Central Powers Victory in 1916

This map is of a timeline where Italy joins the central powers in 1915. The lengthier German/Italian front against France, as well as the newly freed up Austrian soldiers, put far more pressure on the already strained Entente in both the east and west. Italy's entry also led Romania deciding not to join the war, and sped up Bulgaria's entry, allowing for Central forces to take Serbia and Montenegro by September, 1915. These successes allowed for Austria to funnel their entire force against Russia, and along with Bulgarian and increased German/Ottoman support, the Central Powers forced Russia to surrender in April of 1916. With a much longer front in the west, and the railroad between Istanbul and Berlin complete, the Allies were fully able to muster their forces in France, and with a force then considerably larger than the Entente(by my estimate, something near 25 million), steamrolled resistance. They reached Paris roughly a month into the new offensive, and continued pushing to the Atlantic. The British Expeditionary Force, encircled and outnumbered, surrendered unconditionally, along with the remains of the French army, as the French government capitulated. With all Entente members aside from the United Kingdom out of the war, the ability to blockade the Central Powers reduced significantly due to the much larger coastline and Italian navy, and with Central forces winning in the Near East and North Africa due to drastically larger numbers, the United Kingdom came to the negotiating table. This map is how I imagine Europe would look a few years after the war. The part of France near the German border is demilitarized, and Wallonia, as well as the Suez, are international zones. Thoughts?

Years-of-Blood-World-War-I-Starting-Map VANILLA.png
 
25.000.000 soldiers is a way too big number
The Germans had 13.5 million men on the western front after the Russians collapsed in 1917. Combined with the nearly 6 million men that the Italians had conscripted, the nearly 8 million men that the Austrians had conscripted, and the Bulgarian army of 300,000, its a very reasonable estimate.
 
The Germans had 13.5 million men on the western front after the Russians collapsed in 1917. Combined with the nearly 6 million men that the Italians had conscripted, the nearly 8 million men that the Austrians had conscripted, and the Bulgarian army of 300,000, its a very reasonable estimate.
Then ok.
 
Im ok with it until april 1916. Russia might make a separate peace, but likely the allies might make a general peace then as a package deal. Regardless russia wont have to give up that much. Bits of stuff to turkey. Maybe poland and courland, not much else, No way britain gives up egypt, no way to really make her do that.
 
Im ok with it until april 1916. Russia might make a separate peace, but likely the allies might make a general peace then as a package deal. Regardless russia wont have to give up that much. Bits of stuff to turkey. Maybe poland and courland, not much else, No way britain gives up egypt, no way to really make her do that.
Britain isn't really losing anything other than Egypt in this deal, and with no remote hopes of winning the expensive, deadly war, I see little ability on their part to resist.
 
The last thing Austria wants is all of Serbia, they might hack off Macedonia and give it to Bulgaria and make a few border adjustments (including Belgrade) but they'll just be neutering Serbia instead of swallowing it whole.
 
Britain isn't really losing anything other than Egypt in this deal, and with no remote hopes of winning the expensive, deadly war, I see little ability on their part to resist.

Maybe so, control of the Suez canal is a big deal for Britain though, I can see Germany getting The Belgian Congo with its copper, the Volta Delta next to Togo and lots of other little good stuff instead, before Britain gives up Suez, that no one actually has the strength or logistics to take from them.

The combined Central Power can conduct a mercantile war with 1917 means, but Britain no longer has to supply anyone on the continent, or supply a Salonika front or anything like that, it could go on for a while, it would have to be a compromise peace.

Other than Egypt and the Ukraine though it seems reasonable (does Italy get Malta?).
 
Maybe so, control of the Suez canal is a big deal for Britain though, I can see Germany getting The Belgian Congo with its copper, the Volta Delta next to Togo and lots of other little good stuff instead, before Britain gives up Suez, that no one actually has the strength or logistics to take from them.

The combined Central Power can conduct a mercantile war with 1917 means, but Britain no longer has to supply anyone on the continent, or supply a Salonika front or anything like that, it could go on for a while, it would have to be a compromise peace.

Other than Egypt and the Ukraine though it seems reasonable (does Italy get Malta?).
What's unreasonable about Ukraine?
 
Lenin only agreed to such terms our time line because there was no means of resistance, he thought he would get it back soon, even then they almost didnt agree to the terms. Here the army would still be in the line, defending, instead of otl doing offensives. No need to give up that much unless a communist revolution happens. Likely the allies all agree to a central powers favorable peace by late 16.

I Like the map and discussion, no one really knows what would happen but as long as the czar is around a separate russian peace seems unlikely, when negotiating together gets a better deal.
 
This map is of a timeline where Italy joins the central powers in 1915. The lengthier German/Italian front against France, as well as the newly freed up Austrian soldiers, put far more pressure on the already strained Entente in both the east and west. Italy's entry also led Romania deciding not to join the war, and sped up Bulgaria's entry, allowing for Central forces to take Serbia and Montenegro by September, 1915. These successes allowed for Austria to funnel their entire force against Russia, and along with Bulgarian and increased German/Ottoman support, the Central Powers forced Russia to surrender in April of 1916. With a much longer front in the west, and the railroad between Istanbul and Berlin complete, the Allies were fully able to muster their forces in France, and with a force then considerably larger than the Entente(by my estimate, something near 25 million), steamrolled resistance. They reached Paris roughly a month into the new offensive, and continued pushing to the Atlantic. The British Expeditionary Force, encircled and outnumbered, surrendered unconditionally, along with the remains of the French army, as the French government capitulated. With all Entente members aside from the United Kingdom out of the war, the ability to blockade the Central Powers reduced significantly due to the much larger coastline and Italian navy, and with Central forces winning in the Near East and North Africa due to drastically larger numbers, the United Kingdom came to the negotiating table. This map is how I imagine Europe would look a few years after the war. The part of France near the German border is demilitarized, and Wallonia, as well as the Suez, are international zones. Thoughts?

View attachment 442799

A few things on the map:
- Why do the Ottomans have Crete?
- Austria will not take entire Serbia, that's really dangerous. At best, Montenegro and Serbian Sandzak
- Making Russia give up as East as Donbass and as North as Finland would make me think Russia was desperate (risk of a revolution or civil war) to ask for any kind of peace. Which makes me think again, why is the Caucasus still Russian then? I would think the Germans would try to secure Baku Oil by either letting the Ottomans havd it or create somd more puppets as in Eastern Europe.

The rest of the map looks accurate. Although Italy may even get their pre 1859 mainland border with France as well if they wanted it. In OTL Italy asked for Austro-Hungarian Land to participate. Is there a reason Italy did not get something from them?
 
Maybe so, control of the Suez canal is a big deal for Britain though, I can see Germany getting The Belgian Congo with its copper, the Volta Delta next to Togo and lots of other little good stuff instead, before Britain gives up Suez, that no one actually has the strength or logistics to take from them.

The combined Central Power can conduct a mercantile war with 1917 means, but Britain no longer has to supply anyone on the continent, or supply a Salonika front or anything like that, it could go on for a while, it would have to be a compromise peace.

Other than Egypt and the Ukraine though it seems reasonable (does Italy get Malta?).

Egypt was an Ottoman Vassal. Depending on the victory the chance of returning to a status quo ante bellum is possible. The Ottomans don't get something new. They keep what was theirs. As long as British Passage through the Suez is possible they might not think its the end of the world.
 
Germany getting Poland, Belarus, and the Baltics seems believable (the Germans were nowhere near Finland and their forces weren't that deep in Ukraine to seize it in its entirety). I could see Italy getting Nice in a minor border adjustment as well as the Germans demanding Brien-Longwy. And Germany isn't keeping Belgium if they want peace with the UK.
 
A few things on the map:
- Why do the Ottomans have Crete?
- Austria will not take entire Serbia, that's really dangerous. At best, Montenegro and Serbian Sandzak
- Making Russia give up as East as Donbass and as North as Finland would make me think Russia was desperate (risk of a revolution or civil war) to ask for any kind of peace. Which makes me think again, why is the Caucasus still Russian then? I would think the Germans would try to secure Baku Oil by either letting the Ottomans havd it or create somd more puppets as in Eastern Europe.

The rest of the map looks accurate. Although Italy may even get their pre 1859 mainland border with France as well if they wanted it. In OTL Italy asked for Austro-Hungarian Land to participate. Is there a reason Italy did not get something from them?
The Ottomans had Crete at that time
 
A discrepancy of over 10 million men in just one army is what one calls a non trivial error. Yes, they would have a large numerical superiority. Yes, they would have a much better chance to win.

I just don't think it would be as easy as you postulated.
 
A discrepancy of over 10 million men in just one army is what one calls a non trivial error. Yes, they would have a large numerical superiority. Yes, they would have a much better chance to win.

I just don't think it would be as easy as you postulated.
My factoring for the German army was off, yes, but that means as well that my factoring for the Entente army was as well. Consider how far the Germans came with their offensive in 1918, with a much narrower numerical advantage than in this timeline, and with far fewer supplies and ammunition. Then consider how much longer the western front would be as a whole due to the Italian entry, and how the Austrians would be able to send everything, aside from the garrisons, to the west in assistance of the Germans and Italians. Mass French mutinies would more than likely be the result of a much larger Allied offensive into France.
 
The French didn't mutiny as a result of being on the defensive. The mutinies were a result of wasteful offensives, and would certainly not happen in this scenario. And yes, while there are more soldiers available, they still have to be supplied with the same number of trains and railheads, yes?
 
Top