Central Power Gains in Africa

If they insist on swallowing Belgium due to their dominance on land, I see no reason why Britain woulden't return the favor by saying "If possession is 9/10ths of the law...) and just taking the Congo and all of Germany's African possessions to boot. Maintaining the occupation of non-settler colonies is, proportionatly, FAR less intensive and controversial than a long-standing military occupation of Northern France and Belgium that would be needed for Germany to keep pressure on London for their return, especially with Germany having some quite large military commitments to occupy territory acquired in Eastern Europe.

Indeed, it is why I cannot commit to the whole Mittelafika and taking the Congo scenario, at best I see a diplomatic shuffle with Belgium "selling" Congo to Germany and Germany "paying" Belgium, actually its an indemnity and Belgium feels its hold on Congo is done anyway, still a touch too handwaivium. Thus I can defend a German gets back what it had okay and see some spoils from France, but without Congo they are even less meaningful than things to be sought in Europe. And taking anything from the UK requires some fancy sleight of hand.
 
The truth is both sides are exhausted, but Germany is exhausted, has crises coming at her from multiple directions rather than just the one, and has to metaphorically "run" further to dodge them than the Entente does due to the international and state of decay in the domestic situation.

This is my rationale for tempering any CP gains or better military victories, I believe that Germany cannot exploit them despite being able to create better opportunities. At bottom the Germans can open moments of doubt to secure a peace based on temporary victories she could not further develop, the challenge is to get an actual pair of eyes to both see and commit to this. Germany had to bluff, fold the cards, accept a draw or modest win, reshuffle the deck and go home with what she had in pocket. I can craft a dire situation for the Entente and the golden moment but I am still searching for the plausible German concession and brilliant avoidance of snatching a grand defeat from the jaws of a minor victory.
 
The truth is both sides are exhausted, but Germany is exhausted, has crises coming at her from multiple directions rather than just the one, and has to metaphorically "run" further to dodge them than the Entente does due to the international and state of decay in the domestic situation.

I don't understand why a victorious Germany would be as exhausted as OTL defeated Germany, surely in victory she would less exhausted and would be recovering economically through a mix of indemnity resources transfers and partial demobilisation.

IOTL an exhausted but victorious France and Britain were able to send expeditionary forces to Russia in 1919-20 as well as incorporate the German and Ottomaan colonies into their own organisations. If they can do it in victory then surely Germany can too; they had some 250 divisions, they could demob half of them, use 100 for European occupation duties and the remaining 25 to consolidate their now African gains.
 
Germany has zero capacity to retake the Middle East. the existing infrastructure can only support about a quarter of a million German troops whereas the British with their sea supply can support about a million. I suppose the Germans can keep throwing away Army after Army trying to do it maybe after they run out of men British can retake Europe.

Doubtful; but a quarter of a million is far more than enough. The Germans never had more than a couple tens of thousands of troops in the middle eastern theater. The Ottoman defense was largely in their own hands, along with large numbers of German (and a few Austrian) advisers and engineers, a few German troops, and liberal amounts of German materiel. The commitment in German soldiers was a drop in the bucket compared to even the French.

Now in our scenario, with the eastern and western fronts out of the picture, Germany is free to, and has every reason to, throw its full weight behind the Ottomans, whatever that is. Let's imagine a 200,000 strong expeditionary force taking the place of the tiny Asia Corps. Given the state of the theater as it actually was until the decisive events of September 1918, this will easily turn the tide.

... which they will, because even with the war economy cranked up to an 11 and the civilian population squeezed out like a sponge their army was suffering from major supply shortages and had to minimize its commitments to stablizing its already seized. The size of their army is already unsustainable even with the full weight of the state thrown behind it... I'm flabbergasted that people think they can keep it deployed long-term if they have ANY desire to put some part of the economy back on a civilian footing or conduct any kind of meaningful reform or rebuilding/recapitalization (Which they'd need to do, especially to integrate Eastern Europe's economy into the Reichs and keep A-H and their newly-established clients from imploding from the already-in-progress domestic disorder, starvation, infastructure breakdown, ethnic violence, ect.). Everybody here seems to highlight every German maximium exertion and declare it permenantly sustainable while shuffling any consquenses/weaknesses and misteps under the rug, while declaring said misteps to be the norms/ declaring snowballing of any crack in the Entente to be inevitable

The truth is both sides are exhausted, but Germany is exhausted, has crises coming at her from multiple directions rather than just the one, and has to metaphorically "run" further to dodge them than the Entente does due to the international and state of decay in the domestic situation.

Indeed, it is why I cannot commit to the whole Mittelafika and taking the Congo scenario, at best I see a diplomatic shuffle with Belgium "selling" Congo to Germany and Germany "paying" Belgium, actually its an indemnity and Belgium feels its hold on Congo is done anyway, still a touch too handwaivium. Thus I can defend a German gets back what it had okay and see some spoils from France, but without Congo they are even less meaningful than things to be sought in Europe. And taking anything from the UK requires some fancy sleight of hand.

This is my rationale for tempering any CP gains or better military victories, I believe that Germany cannot exploit them despite being able to create better opportunities. At bottom the Germans can open moments of doubt to secure a peace based on temporary victories she could not further develop, the challenge is to get an actual pair of eyes to both see and commit to this. Germany had to bluff, fold the cards, accept a draw or modest win, reshuffle the deck and go home with what she had in pocket. I can craft a dire situation for the Entente and the golden moment but I am still searching for the plausible German concession and brilliant avoidance of snatching a grand defeat from the jaws of a minor victory.

When the peace noises start coming from Paris, assuming the Germans don't get to occupy it, the population of Berlin will be in the streets waving the newspapers. At that point the domestic context of OTL's November becomes nearly irrelevant. The prize is in sight. Whatever their gripes with the de facto military regime, and however inevitable a post-war showdown, the democratic leaders will want to see the war finished. Whatever their economic hardships, the middle classes and working class will support seeing the war through. This isn't to say that Germany can just keep going forever or that it will have no dissent - drag the same conditions on through 1919 and you'll see mass anger. There will especially be unrest from left wing forces when Germany aids the Whites. It's an open question if Austria-Hungary will unravel and when.

The situation in Britain will be very different. Even in OTL, there was a wave of unrest, mutinies, and strikes towards the end and after the war. In 1919, more British workers than German workers were involved in strikes. Dockworkers repeatedly refused to load ships when they learned they were bound for Russia. A mutiny in the Yorkshire Regiment in Russia was put down with the aid of White Russian troops. There was sabotage and then mutiny on the aircraft carrier Vindictive, and numerous other ships. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but you get the point. A consequence of the war was the ascendency of the Labour Party at the expense of the Liberal Party. As late as 1931 the Invergordon Mutiny triggered a fresh financial panic, with the mutineers singing Labour songs.

All of this was in victory. Just imagine defeat. ITTL, the demoralization of the French armistice will propagate like a wave. As goes France, goes British resolve. Full stop. There will be a run on the London stock exchange. Italy will suffer a Biennio Rosso on steroids, spreading to or starting independently in France. Irish rebels will seize the moment like they did after the elections anyway. By the end of 1918, the Royal Navy will be on the verge of a general mutiny. The home front will be in complete financial and industrial disarray. The empire is facing revolt in Ireland, Egypt, and who knows where else. At what point does the desire of the Ludendorffs of Britain to simply carry on the war or try to strong arm Germany, as posters are describing here, become irrelevant? The French and Belgians will have already surrendered their empires on paper. It won't be that long until Germany is able to just go claim it. I wonder how much of our German expeditionary force will see action in the middle east before the war ends.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is you don't lose a total war and then get to horse trade and dictate terms. Not in the 20th century.
 
I don't understand why a victorious Germany would be as exhausted as OTL defeated Germany, surely in victory she would less exhausted and would be recovering economically through a mix of indemnity resources transfers and partial demobilisation.

IOTL an exhausted but victorious France and Britain were able to send expeditionary forces to Russia in 1919-20 as well as incorporate the German and Ottomaan colonies into their own organisations. If they can do it in victory then surely Germany can too; they had some 250 divisions, they could demob half of them, use 100 for European occupation duties and the remaining 25 to consolidate their now African gains.

It won't be. Weimar Germany had recovered and was enjoying an economic boom by 1924, with much of the economic problems of previous years being partly intentional. Germany in victory dominates almost all of Europe economically. That will start paying dividends shortly after the end of the war. By 1921, Germany will be able to throw its weight around Africa.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
I have often wondered why Germany did not offer to sell Samoa to the US the day after the war started. Then when the Aussies/New Zealanders show up there is a US flag flying there or worse (for the allies) a German flag with a US Navy squadron en route.
 
Top