Central Powers Victory in 1916

Why are the British getting such lenient terms? wouldn't the victorious Central Powers press their advantage against an isolated and hopelessly outgunned Britain? I could see lenient terms towards Japan in exchange for joining the CP- perhaps offering British possessions in the Pacific but what can the British offer?

In OTL, the British could barely keep the sealanes open with the help of the Italian, Japanese, French, Russian and American navies against a Germany that was confined to the North Sea and lacked access to the Channel ports.

Here, Italy has joined and France and Russia have dropped out. What happens to the French and Russian fleets? Do the Germans demand them as part of the peace treaty (like the Entente demanded the HSF in OTL?) or do they allow the French and Russians to keep their fleets but reduce France and Russia to vassals? Since the Germans could move in and burn Paris to the ground at anytime, wouldn't the French help the Germans?

This is what Haldane meant when he said "I fear in two or three years we would go down to a tremendous coalition"
 
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?
Yes, but in 1918, due to the blockades and 4 years of war, Germany had far few supplies and ammunition for their offensives. In this scenario, Germany had only been at war for 2 years, and would be much harder due to Italy's coast and navy.
 
The French Navy, which was NOT used in the North Sea, was completely superior in every category to the Italian Navy. As for the Franco-Italian border, have you examined the terrain? The only thing an Italian offensive there is going to accomplish is killing a lot of Italians.
 
The French Navy, which was NOT used in the North Sea, was completely superior in every category to the Italian Navy. As for the Franco-Italian border, have you examined the terrain? The only thing an Italian offensive there is going to accomplish is killing a lot of Italians.
The French navy was superior to the Italian navy, but not so drastically superior as to be able to blockade the entirety of Italy's enormous coastline. Even if the Italians saw little success against the French on land, they'd still drag hundreds of thousands of French away at a crucial time.
 
Why would France need to blockade the Italian coastline, when Britain controlled Gibraltor and the Suez?

Yes, certainly Italy would pull French troops away from the Western Front. I'm not arguing that the Central Powers would have an advantage, I'm questioning whether they would win in a walkover.
 
The French Navy, which was NOT used in the North Sea, was completely superior in every category to the Italian Navy. As for the Franco-Italian border, have you examined the terrain? The only thing an Italian offensive there is going to accomplish is killing a lot of Italians.

But not so much against the Ottoman (ok, German ships flying the Ottoman flag), Austrian and Italian navies. The Mediterranean would likely be split into a no man's land with each fleet only able to exercise limited control over the sea they were actually sailing in.

The Italians won't be limited to the Franco-Italian border. Every CP pre-war plan had them moving troops to the lower Rhine as well as pinning a few French divisions in the Alps

And I don't see this as a "win in a walkover" but a logical conclusion from events. First, Italy joining the CP means that Greece and Romania will never join the Entente. Its quite possible that Romania will see the CP as the ultimate winner and join them instead. Second, we know that Russia collapses OTL in February of 1917. i don't see why the Austrian forces freed from the Italian frontier wouldn't speed things up.
 
Western Europe seems OK altough I think that Italy could had got Nice and Savoy too. Austria-Hungary is not going to take Serbia. It didn't want much more aras which would had mean more problems. It just wanted give a lesson to Serbia. And there is not any way how CPs are taking anything from Brits at least without directiy conquering that. In East Poland and Lithuania are fine but I doubt that Germans can take whole Baltics, Ukraine and Finland. And even if there is independent Finland why it has Kola but not East Karelia?
 
In East Poland and Lithuania are fine but I doubt that Germans can take whole Baltics, Ukraine and Finland. And even if there is independent Finland why it has Kola but not East Karelia?

This is quite possibly the most awkward post-WWI Finnish border I have seen on this forum. The salient point here, politically speaking, is of course the loss of all the Finnish lands on the Karelian Isthmus. Especially the city of Viipuri and its closest surroundings were seen at the time as a core part of Finland. This loss would have sent the country into a nationalist rage, the political left included. The border also seems to run almost exactly across Viipuri, which would have presented additional complications.

Points for originality to the OP, though. Finnish borders in the maps here are generally rather boring, and few people are using even such plausible options that stray away from OTL borders or the stereotypical "three isthmus border" (with or without Kola).
 

elkarlo

Banned
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.
Only objection, Bulgaria wasn't going to send it's troops anywhere. It never wanted them far away and basically was in it for its self
 
Top