German High Seas Fleet would blockade the channel and English reinforcemnts will be stalled to getting to France. This could lead to the Germans taking Paris and probally the fall of France.

I agree with some effects of the pod, but the parts of the effects are just wrong. Mainly, my quibble is that Germany would have the first dreadnought. The USA actually began work on the South Carolina, which was in some respects a better design than Dreadnought (superfiring turrets), before Dreadnought; the Japanese were toying with the concept, and Cuniberti (spelling?:confused:) was discussing the idea in 1903. Also, the RN is more dependent on coal, and less on oil, and the Royal navy is stronger on individual statiuons, though not at home. So Craddock doesn't die at Coronel, because the British have overwhelming firepower.

[Gass3268]

Finished Moving In!:)!
Note to Belgium and Luxemburg

After WW I The German Empire had this plans

Belgium cut in two
the Walloon province of Liège and Luxembourg (of Belgium)
and East Part of Province of Namur at long river The Meuse.
this land become a New province of The German Empire

the rest of Belgium become a tributary state to The German Empire
With city of Antwerpen, Brugge, Zeebrugge, Ostende under Direct German control.

Note West Europe

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg become a New province of The German Empire

France
a small Stroke from Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to Nancy to Province Elsaß-Lotringen.
also the Frence City Dunkrichen, Calais, Boulogne (next to Calais) under Direct German control.
and ALL Fortress atlong Belgium, German Empire frontier has to be destroyt

The Principality of Liechtenstein become also a province of The German Empire

See Attached Map

Note for Zentral Europe "Mitteleuropa" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa)
Mitteleuropa was conceptualised as a geostrategic buffer zone between Germany and Russia to be filled with puppet states.

East Europe
the German Empire want create new Country like Finnland, Baltic State: Estland, Lettland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Polen.
then New tributary states Next to Baltic State atlong Russian Froniter
Ukraine woud look look this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_after_the_Russian_Revolution)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/West_ukraine.png

Note for Afrika
The German Empire had plans called "Deutsch-Mittelafrika" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelafrika)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/e/e2/Mittelafrika.png/546px-Mittelafrika.png

I think I am going to use your information on the German borders, but I don't think the Germans could get all of that land in Africa (the British would not allow it, and the Germans in 1918 were already defeted in their colonies.

If you want a pod, Have Luddendorf halt the preparitory offensives. After the second, it was clear that stormtrooper tactics worked, and the others did nothing except gain useless land and eat away at the corp of experienced Stormtroopers. This means Luddendorf launces the Spring offensive witha full force of vetrean stormtroopers. The front line collapse more than in otl. The Germans are within miles of Paris, France sues for an armistice.:D

Thanks for the idea, I think I am going to use this as the POD.

here is a POD i always want to try. Admiral Jackie Fisher dies in the China Wars of 1859-1860. Much is changed in the Royal Navy.
-Many old ships are kept in the line
-Almost no long range gunnery practice
-Dreadnaught not made by the British at first. Probally by the Germans first
-Channel Fleet not as big
-Not many torpedoes in the Royal Navy
-Submarines not very well used in the Royal Navy

This would result in a weaker Royal Navy. The German High Seas Fleet would blockade the channel and English reinforcemnts will be stalled to getting to France. This could lead to the Germans taking Paris and probally the fall of France.

It could be a very good POD, but I want mine to involve the Spring Offensive of 1918 becasue I have never seen it done and I think it is possible.

There is no way the British get to keep all that Ottoman territory. First of all, when your war ends they had gained virtually none of that - you've even given the British territory they never gained in OTL. Second, Germany would never completely sell out an ally like that.

First, I was going based on the 1918 map that is in the OTL Maps. Second I don't think the British would give it up. Maybe I went a litte overboard, so you might be able to have them give some land, but I see them keeping some.

Regarding the war in general, if France leaves, Britain and the US are out. There is no way they will continue the fight alone. How could they? If the French sign an armistice, the Germans will quickly completely destroy all British and American forces in France.
Exactly!


While I largely aregg with what others have said in this TL thus far, I wish to comment on your proposed peace terms.

Is it to be a monarchy with its own king, or is it to come under a Hapsburg ruler? By the way, watch your spelling of Hungary.
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany[/quote]
Why not have the British un their RR through the Belgian Congo, and leave Ostafrika fully under German control?
Indochina, surely becomes three separate countries rather than just one.Unli9kely IMO. This TL still leaves France with a colonial empire, even if reduced. Versailles imposed those terms IOTL under circumstances wherein Germany lost all of her colonies.[/quote]
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)[/quote]Italian Somaliland, if given to someone else, should go to Austria IMO.The property damage seems unlikely IMO I don't think that this war would really involve the U.S., especially after France departs from the war. What will constitute the additional areas lost, a puppet Kingdom of Georgia? See my comments on Belgium Even Nauru? no.

Nice work overall. My own interests and research for a different but not completely dissimilar TL leads me to suggest that your Baltic State should be called the Kingdom of Livland.[/QUOTE]

I like a lot of these changes and additons. Thanks for the Baltic Staets name.

I'd been missing a good German wank for some time. Congratulations.
Completely disjointed from reality (OTL reality as well as any other one), obviously, but why let reality come across a good idea?

Hope you're not studying history at college :p

I am :p

just one thing: there is no way that the germans would let the japs keep their captured colonies. they would have demanded them back (and possibly more) as part of japan's surrender terms.

read post below

Sure thing. And if the Japanese had refused (someone years ago made a point in telling me that "japs" is a racist appellation), Imperial Germany would have sent a stern letter of complaint.

Exactly!

[Ace Venom]

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia

I don't see Albania gaining Kosovo in this scenario. Albania is a defeated power, so why reward them?

Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany

I doubt if the British would agree to permit Germany to annex any part of Belgium proper, but making a Belgium a puppet and either annexing the Belgian Congo or giving it independence isn't out of the question.

France
• Loss of the remained of Lorraine to Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)

I doubt if Germany could enforce a claim on Indochina. Germany was soundly defeated in the Far East, so they'd likely push for an independent Indochina after attempts to make it a colony are flatly refused. Austria-Hungary also would not want colonies because they're having enough trouble with ethnic groups in Europe.

• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army

Good luck getting the British to agree to this. The Germans probably might budge on this because of the desire to bring the troops home.

• Military restrictions (identical to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles)

Plausible.

• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks

Also plausible.

Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire

The Greeks will get screwed here.

Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry

AH would likely push for status quo ante bellum.

• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)

As before, AH won't push for colonies.

• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army

Maybe or maybe not.

• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)

No. The better way to punish the Italians would be to force them to make an agreement with the Holy See, perhaps granting Leonine City to the Papacy.

• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France

Plausible.

Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States

Plausible, but the fee may just be for the seizure of German colonies.

Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry

AH probably wouldn't push for a border adjustment in their favor.

Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy

Making Serbia a puppet is plausible as is the war guilt clause and reparations, but border adjustments are out.

United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Allowed to keep all land that they captured from the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions

No no no. The UK would not get territory from the Ottomans. They'd likely have to cede Cyprus to the Ottomans and guarantee an independent Egypt, though the UK could retain military and economic control over the Suez Canal.

United States
• Extremely small financial repercussions

Even if they get in the war, the US could certainly refuse to pay anyone anything. The Germans probably wouldn't demand it anyway.

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom

Partitioning Persia? That's pretty bold.

[NomadicSky]

• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France

I agree with most of that however I don't think anyone would want the destruction of famous monuments.

[Hawai'i Hiki No]

First, I would like to say "Excuse me". I don't agree with your opinion about the result after the war. Especially for the Ottoman's territory. The British would never be allowed to keep the lands their captured from the Ottoman Empire. In my opnion, the outcome should be like this :

Sorry to go OT, but would you be so kind as to tell me how you made the effects of your map?

-It looks like you made it from MS Paint, but how did you get the "border effect"? i.e. Congo is Belgan, but controlled by Germany.

Thanks,
Scott

[Wendell]

Sorry to go OT, but would you be so kind as to tell me how you made the effects of your map?

-It looks like you made it from MS Paint, but how did you get the "border effect"? i.e. Congo is Belgan, but controlled by Germany.

Thanks,
Scott

The Pencil tool.

[Hawai'i Hiki No]

THX! THX ALOT!

[Alex_Carrier]

Very cool! I thought a lot about German victory in WWI just this month!:)


Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia

Albania is defeated country so it can't gain Kosovo...Albania would be puppet state under Austro-Hungary...Or Turkey?

Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany

I Agree. Absolutely.
Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)
Why Madagaskar to A-H??? I think, it should be in German hands! And Indochina should be also German colony...
Loss of the Aegean Islands region
Which of them?
Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry
Maybe, Libya become independent, but puppet under the Turks?
Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
No, I think they must give them back to Germany!
Baltic State (help with a name???)

United Baltic Duchy in English and Vereinigtes Baltisches Herzogtum in German - it existed in 1918.
Also, I think that Lithuania should be independent too, because Baltic Duchy has just modern Estonia and Latvia.
Moreover, it should appear Coosack State (or even 2 states) on Don and Kuban Rivers under the Ukrainian influence.

[Max Sinister]

Of course Albania could gain something, if the CPs decide so. They also gave Bessarabia to Romania IOTL.

[Borys]

Ahoj!

Italy
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)


You forgot public mass rape.
With special focus on female members of Casa di Savoia.
That'll learn then, treacherous Welsche scum!

IMO your effort truely deserves the terms Germany-wank.

Borys

[Rockingham]

Germany-Hmmm....perhaps they could sweeten the terms for the US, by giving them all of Frances American collonies and some pacific ones, with which they would be free to do as they wish(ever annex or make independant). I fully agree that Germans lose all asia-pacific territory....unless indochina is independant unfer german influence or annexed, in which case they may get the french treaty port and sphere of influence. Belgium will get parts of North France, and Netherlands will get parts of North Belgium(perhaps in return for a shred of eastern Netherlands?). Germany may get a naval base forom France in the English Channel, Venatia may be made an independant puppet state-buffer of AH.
I thing they wanted

Italy-Confiscation of paintings and and independant holy see is possible,but not destruction of anything(especially Roman monuments). It may lose ownership of these to the papal state as "papal territories" however. Expect them to have naval restrictions pace upon them as well.

Austria Hungary:No African territory, they're content with part of poland, fringe balkan gains and hegemony over Serbia, Albania, Montenegroe, Romania, and Venetia.

[pompejus]

My ideas about a German victory and border corrections in the west is this:
Germany annexes Luxembourg
no border changes in france and Belgium (except possibly very minor, like a small village or a couple of farms to get a better defensible border)
Germany possibly wants the rest of Lorraine or Frenche Compte or the Belgian provinces of Liege and Luxembourg, but I don't think they will consider it worth the trouble. Belgium will indeed become a German puppet.
They probably would demand (at least) their African colonies returned to them. They will get Belgian Congo as theur colony, probably French Congo and Benin too. It could be they ask for Nigeria and Kenya too, but if Britain isn't realy defeated, they won't get it.
They probably want their Asian colonies back.

[Max Sinister]

You forgot public mass rape.
With special focus on female members of Casa di Savoia.
That'll learn then, treacherous Welsche scum!


Damn, that's sick. I don't like the kaiser either, but the WW1 German soldiers weren't like the Huns.

[Cockroach]

After about two months of naval warfare, the Germans sent representatives to the British and Americans with the intention of ending the rest of the war. The Germans guaranteed the British that they would only want minor monetary compensation as long as the British ended there blockade on Germany. The British not wanting to continue a war they had no chance in winning decided this was there best offer. All hostilities effectively ended at 9 a.m. September 9, 1918.
What naval warfare? I mean the High Seas Fleet is badly outnumbered and has been sitting in harbour more or less continually since Jutland. If they venture out it'll at best (from the german perspective) result in a humiliating retreat and at wort result in complete anihilation

Without the ability to harm the Grand Fleet the British can safely continue the blockade of Germany -admitidly at reduced effectiveness- until the German ecconomy collapses.

[SullaG]

Niall Ferguson has an essay in Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/WEBSITE/WWW/WEBPAGES/showbook.php?id=0330413031) that hypothesises this German diplomatic victory - I think due to the British neutrality faction carrying the day. Basically his conclusion is that the horrible war and its results would have been avoided, Hitler and his Nazi Party would not have a chance to come to power (since Germany is neither defeated nor impoverished and humiliated by the Versailles Treaty), the European Union (or a version of it) comes about earlier, and Britain would have maintained its Empire.

This is a segment on what Germany wanted out of its victory. It was on my pc for personal use, and I probably edited parts of it, but anyway:

Fritz Fischer said that Germany’s aims were
German hegemony over Europe, through annexations of French, Belgian and possibly Russian territory
The creation of a Central European customs union
The creation of new Polish and Baltic states directly or indirectly under German control
Germany was to acquire new territory in Africa, in order that its colonial possession could be consolidated as a continuous Central African area
A concerted effort to break up the British and Russian empires through fomenting revolutions
The guarantee of the territorial integrity of France, Belgium and the Netherlands (but not Luxembourg) in return for British neutrality

France… a war indemnity to be paid in instalments; it must be high enough to prevent France from spending any considerable sum on armaments in the next 15-20 years. Furthermore: a commercial treaty that makes France economically dependent on Germany and secures the French market for our exports … This treaty must secure for us financial and industrial freedom of movement in France in such fashion that German enterprises can no longer receive different treatment from French

We must create a central European economic association through common customs treaties, to include France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian states, Poland, Switzerland and Spain, Portugal and via Austria-Hungary, also Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey. This association will not have any common constitutional supreme authority and all its members will be formally equal, but in practice will be under German leadership and must stabilise Germany’s economic dominance over Mitteleuropa.
A solid economic bloc representing all European states… under German leadership, with the twofold purpose: (1) of assuring the members of this whole, particularly Germany, mastery of the European market, and (2) of being able to lead the entire economic strength of allied Europe into the field, as a unified force, in the struggle with those world powers over the conditions of the admission of each to the markets of the others.

The question of colonial acquisitions, where the first aim is the creation of a continuous Central African colonial empire, will be considered later, as will that of the aims realized vis-à-vis Russia…

Holland – it will have to be considered by what means and methods Holland can be brought into closer relationship with the German Empire. In view of the Dutch character, this closer relationship must leave them free of any feeling of compulsion, must alter nothing in the Dutch way of life, and must also subject them to no new military obligations. Holland, then, must be left independent in externals, but be made internally dependent on us. Possibly one might consider an offensive and defensive alliance, to cover the colonies; in any case a close customs association…

Thrust Russia back as far as possible from Germany’s eastern frontier and break her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples.

The creation of a new Polish state joined to Habsburg Galicia

The cession of the Baltic provinces (independent, incorporated in the new Poland or annexed by Germany)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
That document doesn't count.
It does not make provision for blowing up the Coloseum and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
And that is VITAL to this POD.
Borys

[Susano]

Damn, that's sick. I don't like the kaiser either, but the WW1 German soldiers weren't like the Huns.

I dunno if you noticed, but Borys used this as irony...

[pompejus]

Ahoj!
That document doesn't count.
It does not make provision for blowing up the Coloseum and the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
And that is VITAL to this POD.
Borys

That is just ridiculous, the Germans would never do something like that. They aren't barbarians. Blowing up the leaning tower of Pisa is a waste of gunpowder. They would just push it.

[HurganPL]

Niall Ferguson has an essay in Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/WEBSITE/WWW/WEBPAGES/showbook.php?id=0330413031) that hypothesises this German diplomatic victoryHow convienient of Niall Ferguson to ignore German plans of ethnic cleansing of Polish and Jewish population and turning the non-German population of Mitteleuropa into virtual serfs.


Basically his conclusion is that the horrible war and its results would have been avoided
Of course, neither Russia,Britain or France would dream of getting revenge or their lost territory back.

Hitler and his Nazi Party would not have a chance to come to power (since Germany is neither defeated nor impoverished and humiliated by the Versailles Treaty),
And since most of what Nazis desired in terms of Lebensraum and control in the East is already done by German government.

[Burton K Wheeler]

How convienient of Niall Ferguson to ignore German plans of ethnic cleansing of Polish and Jewish population and turning the non-German population of Mitteleuropa into virtual serfs.

There are lots of details of the plan that weren't mentioned. Does the fact that he doesn't introduce the essay by saying 'The Germans planned many things, but worst of all, they planned harm to HOLY MOTHER POLAND' somehow invalidate everything else?

You really need to stop banging the same note over and over again and derailing threads.

[HurganPL]

. Does the fact that he doesn't introduce the essay by saying 'The Germans planned many things, but worst of all, they planned harm to HOLY MOTHER POLAND' somehow invalidate everything else?Somehow the fact that German war aims involved ethnic cleansing of milions of people(which you find suitable to be ironic about) and were dictated by racism and belief in German race as superior to others makes Ferge claims of rosy sunshine land ruled by Germans sound pretty weak.
I am not suprised he decided to ignore them for some reason. Could be ignorance or just desire to create a fantasy he finds likeble.
In truth German victory in WW1 would bring untold suffering and opression to people of Central Europe. Likely followed by another war with Russia.

[MrP]

Somehow the fact that German war aims involved ethnic cleansing of milions of people(which you find suitable to be ironic about) and were dictated by racism and belief in German race as superior to others makes Ferge claims of rosy sunshine land ruled by Germans sound pretty weak.
I am not suprised he decided to ignore them for some reason. Could be ignorance or just desire to create a fantasy he finds likeble.
In truth German victory in WW1 would bring untold suffering and opression to people of Central Europe. Likely followed by another war with Russia.

I believe you failed to note the most important part of Baldie's post, namely:

You really need to stop banging the same note over and over again and derailing threads.

[Burton K Wheeler]

Somehow the fact that German war aims involved ethnic cleansing of milions of people(which you find suitable to be ironic about) and were dictated by racism and belief in German race as superior to others makes Ferge claims of rosy sunshine land ruled by Germans sound pretty weak.
I am not suprised he decided to ignore them.

He described it as a "rosy sunshine land"? Where? All he said is that World War II would probably not happen and Europe would be more peaceful and stable than OTL. However bad this reality may be, it's certainly much better than how things actually turned out for all nations concerned, including Poland.

I'm done arguing about this anyway, since you've shown a tendency to ignore any facts at all. Keep living in your fantasy world where EVERYTHING revolves around Poland's eternal status as a victim, and Poland can never be morally wrong, and no one but Poland has ever been a victim.

[HurganPL]

I'm done arguing about this anyway, since you've shown a tendency to ignore any facts at all. Keep living in your fantasy world where EVERYTHING revolves around Poland's eternal status as a victim, and Poland can never be morally wrong, and no one but Poland has ever been a victim.That's not what I said. I think that fact that milions of people would be ethnicly cleansed and rest treated as serfs in racist apartheid doesn't sound good. I point out facts, not ignore them. Trying to forget about certain German plans towards Europe is ignoring facts. Picking up only parts of plans while ignoring their related goals is ignoring facts.

However bad this reality may be, it's certainly much better than how things actually turned out for all nations concerned, including Poland.20 years of independence is far better then becoming a victim of ethnic cleansing and turning the population into serfs. It's Nazi-light victory without any period of freedom.

I believe you failed to note the most important part of Baldie's post, namely:I feel no duty towards maintaining a fantasy that German victory in WW1 would be positive (if only we forget about ethnic cleansing and turning Central Europe into a colony)

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the Germans planned to ethnically cleanse Poland? Since they were planning to create a Polish state, I have to wonder why they would bother wasting their time if they were just going to throw everyone out of it.

And you do honestly think that whatever Imperial Germany was planning to do to Poland could possibly be worse than what the Nazis did?

That's not what I said. I think that fact that milions of people would be ethnicly cleansed and rest treated as serfs in racist apartheid doesn't sound good. I point out facts, not ignore them. Trying to forget about certain German plans towards Europe is ignoring facts.

20 years of independence is far better then becoming a victim of ethnic cleansing and turning the population into serfs. Some Germans also planned to use famine against local population.


I feel no duty towards maintaining a fantasy that German victory in WW1 would be positive (if only we forget about ethnic cleansing and turning Central Europe into a colony)

[HurganPL]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the Germans planned to ethnically cleanse Poland? Search for plans of Polish Frontier Strip or Polnisches Grenzstreifen.
For example:
World War 1: A History (Oxford Illustrated Histories)
Page 207:
"... The Germans initially planned to annex only a `frontier strip' of Polish territory (from which, however, Slavs and Jews would be cleared)"


Since they were planning to create a Polish state, I have to wonder why they would bother wasting their time if they were just going to throw everyone out of it.They wanted to annex 30,000 km2 from Congress Poland first. Polish and Jewish. Population in that region was to be removed to the "Polish" protectorate to make room for German colonists. It in itself was to be germanised later.



And you do honestly think that whatever Imperial Germany was planning to do to Poland could possibly be worse than what the Nazis did?Depends how would it evolve, potential was there:
With Imperial Germany Poles would be victim of ethnic cleansing and serfs from WW1. Means no 20 years of independence.

[MrP]

I feel no duty towards maintaining a fantasy that German victory in WW1 would be positive (if only we forget about ethnic cleansing and turning Central Europe into a colony)

I feel too few threads on ah.com deal with the vile sufferings of Poland. I feel any exploration of what the Nazis would've done to Antarctica should be composed 50% of what the Nazis would've done to Antarctica, and 50% what would've happened in Poland. Similarly, every other topic on the entire forum must contain at least one angry bile-fed post about how everyone hates Poland.

I'd compose 'em for you, but I'd hate to remove your raison d'etre, old man.

[HurganPL]

Similarly, every other topic on the entire forum must contain at least one angry bile-fed post about how everyone hates Poland.I don't think so. But topics where German WW1 victory is discussed often ignore a large deal of German plans and behaviour. Possible due to Western-focused view which to some point avoids eastern issues. How Germans would treat tens of milions of people(if not over a hundred considering non-German population of Mitteleurope) seems relevant to me in such a discussion.

[DominusNovus]

Even if they get in the war, the US could certainly refuse to pay anyone anything. The Germans probably wouldn't demand it anyway.

Took the words right outta my mouth. We'd never pay any indemnities until the German fleet was outside of NYC. And that likely wouldn't happen. The best the Germans could hope from us would be a tie.

Although, it'd be interesting to see how the US could effect things if we really got the chance to gear up for war, like we did in WWII.

After all, at this point, its just the US and the UK, really, versus Germany, with a bunch of our former allies forced to capitulate. Sounds a little like WWII. Except this time, we've got Italy and Japan on our side. 'Course, we've also gotta fight the Ottomans, and the Russians are out of it.

[Gass3268]

Here is an update of what I posted before.

The POD is that a few days after the start of the commencing of the Spring Offensive on March 21, the German commander, Erich Ludendorff halted the offensives. He realized the success of the stormtrooper forces and reevaluated his tactics. He decides to fallow the stormtrooper tactics to the letter. The recommencement of the offensive began on March 24 with a full force of expert stormtroopers. They begin to advance at an acceleration rate and within a few weeks they have surrounded Paris and commenced in the bombardment of the city, in an extremely similar situation to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

By the beginning of July the French realized that the war was over and they approached the Germans with the intent to surrender. The armistice was signed on July 11, 1918. With the French out of the war the British and American presence on mainland Europe effectively ended.

After about two months of naval warfare, the Germans sent representatives to the British and Americans with the intention of ending the rest of the war. The Germans wanted to end the blockade that had been starving their nation (even though with Russia and France now open the effects of the blockade had started to subside) The Germans guaranteed the British that they would only want minor monetary compensation as long as the British ended there blockade on Germany. The British not wanting to continue a war they had little chance in winning decided this was there best offer. All hostilities effectively ended at 9 a.m. September 9, 1918.

On January 18, 1919 post war discussions took place at the Palace of Versailles outside of Paris, France. Participants were all of the members of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) plus some of the nations from the losing side that did not suffer any humiliating or major (United Kingdom and her Domains, United States, Japan). There were many nations that were not allowed presence at the Conference of Stuttgart (France, Italy, Russia/Soviet Union, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, Romania, Albania, and Montenegro).

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on July 28, 1919 by participating members along with the non-attending defeated nations even though France originally protested the measures in the treaty by not signing it right away, but was forced to when they were not supported by the United Kingdom and the United States. The proclamation took place in the Hall of Mirrors, the same place were the German Empire was declared in 1871.

Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia (this is punish Serbia, even though they were a losing power
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
• Negative border modification with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany
France
• Small negative border modification with Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Germany and Indochina was given its independence (broken into three countries Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia)( this idea was brought up by a democratic Ho Chi Minh, who in OTL wanted this)(heavily influenced by Germany)
• Forced to sell the French Guiana, French Polynesia, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, and the Clipperton Island to the United States
• Forced to sell Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, French Southern and Artic lands, Wallis, and Futuna.
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army until July 28, 1925
• Military restrictions (similar to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles, exception being when dealing there colonial empire)
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
(Look up Greece look and look at the regions of Greece, those are the regions they have to give)
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings, statues, etc
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia

Portugal
• Loss of Angola and Guinea-Bissau to Germany
• Extremely small financial repercussions
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Minor negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Minor negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this)
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Bought Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, French Southern and Artic lands, Wallis, and Futuna from France
• Allowed to keep Palestine and the Basra / Kuwait area, in return they will give the Ottomans Cyprus and the right to parts of Northern Persia the Arabian Peninsula, up to the British controlled area (Today’s Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain)
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Bought the French Guiana, French Polynesia, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, and the Clipperton Island from France (this is to make the Americans happy)

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Livland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King

[Kabraloth]

Don't forget the independant CSA! :)

[pompejus]

Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia (this is punish Serbia, even though they were a losing power
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
• Negative border modification with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany
France
• Small negative border modification with Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Germany and Indochina was given its independence (broken into three countries Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia)( this idea was brought up by a democratic Ho Chi Minh, who in OTL wanted this)(heavily influenced by Germany)
• Forced to sell the French Guiana, French Polynesia, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, and the Clipperton Island to the United States
• Forced to sell Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, French Southern and Artic lands, Wallis, and Futuna.
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army until July 28, 1925
• Military restrictions (similar to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles, exception being when dealing there colonial empire)
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
(Look up Greece look and look at the regions of Greece, those are the regions they have to give)
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings, statues, etc
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia

Portugal
• Loss of Angola and Guinea-Bissau to Germany
• Extremely small financial repercussions
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry with a Hapsburg King
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Minor negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Minor negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this)
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Bought Saint Pierre and Miquelon, New Caledonia, French Southern and Artic lands, Wallis, and Futuna from France
• Allowed to keep Palestine and the Basra / Kuwait area, in return they will give the Ottomans Cyprus and the right to parts of Northern Persia the Arabian Peninsula, up to the British controlled area (Today’s Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain)
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Bought the French Guiana, French Polynesia, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, and the Clipperton Island from France (this is to make the Americans happy)

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Livland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany with a Hohenzollern King

Don't forget to put Luxembourg (and its annexation) on the list

[Thande]

Don't forget the independant CSA! :)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or using the acronym to mean something more obscure.

[Kabraloth]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or using the acronym to mean something more obscure.
We Germans are totally unable to do sarcasm.
Really.


Seriously. :)

[MrP]

We Germans are totally unable to do sarcasm.
Really.


Seriously. :)

:D :D :D :D :D

Clearly, you have non-German blood in your veins, old boy. :D

[Kabraloth]

:D :D :D :D :D

Clearly, you have non-German blood in your veins, old boy. :D
Not that I am aware of. And my family goes way back (at least to 1340).

Now excuse me, but I need to go to Kaiserslautern, to oppress some Poles. :D

[DominusNovus]

Ohh, ohh! We get to buy colonies off Europeans! Yes! I like it!

But tell me, are the Poles oppressed?
If so, shame on you. :(
If not, why not? :confused:

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Here is an update of what I posted before.

• Allowed to keep Palestine and the Basra / Kuwait area, in return they will give the Ottomans Cyprus and the right to parts of Northern Persia the Arabian Peninsula, up to the British controlled area (Today’s Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain)

You're clearly trying to create an "Israel no matter what" situation. There is just no possible way Palestine will be given up by either the Germans or the Ottomans. This is home territory of the Ottoman Empire, and is vital to the continuation of the empire - losing it would be a fatal blow to its prestige, and a huge blow to Germany's prestige, since a German general is in command in Palestine. There is just no way, no how, you can have Palestine going to Britain in a scenario where the CP win the war. The Ottomans are going to lost ZERO territory if they are on the winning side.

Same with Basra. Kuwait I can see, but without Basra, Mesopotamia is totally worthless as it has no outlet to the sea. This is just not a possible outcome. There's no reason for the British to retain Basra anyway, since all the oil is in the north near Mosul.

All this will do will cause permanent emnity between Britain and the Ottomans, and lead to the total destruction of Britain's trade position in the empire and the loss of all the pre-war concessions, including for the oil. Nobody in their right mind would do that over worthless scraps of arid land.

And note that the Jewish population of Palestine in this period is tiny - 6%.

The Ottoman Empire is not a colonial empire, it's a unitary whole. The Ottoman Parliament has representatives from Palestine and all of its territories serving. All of its citizens have the same rights and responsibilities. This is like Germany having to cede territory to France in the peace settlement. It's just not going to happen.

[MrP]

Not that I am aware of. And my family goes way back (at least to 1340).

Now excuse me, but I need to go to Kaiserslautern, to oppress some Poles. :D

:D :D :D

I almost can't breathe now, old boy. :D

[Borys]

There's no reason for the British to retain Basra anyway, since all the oil is in the north near Mosul.


I thought it was discovered in 1930, at Kirkuk?
Borys

[Arachnid]

There was some oil around Basra but not much, anyway oil wasn't that important back then.

[Gass3268]

Don't forget to put Luxembourg (and its annexation) on the list

It totaly forgot, thanks.

Ohh, ohh! We get to buy colonies off Europeans! Yes! I like it!

But tell me, are the Poles oppressed?
If so, shame on you. :(
If not, why not? :confused:

I don't know about the situaton for the Poles.

You're clearly trying to create an "Israel no matter what" situation. There is just no possible way Palestine will be given up by either the Germans or the Ottomans. This is home territory of the Ottoman Empire, and is vital to the continuation of the empire - losing it would be a fatal blow to its prestige, and a huge blow to Germany's prestige, since a German general is in command in Palestine. There is just no way, no how, you can have Palestine going to Britain in a scenario where the CP win the war. The Ottomans are going to lost ZERO territory if they are on the winning side.

Same with Basra. Kuwait I can see, but without Basra, Mesopotamia is totally worthless as it has no outlet to the sea. This is just not a possible outcome. There's no reason for the British to retain Basra anyway, since all the oil is in the north near Mosul.

All this will do will cause permanent emnity between Britain and the Ottomans, and lead to the total destruction of Britain's trade position in the empire and the loss of all the pre-war concessions, including for the oil. Nobody in their right mind would do that over worthless scraps of arid land.

And note that the Jewish population of Palestine in this period is tiny - 6%.

The Ottoman Empire is not a colonial empire, it's a unitary whole. The Ottoman Parliament has representatives from Palestine and all of its territories serving. All of its citizens have the same rights and responsibilities. This is like Germany having to cede territory to France in the peace settlement. It's just not going to happen.

The only reason I have the British keeping parts of the Ottoman Empire is that based off the OTL 1918 map the British are almost in Today's Trukey. With the British in control with such a big chuck of land and the fact that they were not personally defeted like the French or the Russians, I don't think they would give all that conqured land up. I could see the Germans, in order to appease the British allowing them to keep the areas I have stated.

Map of OTL 1918

[FletcherofSaltoun]

The only reason I have the British keeping parts of the Ottoman Empire is that based off the OTL 1918 map the British are almost in Today's Trukey. With the British in control with such a big chuck of land and the fact that they were not personally defeted like the French or the Russians, I don't think they would give all that conqured land up. I could see the Germans, in order to appease the British allowing them to keep the areas I have stated.

Map of OTL 1918
I did wonder why Britain, not personally defeated, with no real risk of invasion would give up Tanganyika or South West Africa.

All in all, is the most credible solution a messy stalemate with no concessions from either the UK, the US or Germany, with the Ottomans giving some ground over territory.

[Arachnid]

To stop the Germans annexing Belgium and the Channel ports, they captured Germans Colonies and the Ottoman land would be used as bargaining chips at the peace negotiations and clearly in this TL the Germans couldn't offer anything to make the UK give up their new ex-Ottoman possessions.

[Earling]

The problem is its the usual assumption that Britain's foreign policy is fixed and unchangeable. The timeline takes the idea of a "balance of power in Europe" and makes illogical (or simply stupid) choices.

There is no balance of power and there is not going to be a balance for the next twenty years; possibly never. France has been gutted (in regards to blood, treasure and whatever peace treaty is signed). No one in Britain really has a clue what state Russia is in but it is fairly safe to assume they are not going to be opposing Germany (or her puppets) any time soon. Germany is dominant to the point of invincibility on the continent.

At this time however she is relatively restrained there. Can she with any ease move substantial numbers of troops to the Middle East or Africa? The answer, atleast in the immediate short term, would appear to be no, especially while trying to hold down swathes of Europe, supporting puppet governments, repressing communist activity possibly to the point of renewed war with Russia and so on.

It makes no sense to get some "independent" channel ports which are obviously not independent. The British would know full well that Belgium could be annexed in an afternoon (or perhaps a couple of weeks) should it suddenly be desirable and the British would be physically incapable of doing anything to prevent it.

Trading significant, if profitless, coaling stations and naval bases with which Germany could launch a fresh attack on the global domination of the RN for European territories Germany could take at will is not remotely sensible.

[Iñaki]

Interesting discussion, no doubt.

One question, No Russian Civil War? with the losses to Germany and the acceptance of Brest-Litovsk and the presence of strong "white" forces -although possibily there would not allied intervention but I suppose some kind of german or ukrainian help to white forces- I have my doubts that the soviets could control all the territory, I suppose that we could count with control over European Russia more or less, but for example in the zone of Soviet Central Asia, there is the possibility of the formation of independent khanates supported by the ottoman Empire, apart of the possibility of some kind of White government in the Eastern Siberia supported by Japan and in the case of Mongolia the situation is at least volatile: in OTL in 1911 profiting of the Revolution against the Quing Mongolia proclaimed his independence under the authority of the Hutuktu (or living Budha), in 1912 Russia recognized this government and in 1913 China in a treaty with Russia recognized the de facto independence, but with the fall of the Russian monarchy, China denounced the treaty and occupied Mongolia in 1919 until 1921 when white forces under baron von Sternberg occupied Mongolia, with the Brest-litvosk treaty in effect plus a possible independence of Asian Central khanates and white resistance in Siberia, I think that Mongolia could continue being or a Chinese province, some kind of protectorate of whites russians or a neutral nation under the Hutuktu.

[stevep]

Gass3268

I think your going way over the top. Its very, very unlikely that with improved tactics the pretty much exhausted German army could take Paris. Especially since that is one area that the French would make the fight for Verdun look like a cakewalk and urban conflict on that scale. Also there's a big, big difference between 1870 and the present situation. France still have very powerful allies in the field. Therefore I doubt if much let alone all the French army and government would surrender.

Furthermore why should the other allies abandon their already established positions on the continent. There were nearly 2M British troops in France and probably at least a million US troops by this time. While the latter have not been blooded and will suffer supply difficulties with much of the French munitions possibly overrun or in chaos they still have to be defeated. I can't see either Britain, which had fought so long and committed so much or an unblooded US giving up the battle at this point, especially given the sort of terms you have Germany suggesting. They would fear, possibly wrongly, that it would leave too much of Europe in German hands.

The reason I say possibly wrongly is that the Germans are going to have a hell of a task holding the vast conquests who have them taking over. Especially given the resentment of the various population, propaganda from the Soviets and probably also arms supplies from the western powers. Given the nature of the German military government I think it highly likely they would try and hold everything and possibly even try new attacks into Russia as you suggest but with the vast overstretch of the German army things are likely to come apart pretty damned quickly.

Even if the Germans are more reasonable on the non-European colonies I doubt if the two main allied powers will agree. The US will oppose such vast expansion of the German empire for traditional reasons and Britain both because it will lose them and as stated by Earling they will realise giving Germany so many bases for attacking trade lines is tempting disaster.

Steve

[Gass3268]

Interesting discussion, no doubt.

One question, No Russian Civil War? with the losses to Germany and the acceptance of Brest-Litovsk and the presence of strong "white" forces -although possibily there would not allied intervention but I suppose some kind of german or ukrainian help to white forces- I have my doubts that the soviets could control all the territory, I suppose that we could count with control over European Russia more or less, but for example in the zone of Soviet Central Asia, there is the possibility of the formation of independent khanates supported by the ottoman Empire, apart of the possibility of some kind of White government in the Eastern Siberia supported by Japan and in the case of Mongolia the situation is at least volatile: in OTL in 1911 profiting of the Revolution against the Quing Mongolia proclaimed his independence under the authority of the Hutuktu (or living Budha), in 1912 Russia recognized this government and in 1913 China in a treaty with Russia recognized the de facto independence, but with the fall of the Russian monarchy, China denounced the treaty and occupied Mongolia in 1919 until 1921 when white forces under baron von Sternberg occupied Mongolia, with the Brest-litvosk treaty in effect plus a possible independence of Asian Central khanates and white resistance in Siberia, I think that Mongolia could continue being or a Chinese province, some kind of protectorate of whites russians or a neutral nation under the Hutuktu.

Yes the Russian Civil War took place, I have yet to look at it in terms of my timeline.

Gass3268

I think your going way over the top. Its very, very unlikely that with improved tactics the pretty much exhausted German army could take Paris. Especially since that is one area that the French would make the fight for Verdun look like a cakewalk and urban conflict on that scale. Also there's a big, big difference between 1870 and the present situation. France still have very powerful allies in the field. Therefore I doubt if much let alone all the French army and government would surrender.

Furthermore why should the other allies abandon their already established positions on the continent. There were nearly 2M British troops in France and probably at least a million US troops by this time. While the latter have not been blooded and will suffer supply difficulties with much of the French munitions possibly overrun or in chaos they still have to be defeated. I can't see either Britain, which had fought so long and committed so much or an unblooded US giving up the battle at this point, especially given the sort of terms you have Germany suggesting. They would fear, possibly wrongly, that it would leave too much of Europe in German hands.

The reason I say possibly wrongly is that the Germans are going to have a hell of a task holding the vast conquests who have them taking over. Especially given the resentment of the various population, propaganda from the Soviets and probably also arms supplies from the western powers. Given the nature of the German military government I think it highly likely they would try and hold everything and possibly even try new attacks into Russia as you suggest but with the vast overstretch of the German army things are likely to come apart pretty damned quickly.

Even if the Germans are more reasonable on the non-European colonies I doubt if the two main allied powers will agree. The US will oppose such vast expansion of the German empire for traditional reasons and Britain both because it will lose them and as stated by Earling they will realise giving Germany so many bases for attacking trade lines is tempting disaster.

Steve

Both sides were exhausted, not just the Germans. There were not enough Americans yet to make a huge difference. The Germans would not fight in Paris, they would encircle and stave city, while defending off the British and Americans. The British and Americans would have to leave if the French surrender also the British would not know all of the Germans demands. Their will be future problems between Imperial Germany and Soviet Union. What do you think I can do in order to make this a better timeline (while keeping with the basic struture)

[Empror Mike]

Here is my take to a German WWI Victory, post 1917. The POD is that the Germans were about to break through the French/British lines during the Spring Offensive which started March 21, 1918 (How? I don’t know yet. Suggestions?). Within a few weeks they surround Paris and commence in a bombardment of the city extremely similar to the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

By the beginning of July the French realized that the war was over and they approached the Germans with the intent to surrender. The armistice was signed on July 11, 1918. With the French out of the war the British and American presence on mainland Europe was over. The armistice said in detail that the British and American forces must leave by the end of September and may not engage the Germans from France. Any such action against the Germans would result in repercussions against the French people.

After about two months of naval warfare, the Germans sent representatives to the British and Americans with the intention of ending the rest of the war. The Germans guaranteed the British that they would only want minor monetary compensation as long as the British ended there blockade on Germany. The British not wanting to continue a war they had no chance in winning decided this was there best offer. All hostilities effectively ended at 9 a.m. September 9, 1918.

On January 18, 1919 post war discussions took place at Ludwigsburg Palace in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. Participants were all of the members of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungry, Bulgaria, Ottoman Empire) plus some of the nations from the losing side that did not suffer any humiliating or major (United Kingdom and her Domains, United States, Japan). There were many nations that were not allowed presence at the Conference of Stuttgart (France, Italy, Russia/Soviet Union, Belgium, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro).

The Treaty of Stuttgart was signed by participating members along with the non-attending defeated nations even though France originally protested the measures in the treaty by not signing it right away, but was forced to when they were not supported by the United Kingdom and the United States.

Terms of the treaty were such:

Defeated Powers
Albania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Gained Kosovo from Serbia
Belgium
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Germany
• Negative border moderation with Germany
• The Belgium Congo is technically owned by Belgium yet controlled by Germany
France
• Loss of the remained of Lorraine to Germany
• Loss of many overseas colonies in Africa and Asia (Dahomey (Today’s Benin) to Germany, Gabon to Germany, Congo to Germany, Djibouti to Germany, Madagascar (along with the surrounding islands) to Austria- Hungry and Indochina was given its independence (heavily influenced by Germany)
• The area between the Seine River and the German /Belgium border would be a demilitarized zone enforced by the German Army
• Military restrictions (identical to that of OTL Treaty of Versailles)
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European countries
• Large financial repercussions of 132 billion marks
Greece
• Loss of Greek Macedonia region and Trace region to Bulgaria
• Loss of the Aegean Islands region to the Ottoman Empire
Italy
• Annexation of Venetia by Austria-Hungry
• Loss of all overseas colonies in Africa (Libya (1914 borders) to Austria-Hungry, Eritrea to Germany, Italian Somalia to Germany)
• Northern Italy would be demilitarized zone enforced by the Austrian Army
• Forced humiliation for abandoning the Triple Alliance / Central Powers. Examples: Seizer of paintings and statues, Destruction of famous monuments (Coliseum, etc.)
• Military restrictions identical to France
• Large financial repercussions identical to France
Japan
• Allowed to keep all German captured colonies in the Pacific
• Gained Northern Sakhalin from the Soviet Union
• Extremely small monetary repercussions identical to the United States
Montenegro
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Positive border adjustment with Serbia
Romania
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Lost the Constantia area to Bulgaria
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
Serbia
• Became a puppet state under the influence of Austria-Hungry
• Loss of Macedonia to Bulgaria
• Loss of Kosovo to Albania
• Negative border adjustment with Austria-Hungry
• Negative border adjustment with Montenegro
• Forced to accept sole responsibility of war (Similar to Germany OTL)
• Large financial repercussions identical to France and Italy
Soviet Union
• Loss of more land to the German puppets in Eastern Europe and to the Ottoman Empire, including a total lose to the Black Sea (clearly a violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk but no one other then the Soviets have protested this)
• Loss of Northern Sakhalin to Japan
United Kingdom
• Had to give back captured German colonies in Africa. With the exception of German East Africa (Today’s Tanzania) which would be under joint control of the British and Germans (concession by Germany to allow the building of the Cairo-Cape railroad)
• Allowed to keep all of the German colonies in Asia and in the Pacific
• Allowed to keep all land that they captured from the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East
• Gained a greater influence in Eastern Persia
• Forced to recognize the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the new Eastern European Countries
• Extremely small financial repercussions
United States
• Extremely small financial repercussions

Neutral Powers
Persia
• Loss of northern areas under Ottoman control at the end of the war to the Ottoman Empire
• Western Persia under the influence of the Ottoman Empire
• Eastern Persia under the influence of the United Kingdom
Victorious Powers
Austria-Hungry
• Gained everything stated above
Baltic State (help with a name???)
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Bulgaria
• Gained everything stated above
Finland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Germany
• Gained everything stated above
Ottoman Empire
• Gained everything stated above
Poland
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany
Ukraine
• Gained its independence from the Soviet Union
• Puppet State under the influence of Germany

Here is a map!:)


I think the best chance for a German breakthrough is no Zimmerman Telegram, therefor lesser American mobilization into war at this time.

This POD is based perfectly on an actuall historical turning point, but your follow-up story has nothing to do with reality. You expect all of the Entente powers to simply pack-up and surrender like a bunch of woossies?
Firstly, French military command had to answer to a democratic (arrogant) government, so it will take a few weeks (if not months) for the politicans to circulate generals (firing old ones that had given up, hiring new enthusiastic ones) before the French government realizes it's lost.

At this point (assuming the Germans are even more beat-up then they are IOTL), the question is:
How dumb are the Germans?

If they have some remnant of Bismarck's way within them, they will now ask the Entente Powers to come to the negotiation table, with no pre-set terms. The first step would be a German withdrawl from Paris, in this TL.
Eventually, the French would probably renounce all claims to Alsaice, Lorraine, and Luxembourg and give the Germans a few colonies. Maybe even pay minor war reparetions. To get Britain out of the war, the Germans would allow them to keep one or two German colonies, and maybe give them a French colony as well.

If they are truly a bunch of Prussian barbarians like they seemed throughout this rediculous war then they will demand total French surrender, which will probably be granted to them. The French army would be disbanded (already is, however), the French navy would go to German hands (except a few ships), France would be Germany massive war reparations, and renounce all claims to Alsaice, Lorraine, and Luxembourg. German troops will sieze various French colonies of their choice.
The British, furious, would remain in war with Germany. They will not stand havign lost a generation of their young men in return for nothing. No telling how this'll evolve....

[TotrueTufaar]

Might the Germans take have of Walloons, the give Belgium Calais to keep the racial makeup even?

[Ridwan Asher]

You're clearly trying to create an "Israel no matter what" situation. There is just no possible way Palestine will be given up by either the Germans or the Ottomans. This is home territory of the Ottoman Empire, and is vital to the continuation of the empire - losing it would be a fatal blow to its prestige, and a huge blow to Germany's prestige, since a German general is in command in Palestine. There is just no way, no how, you can have Palestine going to Britain in a scenario where the CP win the war. The Ottomans are going to lost ZERO territory if they are on the winning side.

Same with Basra. Kuwait I can see, but without Basra, Mesopotamia is totally worthless as it has no outlet to the sea. This is just not a possible outcome. There's no reason for the British to retain Basra anyway, since all the oil is in the north near Mosul.

All this will do will cause permanent emnity between Britain and the Ottomans, and lead to the total destruction of Britain's trade position in the empire and the loss of all the pre-war concessions, including for the oil. Nobody in their right mind would do that over worthless scraps of arid land.

And note that the Jewish population of Palestine in this period is tiny - 6%.

The Ottoman Empire is not a colonial empire, it's a unitary whole. The Ottoman Parliament has representatives from Palestine and all of its territories serving. All of its citizens have the same rights and responsibilities. This is like Germany having to cede territory to France in the peace settlement. It's just not going to happen.

The only reason I have the British keeping parts of the Ottoman Empire is that based off the OTL 1918 map the British are almost in Today's Trukey. With the British in control with such a big chuck of land and the fact that they were not personally defeted like the French or the Russians, I don't think they would give all that conqured land up. I could see the Germans, in order to appease the British allowing them to keep the areas I have stated.

Map of OTL 1918



Based on two statements above, I personally think that if there will be a second war, Ottomans are surely going to participate in it to take Palestine back from the British.

And I don't think a Germany-influenced Belgian Congo would be likely to happened. I think the Germans would just snatch Congo away to be under their control as whole. Why should the now tiny puppet state be let to keep a colony anyway? :confused:

And one more thing. If Belgian Congo goes to Germany, an Anglo-German Tanganyika would might be unlikely as well.

[HurganPL]

I don't know about the situaton for the Poles.In case of German victory situation of Poles would be very bad.
Already before the war laws were made that allowed to expell Poles from homes and property, in addition to ban on language and so on. During the war labour camps were established in which Polish workers were forced to work for virtually free. Germany captured young men in occupied Poland to send them to work in those camps. In addition ruthless plunder of natural resources was made on never before seen scale. According to plans of German Empire Poland would become a colonial protectorate stripped of valuable resources and work force to fuel German economy and needs of population. Think Congo Free State-something like that would be what Mitteleuropa would resemble. In addition massive ethnic cleansing projects were prepared by German leadership-calling for expulsion of 2 milion Poles and Jews from annexed territories, suggestion was made to do the same to Poles in Prussian controlled Wielkopolska. All economical, foreign relation and military matters were to be under German command in the Polish protectorate, while the ruler would be a German prince. Members of the military proposed also to use organised famine to reduce Polish population for quicker Germanisation to happen.


So I think Poland would look similiar to Congo Free State with massive labour camps run by German military where forced workers would labour for German military complex. Also you would have massive refugee camps for milions of people cleansed from annexed territories. They would likely be recruiting areas for insurgents just like refugee camps in Palestine served. The region would be plagued attacks against German administration-freedom fighters would likely by funded and supplied by British and Russians. Occasionaly a brutal reprisal would be made by Germans-similiar perhaps to OTL Pogrom of Kalisz where German army set fire to the city destroyed and massacred hundreds of civilians, expelling the rest. This would bring condemnation from the rest of the world and gradual justification to intervention against German Mitteleuropa-seen as insult to norms of civilised world and threat to rest of the countries.

While Germans were particulary brutal towards Poles, the rest of the Mitteleuropa wouldn't be nice also. Parts of Lithuania were to be annexed as well and Germanised. Baltic people were to be replaced gradually by growing number of German colonists that would receive an ruling class status, while treating native population as serfs.
You can also expect a rather arrogant treatment of Ukrainians.
Concluding-the status of milions of non-German people of Central Europe would be very grim, as they would be treated like substitute of German colony in Africa, subject to brutal exploitation and racist laws. The situation would give possibility to rebirth of Neo-Slavism and growing reliance on Russia to save them. Russia being either a fascist regime or Soviet exploiting slogans of national liberation to extend its influence.
Also British-Russian agreement and cooperation against German Empire is quite likely.

[Max Sinister]

I agree that Wilhelmine Germany tried to germanize Poles, planned to annex areas and settle Germans there, and forced labor too, but:

"During the war labour camps were established in which Polish workers were forced to work for virtually free. Germany captured young men in occupied Poland to send them to work in those camps."

Germany also sent Belgian workers to work in German factories, but still: Do you have some online sources for that?

"Think Congo Free State-something like that would be what Mitteleuropa would resemble."

Several million people were killed in Congo. I also think that Imperial Germany wasn't a pleasant place to live in, esp. if you were Polish, but a quasi-genocide in Europe? I think that goes too far.

[HurganPL]

. I also think that Imperial Germany wasn't a pleasant place to live in, esp. if you were Polish, but a quasi-genocide in Europe? I think that goes too far.http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_walcott.htm

Starvation must excite no pity; sympathy must not be allowed, if it hampers the main design of promoting Germany's ends.
"Starvation is here," said General von Kries. "Candidly, we would like to see it relieved; we fear our soldiers may be unfavourably affected by the things that they see. But since it is here,starvation must serve our purpose. So we set it to work for Germany. By starvation we can accomplish in two or three years in East Poland more than we have in West Poland, which is East Prussia, in the last hundred years. With that in view, we propose to turn this force to our advantage."
"This country is meant for Germany," continued the keeper of starving Poland. "It is a rich alluvial country which Germany has needed for some generations. We propose to remove the able-bodied working Poles from this country. It leaves it open for the inflow of German working people as fast as we can spare them. They will occupy it and work it."
Then with a cunning smile, "Can't you see how it works out? By and by we shall give back freedom to Poland. When that happens Poland will appear automatically as a German province."
Germany also sent Belgian workers to work in German factories, but still: Do you have some online sources for that?http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_prussianspeech.htm
Nor can I remain silent on the point that recently the Central Labour Office has instituted with the help of the local authorities in the Kingdom of Poland a regular hunt for people.
Thus, for instance, towards the end of November, 1916, i.e., after the Manifesto of November 5th (the Proclamation of Polish "Independence"), a free entertainment was announced in the theatre. The lights were put up in the theatre, but when the public had assembled the theatre was surrounded by soldiers, men fit for work were caught and handed over to the Central Labour Office.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_walcott.htm
In that situation, the German commander issued a proclamation. Every able-bodied Pole was bidden to Germany to work. If any refused, let no other Pole give him to eat, not so much as a mouthful, under penalty of German military law. This is the choice the German Government gives to the conquered Pole, to the husband and father of a starving family: Leave your family to die or survive as the case may be. Leave your country which is destroyed, to work in Germany for its further destruction. If you are obstinate, we shall see that you surely starve.
Staying with his folk, he is doomed and they are not saved; the father and husband can do nothing for them, he only adds to their risk and suffering. Leaving them, he will be cut off from his family, they may never hear from him again nor he from them.
Germany will set him to work that a German workman may be released to fight against his own land and people. He shall be lodged in barracks, behind barbed wire entanglements, under armed guard. He shall sleep on the bare ground with a single thin blanket. He shall be scantily fed and his earnings shall be taken from him to pay for his food.

I think that goes too far.This is based on sources and statements of German officials. I'm not saying it is destined to happen, but there is certainly a possibility of it happening and a will to make it happen among German establishment. Once you classify people as inferior race and start talking about their forcefull removal then other ideas come up-as shown above reports about plans to use famine to reduce Polish population did surface.
As another example see Polish city of Kalisz destroyed in act of reprisal by German army :
http://www.info.kalisz.pl/Kal1914/images/rys5_580.jpg

http://www.info.kalisz.pl/Kal1914/images/fot12_580.jpg

http://www.info.kalisz.pl/Kal1914/images/fot14_580.jpg

http://www.info.kalisz.pl/Kal1914/english.htm


During the First World War Kalisz was ruined by the German army - 81st anniversary passed in 1995. From August 2nd till 22nd 1914 the oldest town in Poland, with the rich historical tradition, the monument of mediaeval architecture was bombed and burnt down. It was a crime committed on a defenceless, open town, left by the Russian army without any fighting(...)
The Prussian army invaded Kalisz from the nearby Ostrów on August 2nd. Hermann Preusker, the major, the commander of the second battalion of 155 infantry regiment gave an order to buro the city - in consequence 95% of the town was completely destroyed. Nearly all the houses within the boarders of the mediaeval town were burnt to the ground. The only buildings which survived were the churches and public offices. A great number of citizens were shot. Kalisz, with the population of 65.400 before the war, had only 5.000 inhabitants after the August exodus.

Seeing such behaviour and ideas, its not impossible to assume many people would perish if German occupation would continue.

[Syphon]

No way would the Ottomans be sold out and I don't think KWII would allow the British to keep the conquered colonies.
He'd have to save face by at least being paid for them which would have to include japan as well.

I still think you need an earlier POD.
Once the USA is in the war even if Frances surrenders the US troops would flood into belgium which was mostly a commonwealth affair.

Even if it all went the way you say the Ottomans would gain a lot and Britain wouldn't be allowed to keep the conquered Ottoman holdings.

Libya might very well go to the ottomans as that is who Italy got it from in the first place and the sultan would need to be propped up.

And on the Ottomans there are some other things GB would need to do make compensation for the two dreadnoughts they stole from the ottomans.

I would expect a couple of QE or R's to be turned over in compensation.

After all the Ottomans would need to save face over the loss of their ships and as a loser would be expected to make some type of compensation.

[Iñaki]

Respect to the things said by HurganPL although II Reich was not III Reich and the nazis, we should remember the burning of Lovaina library and the repression against belgian civilians to realize that although the german military administration of II Reich was not nazi it could show a ruthless face.

[Ridwan Asher]

In my opinion, the result of a Central victory in WW1 would be like the map shown below. (note: the lighter shade of Ottoman Green shows the territories the Ottomans MIGHT got if they were lucky enough. And I'd put a question mark in Libya because I think it's a wild card.)

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I thought it was discovered in 1930, at Kirkuk?
Borys

I said "near Mosul". Oil was present at both places and everyone was aware of it for 5,000 years at least. The concessions were signed just prior to the war. Afterwards, the German portions were given to France and the US - as most of the concessionaires were also participants in Persian oil and oil elsewhere, they tended to use Iraqi oil as a "strategic reserve" rather than developing it, until the 30s. If Germany had still been involved, large-scale production would almost certainly have begun immediately after the end of the war.

That, if for no other reason, will cause Germany to prefer to continue the war rather than hand over Palestine and Basra, as these are the two outlets for oil production. (Pipeline to Haifa and sea transport from Basra)

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Thanks for the explanation.
Kirkuk, Mosul - from a Warsaw perspective, as the two are somewhere in northern Mesopotamia, they're almost one and the same place .
:)
Borys

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

There was some oil around Basra but not much, anyway oil wasn't that important back then.

The issue is that without Basra it can't be transported. The oil was considered vitally important. That's the main reason why the British ended up devoting so much attention to a stratically totally irrelevant theater.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Most of that was gained AFTER your TL ends the war - the final British breaktrough was in Oct 1918.

There is NO WAY the Germans will allow this, and there is no way the British can keep it if the Germans are opposed. Why on God's Green Earth would Germany trade away a reliable ally's territory for any reason whatsoever?

This doesn't make any sense.

It totaly forgot, thanks.



I don't know about the situaton for the Poles.



The only reason I have the British keeping parts of the Ottoman Empire is that based off the OTL 1918 map the British are almost in Today's Trukey. With the British in control with such a big chuck of land and the fact that they were not personally defeted like the French or the Russians, I don't think they would give all that conqured land up. I could see the Germans, in order to appease the British allowing them to keep the areas I have stated.

Map of OTL 1918

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Even if Libya doesn't go to the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary is not going to get it. If offered, they would refuse it. It's a piss-poor place full of hostile people that would be nearly impossible for Austria to hold.

No way would the Ottomans be sold out and I don't think KWII would allow the British to keep the conquered colonies.
He'd have to save face by at least being paid for them which would have to include japan as well.

I still think you need an earlier POD.
Once the USA is in the war even if Frances surrenders the US troops would flood into belgium which was mostly a commonwealth affair.

Even if it all went the way you say the Ottomans would gain a lot and Britain wouldn't be allowed to keep the conquered Ottoman holdings.

Libya might very well go to the ottomans as that is who Italy got it from in the first place and the sultan would need to be propped up.

And on the Ottomans there are some other things GB would need to do make compensation for the two dreadnoughts they stole from the ottomans.

I would expect a couple of QE or R's to be turned over in compensation.

After all the Ottomans would need to save face over the loss of their ships and as a loser would be expected to make some type of compensation.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Why would anybody want a piss poor sandbox full of hostile locals ...

Benghazi as naval base for light forces, to help in cutting British traffic in the next war?

Borys

[Kabraloth]

Ahoj!
Why would anybody want a piss poor sandbox full of hostile locals ...

Benghazi as naval base for light forces, to help in cutting British traffic in the next war?

Borys
The trick afaik was that they were hostile because they wanted the OE back.

[Ridwan Asher]

No way would the Ottomans be sold out and I don't think KWII would allow the British to keep the conquered colonies.
He'd have to save face by at least being paid for them which would have to include japan as well.

I still think you need an earlier POD.
Once the USA is in the war even if Frances surrenders the US troops would flood into belgium which was mostly a commonwealth affair.

Even if it all went the way you say the Ottomans would gain a lot and Britain wouldn't be allowed to keep the conquered Ottoman holdings.

Libya might very well go to the ottomans as that is who Italy got it from in the first place and the sultan would need to be propped up.

And on the Ottomans there are some other things GB would need to do make compensation for the two dreadnoughts they stole from the ottomans.

I would expect a couple of QE or R's to be turned over in compensation.

After all the Ottomans would need to save face over the loss of their ships and as a loser would be expected to make some type of compensation.

Even if Libya doesn't go to the Ottomans, Austria-Hungary is not going to get it. If offered, they would refuse it. It's a piss-poor place full of hostile people that would be nearly impossible for Austria to hold.

Now I'm curious about who would gonna have Libya...

[Tocomocho]

That, if for no other reason, will cause Germany to prefer to continue the war rather than hand over Palestine and Basra, as these are the two outlets for oil production. (Pipeline to Haifa and sea transport from Basra)

That is exactly what I was going to say. France can be out of the war, but the war itself isn't finished. If the Western front hurls down in 1917 of 1918 then the Germans would go for Italy (if she doesn't change sides after France's defeat is clear), the Balkans and finally the Middle East. The war could continue well into 1919 and even reach 1920.



The only reason I have the British keeping parts of the Ottoman Empire is that based off the OTL 1918 map the British are almost in Today's Trukey. With the British in control with such a big chuck of land and the fact that they were not personally defeted like the French or the Russians, I don't think they would give all that conqured land up. I could see the Germans, in order to appease the British allowing them to keep the areas I have stated.

Map of OTL 1918

That map is a bit incorrect. I'm not an expert in the Middle Eastern front but I think that the Hedjaz (is that its name? Let's say the Medina-Mecca region) wasn't occupied by the British and there were Ottoman troops there till they were pulled out in 1919. That bit in the Gulf, south of Kuwait, was in the hands of the Sauds since 1913 and didn't see any action during the war. And did the allies really go that far into Syria before Mudros?

I still think you need an earlier POD.
Once the USA is in the war even if Frances surrenders the US troops would flood into belgium which was mostly a commonwealth affair.

How many Belgian territory was in the hands of the Entente through the war? 2%? 3%? 5% at most? If France falls there is no way that spot could be maintained, and even less possibilities to mount an offensive from there.

[Ridwan Asher]

Ahoj!
Why would anybody want a piss poor sandbox full of hostile locals ...

Benghazi as naval base for light forces, to help in cutting British traffic in the next war?

Borys

Well, there is a possibility for this. But....

The trick afaik was that they were hostile because they wanted the OE back.

Now I get it ! :cool:

Ottoman would gonna have Libya for 80% chance! While the Brits has 20%... :D

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

At the very end of the war the Ottoman lines in Palestine collapsed - they were outnumbered 12 to 1 and had no more cement and barbed wire left to build defenses - even sandbags were unavailable because the material was needed for foot-coverings.

The battle of Megiddo was September 19, 1918 - the British lines were just in advance of Jerusalem at this time. On Oct 1 Damascus was occupied.

In a TL where France is essentially out in April, the Ottomans can shuttle three very elite and powerful divisions from the Salonika front, which will change the situation dramatically. It will also allow the Germans to move however many troops can be transported to this front.

As the entire British army in France will be captured when France pulls out, most likely the British are hurriedly going to have to strip the Palestine front to defend Britain.

For the British to retain any Ottoman territory is frankly ASB given the parameters of the scenario.

That is exactly what I was going to say. France can be out of the war, but the war itself isn't finished. If the Western front hurls down in 1917 of 1918 then the Germans would go for Italy (if she doesn't change sides after France's defeat is clear), the Balkans and finally the Middle East. The war could continue well into 1919 and even reach 1920.



That map is a bit incorrect. I'm not an expert in the Middle Eastern front but I think that the Hedjaz (is that its name? Let's say the Medina-Mecca region) wasn't occupied by the British and there were Ottoman troops there till they were pulled out in 1919. That bit in the Gulf, south of Kuwait, was in the hands of the Sauds since 1913 and didn't see any action during the war. And did the allies really go that far into Syria before Mudros?



How many Belgian territory was in the hands of the Entente through the war? 2%? 3%? 5% at most? If France falls there is no way that spot could be maintained, and even less possibilities to mount an offensive from there.

[HurganPL]

As the entire British army in France will be captured when France pulls out
Why should this be ?

[stevep]

Why should this be ?

No reason at all. It's even less likely than the entire French army surrendering after Paris is captured in say May-June. Neither Britain nor the US will given up the territory they will control and the Germans will not have the strength to force them out after the losses suffered against the French.

There's one other thing I forgot to mention yesterday. Possibly taking a parallel with the historical end to the war the scenario has the French asking for and the Germans agreeing to an armistice. Unless it included terms that I can't see being accepted, like the removal of all allied forces from France and occupation of most of the country this would finish off any chance for German victory in the west. An armistice by definition is a termination of the fighting without surrendering the weaker side. This means that the French would have the opportunity to regroup. Get more weapons from their factories, many of which were in the west and south of the country and also arm the growing number of Americans arriving. [Although the British will probably have to do more of that]. Furthermore the French could withdrawal forces from Italy, the Balkans and elsewhere that would strengthen their position. Similarly Britain would probably pump every spare man into France to boost their ally. During all this time the blockage [and more importantly L & H's mismanagement of the German economy] are draining the Germans as are their occupation of vast areas in the east.

Italy was also fairly secure by this time. Some military reforms had occurred while the Italians would no longer be fighting the Austrian defences in the Mts. Without German help, which would be highly unlikely given their problems elsewhere, Austria wouldn't be able to attack again and is likely to suffer a defeat like the historical one. To the east, if the allies withdraw from Salonika totally then it will free up some Ottoman forces. They might arrive in time to hold the line in northern Palestine, provided logistics allow it and their not diverted elsewhere, like Enva Pasha's mad Baku project. However it would have to be a holding operation and the key point would be how much of the much stronger British/empire force gets drawn off to the crisis in France.

Basically its too late. By this time the central powers are going to go down hard and exhausting themselves in futile attacks in France, especially given the way it exposes them to allied counter attacks, which if not lunched before Paris falls will come not long afterwards. There's simply too much the Germans are trying to hold onto.

Steve

[DominusNovus]

Slightly related question. Why were their no major amphibious operations attempted during the war in Europe? Simply technological/doctrinal reasons? Or not enough extra manpower until the Americans joined in?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Slightly related question. Why were their no major amphibious operations attempted during the war in Europe? Simply technological/doctrinal reasons? Or not enough extra manpower until the Americans joined in?

Gallipoli wasn't big enough for you?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Why should this be ?

If France asks for an armistice while Britain decides to fight, the British army is lost. There is no way around that. The British occupy specific sectors and are in close contact with the Germans. There is no way to just withdraw, and when the French pull out of the line, the British will be enveloped and destroyed. A number of troops would likely escape, but the catastrophe would be total. That's why there's no chance of Britain and France making separate peace. If France decides it wants out, the British have to get out with them.

[Borys]

Simply technological/doctrinal reasons?
Yes.
Google "Operation Albion" for an amphibious operation which was sucesful.
Borys

[Redbeard]

Interesting thread, I of course can't keep my comments to myself, so here they are:

Germany post war:
I have in other thread often advocated for a victorious Germany in WWI very soon turning into a socialdemocratic welfare state (Sweden on steroids), but with such a late PoD the situation is more complicated, especially as the army has tasted the sweet fruits of power. By 1918 Ludendorff practically was a military dictator of Germany. That doesn’t change however, that Germany had a very strong labour movement expecting a payback for their loyalty, and capital everywhere increasingly preferring a settlement with labour rather than keep the old conservatives in absolute power. So while the military no doubt will try to stay in power their options for doing so beyond short term are not very good. In short I think it will also in this ATL end in something approaching a true pluralistic system. The greatest danger probably will be the communists, who in the time when the military still is in power and the socialdemocrats have to balance between loyalty and demanding power, have an ideal agitation basis.
Concerning plans of ethnic cleansings the Germans indeed had a rather aggressive Germanification policy in areas with other ethinc groups, my own family experienced that between 1864-1920. It is also true that this probably went a step or two further in Poland compared to say Schleswig-Holstein, but aggressive nationalistic policies rather was the rule than the exception in Europe in those years. There is nothing however pointing to a WWI victorious Germany, even with the military in power, turning into anything even slightly resembling the WWII monster. BTW a lot of Germans now and at least a century back has/had Polish sur-names. A simple but quite clear indicator of how it worked pre WWI. You didn’t gas anybody but rather pressganged them to turning German. A lot changed names to German sounding names (IIRC incl. Manstein’s family), but there are plenty of examples to show that you could live comfortably with a Polish (or Danish) name.
Anyway, as others have already said, the Germans then planned an independent Poland, on former Russian territory. That doesn’t point to any clear racism, but I guess it would be quite convenient to have diehard Poles from the German territories go to.

German/central power results overseas
The PoD interestingly lets Japan keep her seized German possessions in the Pacific. I think that is a sensible point, as no matter how victorious Germany has been on land in Europe, she simply hasn’t the means to enforce her will outside the European continent. In that context I also doubt if GB/USA will allow her to effectively gain control over her French overseas loot, no matter what the French have agreed to. The same applies to Ottoman possession outside the Turkish heartland, you might even be inclined to think that especially the British will try to get revenge for any defeats in Europe by taking as much as possible elsewhere. The Central Powers really can’t do much about that, but USA might demand that the gains are not simply annexed by the British Empire, but rather under some kind of joint/international jurisdiction (like Syria wasn’t a French colony, but under internationally sanctioned French mandate).

That brings up the question if the British will be forced to make a quick peace once the Germans have broken through the French lines - I very much doubt so. You of course can’t totally exclude the complete panic and breakdown which can be seen in armies now and then, but short of that I think the British (and Americans) have far better options for evacuating than they had in 1940.
First armies then didn’t move very fast, certainly not in an offensive mode. Next the British and US armies were situated in the western part of France in close proximity of the Channel ports and were of a size needing the main German army if to be overrun. The time needed to swing the main German force towards the Channel ports would probably be more than enough to get away. I guess an evacuation will use/need more ports than in 1940, but it might not need much more time to be executed. The British anyway had plenty of tonnage, but a lot of materiel, especially heavy artillery will be lost. In OTL early May 1918 the British had however replaced all the materiel lost in 5th Army in March and April.
I very much doubt that the British would quit ASAP, I can’t see why they should. They are perfectly safe on their island, they have good chances of making a fighting withdrawal across the Channel and they have overwhelming superiority outside the European continent – why not get as much out of that as possible?

Regards
Steffen Redbeard

[HurganPL]

There is nothing however pointing to a WWI victorious Germany, even with the military in power, turning into anything even slightly resembling the WWII monster.
That's very amusing considering the fact Hitler based his GeneralPlan Ost designs on Ludendorff ideas. Or in other words completely contradictory to historic research.

BTW a lot of Germans now and at least a century back has/had Polish sur-names.
And so what ? A lot of those Germans mass murdered Poles. You confuse Prussian names with Polish ones.

but there are plenty of examples to show that you could live comfortably with a Polish (or Danish) name.
And murder Poles-Kaminsky for example.

[Max Sinister]

No, he's not confusing Polish and Prussian names - some hundred thousand Poles went to the Ruhr area, settled there, married into German families and gradually assimilated. Check the telephone book of cities like Essen, Dortmund, Duisburg - there are lots of Kowalskis and Rabowskis and whatnot there. (And Germany's most famous TV police detective also bears a Polish name, Schimanski, coming from Duisburg.)

And one has to admit, even if one doesn't like Ludendorff that Hitler blew up the former's plan to gigantic dimensions. Ludendorff didn't want a Germany extending to the Urals AFAIK.

Who's this Kaminsky BTW?

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Rona - here you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaminski_Brigade

As to surnames - some choice surnames of Polish generals in 1939:
Abraham
Anders
Szylling
Thomme
Rómmel

I went to school with Marks and Stranz.

Borys

[DominusNovus]

Gallipoli wasn't big enough for you?

:rolleyes: Real Europe.

:p

[HurganPL]

No, he's not confusing Polish and Prussian names - some hundred thousand Poles went to the Ruhr area, settled there, married into German families and gradually assimilated.
It's just a part of the picture, of course you didn't mention the discrimination and laws that forced them for Germanisation. Ruhr area btw is different as it is majority German territory not colonial territories that were to be given German majority by force after WW1.
And one has to admit, even if one doesn't like Ludendorff that Hitler blew up the former's plan to gigantic dimensions. Ludendorff didn't want a Germany extending to the Urals AFAIK.
Urals isn't located in Poland so its irrelevant in discussion of German designs towards Mitteleuropa of which Poland was to be part of.

but I guess it would be quite convenient to have diehard Poles from the German territories go to.
First of all those milions of Poles to be ethnicly cleansed weren't targeted because they were "diehard Poles" but because they were simply Poles. Second of all those were only German territories due to forceful annexations.

[Nick Sumner]

Real Europe.



There was this plan, not carried out.

http://www.ijnhonline.org/volume1_number1_Apr02/article_page_landing_1917.doc.htm

More details in 'The Dover Patrol' by Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon

[stevep]

Slightly related question. Why were their no major amphibious operations attempted during the war in Europe? Simply technological/doctrinal reasons? Or not enough extra manpower until the Americans joined in?

DominusNovus

I think a combination of two factors.

a) Political in that the militaries in the west were heavily tied to the western front approach. I.e. attack the enemy army and destroy it in direct combat. As such any pressure for an operation away from the western front was heavily frowned upon. There was little scope for amphibious assaults in the west due to the nature of the front. After the failure of the Gallipoli campaign this viewpoint had more ammunition.

b) Geographical. While a properly organised Gallipoli. especially if supported political might have been a goer that would have depended on the isolated position of the Turks at the time and the relatively poor communications in the region. In the more developed region of western and central Europe you have the problem that a dense railway network means the defender can ship in far more reinforcements than you. [This was why, despite overwhelming air superiority, deception along with Nazi incompetence were so crucial to the 44 landings at Normandy. If they had responded with all the forces available as soon as the allied forces started to land even with all the disruptions to communications we might have been driven into the sea].

Steve

[stevep]

I
I very much doubt that the British would quit ASAP, I can’t see why they should. They are perfectly safe on their island, they have good chances of making a fighting withdrawal across the Channel and they have overwhelming superiority outside the European continent – why not get as much out of that as possible?

Regards
Steffen Redbeard

Steffen

Why go at all? They have a continuous section of the line with a lot of the area behind it basically under their control. Even if the German army is not in this scenario driving away from them it would have great difficulty looping around the British lines faster than they could extend it to form a bridgehead. Especially since they will start at least making preparations for this as soon as the French start asking for an armistice. This enables the British to make use of the vast amount of supplies and infrastructure they already have in place, i.e. railways, food stocks etc. Furthermore, given the difficulty of amphibious assaults and the importance of controlling the Channel it is to their interests to stay where they are.

Not quite so sure about the Americans as I think they were coming in basically via the ports around the Loire region and front line units were more to the south of the line. However I would expect that most could stage a fighting withdrawal westwards and then be moved to the Anglo-Belgium position. [Or given the numbers of the allied forces extend it to include Normandy and Brittany say]. Later US reinforcements, and I think many if not most of the 1.8M US troops in France at the armistice arrived after this point could come directly into the allied bastion. This is presuming that France collapsed virtually totally and the rest of the country was surrendered, which I think is unlikely.

Steve

[Redbeard]

Steffen

Why go at all? They have a continuous section of the line with a lot of the area behind it basically under their control. Even if the German army is not in this scenario driving away from them it would have great difficulty looping around the British lines faster than they could extend it to form a bridgehead. Especially since they will start at least making preparations for this as soon as the French start asking for an armistice. This enables the British to make use of the vast amount of supplies and infrastructure they already have in place, i.e. railways, food stocks etc. Furthermore, given the difficulty of amphibious assaults and the importance of controlling the Channel it is to their interests to stay where they are.

Not quite so sure about the Americans as I think they were coming in basically via the ports around the Loire region and front line units were more to the south of the line. However I would expect that most could stage a fighting withdrawal westwards and then be moved to the Anglo-Belgium position. [Or given the numbers of the allied forces extend it to include Normandy and Brittany say]. Later US reinforcements, and I think many if not most of the 1.8M US troops in France at the armistice arrived after this point could come directly into the allied bastion. This is presuming that France collapsed virtually totally and the rest of the country was surrendered, which I think is unlikely.

Steve


I certainly agree that the British contingent would be far too big and well trained to be simply pushed around and into the sea. But with the French Army and its 100 Divisions out of the game the British 65 Divisions will eventually loose the attritional game vs. some 150 German Divisions (figures from memory).

I think however that the British will be able to keep the line until summer 1918 at least, if not for other reasons then because it will take many months before the Germans can swing and prepare their main force for a major offensive vs. the British. That would allow time for the Americans to build up a substantial force, by late 1918 counting in millions, and in 1919 many millions. That would sooner or later swing the pendulum back to the advantage of the Anglo-Saxons, but the big question of course is, if sufficient popular and political will is present to start all over again in a new attritional war vs. Germany.

I know the British had interesting plans for a blitzkrieg like offensive in 1919, but seen from 1918 the prospect would be years of bloody fighting yet to come. My best guess would still be withdrawal from the continent, but a continuation of the blockade - that would strike hard in a Germany with arms up in victory disease but on its knees resource wise.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think you're ignoring that this is in France. An armistice is going to deprive the British of institutional support of France including access to the communications network, and the blow to the morale of a British force fighting for a country that has dropped out of the war is going to be severe.

You will lose the support personnel and the bureaucracy that made the effort possible, and will essentially be an occupying force.

Also, are the British in a coherent block, or are there French units interspersed with them? Holes in the lines can be quickly fatal.

I just don't think it's at all realistic to assume the British can fight on without France in France.

I certainly agree that the British contingent would be far too big and well trained to be simply pushed around and into the sea. But with the French Army and its 100 Divisions out of the game the British 65 Divisions will eventually loose the attritional game vs. some 150 German Divisions (figures from memory).

I think however that the British will be able to keep the line until summer 1918 at least, if not for other reasons then because it will take many months before the Germans can swing and prepare their main force for a major offensive vs. the British. That would allow time for the Americans to build up a substantial force, by late 1918 counting in millions, and in 1919 many millions. That would sooner or later swing the pendulum back to the advantage of the Anglo-Saxons, but the big question of course is, if sufficient popular and political will is present to start all over again in a new attritional war vs. Germany.

I know the British had interesting plans for a blitzkrieg like offensive in 1919, but seen from 1918 the prospect would be years of bloody fighting yet to come. My best guess would still be withdrawal from the continent, but a continuation of the blockade - that would strike hard in a Germany with arms up in victory disease but on its knees resource wise.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Wozza]

I think you're ignoring that this is in France. An armistice is going to deprive the British of institutional support of France including access to the communications network, and the blow to the morale of a British force fighting for a country that has dropped out of the war is going to be severe.

You will lose the support personnel and the bureaucracy that made the effort possible, and will essentially be an occupying force.

Also, are the British in a coherent block, or are there French units interspersed with them? Holes in the lines can be quickly fatal.

I just don't think it's at all realistic to assume the British can fight on without France in France.

I think it is perfectly feasible for the British to evacuate, with a little advanced preparation.
Presumably the final battle for France takes some time, there are stands and there are counter-attacks.
Given a week's preparation the British can pull out a lot of forces.
They hold several ports, and these cannot really be attacked by air. A destroyer can carry 500 men a trip, so about 1,000 men a day.
100 destroyers/transports can probably be found (and some ships like liners will be able to carry 3-4000 men.)
It seems not unrealistic that the British can pull out about 200,000 men a day. With some complications caused by trying to pull out horses, stores and guns.

The BEF is about 1.8 million strong, so with about 2 weeks it and a lot of its equipment can be gone.

About half this force can be evacuated with nobody really noticing - there are several hundred thousand support personnel, and about a quarter of the frontline troops are not in the frontline at any one time. This could be happening in the week of the final battles for France.

Once the armistice is signed the British have to disengage tactically, in the First World War situation this is fairly easily done - front lines are weakly held (British troops spent about 6 days a month in the front line trenches). Also one is retreating to railheads.

Support and rear trenches can be reduced to a skeleton strength over a couple of days, then one night the frontline troops withdraw. The Germans will not know until the middle of next morning, but all they can do is walk to railheads that the British have already got to and travelled down (presumably leaving no locomotives behind.)

Also, presuming that the units facing the British have been stripped of men, horses and locomotives for the storm units finishing the French their capacity to advance will be pretty limited anyway.

Of course the Germans are likely to notice that something is up due to all the movement, but whether they can redeploy cavalry/logistics in enough strength to keep the British under enough pressure is doubtful.

And as in 1940 the Germans are unlikely to consider finishing off the BEF strategicallu decisive.

Of course there is no real incentive (or probably will) for the British to continue the war, but they can get better terms this way.

[Redbeard]

I think you're ignoring that this is in France. An armistice is going to deprive the British of institutional support of France including access to the communications network, and the blow to the morale of a British force fighting for a country that has dropped out of the war is going to be severe.

You will lose the support personnel and the bureaucracy that made the effort possible, and will essentially be an occupying force.

Also, are the British in a coherent block, or are there French units interspersed with them? Holes in the lines can be quickly fatal.

I just don't think it's at all realistic to assume the British can fight on without France in France.

The BEF in 1940, being in a much more difficult situation, managed quite well. Some times it appears like the British perform best when they are on their own and against the wall. I wouldn't expect a collpse of morale in the BEF just because the French quit - on the contrary.

AFAIK the internal communication network inside the British Army was British and did not rely on French support, and the food stuff etc. that might have been bought locally does not necessarily need a Paris requisition to be aquired, and will anyway only constitute a small part of the total demand on supplies. Arty ammo was the main part, and here the British were exporters. IIRC the American incresingly supplied food and ammo too, but remained dependent on foreign produced artillery and planes. The railway mainlines would have been French manned, but it ought not to be a problem to take them over, the Germans after all did so without noteworthy problems in Belgium and N. France in OTL.

Unless we introduce rather ASBish PoDs the British army will have its own section of the front going from the Channel coast and as far inland as it had forces to man. The cases of French and British units getting intermingled were AFAIK all results of counterattacks with reserves into threatened sectors near the intersection between British and French forces. IIRC the Miracle on the Marne in 1914 was the last time when armies seriously intermingled.

Counterattacks would of course still open up for British units getting caught in a very wrong place, but hardly more than a handful of Divisions (one Armycorps, the likely(max) operational counterattack unit, being 2-3 Divisions). Anyway a French collapse would not come/spread as quickly as in 1940 and would allow the British plenty of opportunity to decide when to stop investing any more in the French cause.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[DominusNovus]

Besides, wasn't Britain actually fighting for Belgium? :D

[stevep]

Besides, wasn't Britain actually fighting for Belgium? :D

DominusNovus

That was one of the triggers for the British dow - especially for public opinion. However the main factors were concerns about increasing German strength and hostility. That's the primarily reason why Britain will continue to fight. It won't know how weak the Germans are but the government and military will realise that the great danger would be to allow the Germans time to recover and absorb some of their gains.

I agree with Steffen that the British forces would be able to withdraw from France fairly securely. Apart from the points he mentioned it would be the thing Germany desires most. However I still think such a withdrawal would be both highly unlikely and very stupid. The Germans could only push the British army off the continent after a lot of very heavy fighting. Even then it would only be possible if France collapsed totally, which is highly unlikely, and the US dropped out of the war totally, even less unlikely. Britain had already committed itself for the long haul and few by this time would have been willing to quit, in part because it would have meant accepting that the earlier losses had been pointless. In terms of the US any state highly dependent on popular support is very difficult to get into a major shooting war but when they do they tend to commit for the long term. The US could lose a lot of troops, both because their forces are to a degree entangled with the French and because they lack the experience of the allies. However they will be very gung-ho and especially in the sort of defensive roll that would be occurring for a while very difficult to dislodge.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject for a while at least. I'm on holiday until the 11th so will try and pick up on events there. See if this thread is still going then.:)

Steve

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

OK. I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect them to be able to evacuate their equipment, though. Also, the staff work involved in this is going to be punishing, and on a scale impossible to conceal from the Germans.

I think the BEF was in a much less difficult situation - much smaller in size with modern communications and the ability to muster air superiority over the evacuation zone.

In any case, this all ignores that there is no point to fighting on if France decides to call it quits. Everyone is going to sit down and put an end to the war at the same time.

The BEF in 1940, being in a much more difficult situation, managed quite well. Some times it appears like the British perform best when they are on their own and against the wall. I wouldn't expect a collpse of morale in the BEF just because the French quit - on the contrary.

AFAIK the internal communication network inside the British Army was British and did not rely on French support, and the food stuff etc. that might have been bought locally does not necessarily need a Paris requisition to be aquired, and will anyway only constitute a small part of the total demand on supplies. Arty ammo was the main part, and here the British were exporters. IIRC the American incresingly supplied food and ammo too, but remained dependent on foreign produced artillery and planes. The railway mainlines would have been French manned, but it ought not to be a problem to take them over, the Germans after all did so without noteworthy problems in Belgium and N. France in OTL.

Unless we introduce rather ASBish PoDs the British army will have its own section of the front going from the Channel coast and as far inland as it had forces to man. The cases of French and British units getting intermingled were AFAIK all results of counterattacks with reserves into threatened sectors near the intersection between British and French forces. IIRC the Miracle on the Marne in 1914 was the last time when armies seriously intermingled.

Counterattacks would of course still open up for British units getting caught in a very wrong place, but hardly more than a handful of Divisions (one Armycorps, the likely(max) operational counterattack unit, being 2-3 Divisions). Anyway a French collapse would not come/spread as quickly as in 1940 and would allow the British plenty of opportunity to decide when to stop investing any more in the French cause.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[esl]

OK. I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect them to be able to evacuate their equipment, though. Also, the staff work involved in this is going to be punishing, and on a scale impossible to conceal from the Germans.

I think the BEF was in a much less difficult situation - much smaller in size with modern communications and the ability to muster air superiority over the evacuation zone.

In any case, this all ignores that there is no point to fighting on if France decides to call it quits. Everyone is going to sit down and put an end to the war at the same time.

Thats sounds more like it.

[Redbeard]

OK. I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect them to be able to evacuate their equipment, though. Also, the staff work involved in this is going to be punishing, and on a scale impossible to conceal from the Germans.

I think the BEF was in a much less difficult situation - much smaller in size with modern communications and the ability to muster air superiority over the evacuation zone.

In any case, this all ignores that there is no point to fighting on if France decides to call it quits. Everyone is going to sit down and put an end to the war at the same time.

A 1918 Division had much less equipment than a 1940 one, but most of the horses and the heavy artillery is probably going to be left in case of an hasty evacuation - not a big problen to replace though.

I don't think a staff officer with any of his marbles intact will believe an evacuation of 65 Divisions can or should be executed in secrecy. It will be done by a tough defence of the evacuation ports and gradually withdrawing - and have the devil take the last.

The 1940 BEFs modern means of communication etc. are of a poor comfort when the enemy can advance in force at least as fast as you can withdraw. In 1918 that wasn't the case, as an advance in force was limited in speed by the still very slowly moving artillery. Not only because good motor tractors were not available yet, but perhaps more importantly because a 1918 artillery unit needed to roll out miles of telephone cable before it could do the necessary coordination of fire.

I don't see how on earth aircover of the 1918 evacuation zones is of importance - there is no serious airthreat! Napoleon also won Austerlitz without aircover. And if you still want some buzzing things patrolling the skies above then a 1918 squadron would happily operate from a grass field with a few drums of fuel.

And this does NOT ignore the likelyhood of staying in France compared to other options - I adressed that several times in this thread. But I believe you started out ignorring any other option than the very unlikely of the British suddenly calling it quit - so the Ottomans could keep their goodies.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Gass3268]

It will be a while until I do another update, with school starting and all.

[Michel Van]

Besides, wasn't Britain actually fighting for Belgium? :D

the Crule Joke of History is:
Belgium exist only beause Britain need a Buffer Staate beween Them and German Empire. in 1830
and have more space for troop movement, without go true France (see Britain and France rival)

but that plan was brought to absuty by German Attack Plan of WW I and II...

Very Good book about wat if with lot Information on German Empire or The Thrid Reich Wins
from Historian point view

"Virtual history. Alternative and Counterfactuals"
edited by Niall Ferguson
ISBN-10: 0330413031
ISBN-13: 978-0330413039

German Editon
Virtuelle Geschichte. Historische Alternative im 20. Jahrhundert
Hrsg. Niall Ferguson
ISBN 3-89678-201-0