AHC: A realistic CP victory scenario:

[Snake Featherston]

By realistic I mean that handwavium of the Wilson Administration as part of the Allied coalition is not part of the overall potential PODs. Germany has all its naval weaknesses of OTL, the Allies have Russia the ticking Time Bomb just as per OTL. The alliance systems are the same as OTL, the war starts at the same date for the same reasons as OTL. The challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to find a plausible means for the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire to defeat the Allies, with defeat meaning anything from the rather extremely implausible (but theoretically possible, at least), 1914 victory to the late-stage victory in 1917-8. What kind of military-strategic changes are necessary to alter the CP War Machine such that it can at the very least win a victory akin to 1918 over the Allies? Can Germany in fact defeat the UK even if it defeats the others or would the two wind up negotiating a white peace and a genteel armistice due to mutual inability to strike each other?

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Germany can't beat Britain on the sea, thus it can never be a threat to the British isles nor the British colonies. In other words Germany can't beat Britain.

 

[Clandango]

Get the Irish revolution to start earlier. I can't imagine why they waited until the end of the war, besides the possibilities of martial law no longer being around. Trying to incite civil war between the Irish, English, German, Nativists, Italian, Jews, and Blacks in the United States might by them some time. Though simply having more submarines around would do wonders, as they couldn't use the stragety of starving Britain to it's full potential, with a third of their U-Boats being in the drydocks at a time. I doubt that the Germans would get anything back colony wise, though they might manage somewhat if they had their army of Africans marching from German East Africa and liberating the Rhodesians and Mozambiquers.

 

[BlondieBC]

You seem to be saying you want no naval POD's? There are lots of ways to improve the German Naval performance with minor changes to decisions but with basically the same ships and same leaders. For Example,

1) Send out newer U-boats at start of war, not older U-boats. Probably 1-3 UK dreads lost (HMS Monarch Group).

2) Send out sortie on different day, and they likely find main fleet, and we get a decisive early surface battle that just might go Germans way.

3) Jutland a few days earlier or later, better weather, Zeppelin see Grand Fleet, battle ends after UK loses the battlecruisers.

4) Code books is not lost to Russians early in the war in the Baltic.

You then seem to want no diplomatic changes, which is handwavium on your part. For someone that screams so much for things to go to ASB, it is interesting that you do the same thing on your threads. If early battles go differently, you just can't assume the same allies show up. Wiking has two broad TL with the central powers armies doing better. Either Russia losing an Army to A-H or Germany doing a lot better in the race to the sea could butterfly away Italy. Quite frankly, changing major battles, and then saying they have no butterflies is classic ASB. It is like saying France holds in 1940, but FDR makes all the same decision on exactly the same date and Hitler still invades the Soviet Union in 1941.

But Ok, no diplomatic, no naval changes. Wiking Conrad goes east combine with better deployment on the Western Front means a CP win. Russia will lose two full armies, and have a third mauled. A-H keeps at least the equivalent of an extra army. You can write the TL a couple of ways from their depending on if you think Falkenhayn still goes east or stays on the Western first plan, but by late 1915 either Russia or France is in much worse shape and the other is about the same.

A-H cancelling the Italy attack in 1917 will can get one a cold peace, depending on the butterflies. It can easily move the Spring Offensive 1918 into 1917, and this might break France before the USA is a factor.

As to beating the UK, the UK simply has to be starved. A successful U-boat campaign could work. Or the Central Powers could simply knock France out of the war, the focus on the UK. The Germans are in a much better naval situation in WW1, than WW2. The war plan is quite simply, attack towards the Suez Canal and Red Sea combined with using France as a base for surface ships and U-boats. It would be a bloodly, expensive war, but the UK can be brought to the peace table.

 

[Snake Featherston]

By diplomatic changes I mean that the USA's role in the war being avoided in terms of the debt issue being handwaved isn't possible here. That was never realistic. The problem with the naval issue is that Germany did everything it could navally IOTL and it didn't work, so if they can win it has to be on land. As far as potential butterfiles in the alliance system, obviously if they're doing better on land their overall political situation will be more favorable so I phrased that wrongly.

 

[Free Lancer]

Germany can't beat Britain on the sea, thus it can never be a threat to the British isles nor the British colonies. In other words Germany can't beat Britain.

Germany can beat Britain on the sea, their called U-boats and they were doing a good job of strangling Britain with its logistics.

And in this scenario the US isn't supplying the Allies with the War goods it needs you can expect the the U-boats to become even more effective and will most likely play a big hand in winning the war for germany.

 

[Blackfox5]

Isn't the best opportunity in 1914 (although the war may last longer than that)? If Von Kluck never opens up a gap between the German First and Second Armies, there is no Battle of the Marne, and the Germans never get pushed back. Germany then either takes Paris sometime in September, or at worst establishes a frontline at the city's doorstep. Even if Paris isn't taken, any race to the sea may be along the Seine.

With the Germans just outside Paris, I don't see Italy betting on the Allies. Instead, it will likely either remain neutral, or may even declare war on France in order to gain Tunisia or even parts of Savoy.

Any subsequent German break out in 1915 or 1916 will likely take the city. Combined with a similar 1915 on the Eastern Front, I think the Allies will likely sue for peace before things get worse. If it appears that the Allies are all but defeated, even Romania may enter the war in order to get Bessarabia from Russia.

If the Allies still hold on, 1917 will probably be the decisive year as the combined German-AH-Romanian army destroys whatever is left on the Russian Front, forcing it out of the war. Wirh Russia knocked out, and the Germans either having Paris, or certainly be able to take it in the next year, there is no reason for Germany to resort to unrestricted submarine warfare (since victory is within sight without it), and the US never enters the war.

At that point, it's a matter of negotiation. The German High Seas Fleet can't defeat Britain alone, but in the Mediterranean, it has the Italian, the AH, and Ottoman fleets. It could ask for Russia and France to give Germany some of its ships in any peace treaty, opening up the possibility - no matter how slim - that it could get parity. To forestall this, Britain will likely enter some peace and negotiate as part of the Allies rather than continue the war by itself. Or having knocked France out, the Germans do declare unrestricted submarine warfare since American intervention is meaningless at that point.

The earlier the Allies are willing to make peace, the more likely the terms are better for them. As the war goes on, German/Central Powers war aims are likely to become expansice.

 

[Garrison]

Isn't the best opportunity in 1914 (although the war may last longer than that)? If Von Kluck never opens up a gap between the German First and Second Armies, there is no Battle of the Marne, and the Germans never get pushed back. Germany then either takes Paris sometime in September, or at worst establishes a frontline at the city's doorstep. Even if Paris isn't taken, any race to the sea may be along the Seine.

With the Germans just outside Paris, I don't see Italy betting on the Allies. Instead, it will likely either remain neutral, or may even declare war on France in order to gain Tunisia or even parts of Savoy.

That strikes me as the best case for the CP. it would be helped along if Sir John French got his way and pulled the BEF out of the line in late August. He was stopped by a 'discussion' with Kitchener but if Kitchener didn't make it to France and French went ahead that wouldn't do much for French morale, not to mention disrupting the front lines as units were shuffled to fill the gap.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Get the Irish revolution to start earlier. I can't imagine why they waited until the end of the war, besides the possibilities of martial law no longer being around. Trying to incite civil war between the Irish, English, German, Nativists, Italian, Jews, and Blacks in the United States might by them some time. Though simply having more submarines around would do wonders, as they couldn't use the stragety of starving Britain to it's full potential, with a third of their U-Boats being in the drydocks at a time. I doubt that the Germans would get anything back colony wise, though they might manage somewhat if they had their army of Africans marching from German East Africa and liberating the Rhodesians and Mozambiquers.

The thing is: the Germans will never be able to keep the Americans out of the war if they rely on submarine warfare. And every German attempt to sow dissent in the US would only bring the Americans sooner to Europe, not later.

 

[The Sandman]

Why not have the BEF be deployed to Antwerp in a hare-brained Churchill scheme to help the Belgians hold out against the German siege? The Germans can probably contain it with forces that weren't on the front lines before the Marne IOTL, and no BEF in France means no Mons, which means the French probably lose the Fifth Army at Charleroi and TTL's Marne is the German First and Second Armies smashing whatever the French can mobilize of their Sixth Army before marching into Paris.

 

[Garrison]

Why not have the BEF be deployed to Antwerp in a hare-brained Churchill scheme to help the Belgians hold out against the German siege? The Germans can probably contain it with forces that weren't on the front lines before the Marne IOTL, and no BEF in France means no Mons, which means the French probably lose the Fifth Army at Charleroi and TTL's Marne is the German First and Second Armies smashing whatever the French can mobilize of their Sixth Army before marching into Paris.

Actually the deployment of the BEF into Belgium IOTL was a hare brained political scheme; Kitchener and Haig wanted them at Amiens. They could easily have been cut off without putting them into Antwerp.

 

[Catspoke]

a) Its been mentioned here the Ludendorf economic plan was a disaster for Germany. Keep Falkenhyn around with a different Verdun/Brusilov 1916 year, (something like better weather for Verdun, rush Verdun in the first days, instead of poking around, attack west of the Meuse in the first go, tell the Austrians we will do Italy in 1917 and don't even think about trying it in 1916). Germany has a bit more production availble in 1918 for the western offensive and a few more uboats available 1917-1918 to keep the pressure up. Perhaps if the Germans take Amiens, things will fall into place for them to secure a favorable compromise peace.

b) Avoiding Galacia 1914 is a big deal for Austria, there have been TLs on this forum on how that might happen. It totally ruined the Austrian army, lost a ton of rolling stock, ruined a productive area. Likely this keeps Rommania neutral, might allow the Germans to hold the Somme bulge in 1917, might make the 1917 victory in Italy greater (drawing more British and French in). Might allow the Austrians to commit a few divisions to the Western Front in 1918 and a couple to Salonika to back the Bulgarians. Maybe this is enough to secure a favorable compomise peace in 1918.

With the USA in, a favorable compromise peace is all the Germany can get, total victory doesn't happen after the Marne (and may not happen even then), and a favorable compromise peace is only possible with a Russian collapse. Germany will have to be willing to give up her colonies, limit her fleet, restore Belgium, maybe even worst case give up Strassbourg and Metz, but in exchange if she can dominate Central and Eastern Europe it will be worth more far more than a few colonies and a worthless fleet.

 

[lukedalton]

Mantain Italy neutral and leaning to the CP. Germany and A-H get someone where they can get supply, not in enormous quantity due to logistical and political factor (even if Italy cannot be bullied as other neutral, make the UK too much angry is not an option). A-H not waste is army and supply in Italy and without italian help the rescue of the Serbian army is a lot more difficult so there were less troops to bring back to fight later. Second without Italy the A-H navy has some possibility to make some sortie in the mediterrean as the closing of the adriatic will not be so easy. Third, with Italy neutral France must mantain troops at the italian border, just in case...not very much but everything help.

 

[The Sandman]

Actually the deployment of the BEF into Belgium IOTL was a hare brained political scheme; Kitchener and Haig wanted them at Amiens. They could easily have been cut off without putting them into Antwerp.

The reason why I like Antwerp is that they've been rendered completely irrelevant. Deployed into Belgium from the south, even in the worst-case scenario for the British they'll still at least bleed von Kluck and stall him for a bit before he can cut off and destroy the BEF.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Another thing: couldn't the Germans attack Russia first before they attack France? When the Germans targeted France first IOTL, they underestimated Russia's mobilization speed and probably led them to such unfortunate situations before Russia's military weaknesses kicked in.

 

[Mikestone8]

The thing is: the Germans will never be able to keep the Americans out of the war if they rely on submarine warfare. And every German attempt to sow dissent in the US would only bring the Americans sooner to Europe, not later.

Best way round that is probably to bring the Russian Revolution forward a few months. Iirc there was a general stike in Petrograd in Oct 1916, and troops sent to crush it opened fire on the police instead. In the end, the Cossacks restored order, but had they been unable to, Petrograd fell into rebel hands, and things spread, then Nicholas is probably gone by November.

In that situation, Bethmann and other opponents of USW have a far stronger case. Why acquire a new enemy just as an old one is (or may be) dropping out? So USW is at least delayed, and maybe avoided altogether. This, BTW, does not prevent a big increase in sinkings, which were going up even before USW. Had sinkings continued at the level of Jan 1917 (the last month before USW) there would still have been more sinkings in 1917 than in the previous three years put together.



Actually, though, I wonder if, with a bit more finesse, the Germans might even have gotten away with USW. Rodney Carlisle's article at

http://cnrs-scrn.org/northern_marine...17_3_41-66.pdf

shows that several American ships were sunk by u-boats without generating a response from President Wilson. Not until the Vigilancia was attacked without warning on March 18, and fifteen Americans killed, did he decide that Germany had committed an "overt act" of war against the US.

And interestingly, according to the site at

http://www.usmm.org/ww1merchant.html

such attacks weren't all that common. There were a couple more, the Healdton and Aztec, over the next few days, but thereafter none of comparable seriousness until April 28, three weeks after the declaration of war . The majority of attacks on US ships were by "cruiser rules". This suggests to me that had the Germans discreetly instructed their subs to refrain from USW-type attacks on American vessels (without publicly acknowleging that they were doing so [1]) they still had a chance of avoiding war with the US. Even now, Wilson wasn't eager for it.

Even if this resulted in one or two merchantmen per month getting away, it would surely have been worth it to preserve US neutrality [2] - but this was evidently too subtle for the Kaiser.


[1] Indeed, in The Victory At Sea, Admiral Sims expressed the opinion that Germany was doing precisely that, to facilitate an early peace with the US. Sims was apparently mistaken (the u-boats probably just did it that way to conserve torpedoes) but it's significant that a man in his position could have thought such a thing. Had he been right, of course, it would have been a classic case of shutting a stable door after the horse had bolted.

[2] Especially as the unused torpedoes would presumably not be wasted, but employed against a ship of some other flag. So total sinkings would probably not have gone down.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

If you want to add an technological aspect:

in 1906 Austro Daimler presented an Armored Car which was rejected because it "spooked" the Kaisers horses - what if the horses were more cold blooded.

Also in 1911 first Lt Burstyn of the Austrian Army (Hungarian?) submitted plans for a "Motorgeschütz" - basically a "modern" looking tracked turreted vehicle = tank. The design especially had trench crossing in mind.

If the former paved the way for the latter A-H might have an advantage in "armored" warfare.

Both designs were rejected NOT becauuse they were faulty - it was just that the military establishment did not see the potential.


Both designs - in a reasonable number could give the AH Army an technological edge.

Thus a stalemate on the Western Front can be broken in 1915 - thus taking out France in 1915. Italy might join or stay neutral. With France out of the equation Germany /AGH could adress the Eastermn Front - taking out Russia in 1916 (maybe 1917 - Romania might also stay neutral if France is out)

Germany AH might send more troops to turkey thus pushing for suez which in turn might be the incentive for UK to go for a "honorable peace".

 

[Simreeve]

Get the Irish revolution to start earlier. I can't imagine why they waited until the end of the war

Because the introduction of 'home rule' had already been agreed to by the British before the war, it was the war that delayed this, and then it took a couple of years of that delay for enough people to get fed up with waiting... especially considering their low chance of outright sucess.

Why not have the BEF be deployed to Antwerp in a hare-brained Churchill scheme to help the Belgians hold out against the German siege?

Maybe because the Cabinet and General Staff weren't utter idiots, the BEF was designed as a 'field' army, and keeping all of those extra troops supplied in Antwerp when the Germans could so easily have isolated the city would have been an obviously impossibility anyway?

Another thing: couldn't the Germans attack Russia first before they attack France? When the Germans targeted France first IOTL, they underestimated Russia's mobilization speed and probably led them to such unfortunate situations before Russia's military weaknesses kicked in.

Because the sheer size of Russia meant that it couldn't be knocked out quickly, so they'd still have been fighting there when they had to start fighting against the French too, whereas they could see a chance of knocking France out quickly if it they struck west first and that would have then let them fight a single-front war against Russia.

 

[DerGreif]

Best bet for an early victory is a better battle of the Marne as Blackfox5 has mentioned.

Another possibility is USW right from the beginning with secretely exempting US ships from this.

A late voctory without USW at all dependent on US loans running out a thirs and maybe the most likely.

Kind regards,
G.