The Collaborative Central Powers TL?

[MrP]

I'd like to see an early "win" for Germany in France, but have the war keep going until 1916 or 1917. After all, there will still be a rump France even with Paris gone, and as long as Britain's in Russia will be as well. I wonder where Britain would attack though, if the Russians are their main ally left some sort of Gallipoli seems likely (though an Ottoman defeat might go against a CP win). Probably they eventually come to the table after some sort of Jutland battle where Germany slightly wins and threatens sub warfare. Whether or not Germany still uses Lenin and co. to knock Russia out is debatable but probably unlikely.

Well, for an early win I suppose one could do one's best to have Jackie Fisher's Baltic Plan go through and fail spectacularly. Properly done, that could really bust up the Grand Fleet and BEF. They'd not necessarily be out, but they'd be sorely wounded.

 

[Faeelin]

Well, for an early win I suppose one could do one's best to have Jackie Fisher's Baltic Plan go through and fail spectacularly. Properly done, that could really bust up the Grand Fleet and BEF. They'd not necessarily be out, but they'd be sorely wounded.

The what now?

 

[luakel]

Well, for an early win I suppose one could do one's best to have Jackie Fisher's Baltic Plan go through and fail spectacularly. Properly done, that could really bust up the Grand Fleet and BEF. They'd not necessarily be out, but they'd be sorely wounded.

Yeah, but that would pretty much end the war, with all three members of the Entente suffering crippling defeats (Tannenburg, Baltic, Marne)- the war will be over by Christmas. I was thinking more that a few more things go badly for the French early on and by October we have street fighting in Paris and the BEF retreating from France in disarray.

 

[MrP]

The what now?

There's very little hard information on it. Fisher wasn't a man for writing things down. There's a reconstruction of the probable nature in several old editions of Wargames Illustrated. that's where I heard of it. In brief, the plan was to capture Borkum (an island near Wilhelmshaven, well, nearer than the GF's home base), occupy it, enforce a close blockade, then use the GF to smash its way down past Denmark, landing the BEF in Pomerania at about the time of Tannenburg. There's considerable debate over whether it'd've worked or whether it'd've messed up the GF beyond repair. The HSF would have had to try to oppose it, though, since all substantial bodies of troops are either in Belgium/France or opposing the Russians.

 

[MrP]

Yeah, but that would pretty much end the war, with all three members of the Entente suffering crippling defeats (Tannenburg, Baltic, Marne)- the war will be over by Christmas. I was thinking more that a few more things go badly for the French early on and by October we have street fighting in Paris and the BEF retreating from France in disarray.

But can the British continue to fight if they're forced out of France?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

To change the fate of Europe - and minimize the post-war chaos - an early victory is required.
A CP victory in 1918 - say the Ludendorff march offensive - is both difficult and possibly too late.

An early victory - coupled with a reasonable peace treaty, fat chance of it - would be a reasonable basis to start a true cooperation among European nations.

And early victory has been done a lot already though, and I'm not sure I agree that a reasonable peace is less likely - war aims were more limited before too much blood was spilled.

A very late victory is as you mentioned probably too late, at least for the Hapsburgs, and would probably not be too interesting, except for Eastern Europe and the Mid East.

A 1917 victory, though, after a Russian Revolution, might be the most intersting all around, although I'm not sure a post-Brusilov Hapsburg empire is viable - but empires in weaker positions have pulled through, and having a victory under their belt has got to equal some political capital.

I'm not sure there's a way to end the war between 1914 and 1917, unless maybe Italy joins the CP for some reason.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Well, for an early win I suppose one could do one's best to have Jackie Fisher's Baltic Plan go through and fail spectacularly. Properly done, that could really bust up the Grand Fleet and BEF. They'd not necessarily be out, but they'd be sorely wounded.

I honestly don't think anyone would let the Baltic plan go through - it's just too whacky and dnagerous.

 

[luakel]

But can the British continue to fight if they're forced out of France?

They can refit the BEF and send it to attack somewhere around the Mediterranean. I'd say there's a good chance Turkey still joins in, just to secure Germany as an ally and maybe get some land in the Caucasus, and Italy might as well to get Tunisia. There'll be a few soft underbellies for the Brits to focus on even with France out.

 

[AndrewDonelson]

Asking the Wrong Question

IMHO, you’re the wrong question. There exist quite a number of plausible ways for the CP to win the war. Hence “what POD do we want?” should be a secondary question, not the primary one.

The primary question is: “what do we want the immediate post war world to look like?”

If we want the war to end with Britain, battered and driven from the continent but undefeated, staring daggers across the Channel at Germany, which still does not have its place in the sun, then we want one type of POD. If we want the war to end with Britain starved into a fair peace, then we want another type of POD.

If want Russia to crippled and unstable but still Russia, we want one POD. If we want civil war in Russia, then we want another POD.

If we want a surviving Ottoman Empire, or a string of British puppet states, that is another choice. Do we want France weakened, or France occupied? Do we want Germany to be a continuation of the pre war Reich ever victorious, or a militarized and bitter military dictatorship after four years of war?

You get the idea.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Then we start writing history backwards. History doesn't work that way. Even if we develop an idea of what we want to happen, doesn't mean that it would really work unless we can find a POD to start from. I understand what you mean, but both factors need to be kept in mind.

Right now, I would say a medium length war starting from the Germans winning at the Marne is a nice place to start and it should satisfy the desires of many of the posters on this thread. I think that the Italians would join in against the Entente to secure something, maybe tunisia. It would also make the allies lives that much harder, and shouldn't necessarily preclude the entry of the Ottomans.

 

[MrP]

I honestly don't think anyone would let the Baltic plan go through - it's just too whacky and dnagerous.

Bloody fun, though!

Er, the first bit literally, the latter not so much, had they tried it, I suppose. Sometimes I get too enthusiastic.

 

[Othniel]

What if we have Germany try a Russia first stratgey to start the war?

 

[Kabraloth]

What if we have Germany try a Russia first stratgey to start the war?

They will most certainly lose due to lack of nitrates, French pressure and better Russian defensive tactics.

 

[luakel]

They will most certainly lose due to lack of nitrates, French pressure and better Russian defensive tactics.

The nitrate problem can be avoided due to a later British entry, the French can be delayed in Alsace similar to in OTL, and if the Dynamic Duo still is in charge in the east then a good deal of the Russian army at the beginning can be entrapped and destroyed.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What if we have Germany try a Russia first stratgey to start the war?

I kind of feel that that has also been done, but I do like the idea - and it's good for my peeps!

 

[MrP]

The nitrate problem can be avoided due to a later British entry, the French can be delayed in Alsace similar to in OTL, and if the Dynamic Duo still is in charge in the east then a good deal of the Russian army at the beginning can be entrapped and destroyed.

Even without the Dynamic Duo, the commanders on the ground were capable in the face of the hideous and astounding Russian incompetence.

 

[Faeelin]

Okay, we want:

A Britain that is still a great power, although humbled and weakened; the loss of Cyprus, its influence in Egypt, Kuwait.

France that has thoroughly been defeated.

Russia with a peace analgous to Brest-Litovsk.

Surviving Ottomans.

Can we do this? What else?

 

[maverick]

I've done WWI before.

How about this?

Russia attacks Turkey in 1916 instead of launching the Brusilov Offensive.

This allows the Germans to concentrate on the Somme and Verdun, and the Austrians to continue attacking the italians.

By the end of 1916, Verdun has fallen, the british have retreated from the Somme, the Italians have cracked, the French army is on the edge of a mutiny and Russia is basically alone fighting the Central Powers.

Of course, this would have to butterfly away the entrance of the US into the war to work in the befenit of the CP.

 

[Riain]

Even a CP victory in 1917 would have to be set up in 1914, there is no other realistic option in a coalitions war. Also as clarification, how much success can you have without it being classed as a wank? Eg, if the Germans had decided to form an Army Group command level prior to Aug '14 they could have enjoyed much greater success in their right wing advance, probably encircling Paris and taking the coastline down to Dieppe, and advancing on the left wing as a result. But this sounds like some uber-German wank, despite the very realistic possibilities involved.

 

[Nicole]

I wonder... what if we have Italy being convinced to join the CP, enticed by maybe Austrian concessions in the Tyrol (I doubt they'd give on Trieste or Dalmatia, though) and possible gains in France... This could result in keeping the war of a decent length but also giving the CP that extra edge...