German Victory in World War 1

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Thucydides, Oct 27, 2008.

  1. Thucydides Witticism.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    I was just thinking about writing a TL for this. But I was wondering what you guys thought would happen. Here is the basic premise. Belgium and Germany have a contract that allows German troops access to France through Belgium. So the Germans never go around killing Dutch babies. As well as that the Germans put tons of effort into the Easter Rebellion so it is much more effective. Because of this the British take what some would say unessecery force to put it down. And more importantly U-20 does not sink the Lusitania so the U.S. has no good reason to enter the war. So the Central powers win. But my question is what do you think the Germans would take and what would a endwar map look like?

    I was thinking that France is split up into different parts so as to diminish the French threat. The Germans take a bit out of France and keep Luxembourg as a puppet state. The Austrians take a chunk out of Serbia and a little out of Italy. Ireland gains its independence. Do you think this works?
     
  2. Blue Max Game Designer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    California
    I would think:

    UK: White Peace--the Royal Navy means that the UK will never seriously be defeated, even if it loses control of the continent.
    Portugal: White Peace, the RN stops involvement.
    Brazil: See Portugal.
    Russia: Please see Treaty of Brest Litovsk
    Belgium: Loses Belgian Luxembourg and gains Flemish lands in France as compensation, reduced to a German puppet.
    France: Stripped of all Colonies, shaved on its Spanish Border somewhat and suffers major territorial losses to Germany in Europe. France is seen as the pariah state in Europe and forced to renounce claims on A-L, while Germany now recieves the rest of AL and maybe even more territory behind it. France is also hit with reparations, and it might lose territory to Italy as an attempt to compensate Italy for its own losses to Austria.
    Italy: Fruili given to Austria, claims against Dalmatia revoked. In compensation for Fruili, Italy recieves some territory from mainland France.
    Romania: Greatly reduced in territory and reduced to a vassal of AH.
    Serbia: Annexed by AH.

    Japan: German holdings in the Far East purchased at a sum agreeable to both parties.
    Rest of English Dominions: White Peace.
     
  3. Herr Frage Jesus Christ Is In Heaven

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Location:
    Behind a black gate and to the left of a grove
    Note that Italy was neutral for some time before entering the war. In this scenario I doubt Italy would join the Allies and instead follow its Triple Alliance duty.

    At the Peace table Italy would recieve Nice, Savoy, and Tunisia definitely. If they were lucky they would also get Corsica and Freanch Somaliland.
     
  4. Blue Max Game Designer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Location:
    California
    Nope. Italy made the decision to entire WW1 well before the US Entry into the war, in 1915. So they're going down with the ship. I would presume that this is not a quick CP sweep, which would result in very minimal consequences. So Italy gets carved up as well. That said, Italy's performance in WW1 was extremely poor, so the only things they would receive would be portions of French Territory. They would receive far less than the others.
     
  5. Riain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Does this agreement with Belgium allow German trains to enter and unload there? This, more than the lack of murdered babies and raped nuns, will assist Germany to win in the West. Without it the S plan is still logistically unsound and mere Belgian aquiescence won't help this very much.
     
  6. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    An agreement between Belgium and Germany will be a bit of a bugger for the British.* It will be a significant coup for Germany, but I cannot see how such a diplomatic agreement could be hidden from the British and French intelligence services. With the knowledge, French war plans will change. At the tactical level, France still has a flawed doctrine, which inevitably means heavy casualties. But the strategic situation (France defending the Belgian border and not agreeing on being the western of a two-pronged Franco-Russian assault) means these will still be lighter than IOTL, and may well retain the all important Briey Basin.**

    The U-boat campaign is a but odd. If the Belgian situation evolves as laid out, there's a fair chance that a) the British govt. won't be able to declare war, and b) the Germans thus never have cause to begin their blockade, giving two strong reasons (finance and public opinion) why the USA wouldn't get involved.

    To answer the question, German war aims were ever-changing. So the earlier TTL's Germany wins, the more reasonable the peace will be.

    * I don't see the Asquith govt. doing too well if Belgium's happy to have its neutrality violated.
    ** A crapload of strategic resources lost IOTL to German control.
     
  7. Thucydides Witticism.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    I agree with Blue Max on this one. My theory was that the war would go as it did in OTL besides the whole Belgium thing and the Easter Rebellion. This way, with no Americans to stop them the German late war offensives get them all the way to Paris. BUt I still like my idea of France getting split up. But why would Russia lose territory? At this point they are well into the civil war. So why take anything. BUt I do think that Germany should get a chunk out of Poland. And maybe Austria gets some.

    So France is split up into a bunch of different states of the mainland, the idea being that it will quickly devolve into war so they can never do anything. They give a lot of the African colonies to either the Belgians or the Ottomans although the Germans get some. Do you think that the Ottomans should get India or should it become independent? I'll try to get a map going and once we talk this over more I'll start the TL.

    Also I think that the RN should have some ships given to Germans and relegated to a smaller size but there end of the deal isn't nearly as bad as France.
     
  8. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    The Easter Rising is rather less likely if Britain's uninvolved in a continental conflagration. The Liberal government wants to push self-rule, but the Unionists (and a fair bit of the army cf. Curragh) are against it. Kitchener further annoyed the Irish Catholics by having their New Army troops officered by Protestants. That won't happen if there's no New Army. Not to mention that paranoia about Germany attempting to open a second front arguably played a part in the OTT response of OTL. If there's no war going on, there's a) less chance of a southern rising (a northern mess is another question entirely!), and b) less chance of any rising being stamped on as thoroughly as IOTL.

    I really can't see an effective partitioning of France into multiple statelets. Even after four years of war, the Allies didn't end up doing anything that brutal to Germany IOTL. I can certainly envisage bits being lopped off depending on the nature of the war, but not the dissection of the whole country.

    The Ottomans acquiring India seems a bit of a stretch. First, it's still unclear why the British Empire is involved in this war. :confused: Second, the Ottomans lack the shipping capacity to move troops to India. Likewise, I don't see the RN voluntarily giving up its maritime supremacy to the High Seas Fleet without a fight.
     
  9. Thucydides Witticism.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    But as you said the treaty with Belgium would be secret. So the British would think that they are invading even though they are not.
     
  10. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    Sorry, old boy, but that won't wash. IOTL when the Germans invaded, the Belgians went pretty much "Argh! We're being invaded! Britons, Frenchmen, defend our neutrality as you are bound to by treaty!"

    http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761569981&pn=4

    I also have to pull you up short on the first thing you said, though. I didn't say that the treaty would be secret. I expressed scepticism that it could be kept secret. Tbh, I'm rather dubious that Belgium would sign it. That said, this is the post-1900 forum, so there's over a decade in which one can ruin Belgium's relations with France and Britain. Sadly, that makes it even more likely that those countries would be closely following Belgian foreign policy.

    Sorry to be such a wet blanket!
     
  11. Thucydides Witticism.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    Touche.

    But England would probably go to war with Germany anyway. The French and English had already made pre-war plans that involved cooperation between the two countries. Russia and England also supported each other so when Germany declared war on Russia England would probably get in, even if they came in later.

    Lets have something happen between Belgian and French troops in the leadup to the war. Like in 1911 French troops open fire on Belgians crossing the border from the Congo killing several. This worsens Franco-Belgian relations enough to sway Belgium towards Germany.Or how about this. Belgium is still invaded but they do not resist. So Germany doesn't do anything bad so America never enters.
     
  12. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    I know David S. Poepoe will disagree with me, but I'm not wholly certain that Britain will be able too go to war without Belgium as a pretext. For want of political stability rather than anything else, y'see.

    I fear I'm not really knowledgeable enough about Belgium to give much concrete help on the latter issue. But I hope I can offer three points that are worth exploring. First, I think you may have to get rid of King Albert to effect the peaceful passage of German troops. He was fiercely patriotic. That said, if you can effect a PoD that makes him convinced that Belgian honour is being ruined by France, he can be retained. Second, I understand Belgium was initially sympathetic to the A-H govt. over the assassination of FF. There may be some leeway at this juncture to pressure the Belgian govt. into making allowance for the passage of German forces.

    Third, prior to the war, Belgium had prepared significant military fortifications at Namur and Lieges precisely because she feared invasion by either France or Germany. This caused the German staff to decide Liege must be taken (by a special detachment) during the period in which the armies were still forming up. If you can dismiss this grounded fear or somehow significantly alter Belgium's internal politics, you may be able to prevent or retard their construction. This would leave Belgium in a far weaker position to oppose any German "requests" for safe-passage.

    I hope that's of some help, old boy! :)
     
  13. David S Poepoe Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Location:
    El Segundo, California
    I agree that we will disagree. The deal with Belgium is complicated and in June and July 1914 there is a lot going on between the capitals of Europe. I'm sure there is an article or book about Belgium on the eve of the war that would clear things to a degree. Jannen's Lions of July is a good starting point.
     
  14. Thucydides Witticism.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    Maybe we could figure out the French thing. Because other then that it sounds pretty plausible once we get a trigger for King Alberts sympathies for Germany.
     
  15. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    I'll have to defer that for the time being. I'm reading several specifically on British themes atm (started the MA at Birmingham, and I'm a bit behind with the reading list), so I'm a little overwhelmed. I will make a note to see if I can borrow it from the departmental library come December, though. Thankee.
     
  16. Mujahid786 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    check out my ottownkin TL on WW1, its called "An alternate WW1, now encompassing the entire world"
     
  17. antisocrates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Britain will eventually go to war; even the public would realize eventually that German victory would be BAD for Britain. However, when Britain enters will have a signficant effect on the course of the war; later the Brits enter, better the chance for the Germans. On the war aims, everyone's war aims expanded as the war dragged on and the human costs mounted. Furthermore, I do not see a total victory on the Western Front, with or without the British, that will enable French partition. Given the state of technology, the best that could have been expected is a stalemate and a settled peace. If the war dragged on, then Germany might have bled France dry enough for a total victory, but I do not see Germany being able to keep Neutral Powers from helping France, even to war, if the war dragged on to, say, 1918 --and that would be the only way Germany could have crushed France completely.
     
  18. Germaniac Live from a Library Cubicle

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    Atheocracy of New Jersey
    If Britain was not involved couldn't Germany have blockaded france, Put enough pressure on Italy from A-H and Push Spain closer to central powers to cut off trade to france
     
  19. Tom_B Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Short answer is no. For one thing the British made it clear that the presence of the HSF in the Channel would be just as much a causus belli as invading Belgium. For another the KM thought that attempting a close blockade of France would expose them to the same sort of attrition they were planning to inflict on a British close blockade.
     
  20. MrP Brexit is about ethics in UK-EU relations

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Location:
    Emirate of Cheshire
    I probably should clarify that I only mean that British entry into war in August '14 is made dubious by an altered Belgian situation. I don't mean to seem to suggest that an absent casus belli at the start will lead to a permanently peaceful Britain. As Tom says, the naval situation is tense at best. However, I am wary of saying Britain will inevitably become involved in the war subsequently, because the Home Rule legislation will be passed, and even in the best of outcomes for that scenario, there will certainly be unhappy relations between army and government, given the Curragh Incident.