"Best Case" German WWI victory?

[Falecius]

More of a high maintenance second-rate power IMO.

A CP Italy might have been the difference in the ultimate outcome of the war, but can't see where the CP powers get the additional fuel and food to prop up the Italian war effort. Italy was in no shape to enter the war in 1915 and in 1914 things were far worse.

Quite to the point. Italy had a basic problem: it was an industrial nation (to a point) without any significant internal source of coal (or any other fossil fuel for that matter). It was also extremely vulnerable from the sea. Jumping on the CP bandwagon would have meant losing its major suppliers of fuel and coal, and having to fight two of the largest navies in the world combined. Even if the RN could not give her full attention to Italy, the French Navy was more or less in the position to do exactly that (with the help of the British Med squadron).
Rome would risk that only if they can be sure that the Germans and Austrians win the war for them real quick.
Others said (correctly I believe) that Britain cannot be forced to give anything in most scenarios, clearly not in a quick CP victory one. So, the things Italy might have wanted from Britain (Malta, Somaliland, Kassala, Jubaland, Sollum Bay, maaaybe Aden; all small fry in the end, except the strategic value of Malta and Aden... but Aden is far-fetched even as demand) are not quite on the table.
So Italy gets to gain stuff from France, namely: Nice, Corsica, Tunisia, Djibouti, Tibesti-Bourkou, a stretch of desert in Western Libya between Ghadames and Ghat, and possibly Savoy. Marginally juicier, but mostly colonial stuff, and much of it burning desert. The things in Europe amount to an underdeveloped and underpopulated island and a relatively small border area that is not even actually much Italian-speaking, though historically tied to Italy and quite productive. Tempting, yes. Overall the value of these gains is comparable to what Italy got IOTL (which is pretty little to justify the immense loss of life and treasure Italy put in WWI, really), and may compare favorably at least in strategic terms... but, the risk is considerably larger. The French and the British could cripple the Italian ability to sustain a modern war in a way Austria and Germany could not.
Of course, there were also ideological reasons why ultimately Italy chose to declare war to Austria; nationalism obsessed on Austrian-held land with Italian populations while French-held areas equally inhabited by "ethnic Italians" (Corsica) were regarded as a lower priority, partly because of the interethnic internal dynamic of a multinational empire like Austria where the "Italianness" of places like Trieste was "open to challenge" so to speak, a thus politically "hot" within Austria itself, while as far as France was concerned, Corsicans were French citizens, period. And Austria was the old enemy and the National Oppressor(tm).

My point is that there were very concrete and sound strategic reasons why Italy did not join the CP (and quickly gave up even considering it). Too little gain (tangible and intangible) and too great a risk; even if the Italian leadership of the time was mediocre, as shown by the extremely ill-advised subsequent choice to join the war with the other side while already knowing by witness the butchery it entailed, they could grasp this basic risk-benefit-balance and acted accordingly.
Would an Italian gamble on the CP side in 1914 shifted the balance enough to deliver a quick CP victory? If so, clearly for Italy such course would have been preferable to the OTL alternative. But the relevant decision-makers did not regard the potential rewards as worthy the (indeed major) risks.

 

[Athelstane]

More of a high maintenance second-rate power IMO.

Yes, "third rate" seems exaggeration for effect. But it more properly applies to (say) Sweden or Portugal of that era. Italy was a bit more than that.

A CP Italy might have been the difference in the ultimate outcome of the war, but can't see where the CP powers get the additional fuel and food to prop up the Italian war effort. Italy was in no shape to enter the war in 1915 and in 1914 things were far worse.

The best outcome for the Central Powers, honestly, is a benevolently neutral Italy through which they can import critical materials from overseas.

 

[BooNZ]

This starts taking us down the rabbit hole of very marginal and essentially contested concepts such as a bit more land a few months earlier knocking Russia out and Belgium being the only cassus belli for Britain. I've done a lot of reading and argued these ad nauseum and believe that Germany was correct to attempt to defeat the French first as they were the most vulnerable to the fast mobilising German Army, Britain was likely to be a belligerent as her OTL actions in the years and days leading up to her DoW show and that taking huge amounts of Russian territory didn't lead to defeat in a single campaigning season.

The bit more land included vast quantities of war supplies and munitions, along with ten Russian armies which thought they had a shot at defeating German forces - i.e. were unlikely to abandon territory to save themselves when victory remained a 'reasonable' Russian expectation. With the benefit of hindsight, we know the Russian war effort was most vulnerable to decisive military action early in the war.

The German excursion through Belgium managed to save the best of the French forces from continuing to break themselves on entrenched German defences in 1914. The German excursion through Belgium also gave Britain the perfect casus belli and venue to build a million man continental army to fight Germany - prior to the Germans appearing in Belgium, Churchill had attempted to sell the war to Gladstone on the basis British involvement would be limited to naval matters.

As far as Britain's actions leading to war, you are perhaps conflating 'Britain' with the individual works of Grey and Churchill (substantially in the shadows). In July 1914, of the entire British Liberal Cabinet, only Churchill was enthusiastic about war in all circumstance and only Grey and Churchill were determined that Britain would fight Germany in the event of war. In July 1914 the vast majoirty of the British decision makers had no interest in a war or fighting Germany. It requires rather vigourous handwaving to get Britain into the war without Germans being in Belgium and even if you do, it becomes even more difficult to find somewhere for Britain to build and use a continental army against Germany.

 

[Riain]

@Derek Jackson below is the the alternate viewpoint that I mentioned the other day, feel free to dive down the rabbit hole.

The bit more land included vast quantities of war supplies and munitions, along with ten Russian armies which thought they had a shot at defeating German forces - i.e. were unlikely to abandon territory to save themselves when victory remained a 'reasonable' Russian expectation. With the benefit of hindsight, we know the Russian war effort was most vulnerable to decisive military action early in the war.

The German excursion through Belgium managed to save the best of the French forces from continuing to break themselves on entrenched German defences in 1914. The German excursion through Belgium also gave Britain the perfect casus belli and venue to build a million man continental army to fight Germany - prior to the Germans appearing in Belgium, Churchill had attempted to sell the war to Gladstone on the basis British involvement would be limited to naval matters.

As far as Britain's actions leading to war, you are perhaps conflating 'Britain' with the individual works of Grey and Churchill (substantially in the shadows). In July 1914, of the entire British Liberal Cabinet, only Churchill was enthusiastic about war in all circumstance and only Grey and Churchill were determined that Britain would fight Germany in the event of war. In July 1914 the vast majoirty of the British decision makers had no interest in a war or fighting Germany. It requires rather vigourous handwaving to get Britain into the war without Germans being in Belgium and even if you do, it becomes even more difficult to find somewhere for Britain to build and use a continental army against Germany.

 

[Athelstane]

It requires rather vigourous handwaving to get Britain into the war without Germans being in Belgium

Yup.

 

[BooNZ]

Best chance would be to stand defensinve in the West take a chunk of Russia and then offer reasonable terms

Great idea!

Without the German invasion of Belgium, it is reasonable to assume both Belgium and Britain would remain neutral, or at worst, Britain might provide naval support to France's war effort. At a minimum, that is four less armies that Germany needs to deal with.

Without the German invasion of Belgium, it is reasonable to assume Joffre would have proceeded in accordance with his offensive doctrines and break the best of the French forces against entrenched German defences, before the French had secured sufficient equipment or developed appropriate doctrines to mount effective offensives.

Without the majority of German forces being mired in the west, it is reasonable to assume 3-4 German Armies would make short work of the Russian Northern command and swiftly threaten the rear of those Russian forces facing A-H. It is reasonable to assume this would trigger an early Russian 'great retreat' resulting in the loss of the majority of Russian heavy equipment and military supplies/munitions, while preserving the majority of the A-H prewar armies (and manpower).

Without the early Russian victories over A-H and the Russians firmly on the defensive, it is reasonable to assume Italy would decide not to join the Entente. It is even possible that Romania and Bulgaria join the war earlier on the CP side, but that is starting to look like a bit of a wank.

Without the German Belgium atrocities and with a neutral Belgium and Italy, the diplomatic and logistical efforts of Britain to implement a blockade would be more challenging, if Britain eventually joins the war.

Without the appropriate equipment (heavy artillery) or appropriate doctrines, it is reasonable to assume the French will make very little progress against a much shortened German front and defenses through 1914/1915. It is reasonable to assume the Russians would be far from impressed with the efforts of its western ally.

Without a belligerent Italy and the majority of its pre-war armies intact, A-H would be in a far superior in 1915 compared to OTL. Similarly the Germans would be in a position to commit at least 4-5 Armies to the eastern front on an ongoing basis. It would be reasonable for Russia and its western allies to question the survival prospects of the Russians in those circumstances.

The question is whether Russia facing certain defeat throws in the towel and seeks a separate peace with Germany, or Russia's western allies, contemplating a certain Russian defeat, throws Russia under the bus and seeks an early separate peace to maintain the status quo in the west.

 

[Alternator]

Guys, IMO, all this talk of Italy is the same mistake they made in the mid-1930's - the overestimation of a third-rate power.

Italy is a second-rate power, but they're not just joining the war - they're swapping sides.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire just lost a front, and moreso, they immediately know they don't need to hold forces back to defend against the Italians; this means they can go full-bore against the Russians and Serbians, and the Italians are assuredly going to assist at least against Serbia. If Russia rolls over the Austro-Hungarian forces anyway, then the Italians can replace (some of) the Germans in halting that advance.

Likewise, this creates a second front for France, pulling manpower away from the battles with Germany - it doesn't really matter how well the Italians do, just diverting forces is enough. ITTL, on the French-German border, the Germans are stronger than OTL (due to fewer/any sent to halt the Russians) and the French are weaker; that means that more of France is going to end up under German occupation. It might even be enough to cost Paris, and that loss of industry would be crippling.

The Regia Marina also complicates things for the Allied Powers, since they can easily unite with Austria-Hungary's small fleet and force the French and British to keep more ships in the Mediterranean. There's no need to sail out and fight, even, just act as a fleet in being and tie up forces. That means lessened protection of the shipping lanes against u-boats, further hurting the Allied war effort.

If the war continues on past 1916, you'll see further effects since Romania is unlikely to join in, and Bulgaria might be amenable to joining in earlier, especially if it looks like easy spoils from Russia.

None of this requires the Italians to be particularly effective - they were unprepared and short on fuel, for starters - it just requires them to exist.

 

[Falecius]

Italy is a second-rate power, but they're not just joining the war - they're swapping sides.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire just lost a front, and moreso, they immediately know they don't need to hold forces back to defend against the Italians; this means they can go full-bore against the Russians and Serbians, and the Italians are assuredly going to assist at least against Serbia. If Russia rolls over the Austro-Hungarian forces anyway, then the Italians can replace the Germans (or at least, lessen the number of Germans needed) in halting that advance.

Likewise, this creates a second front for France, pulling manpower away from the battles with Germany - it doesn't really matter how well the Italians do, just diverting forces is enough. ITTL, on the French-German border, the Germans are stronger than OTL (due to fewer/any troops sent to halt the Russians) and the French are weaker; that means that more of France is going to end up under German occupation. It might even be enough to cost Paris, and that loss of industry would be crippling.

The Regia Marina also complicates things for the Allied Powers, since they can easily unite with Austria-Hungary's small fleet and threaten to dominate the Mediterranean, stretching out the Royal Navy further. That means lessened protection of the shipping lanes against u-boats, further hurting the Allied war effort.

If the war continues on past 1916, you'll see further effects since Romania is unlikely to join in, and Bulgaria might be amenable to joining in earlier, especially if it looks like easy spoils from Russia.

None of this requires the Italians to be particularly effective - they were unprepared and short on fuel, among other essentials - it just requires them to exist.

War lasting into 1916... very bad for Italy.
Colonies are gone, of course. Somalia was barely garrisoned at all and its lifetime as an Italian colony post DOW depends only on the logistics the British need to organise for a takeover.
In Libya, the Italians had serious trouble holding their own agains a native insurgency in 1914-15; they are not standing a chance while fighting France and Britain. Eritrea at least has troops - some effective resistance can be done for a while (months) but the place is going to be isolated and there's no strategic depth whatsoever, Italy is unlikely to pull a von Lettow there. Dodecanese is a question of whether the Entente bothers.
Come late summer 1915, Italy has lost everything overseas, is horribly low on anything burnable to sustains her industry army and navy, and is taking losses for no immediate visible gain. The Regia Marina would make life more difficult for Entente, true, but in the medium term is no match for the British and the French combined, not even with the Austrians and the Ottomans added (and coordination among these three is going to be problematic; the Austrians and the Italians will still not trust each other and have competing priorities and objectives, and the same probably holds for the Ottomans). Best case, they take Malta (not sure how plausible it is) which yes, would be trouble for the British, and at least a bargaining chip, but perhaps not tenable. Chances are, the Italian navy is either sunk, hiding in port fearing superior enemy navies, or hiding in port to save precious fuel.

I anticipate bloody stalemate on the Western Alps; yes, these frees a fuckton of Austrian troops for the Balkans and the East (in the Balkans the Italians are also likely to see action, though again, cooperation with Austria would be politically difficult) and worries the French so that the Germans are in a better position on the Western front; but Italy is still taking losses in a horrifically bad terrain, which, combined with naval and colonial defeats and a very unpopular war with a very unpopolar ally (Austria) to begin with, would make for a very restive homefront.
Italian troops may possibly be also garrisoning Alsace-Lorraine to help the Germans to spare forces for the farther North; there was a paln to that effect IOTL, and would be viable considering how many men Italy fielded IOTL and the requirements of the Alpine front ITTL, especially since Austria is happier not to see much many Italians helping against Serbia. If this helps the Germans in the 1914 offensives considerably, it's a huge boon for the CP indeed; a successful Race to Sea is in the cards.
In sum, Italy is more or less losing her war in order to make easier for the Germans and the Austrians to win their own; not a pleasant strategic calculus, especially considering what is to be gained or regained at the peace table (colonies gone, remember, meaning the Entente has most bargaining power).
In Britain, there's a certain politician who already obsesses over soft underbellies, and this time he has a point. Maybe TTL's Gallipoli is Anzio (perhaps combined with a major French offensive in the Alps?). It may that by 1916 Italy is just another front the Germans need to prop up, economically for sure, maybe even sending troops.
If this war cannot be won quickly (which Italy might help doing) from the Italian POV it's a looming disaster.

 

[Alternator]

I'm not disputing that Italy immediately joining the Central Powers goes poorly for Italy, but this is a discussion about a best case German victory, and CP Italy is hugely helpful to the German war effort.

 

[Falecius]

Actually, a fun short scenario on this basis:
1918: Peace of exhaustion


After four years of grueling conflict, all combatants of the Great War are just seeking a way out of the seemingly endless butchery. Italy and Russia, beaten repeatedly by the Franco-British and the Austro-Germans respectively, have thrown the towel to face internal revolution; France, Germany and Austria-Hungary are hardly in much better shape, and the Ottoman front is near to collapse in the Middle East despite an overall relatively good showing.
The battered belligerents have watched in horror the rise of the Italian Workers Union, a Syndacalist-led far left Socialist state over the ashes of the discredited Savoyard monarchy (which continues its esistence on life-support as a French protectorate in Sardinia) and have been only slightly less horrified as a coalition of Communists and Social Revolutionaries have declared Russia a Republic.
After a last failed attempt by the Germans to take Paris in late Spring, stopped cold by a hastily reinforced BEF, German, French and British representatives meet discreetly at the Hague; armistice is declared and the Netherlands agree to host a bitter peace conference which convenes in September.
The bloody year 1918 ends with a compromise peace that satifies no one.
Britain and France divide among themselves the Italian and German colonies and most Arab-speaking parts of the Ottoman Empire; France also formalizes her protectorate over the humiliated Kingdom of Sardinia, as an unsatisfactory consolation for the inability to retake Alsace-Lorraine (together with Aosta and the Roja Valley in the Western Alps).
Near-bankrupt and low on manpower, the Western power have to resign to German and Austrian dominance over most of Central Europe, from Luxembourg to Riga and Instabul and beyond. Serbia, the country for which the entire massacre had started, no longer exists, partioned between Austria and Bulgaria. Likewise, Montenegro is fully under Austrian control, which also extends to most of Albania after the Italian retreat from the theater (the Bulgarians get Korçe). The Entente only manage to save one of their little Balkan allies, the Kingdom of Greece, enlarged with Northern Epirus and Dodecanese, but only kept going by a large French expeditionary corps. Romania got Bessarabia to Dniestr out of the Russian front collapse. If the new Balkans are Austria's playground, with the support of a larger Bulgaria, Germany gets new satellites in Poland and the Baltics (Finland, while friendly, takes a more independent course) whose independence is only a fiction given the massive German military presence to which these new countries in former Russian Western periphery owe their own existence; the newly crowned Grand-Duke of Lithuania and Duke of Courland can choose the colour of their handkerchiefs without asking permission to Berlin, but that's about it. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire is able to establish a semblance of control over Transcaucasia, to the terror of surviving Armenians.
Three major power blocks divide the devastated continent. A Franco-British remaining Entente, bitter but not really defeated, still looks with anxiety at the Mitteleuropean behemoth of the Vienna-Berlin axis, hoping to exploit future fissures with its still semi-independent minor allies, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. Both, however, develop a tentative accord, to which Japan also participates, in order to contain the rising Socialist-Syndancalist International that Russia and Italy are trying to form, (with Mongolia and Tuva soon to join as very junior partners) despite deep ideological rifts between the Russian fractious collective leadership (under general SR umbrella) and the emerging leading Italian Syndacalist Union faction under the charismatic guide of Filippo Corridoni. Both countries are, for now, willing to take an isolationist course in order to strengthen their own revolutions internally (a low-level civil war is starting in parts of Russia) and to deliver their exhausted peoples the promises of peace, work, bread and land. But Corridoni and his circle in Rome, as well as Kamenev, Chernov and Kollontaj in Petrograd, know that a final showdown against reactionary and capitalist global forces will come...

 

[werewolf]

Dont want to ring my own bell but in my pre ww1 german tl

I plan to ally with italy and use african colonies and cash to apease the italian austrian conflict

In adition If you build a trans alpine railroad you can trade italian food for german coal

And make the cp more economicly sustinble

Getting rid of the turkish aliance is also net gain for germany

 

[Glenn239]

Great idea!

Without the German invasion of Belgium, it is reasonable to assume both Belgium and Britain would remain neutral, or at worst, Britain might provide naval support to France's war effort. At a minimum, that is four less armies that Germany needs to deal with.

.

Hitler tried that in '39 with Poland This was exactly the idea, that staying on the defensive in the west and having limited aims in the east would keep the British neutral...did it?

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Without the early Russian victories over A-H and the Russians firmly on the defensive, it is reasonable to assume Italy would decide not to join the Entente. It is even possible that Romania and Bulgaria join the war earlier on the CP side, but that is starting to look like a bit of a wank.

No, Romania and Bulgaria both had potential gains (Bessarabia or Transylvania, Macedonia or Turkish Thrace) from joining either side. They are likely to hitch their bandwagon to any likely winner.

 

[Glenn239]

Yes, "third rate" seems exaggeration for effect. But it more properly applies to (say) Sweden or Portugal of that era. Italy was a bit more than that.

No, the term "third rate" was chosen as the best description of what Italy actually was. Broadly speaking -

1st tier - Britain, Germany
2nd tier - France, Russia
3rd tier - Austria, Italy

 

[Svyatoy Medved]

Hitler tried that in '39 with Poland This was exactly the idea, that staying on the defensive in the west and having limited aims in the east would keep the British neutral...did it?

That was not his aim, and the scenario was completely different twenty years on. Britain had not specifically guaranteed the independence of Russia, as they had Poland. And Britain and France were explicitly allied in the second war, not merely good friends as in the first. Additionally, Nazi Germany had no intent of leaving France out of the picture, and had no doubt that attacking France would provoke the British. So, while the invasion of Poland was not intended to start the war, neither was it intended to preserve an indefinite peace between Germany and the western powers, as an invasion of Russia in 1914 would be.

 

[BooNZ]

Italy is a second-rate power, but they're not just joining the war - they're swapping sides.

Yes, and that is the problem. The sweet spot for the CP war effort would be for Italy to remain neutral.

For a CP Italy to make a decisive contribution, it would need to be earlier in the war (i.e. 1914) before the collapse of its domestic economy. The quality of French forces and border fortifications exceeded those of A-H and the Italian military effort would have been even weaker in 1914 compared to OTL 1915. So, any value to the CP war effort of an early Italian entrance would be limited to diversion of modest French forces to defend its Italian border and potential Italian naval actions in the Med.

In my opinion the diversion of French forces to the French/Italian Alps would not be decisive to the German 1914 western offensive, since the key barrier to German success in the west in 1914 was logistics, not necessarily the French military performance. Further, an Italian front might even force Joffre to abandon his offensive plans entirely and remain on the defensive, which obviously does not help the CP cause at all.

If the war continues on past 1916, you'll see further effects since Romania is unlikely to join in, and Bulgaria might be amenable to joining in earlier, especially if it looks like easy spoils from Russia.

I seriously doubt if a CP Italian war effort would last until 1916, assuming it started in 1914. Italy imported about 30% of its wheat/grain and the majority of its fuel/coal, which the Entente can easily cut off and the CP powers cannot easily replace. It is difficult to imagine the Italian population being content with being cold and hungry, fighting an unpopular war and incuring hundreds of thousands of casualties substantially on their own territory.

Perhaps Italy might even be tempted to change sides...

No, Romania and Bulgaria both had potential gains (Bessarabia or Transylvania, Macedonia or Turkish Thrace) from joining either side. They are likely to hitch their bandwagon to any likely winner.

Sorry, could you clarify what you were disagreeing with?

 

[SpicyJuan]

A better commanded initial offensive through Belgium and into France results in the envelopment, destruction and surrender of the 5th French Army by August 25th, the German armies reach their culmination point at the fortified zone around Paris and withdraws to the Marne. The Germans win the Race to the Sea with the line reaching the English Channel at La Treport.

The change of balance over OTL sees Germany win in 1917 in the East and early 1918 in the west, regaining all of her colonies taken by Britain and picking up a number of British and French colonies as reparations.

I doubt that a German victory in 1918 is the best Germany can realistically hope for. WI in addition to the 5th army being destroyed, Verdun is abandoned as Joffre ordered, and Joffre is sacked and replaced by a panicking general and we see the entire Western Front collapse in 1914?

 

[Svyatoy Medved]

This isn't a question of the best war, but the best victory. A quick victory in 1914 will lead to some minor border adjustments here and there, mostly in colonies, and maybe some economic concessions. Perhaps Belgium will become a German satellite. In five years, it will be back how it was with Germany and the Triple Alliance the weaker of the two European alliances, and Russia growing in strength. Only this time the British might be formally included.

A late victory will leave Germany with total dominance of the continent and all of its competitors shattered. They simply can't get major concessions if the war is over in half a year.

 

[ShortsBelfast]

Sorry, could you clarify what you were disagreeing with?

Simply your comment that either/or Bulgaria and Romania joining a victorious CP might be too much of a wank. It wouldn't - it would be characteristic behaviour.

 

[BooNZ]

Simply your comment that either/or Bulgaria and Romania joining a victorious CP might be too much of a wank. It wouldn't - it would be characteristic behaviour.

OK, I don't really disagree, but I was referring more to the outcome than the possibilty of those PODs, although I suspect Romania has only a small window to join the CP team due to domestic politics.

I doubt that a German victory in 1918 is the best Germany can realistically hope for. WI in addition to the 5th army being destroyed, Verdun is abandoned as Joffre ordered, and Joffre is sacked and replaced by a panicking general and we see the entire Western Front collapse in 1914?

The best possible victory for Germany would be for Joffre to retain power long enough for his mindless offensives against entrenched German positions to bleed the best of available French formations white until they totally lose cohesion - most likely mid-late 1915. This would obviously require the Germans not disturb Joffrie's mindless plans with thier own ill conceived lurch through Belgium.

This isn't a question of the best war, but the best victory. A quick victory in 1914 will lead to some minor border adjustments here and there, mostly in colonies, and maybe some economic concessions. Perhaps Belgium will become a German satellite. In five years, it will be back how it was with Germany and the Triple Alliance the weaker of the two European alliances, and Russia growing in strength. Only this time the British might be formally included.

I do not believe a Paradox style big grey blob is the best victory scenario for Germany or its future trading partners (i.e. european states).

In the decades leading into 1914 German and western europe had enjoyed decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity. German science, economy and industry had risen from nowhere to be among the world leaders. I don't see any reason for Germany to resort to total carnage to continue its relentless progression. By 1914 Anglo-German relations had started to thaw, in the French General Elections in early 1914 French socialist leaning parties had gained an overall majority substantially on the platform of reconciliation with Germany. It is reasonable to assume Russian adventurism would not be supported by either France or Britain from 1915 onward. ​

A late victory will leave Germany with total dominance of the continent and all of its competitors shattered. They simply can't get major concessions if the war is over in half a year.

I do not believe a Paradox style big grey blob is the best victory scenario for Germany or any other european neighbour/ trading partners. In your utopia the Germans can command a broken continent, but have the emnity of an Anglo-American alliance and be frozen out of trade with more-or-less the rest of the planet (US Empire, British Empire, French Empire and Imperial Russia). It was a fear raised by German thinkers during the war that even if Germany won the war, it could still lose the peace in terms of trade.

What is the best case Realistic German WWI victory without entering ASB or wank.
Include Colonial wins, land wins, and the post war success that might occur.

1914 - German defensive in the west and crushes Russian forces, liberates Poland and saves A-H dignity
1914 - Britain remains neutral France proceeds to bleed itself white against a narrow and entrenched German defenses.
1915 - Italy remains neutral and Joffre is not [yet] relieved of command and France continues to bleed against entrenched German defenses.
1915 - Together Germany and A-H continue to grind eastward, giving no respite or opportunity for Imperial Russian forces or industry to recover.

Armistice on 11 November 1915
- Germany european territorial gains are minimal, but secures economic control of French ore reserves in border regions
- Germany imposes Treaty of Versailles style reparations in reverse on France
- Russia commits to disinterest in the Balkans/A-H/Ottomans and Bulgaria tears chunks from Serbia
- Anglo-German reapproachment and trade accords
- In return for Germany substantially maintaining the status quo in the west, Britain signs off on this Mitteleuropa concept