WI: The Allies drive deep into Germany in WWI

[Meadow]

This may have come up before, but what if the old saying that because the Germans didn't feel beaten in WWI they felt bitter and turned to Nazism was put to the test? Say everything happens as per OTL, but when Ebert offers peace, hotter heads prevail and the allies reject it and march into Germany, smashing the German Army before them. Large swathes of Western Germany are under allied control by mid 1919, the German Army is in pieces and the German people are begging for surrender.

Now, firstly this might not be that plausible - would Wilson (or his wife), Lloyd George and Clemenceau have always taken the armistice to prevent fitter bloodshed across Europe? Or was there a chance that the above would be recommended by those with foresight and an insight ion the German psyche?

Secondly, what happens next? The German people aren't going to treat their army as betrayed heroes anymore, surely, and there can be no confusion as to whether they lost the war or not. I'd imagine that means more revanchism and hatred of the allies, but no 'stabbed in the back' myth. Perhaps a more militarist and imperialist revival in the 1930s rather than an anti-Semitic one. With no Jews, bureaucrats or traitors to blame, can Hitler come to power?

 

[rast]

The German people never voted Hitler into office; his ascencion to power was the consequence of a failed monarchist coup sponsored by Hindenburg.
And if Germans supported Hitler, it was because of the Versailles Dictate, which Hitler relentlessly promised to abolish,not because they thought they hadn't lost World War 1 and were keen for a second round. Plus, economic crisis, unemployment, etc. discredited democracy.

A Germany not collapsing in late 1918 is difficult to construct; it at least needs the realisation (on the German side) that Wilson's 14 Points will play no role - and they are going to get a Clemenceau-Foch Peace instead. (Just like the Morgenthau Plan helped the Nazis to keep the Germans fighting in WW 2.)

 

[Beer]

The Entente driving deep into Germany would do nothing better. The main reason for what came later was the farce of a "peace" treaty in Versailles. WW1 was a close race and Germany and the other CP nations were screwed over beyond the pale by Versailles and Trianon.
A decent treaty would have spared the world much sorrow.

 

[Mikestone8]

Thing is, it seems to me that the real trouble was what happened in the first half of 1918, not the second.

To all appearances (maybe illusory, maybe not - that doesn't matter) the Germans came within a whisker of defeating the Allies. And that was what stuck in their minds - not that they lost but that they so very nearly won. It's a bit like Faulkner's Southern boy, for whom it would always be a July day in 1863, at a little town in Pennsylvania. "We came so close. If only - -[insert might-have-been of choice]".

Too really change things, you have to abort Michael and the other German offensives, or make it so that they don't get more than a mile or two before being halted. Once they've produced impressive (even if ultimately unsuccessful) results, then it is probably too late - almost regardless of what happens after, either to the Armistice or the Peace.

 

[Beer]

Thing is, it seems to me that the real trouble was what happened in the first half of 1918, not the second.

To all appearances (maybe illusory, maybe not - that doesn't matter) the Germans came within a whisker of defeating the Allies. And that was what stuck in their minds - not that they lost but that they so very nearly won. It's a bit like Faulkner's Southern boy, for whom it would always be a July day in 1863, at a little town in Pennsylvania. "We came so close. If only - -[insert might-have-been of choice]".

Hi, Mikestone! your observation is the other half of the coin. One is the (selfcensored) that was Versailles and Trianon. Both "treaties" were unreasonable and unjust.
The other half is the fact that the CP came within an inch of defeating the Entente. During the spring offensive 18 a high-ranking member of the british government, it might have been the PM himself, was convinced that the Central Powers would beat the Entente. It was close and it made the dictate of Versailles even more unjust.

 

[Mikestone8]

Hi, Mikestone! your observation is the other half of the coin. One is the (selfcensored) that was Versailles and Trianon. Both "treaties" were unreasonable and unjust.

Trouble was, after four years of carnage, it would have taken a miracle for them not to be.

The populations on both sides had been psyched up into hating the enemy, so were sure to demand a punitive peace -and their leaders would have to oblige. This wasn't 1815, when a bunch of statesmen could get together and hammer out a statesmanlike peace, without having to pay attention to the mob. For good or ill, it was the "Age of Democracy"

 

[teg]

Oh god help me....

Beer-
The Germans thought they were about to defeat the Entente, in reality, they didn't come close. Germany was slowly collapsing along with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottomans, capturing Paris in 1918 with the USA in the war wouldn't have saved them. The Germans probably could have made peace in early 1918 (before their offensive) and they would have got a very good deal, as long as they agreed to give Belgium it's independence. Ironically, a Germany with an empire in the east would have been considerably stronger than in 1914.
Now about Versailles and Trianon. The greatest achievement of the German people in 1918, was that they have managed to convince many historians and the public of Britain, France and the USA that they were innocent and the Entente were guilty of starting the war in 1914. This is not true; without Germany, what was essentially a poorly planned assassination (it took seven people to kill one person, the NKVD probably had as an example in their How not to kill someone book on assassinations) had no reason to become a global European war. Germany thought it was in a vulernable position in 1914 and it decided to start a war that killed millions of people. If anything, the Allies were very generous at Versailles.

Anyway, back to the topic. One reason why Versailles failed to keep the peace so badly was the Germans did not appreciate just how strong the Entente were and would become. If the Allies had countinued the war into 1919 and advanced up to the Rhine or even better, the Elbe, the Germans would have realized they were beaten. It would also probably have put the Allies in a position to demand Germany was broken back up into small states, which hopefully would have prevented a certain little corporal becoming chancellor.

 

[LordIreland]

The German people never voted Hitler into office; his ascencion to power was the consequence of a failed monarchist coup sponsored by Hindenburg.
And if Germans supported Hitler, it was because of the Versailles Dictate, which Hitler relentlessly promised to abolish,not because they thought they hadn't lost World War 1 and were keen for a second round. Plus, economic crisis, unemployment, etc. discredited democracy.

The 'November Criminals', the 'Stab in the back myth'? Hitler and his cronies made much hay out of this. If Germany had been occupied these themes would not have been viable propagand for the Nazis. The Versaille Dictate on the other hand would still have worked quite nicely for them.

Incidentally, have you got any reference material for th failed monarchist coup? I've not heard of this before and would be intrigued to follow it up.

 

[Beer]

Dear teg, you think to modern! The loss of Paris, the capital of France, would have been the end, no matter the US. At that time losing your capital was considered the end. France had shot her bolt far earlier, have you seen the loss lists? Without the US, it would have been over for the Entente in 1918. The Amiericans were the plug that filled the gaps in the Entente. France was bled dryer than Germany was and Britain was (on land) in a not so much better position.
With the loss of Paris France would have folded and it would have been over. The US of 1918 would not have fought on with France out. Any statement to the contrary is just Ententewank. And that the GB would have stood by France no matter what, is a myth. There were several scenarios played through in London, if Paris and France would fall how to get out of the war!

Btw teg: Anyone considering Versailles generous disqualifies himself as an Entente diehard! And I won´t honour your "Germany is the sole culprit of WW1" with an answer out of politeness. Read something else than just Entente propaganda.

 

[rast]

Incidentally, have you got any reference material for th failed monarchist coup? I've not heard of this before and would be intrigued to follow it up.

ISBN 3421050368 - Eberhard Jaeckel's "Das Deutsche Jahrhundert" has worked it out quite clearly. I thought it was common knowledge that the monarchists tried to re-establish authoritarian structures since 1929/30 but failed to come up with a durable government independent from the Reichstag - and in the last instance accepted Hitler's 'support', after all other tricks had not worked.

 

[Mikestone8]

If the Allies had countinued the war into 1919 and advanced up to the Rhine or even better, the Elbe, the Germans would have realized they were beaten. It would also probably have put the Allies in a position to demand Germany was broken back up into small states, which hopefully would have prevented a certain little corporal becoming chancellor.

There was never any question of that. The Germans would have thrown in the sponge before the Allies crossed their border, same as OTL.

And even OTL, the Allies were in a position to break up Germnay if they so desired. They didn't, partly because they feared a power vacuum there, which Communists might fill, but more because national states were the flavour of the month in 1919 and anything else was viewed as unnatural. The French would have liked to detach the Rhineland, but were overruled by their allies. Even they didn't contemplate going any further than that.

 

[Magnificate]

Anyone considering Versailles generous disqualifies himself as an Entente diehard!

Better phrasing would help reduce the risk of ingiting a flamewar.

The Versailles Treaty was quite harsh, but it could been much harsher. I personally think one of the more important issues with the treaty was the lack of will and means to properly enforce it.

 

[Mulder]

It would also probably have put the Allies in a position to demand Germany was broken back up into small states, which hopefully would have prevented a certain little corporal becoming chancellor.

Anyone who thinks this would be a feasible solution to anything should get some sense beaten into their head. Those "states" (Entente colonies) would have needed to be propped up by Entente bayonets ad infinitum. German unification was deeply entrenched into the minds of all Germans by 1871. And don't start with those ridiculous Bavarian and Rhenish "separatist" nutters which were a) propped up by the Entente b) put down not by military or police, but by local townsfolk. Once Britain and the U.S. would have pulled out, and there is no reason at all that they would not when the public mood changes, France has to do all the guarding itself. Even Italy frankly did not give a rats ass about punishing Germany when the reason it even entered the war on the Entente side was Austrian territory. So once the UK and the US leave, those colonies empty of Entente invaders overthrow their puppet rulers and reunify. This might butterfly away Hitler, but I am sure someone equally nasty will replace him, maybe someone who hates the French with the same passion the criminal pieces of scum Clemenceau and Foch hated Germany. And if that happens, and that leader has even a bit of intelligence, then it would really suck to be a Frenchman.

 

[Winner]

Germany thought it was in a vulernable position in 1914 and it decided to start a war that killed millions of people. If anything, the Allies were very generous at Versailles.

Funny, it could just as well be argued that it was Russia who started WW1. If it hadn't started sabre-rattling over Serbia, the whole war would have been just another crazy thing in the Balkans nobody would even remember today.

The treaty pinned the blame for the war solely on Germany, which was totally unfair. Everybody contributed to it and all these contributions were necessary to make it happen.

Of course, the Entente states didn't really believe it - they just needed to put all the blame on Germany to justify squeezing money from it so that Britain and France could pay their debts...

 

[Typo]

Dear teg, you think to modern! The loss of Paris, the capital of France, would have been the end, no matter the US. At that time losing your capital was considered the end. France had shot her bolt far earlier, have you seen the loss lists? Without the US, it would have been over for the Entente in 1918. The Amiericans were the plug that filled the gaps in the Entente. France was bled dryer than Germany was and Britain was (on land) in a not so much better position.
With the loss of Paris France would have folded and it would have been over. The US of 1918 would not have fought on with France out. Any statement to the contrary is just Ententewank. And that the GB would have stood by France no matter what, is a myth. There were several scenarios played through in London, if Paris and France would fall how to get out of the war!

The Germans were screwed with or without American troops in 1918.

Btw teg: Anyone considering Versailles generous disqualifies himself as an Entente diehard! And I won´t honour your "Germany is the sole culprit of WW1" with an answer out of politeness. Read something else than just Entente propaganda.

Versailles was as a good treaty as it was going to get, besides the admittedly stupid war reparations and guild clause, but that even without it there would be the same German resentment. it just wasn't enforced properly.

 

[Commissar]

The Germans were screwed with or without American troops in 1918.

No they weren't. The Entente who were flat out broke in 1918 would have collapsed first as America was no longer going to give them loans in 1917 unless they entered as the Entente could not secure them. Even further, their troops were starting to crack under the strain and had to be informed and promised nothing big till the Americans came in.

The Germans on the utter hand have had nothing but victories and the light was at the end of the tunnel for them. America entering the war shattered that.

There is no hiding the fact America was the decisive factor in the War.

 

[Kharn]

What if Germany had attacked and attempted to conquer the Austro-Hungarian Empire and keep the juicy favorite bits for themselves?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

No they weren't. The Entente who were flat out broke in 1918 would have collapsed first as America was no longer going to give them loans in 1917 unless they entered as the Entente could not secure them. Even further, their troops were starting to crack under the strain and had to be informed and promised nothing big till the Americans came in.

The Germans on the utter hand have had nothing but victories and the light was at the end of the tunnel for them. America entering the war shattered that.

There is no hiding the fact America was the decisive factor in the War.

While I agree that the Germans could get a favorable negotiated peace if the Americans stay out, they would also need to pander to the US to assure that they stay neutral. Part of the reason that Wilson went for war was so that he wouldn't lose his ability to control the peace process. So Germany would have to submit to Wilson's peace arbitration at some point.

The problem is that OHL did not see a light at the end of the tunnel; Ludendorff only though in military terms and did not recognize that finance was a major part of the game, one that could sink the Entente war effort. The effect of that was also the Hindenburg plan, really the Ludendorff plan, that refused to accept reality and wildly unbalanced the fragile equilibrium that the War Ministry had created for the economy. So you would probably need Falkenhayn to stick around and consider the Uboot option no option at all. Also, one would probably need some one responsible to debunk the ridiculous figures that Haeften presented to the War Council about the Uboots' ability to starve out Britain.

Assuming that all happens then Germany won't be so intransigent about seeking peace. The trick is making it all happen.

 

[Torn but Flying]

The German people never voted Hitler into office; his ascencion to power was the consequence of a failed monarchist coup sponsored by Hindenburg.

The NSDAP was the biggest party in the Reichstag at the time though, right?

 

[Typo]

No they weren't. The Entente who were flat out broke in 1918 would have collapsed first as America was no longer going to give them loans in 1917 unless they entered as the Entente could not secure them. Even further, their troops were starting to crack under the strain and had to be informed and promised nothing big till the Americans came in.

The Germans on the utter hand have had nothing but victories and the light was at the end of the tunnel for them. America entering the war shattered that.

There is no hiding the fact America was the decisive factor in the War.

Notice I said troops and not loans. America will keep financing the entente since if the entente actually loses it bodes badly for chances of recollecting existing debts. America was decisive in the economical rather than military sense.

The troops were cracking on both side at the time, and Germany was significantly worse off than Britain and France what with the blockade and all.