To the Victor, Go the Spoils (Redux): A Plausible Central Powers Victory

[TheReformer]

Even with the reshaping of the Marineleitung with Scheer the german naval command structures were such that no political leadership there might have been (and esp. no army dominated) would have been able to order the HSF to do something they - the marineleitung - and esp. the Kaiser (certainly as far from sacrificing 'his pet' for at best minor gains as he had been all over the war) would not want.

Im not sure what is actually news here. We have already addressed this point.

Well, with the armistice' the western european coast - France' and Spains atlantic coasts, as well as the mediterranian and the harbours there - are by'n'large open for trade also for german traders. ... aside the mentioned possible 'harvesting' of Ukraine. IOTL the food situation was improving in late summer/autumn 1918 already, though admittingly still far from bright.

Armistice =/= Peace. Just because two sides have stopped fighting, does not mean trade immediately resumes. Further; All of the ports you have mentioned do not directly connect to Germany without going through an allied or formerly allied state, besides the Adriatic ports where the Royal Navy maintains near total naval supremacy.

Well, much of this is interpreting Germanys postwar situation with todays understanding of financial affairs not at least - or even esp. regarding international trade. The inflation of about 600 % or the national debt of short of 94 % of GDP wer INTERNAL debts.

...correct. But you realise - internal debt is still debt, right?

The Government might be scoundrels sometimes, but that does not mean they can simply ignore their debts. If anything you have highlighted precisely why Germany's WW1 financing structure was so poor - it essentially cannibalised it's own economy. You cite forn example the fact that Government gold reserves had grown, this I do not deny, but in doing so they had removed literally all of the Gold from Germany;'s internal market. So essentially the Government had taken the public's money, invested it into the war effort where materiel is not recoverable (because it is designed to be blown up), and promised to repay the public of their debt. The ideal metaphor is basically Germany took the public's gold to replace their own money, while shoving an artillery shell full of Marks and firing them at a French trench.

Not to mention, I think you may not realise if the Germans simpoly wiped their debt sheet (essentially a default) with nearly 100% of GDP owed to their own people, they would annihilate their entire domestic banking sector, and bankrupt every German who bought Government bonds.

That debt still needs to be repaid - and the way the Government chose to do that was by restructuring it into paper money with no backing. This, as you cite, promopted an enormous influx of paper money with no actual value, meaning all money was devalued - thus triggering inflation. Further, I'm unclear what you mean by these assets being seized by the allies post-war. Germany was forced to pay repirations, yes, but it was so utterly inflation ridden that it's still debated whether they paid any by the 1930's at all. In fact, based on their American loans they may have ended up better off.

Germany's fiscal position after WW1 would certainly have been better if they won, in that I have no doubt, but to suggest that it would be essentially 'fine' seems an exaggeration. Particularly as German politicians as early as 1916 firmly asserted that any conclusion of the war would absolutely require huge allied repayments, as much like the Allies Germany would have to use them to repay internal debt - something the allies were actually in a better position to both demand and also repay without any German debt payments (as demonstrated by Germany's negligable payments).

Basically; either you're extremely well informed about German fiscal policy after and during WW1, in which case I'd love to chat about that, or you may be reading into the very baseline and 'on paper' data presented on the 1914-1918 website (which I have also extensively reviewed).

If the latter is the case, I'd refrain from labelling something as implausible without presenting evidence demonstrating that fact - I find it awfully offputting, as is outlined in the OP.

While I genuinely appreciate contributions, I do actually research into my updates a lot - (approx 500 hours at this point I'd guess) and so if something is plainly incorrect I genuinely would love to hear how I can amend them, but if not it's probably safe to assume I have weighed up that fact and considered it, and simply not written anything about it because Im intentionally keeping things short to keep the timeline from becoming enormously bloated.

 

[HMS St.Lawrence]

I agree with most of your analysis except for this bit. The man ruling at this point is Hindenburg, and the Admirals wouldn't take kindly at all being ordered into a suicide mission by a perceived rival. Given that Hindenburg's rule is not even legitimate, they'll hardly let themselves be lead to the slaughterhouse without protest, and even if they are not confident enough to downright refuse, they might as well implicitly back the inevitable mutinies that would happen among the crews.

You're making a very good point.
Implicit backing to the would-be mutinies? Maybe not.
But I think you're right when you're talking about the rivalry with the Army. The Admiralty would likely find a way around a 'suicide order' and keep to their own planning.

Not to mention that at this point, preserving the fleet for the postwar years is also probably on a lot of people's mind. We should not forget about the British position here, because although the Grand Fleet has proven it can defeat the HSF, the German navy has not been destroyed, and will continue to exist after the peace is signed, which is going to be a very different situation to OTL balance of naval power in postwar Europe. This is the final act of the War and a renewed naval arms race could be on the horizon, if the Royal Navy wants to delived a final blow to firmly consolidate its position, it is now or never. The Germans are best avoiding giving them this opportunity.

 

[kham_coc]

You're making a very good point.
Implicit backing to the would-be mutinies? Maybe not.
But I think you're right when you're talking about the rivalry with the Army. The Admiralty would likely find a way around a 'suicide order' and keep to their own planning.

Not to mention that at this point, preserving the fleet for the postwar years is also probably on a lot of people's mind. We should not forget about the British position here, because although the Grand Fleet has proven it can defeat the HSF, the German navy has not been destroyed, and will continue to exist after the peace is signed, which is going to be a very different situation to OTL balance of naval power in postwar Europe. This is the final act of the War and a renewed naval arms race could be on the horizon, if the Royal Navy wants to delived a final blow to firmly consolidate its position, it is now or never. The Germans are best avoiding giving them this opportunity.

The Admiralty would presumably also be interested in doing 'Something' to cover themselves in glory (it's not like they were seen to have done their bit) - Now I readily agree any major battle involving heavy assets is implausible, but more light units stationed in Flanders would help.

 

[KingSweden24]

In theory yes, in practice no, because the Reichskanzler was also always Minister-President of Prussia and thus a member of the Bundesrat - who had the right to speak in front of the Reichstag.

Except for Caprivi, who was not Minister-President of Prussia, a mistake which no other Chncellor would make

 

[Hohensaufen]

And yet Germany is far more questionable than the British. Which isn't to say British colonialism wasn't incredibly violent and repressive, but it was at the very least a functioning democracy who generally didn't commit widespread genocide in their African colonies. There is absolutely nothing admirable about the German Empire in this period which isn't found in the British, while far more is reprehensible.

How is Germany "generally" more reprehensible? True the democratic institutions were not as steadfast as they were in the UK, but flawed democracies were the standard in that day and age; where Germany may have a broader franchise, UK may have more parliamentary power. This looks to me more like a tit-for-tat and not something Germany can be condemned for wholesale. Your referral to German genocides in Africa is farcical at best, given what the Brits did in South Africa (not to mention India/the plains Indians/aborigines); both of those atrocities are beyond the pale, but at least the German government went out of its way to punish the main perpetrators of the Herero-genocide.

Let me say clearly, I am by no means a Kaiseraboo (or whatever they're called); personally I prefer pre-imperial German history and the Weimar republic). Still, I have to say, I find these sorts of discussions quite ridiculous when both empires are shady when judged by today's standards and then to claim that one was far more horrible for engaging in similar crimes is petty imho.

 

[Augenis]

Except for Caprivi, who was not Minister-President of Prussia, a mistake which no other Chncellor would make

Well he started out as M-P, but got pushed out due to various machinations. It is generally not a good idea to have one of the states hold 70% of the country and then have that state compete with the centre, yes.

 

[RanulfC]

As opposed to the innocent, did-nothing-wrong German Empire, which definitely hasn't committed any atrocities and other horrible things just as cruel and deadly as the blockade in the name of victory. Having seen some of the drafts for this TL, I'm just gonna say this now on ref's behalf: this ain't a kaiserwank tl, Germany is not some magical moral utopia here to give all those Eastern Europeans free kitkats, and anyone who thinks it is will not be having a good time here.

Well we should hope not! I mean I've read "Stupid Luck And Happenstance" and letting Kat loose was not really fun for anyone!

Randy

 

[KingSweden24]

Well he started out as M-P, but got pushed out due to various machinations. It is generally not a good idea to have one of the states hold 70% of the country and then have that state compete with the centre, yes.

Like I said upthread - the constitution of Germany was a clusterfuck haha

 

[Gudestein]

Im not sure what is actually news here. We have already addressed this point.


Armistice =/= Peace. Just because two sides have stopped fighting, does not mean trade immediately resumes. Further; All of the ports you have mentioned do not directly connect to Germany without going through an allied or formerly allied state, besides the Adriatic ports where the Royal Navy maintains near total naval supremacy.


...correct. But you realise - internal debt is still debt, right?

The Government might be scoundrels sometimes, but that does not mean they can simply ignore their debts. If anything you have highlighted precisely why Germany's WW1 financing structure was so poor - it essentially cannibalised it's own economy. You cite forn example the fact that Government gold reserves had grown, this I do not deny, but in doing so they had removed literally all of the Gold from Germany;'s internal market. So essentially the Government had taken the public's money, invested it into the war effort where materiel is not recoverable (because it is designed to be blown up), and promised to repay the public of their debt. The ideal metaphor is basically Germany took the public's gold to replace their own money, while shoving an artillery shell full of Marks and firing them at a French trench.

Not to mention, I think you may not realise if the Germans simpoly wiped their debt sheet (essentially a default) with nearly 100% of GDP owed to their own people, they would annihilate their entire domestic banking sector, and bankrupt every German who bought Government bonds.

That debt still needs to be repaid - and the way the Government chose to do that was by restructuring it into paper money with no backing. This, as you cite, promopted an enormous influx of paper money with no actual value, meaning all money was devalued - thus triggering inflation. Further, I'm unclear what you mean by these assets being seized by the allies post-war. Germany was forced to pay repirations, yes, but it was so utterly inflation ridden that it's still debated whether they paid any by the 1930's at all. In fact, based on their American loans they may have ended up better off.

Germany's fiscal position after WW1 would certainly have been better if they won, in that I have no doubt, but to suggest that it would be essentially 'fine' seems an exaggeration. Particularly as German politicians as early as 1916 firmly asserted that any conclusion of the war would absolutely require huge allied repayments, as much like the Allies Germany would have to use them to repay internal debt - something the allies were actually in a better position to both demand and also repay without any German debt payments (as demonstrated by Germany's negligable payments).

Basically; either you're extremely well informed about German fiscal policy after and during WW1, in which case I'd love to chat about that, or you may be reading into the very baseline and 'on paper' data presented on the 1914-1918 website (which I have also extensively reviewed).

If the latter is the case, I'd refrain from labelling something as implausible without presenting evidence demonstrating that fact - I find it awfully offputting, as is outlined in the OP.

While I genuinely appreciate contributions, I do actually research into my updates a lot - (approx 500 hours at this point I'd guess) and so if something is plainly incorrect I genuinely would love to hear how I can amend them, but if not it's probably safe to assume I have weighed up that fact and considered it, and simply not written anything about it because Im intentionally keeping things short to keep the timeline from becoming enormously bloated.

I am sorry to pester you here, but regarding Gold reserves they are not invested. That is the definition of reserves.
I also fail to see how France could be in a position to not allow trade flowing through Germany.
I sense you have follow on plans where German desperation plays an essential part, but maybe they simply would not be so acute ittl and different plans are needed. Or you need to find the desperation elsewhere

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Im not sure what is actually news here. We have already addressed this point.


Armistice =/= Peace. Just because two sides have stopped fighting, does not mean trade immediately resumes. Further; All of the ports you have mentioned do not directly connect to Germany without going through an allied or formerly allied state, besides the Adriatic ports where the Royal Navy maintains near total naval supremacy.


...correct. But you realise - internal debt is still debt, right?

The Government might be scoundrels sometimes, but that does not mean they can simply ignore their debts. If anything you have highlighted precisely why Germany's WW1 financing structure was so poor - it essentially cannibalised it's own economy. You cite forn example the fact that Government gold reserves had grown, this I do not deny, but in doing so they had removed literally all of the Gold from Germany;'s internal market. So essentially the Government had taken the public's money, invested it into the war effort where materiel is not recoverable (because it is designed to be blown up), and promised to repay the public of their debt. The ideal metaphor is basically Germany took the public's gold to replace their own money, while shoving an artillery shell full of Marks and firing them at a French trench.

Not to mention, I think you may not realise if the Germans simpoly wiped their debt sheet (essentially a default) with nearly 100% of GDP owed to their own people, they would annihilate their entire domestic banking sector, and bankrupt every German who bought Government bonds.

That debt still needs to be repaid - and the way the Government chose to do that was by restructuring it into paper money with no backing. This, as you cite, promopted an enormous influx of paper money with no actual value, meaning all money was devalued - thus triggering inflation. Further, I'm unclear what you mean by these assets being seized by the allies post-war. Germany was forced to pay repirations, yes, but it was so utterly inflation ridden that it's still debated whether they paid any by the 1930's at all. In fact, based on their American loans they may have ended up better off.

Germany's fiscal position after WW1 would certainly have been better if they won, in that I have no doubt, but to suggest that it would be essentially 'fine' seems an exaggeration. Particularly as German politicians as early as 1916 firmly asserted that any conclusion of the war would absolutely require huge allied repayments, as much like the Allies Germany would have to use them to repay internal debt - something the allies were actually in a better position to both demand and also repay without any German debt payments (as demonstrated by Germany's negligable payments).

Basically; either you're extremely well informed about German fiscal policy after and during WW1, in which case I'd love to chat about that, or you may be reading into the very baseline and 'on paper' data presented on the 1914-1918 website (which I have also extensively reviewed).

If the latter is the case, I'd refrain from labelling something as implausible without presenting evidence demonstrating that fact - I find it awfully offputting, as is outlined in the OP.

While I genuinely appreciate contributions, I do actually research into my updates a lot - (approx 500 hours at this point I'd guess) and so if something is plainly incorrect I genuinely would love to hear how I can amend them, but if not it's probably safe to assume I have weighed up that fact and considered it, and simply not written anything about it because Im intentionally keeping things short to keep the timeline from becoming enormously bloated.

I feel the need to intervene here: by 1918 British liquidity proper was mostly exhausted.
The British war effort was kept afloat by the fact that with US entry into the war, the Entente countries enjoyed a sudden, unlimited credit line.
With the US out of the war (very likely, as with France, the main weapon supplier for US forces, out of the picture, and British manpower stretched to the limit, the US should perform virtually all the heavy lifting in terms of manpower, money and supplies), such credit line would be cut as suddenly as it came into being.
That said, while I agree that an armistice does not equal resumption of trade, I see Germany forcing France to concede use of their rail system for transport of goods from Spain as parte of the armistice.
The US is likely going to want to resume International trade ASAP and will not tolerate the British blockading the whole continent (assuming the RN Is capable of doing that) and they will likely present the British with an aut-aut: either you come to the peace table or you finance your war by yourself...and you keep the sealanes over as we are not tolerating the RN blockading the whole world far longer.
That said, if the Germans want to force the British to the peace table, the way to go Is to put the Asienkorps on steroids and roll them back in the middle east

 

[TheReformer]

I am sorry to pester you here, but regarding Gold reserves they are not invested. That is the definition of reserves.

I'm evidently failing to explain this properly.

I am not saying the gold is invested. The problem is that the German Government has essentially starved their market of gold in order to build those reserves.

In essence imagine three pots. A 'domestic market' pot, a 'Treasury' pot and an 'external' pot. The Government had to virtually empty the Treasury pot in order to pay for the war, thus - with their 'external' pot (foreign loans) being empty they have had to remove tonnes of water from the 'domestic market' put to keep the country's finances afloat. With the public having bought billions in treasury bonds with interest, they now owe the domestic market pot back more water - but most of that has already boiled away on the war. This is why Germany then printed loads of paper money, inflating the market. It's akin to adding a whole extra pot (or six extra pots in this case) of water to the Treasury pot to make up for the huge amount of money burned away over the war - because without printing money they couldnt repay the domestic market.

That metaphor probably sounds clearer in my head than it does here, but Im struggling to find a better way to explain it.

Basically long story short: Germany having gold reserves doesn't matter if they have to sell those reserves (and more) to pay back domestic creditors.

If your assertion is that Germany had money to spare in 1918 and that their domestic debt and inflation dont matter - then I'm sorry but you are just simply incorrect.

I also fail to see how France could be in a position to not allow trade flowing through Germany.

France might have sought an armistice, but that does not mean they are unconditionally defeated.

France is in no way compelled to allow for trade through their territory to Germany, that is something that they could never be compelled to demand. Not to mention - even if they did, Britain would just not permit it via the sea blockade.

I sense you have follow on plans where German desperation plays an essential part, but maybe they simply would not be so acute ittl and different plans are needed. Or you need to find the desperation elsewhere

Going into writing this timeline I have not predicated any events, that is entirely counter to my way of writing alternate history. I dont aim for something and write towards it, I start with a PoD and do far too much research to see where it goes.

On that you can ask dozens of people here and they will verify that fact. If you dont like the timeline, dont read it. But I'm not making something implausible for the sake of it, and I'm yet to hear any realistic evidence to back the assertions against my positions.

 

[RanulfC]

Well, with the armistice' the western european coast - France' and Spains atlantic coasts, as well as the mediterranian and the harbours there - are by'n'large open for trade also for german traders. ... aside the mentioned possible 'harvesting' of Ukraine. IOTL the food situation was improving in late summer/autumn 1918 already, though admittingly still far from bright.

Armistice =/= Peace. Just because two sides have stopped fighting, does not mean trade immediately resumes. Further; All of the ports you have mentioned do not directly connect to Germany without going through an allied or formerly allied state, besides the Adriatic ports where the Royal Navy maintains near total naval supremacy.

TheReformer: While agree that just because everyone else has stopped fighting and negotiations are on-going so "trade" as it were can't simply hop back to pre-war levels I do need to point out a salient fact here:

Britain's "blockade" requirements just jumped by an order of magnitude AND the RN, per it's own "rules" on how the blockade was run now is going to be forced into the position of denying trade and relief to it's ex-allies in their own home ports. No matter that getting things running internally on the Continent is likely to take time as of this moment ANY port in Europe or even Asia is now possibly "open" to ship supplies to Germany. To 'enforce' the blockade sufficiently England now has to treat all those "allied and former allies" as hostile powers in support of Germany to be blockaded and denied just as they are.

This is something the RN CAN do but it's the political and other longer-term issue that are really important.

And having Germany being able to 'beat' America (and most specifically Wilson) over the head with it's own 'Free Trade' mantra means the American support is likely to bleed away pretty quickly. (Plugging into rebuilding the inter-European economy is going to be one of the very few ways for American financial institutions to recoup some of their losses)

Germany "might" still fall into chaos before anything can be done to relieve them but the odds are they won't and extending and expanding the blockade as would be required will have serious and long term consequences for British influence and prestige in the post-war years.

Randy

 

[TheReformer]

British liquidity proper was mostly exhausted.

To an extent, yes.

The British was effort was kept afloat by the fact that with US entry into the war, the Entente countries enjoyed a sudden, unlimited credit line.

Yes.

With the US out of the war (very likely, as with France, the main weapon supplier for US forces, out of the picture, and British Manpower stretched to the limit, the US should perform virtually all the heavy weighting in terms of Manpower, Money and supplies) such credit line would be cut as suddenly as it came into being.

That is not how credit works - and I ask why suddenly US credit would vanish post war where A) it did not in OTL, and B) it was given prior to the end of the war.

I see Germany forcing France to concede use of their rail system for transport of goods from Spain.

See my previous post.

The US Is likely going to want to resine trade ASAP

This is a gross overexaggeration of how obsessed the US was with Trade. It was no doubt obsessed with it, but it's hardly that visceral. Not to mention, the US has not yet concluded peace and has political goals associated with the treaty.

 

[TheReformer]

To 'enforce' the blockade sufficiently England now has to treat all those "allied and former allies" as hostile powers in support of Germany to be blockaded and denied just as they are.

This assumes those states would permit trade through their territory. France would not, Greece would, Bulgaria would, Austria would, Italy would not, Russia would not.

There are three routes by sea into those states. Via the North sea (Blockaded from Britain), via the Adriatic (Blockaded by Italy and from Malta) and via the Aegean (Blockaded from Cyprus, Krete [which is held by Venzielist forces] and Egypt.

Not to mention Bulgaria and Austria are themselves starving and thus would not permit external trade. Thus, I disagree.

And having Germany being able to 'beat' America (and most specifically Wilson) over the head with it's own 'Free Trade' mantra means the American support is likely to bleed away pretty quickly.

Wilson is still President and has significant political goals for the peace to justify the conflict, he will not be convinced by people demanding free trade with a state that literally a month prior was a visceral enemy.

 

[GridSquare]

The amount of people who think Germany is in a good position even after this POD, internally and externally, is astounding. Why would France allow their ports to be used like that? They just fought 4 years of brutal total war, they're not going to just bend over and let Germany do what it wants. And how is Germany going to compel France to let them use those ports? They signed an armistice, not a total capitulation. There is still French forces on the field, and try telling the German homefront, which is getting close to the breaking point politically, that it's time to start the war again. I doubt the German army is going to be happy to pick up the rifles and resume getting killed again. And the whole time they're trying to beat up France into letting them use the ports, they'll be starving.

And even then, where's Germany going to get that food? Ukraine never turned into the breadbasket for the war effort both German leaders and people here imagined it would be. The rest of continental Europe doesn't produce enough food, is also starving, or is not about to start opening their larders to German markets. Hell Sweden was neutral, and it was still starving. Portugal wasn't anywhere near the frontlines, and it was still starving.

Who among the world's food exporters is going to want to sell to Germany and defy the British blockade. A blockade that is going to be doubled down on because it's Britain last great trump card and source of leverage over Germany. And since Germany just won, that leverage is all the more valuable.

I'm going to repeat myself again: if you clicked on this tl hoping to see a wholesome big chungus Kaiserreich wank, then please go read something else. Because this tl is not a wank, and will never be a wank no matter how many times all these people with germanboo usernames comment.

 

[halfcoop]

And having Germany being able to 'beat' America (and most specifically Wilson) over the head with it's own 'Free Trade' mantra means the American support is likely to bleed away pretty quickly. (Plugging into rebuilding the inter-European economy is going to be one of the very few ways for American financial institutions to recoup some of their losses)

American ain’t some werid AI that has ‘priority free trade’ set in at all times. It’s trying to negotiate peace, the weaker Germany is while this is happening the greater the US hand is, they want things other then free trade, it was just 1 of 14 other points.

While the us agriculture industry might like the extra business nationally their interest is not to suddenly give their enemy from one month ago total stability but making sure the rest of the Entente is in acceptable condition in the post war situation.

 

[Godwin]

How is Germany "generally" more reprehensible? True the democratic institutions were not as steadfast as they were in the UK, but flawed democracies were the standard in that day and age; where Germany may have a broader franchise, UK may have more parliamentary power. This looks to me more like a tit-for-tat and not something Germany can be condemned for wholesale. Your referral to German genocides in Africa is farcical at best, given what the Brits did in South Africa (not to mention India/the plains Indians/aborigines); both of those atrocities are beyond the pale, but at least the German government went out of its way to punish the main perpetrators of the Herero-genocide.

Let me say clearly, I am by no means a Kaiseraboo (or whatever they're called); personally I prefer pre-imperial German history and the Weimar republic). Still, I have to say, I find these sorts of discussions quite ridiculous when both empires are shady when judged by today's standards and then to claim that one was far more horrible for engaging in similar crimes is petty imho.

It's not simply a tit for tat arrangement, as German franchise is incredibly misleading due in large part to the 3 class voting system. It is more inherently flawed than Britain's property requirements for voting.

Ultimately both are flawed and brutal colonial regimes. I don't dispute that. However the influence of German Militarism over the government combined with those brutal crackdowns in my view creates a *generally* more reprehensible empire, and I find it distasteful to support the Germans over the British ittl because "the Germans got their comeuppance iotl".

 

[RanulfC]

This assumes those states would permit trade through their territory. France would not, Greece would, Bulgaria would, Austria would, Italy would not, Russia would not.

France would not suddenly surrender and leave Britain to fight on "alone" either Britain, if it's still serious can not afford to take that chance especially when France is making a separate peace in which Germany has a LOT of incentive to offer for just such a concession. Italy is exactly the same situation. Russia on the other hand has already AGREED to send supplies to Germany so any point of access the RN could be used would be. (Specifically BECAUSE there is very little the RN or Britain CAN do to stop or impede this process)

There are three routes by sea into those states. Via the North sea (Blockaded from Britain), via the Adriatic (Blockaded by Italy and from Malta) and via the Aegean (Blockaded from Cyprus, Krete [which is held by Venzielist forces] and Egypt.

Italy will be seeking a peace and the reasons and situation would incline the British to assume it will be one favorable to Germany if not Austria. Italy is NOT in a strong position and is already racked by internal strife. So those ports have to be treated as possible points of entry despite the current circumstances. (Krete specifically might need to be 'reinforced' by British troops)

Not to mention Bulgaria and Austria are themselves starving and thus would not permit external trade. Thus, I disagree.

Any 'trade' that passes through them can be skimmed for their own use and frankly Germany isn't in such dire straights as it can't afford to appear magnanimous to its allies

I know you disagree but this is all from the British perspective and they HAVE TO assume the worst possible case and act on it but at the same time the government has to take into account the post-war political landscape and it is not looking good at this point they can continue to effectively blockade Germany without also significantly effecting those same allies and ex-allies and that will weigh heavily on the political decision making.

Wilson is still President and has significant political goals for the peace to justify the conflict, he will not be convinced by people demanding free trade with a state that literally a month prior was a visceral enemy.

Wilson IS still President and being Wilson he has agenda's all his own but he also has to deal with political liability and pressures from home. He entered a war he promised to keep America out of and them promptly lost it. What support there was for standing up to that 'visceral enemy' is going to drain away fast and his insistence on pushing his "peace agenda" is going to lose support rapidly. The burgeoning industrial "war boom" just went bust and it will be blamed on him no matter the reality. America is not a laughing stock but it's damn close because as far as Europe is concerned the American's didn't do anything significant. Worse for Wilson the Germans are using his rhetoric against him and the rest of Europe is going to get even more tired of his "14 points" much faster and much deeper than they did OTL.

He's got a national economic situation coming up and large amounts of foreign loans and credit that now have almost zero chance of being made good and the only way that can be offset is to open up Europe for American goods as soon as possible before they are sealed off by Germany. The only way he 'justifies' the conflict is America gets something out of it and keeping in mind this IS Wilson that means HE specifically has to get something out of it and that means his peace agenda which now require Germany sign on more than anyone else. He will listen to their demands, a lot.
Again this IS Wilson and in his world view France has betrayed him, England is in his way and Germany is waving a olive branch and supporting "his" ideas so the choice is rather easy to make.

I personally would not put it past him to have US warships start escorting 'aid' convoys to help "Europe" recover from "wars devastation" and and while that might not include sailing directly into German ports, I would not put it past him since he can easily regain a lot of German-American sympathy by the gesture.

Randy

 

[Disraeli2004]

I feel the need to intervene here: by 1918 British liquidity proper was mostly exhausted.
The British war effort was kept afloat by the fact that with US entry into the war, the Entente countries enjoyed a sudden, unlimited credit line.
With the US out of the war (very likely, as with France, the main weapon supplier for US forces, out of the picture, and British manpower stretched to the limit, the US should perform virtually all the heavy lifting in terms of manpower, money and supplies), such credit line would be cut as suddenly as it came into being.
That said, while I agree that an armistice does not equal resumption of trade, I see Germany forcing France to concede use of their rail system for transport of goods from Spain as parte of the armistice.
The US is likely going to want to resume International trade ASAP and will not tolerate the British blockading the whole continent (assuming the RN Is capable of doing that) and they will likely present the British with an aut-aut: either you come to the peace table or you finance your war by yourself...and you keep the sealanes over as we are not tolerating the RN blockading the whole world far longer.
That said, if the Germans want to force the British to the peace table, the way to go Is to put the Asienkorps on steroids and roll them back in the middle east

Well, dear @TheReformer , I think I have to render your last update not as your best so far regarding probability and anchoring in real time events.

Regarding your choice of german naval 'last ditch actionism' there has already been said enough about its improbability.
Maybe one more/last thing I would like to add :

Even with the reshaping of the Marineleitung with Scheer the german naval command structures were such that no political leadership there might have been (and esp. no army dominated) would have been able to order the HSF to do something they - the marineleitung - and esp. the Kaiser (certainly as far from sacrificing 'his pet' for at best minor gains as he had been all over the war) would not want.​

But there's something else I render debatable and perhaps worth some reconsidering



Well, with the armistice' the western european coast - France' and Spains atlantic coasts, as well as the mediterranian and the harbours there - are by'n'large open for trade also for german traders. ... aside the mentioned possible 'harvesting' of Ukraine. IOTL the food situation was improving in late summer/autumn 1918 already, though admittingly still far from bright.



Well, much of this is interpreting Germanys postwar situation with todays understanding of financial affairs not at least - or even esp. regarding international trade. The inflation of about 600 % or the national debt of short of 94 % of GDP wer INTERNAL debts. ... and given the "winners" position of the goverment ITTL well open to whatever cheating (renaming, reframing, legal regulating debts i.e. postponing payments, elongating repayment schemes, exchange into shuffling them into other financial products, legal regulations regarding their exchange into other financial 'products', etc.) clever financial politician (in that respect it might be interesting to remember that Karl Helfferich, Secretary of State of the Treasury Jan.1915 to May 1916 and afterwards Secretrary of State of the Interior also developed a 'new currency plan during the hyperinflation OTL based on rye ...) might come up with.
Regarding foreign trade - at the time of interest here - was the 'field' of gold and species.
And reagrding this in September 1914 the Reichbank reported 1.787 billion Goldmarks, in september 1918 it reported 2.563 billion Goldmarks. This seems to me as a rather ... comfortable cushion for international trade in the circumstances of the time.
IOTL these assets were almost immediatly seized by the entente powers. ... but not ITTL.
Not to forget that the German Realm did NOT have foreign debts even slightly near of what stood in british, french or the account books of every other member of the Entente (aside the 'only' co-belliregent and MAAYOR creditor of all of them).

Therefore the economical situation esp. regarding imports would be IMHO not nearly as bleak as it seems to be painted here.

There are serious issues with both of these criticisms. Both of them boil down to the terrible state that the German Empire would be in or overestimating the degree to which they could rapidly recover from this, even under this TL. The November Revolution wasn't some spontaneous outburst in response to impending defeat, they were broadly a culmination of forces that had been bubbling up as left wing opposition and right wing radicalism in response increasingly undermined the foundations of the German state. The social implications of reviving the war to try and push the gains further in this worsening backdrop would have risked the eruption of this revolution. GDP had sunk 27%, inflation was running out of control and famine was rapidly approaching on the horizon. TheReformer is absolutely right not to handwave these deep issues away, or to assume an exhausted Germany army would be up for renewing the conquest for these vaguely defined aims. Even with a narrow victory, Germany had practically bankrupted itself in trying to continue the war and prop up her allies. If the German army had scraped a victory in France in the Spring, grain extraction would be an arduous process resisted fiercely by the French, and the prospect of renewing the war to try and extract this would risk sending an unstable Germany to revolution. Brest-Litovsk wasn't a sliver bullet for these problems OTL and wouldn't be an this timeline either. Wild schemes of vast grain transfers from Ukraine were outweighed in significance by the vast cost of stationing garrisons and facing down resistance in the vast swathe of conquered territory.

Regarding international trade, I find it highly unlikely that Britain or America would foresake the blockade until the formal conclusion of a peace settlement. Britain had not been defeated at sea and nor was she likely to be, and during an armistice, Britain and America would need every scrap of leverage they could get to save face and construct a peace settlement more favourable to their interests. The blockade would thus not be lifted voluntarily and it would continue to wreck damage on the German economy. I really doubt that Wilson, who had just taken a substantial political gamble in embroiling America in the war, would be content to walk about completely humilliated and resume free-trade with Germany without problems. Armistice is not a formal peace, and thus, as in our timeline, that blockade is highly likely to keep going during the negotiations. Disruption of trade would certainly be a feature of that winter but likely continue for some time.

 

[1962strat]

As for France (and Italy for that matter) allowing Germany to use their ports for imports, I agree that they wouldn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts. However, it could easily be something thrown around in the negotiations to get a more lenient treaty.