Best Central Powers Option 1918

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

So given that we are discussing Versailles again and the March Offensives, I thought that we should complete this discussion about what truly could have ended the war in a positive manner...the waring nations coming to the negotiating table.

So what I am suggesting is how the central powers could have forced that with America in the war. I suggest that the pointless attacks OTL be given up for more focused attacks as the defensive cannot be afforded. Amiens and Hazebrouck are must take cities that were the focus of British supplies. Given that this book: http://www.amazon.com/German-1918-O...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218565263&sr=8-1
discusses this option from the perspective of a former general that focuses on WW1 history, I am willing to use this document as a starting point for discussion.

What would this have achieved though? Would forcing the British to withdraw really have affected French moral enough to cause them to come to the negotiating table? What other effects would more well chosen targets have had on the end of the war? Would anything have helped at this point?
 
By 1918 the Germans are in dire straits. Forced to eat bread made of sawdust they are running out of options with which to continue the war. With Russia out of the war, the Germans could have decided to use the new territories to gain resources and supplies, but that would require taking from the locals and causing nothing but trouble. It would take years to gain anything from the land, so Germany has a choice, wait years or loose. But is waiting years an option?

What if the Germans instead focus on the Italian front with their Austrian allies, keeping the Western front in defence? The Germans may be able to ship pasta through the Alps, who know? But if beyond hope the Austrian Germans can avoid surrendering perhaps the Germans could last another year? I don't know if an Italian surrender is on the cards but it may keep moral from collapsing. But this is like running on fumes, the Germans need more resources and the Americans are supplying the allies.

Bring on the Spanish Flu. The is believed to have been brought by the Americans so if the Americans stay in the trenches longer (suffering immense casualties) could the Spanish flu spend to the Armies and the population before the wars end? That would certainly cause both sides alarm. Perhaps both sides realise that Eastern Europe and America could keep the other side fighting even longer. Perhaps a stalemate could be called?
 
Attacking Italy to loot it for food and panic the Allies into coming to the peace table might have been the wiser course than an all-or-nothing attack into France.
 
By 1918 the Germans are in dire straits.
No, they didn't form til the 70s... :D
Forced to eat bread made of sawdust they are running out of options with which to continue the war. With Russia out of the war, the Germans could have decided to use the new territories to gain resources and supplies, but that would require taking from the locals and causing nothing but trouble. It would take years to gain anything from the land, so Germany has a choice, wait years or loose. But is waiting years an option?

What if the Germans instead focus on the Italian front with their Austrian allies, keeping the Western front in defence? The Germans may be able to ship pasta through the Alps, who know? But if beyond hope the Austrian Germans can avoid surrendering perhaps the Germans could last another year? I don't know if an Italian surrender is on the cards but it may keep moral from collapsing. But this is like running on fumes, the Germans need more resources and the Americans are supplying the allies.

Bring on the Spanish Flu. The is believed to have been brought by the Americans so if the Americans stay in the trenches longer (suffering immense casualties) could the Spanish flu spend to the Armies and the population before the wars end? That would certainly cause both sides alarm. Perhaps both sides realise that Eastern Europe and America could keep the other side fighting even longer. Perhaps a stalemate could be called?
All makes sense!
 
Italy was definately, the weakest of the allied powers and in order to keep it in the war the allies had to help with troops and equipment. Thus if Italy could be knocked out of the war it might have been possible to achive a far more reasonable settlement with the allied powers.
 
Italy was definately, the weakest of the allied powers and in order to keep it in the war the allies had to help with troops and equipment. Thus if Italy could be knocked out of the war it might have been possible to achive a far more reasonable settlement with the allied powers.

Chris

True Italy was the weakest of the major allied powers but there are a number of problems with your suggestions.
a) As you said Britain and France supported Italy after its defeat the previous year and would do so again. Furthermore the further the Central powers advanced from the Alps the further they get from their supply centres and the shorter the allied lines become. Germany can not win a decisive victory in the south and can only distract itself in major efforts in this area.

b) Even more fundamentally you have to find some way that both sides desire a negotiated peace. Neither side was prepared to seriously moderate their war aims until they stared defeat in the face.

Steve
 
If the Germans moved their troops to Italy for the Spring Offensive, then France and Britain would do like wise. But now Germany is trying to launch an offensive in the Alps as opposed to the plains of Northern France.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Actually, the best time to hit Italy was right after Caporetto. Instead of having troops keep moving eastward into an already-defeated Russia, ship them south to help the Austrians convert their massive tactical victory into a complete collapse of the Italian lines in the Veneto. If that occurs, Italy probably exits the war in fall 1917.

The real question would be the terms of the Italian surrender; would Italy become a neutral or would they be forced to allow the Central Powers passage through to Southern France?
 
I agree with the Sandman. If the Central Powers continued to hit the Italian it is highly likely that there would have been a military collapse and the government would have fallen. If that had happen Italy would have left the war and the presure on the Central powers would have lessen.
Indeed with the collapse of Russia and Italy the allied powers might have once again been willing to talk peace. I suspect that both sides would have to give up some of their goals but I think that war weainess would have pushed things.
 
I'd say that all in all, the best option for the CP at this point is immediate surrender, to try to prevent the OTL civilian suffering and range to civil society.
 
The Central powers were unlikely to surrender for the same reason that the allies wouldn't. The best possible solution for the Central powers would have been to have knocked Italy out of the war and then offered to meet with the allies for a reasonable peace deal. By continuing the war and then shifting all of the blame for it on Germany all that happen was to plant the seeds for the next war.
 
Top