Central Powers victory in 1918

[Mark Ford]

Is it my imagination or do factors fluctuate in importance in these discussions depending on what is supposed to be proved? One week it's the importance of the American role in 1918, now it's Foch. Would things have been really all that different had he not been there? I would have thought it was Ludendorff's faulty strategy, not Foch's response, that was the key issue. Anyway by the time he took command, the most dangerous part of the German offensive was over.

Also I find it rather pointless to build up huge structures of speculation on rather shaky foundations. "Had Foch been killed in a car crash in early 1918, what would the level of German old age pensions been in 1999?" etc. There's a story in the Arabian Nights of a poor man who has a pot he's going to sell. With the money received, he's going to do this, and from that do this, etc. He's got as far as marrying the Caliph's daughter when one of his grandiose gestures with his hand (suitable to one of his new rank) knocks over and breaks the pot.

Sometimes it's possible to get bogged down in process. While it is true that the British suggested that Foch be given supreme command to assure the French that they wouldn't abandon them, I don't think that invalidates this discussion. What is being discussed is the effect of a German victory, not the effect of Foch's premature death.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I did some looking into German medium-term plans with regard to the Bolsheviks being in power in Saint Petersburg and it would appear that OTL Sep 1918 Ludendorff raised a 'Northern Corps' out of POWs with the intention of fighting them and ultimately replacing them with a more friendly government :-
http://pub158.ezboard.com/ftheworldatwar70879frm2.showMessage?topicID=1592.topic&index=3

Also, I don't think you can discount the Finns. At the Armistice von der Golz was also still in Finland with his Baltic Division. OTL 1919 Mannerheim raised 100,000 men in a Defence Guard with the intention of co-operating with the Whites and removing the Bolsehviks

What one might see, bringing all the threads together would amount to :-

1. Cessation of Allied support for White factions
2. Allied recognition of Ukraine, Finland etc based on Brest-Litovsk
3. German consolidation in their zone, including final settlements for Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Duchy
4. A Finno-German drive on Saint Petersburg to replace the Bolsheviks with a subservient Russian government

Grey Wolf

 

[Melvin Loh]

Pershing's greater stubborness re American Army

WI during the buildup of American forces in France, Gen Pershing's policy of not breaking up US Army units to serve under British or French command as mere replacements, instead of as a unified national army, was even more extreme than OTL ? 1 major reason for this policy was the US lack of faith in the Western Allies' ability to achieve very much progress based on their poor record of trench warfare thruout the last few yrs. Pershing's policy of Americans fighting as a national army or not at all OTL did get bent somewhat, where some US formations were sent piecemeal as reinforcements for depleted Allied sections of the front, such as the 93rd (Colored) Div- THE BLOODY HAND- handed en masse to the French, or to gain some combat experience alongside battle-hardened British outfits before being sent into combat as part of the AEF, as occurred with the 27th EMPIRE STATE and 30th OLD HICKORY Inf Divs sent to work alongside British and Aust divs of the British GHQ, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Armies thruout 1918, and platoons from the 33rd PRAIRIE Div who were attached to the Aust 3rd and 5th Divs (IIRC) to participate in the Battle of Hamel (4th July 1918). WI Pershing had been more adamant in his nationalist policy re the AEF, and American units weren't sent into combat until literally enough of them were available to coincentrate into a distinctive exclusively US Army in the field ? Could this dawdling in providing American soldiers their baptism of fire, have improved the chances for a German victory on the Western Front ?

 

[Prunesquallor]

This started as Foch's death leads to a German victory in 1918. I don't find this in the least plausible. You must find a different factor, a different decision, which might lead to this. If you just say "The Germans win in 1918" you're in ASB territory. Yes, this is supposed to be AH, not fantasy. Too often (in my opinion) we have arguments here which instead of asking (say) "what would the effects have been had Julian the Apostate lived longer?" ask "what would the stipend of the High Priest of Jupiter in Rome been?"

 

[Grey Wolf]

This started as Foch's death leads to a German victory in 1918. I don't find this in the least plausible. You must find a different factor, a different decision, which might lead to this. If you just say "The Germans win in 1918" you're in ASB territory. Yes, this is supposed to be AH, not fantasy. Too often (in my opinion) we have arguments here which instead of asking (say) "what would the effects have been had Julian the Apostate lived longer?" ask "what would the stipend of the High Priest of Jupiter in Rome been?"

Why don't you find it in the least plausible ? If Foch is dead, then either the superem command goes to Haig or it goes to Petain, or possibly it goes to no one at all. Given that Haig wanted to withdraw to the North in the face of the German offensive and Petain wanted to withdraw to the South, don't you see a nice opportunity there ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Tom_B]

Why don't you find it in the least plausible ? If Foch is dead, then either the superem command goes to Haig or it goes to Petain, or possibly it goes to no one at all. Given that Haig wanted to withdraw to the North in the face of the German offensive and Petain wanted to withdraw to the South, don't you see a nice opportunity there ?

Grey Wolf

I see an opportunity to take Arras and Amiens but I remain unconvinced that there was an immediate threat to take Paris. I thought Petain wanted to go South to protect Paris.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This started as Foch's death leads to a German victory in 1918. I don't find this in the least plausible. You must find a different factor, a different decision, which might lead to this. If you just say "The Germans win in 1918" you're in ASB territory. Yes, this is supposed to be AH, not fantasy. Too often (in my opinion) we have arguments here which instead of asking (say) "what would the effects have been had Julian the Apostate lived longer?" ask "what would the stipend of the High Priest of Jupiter in Rome been?"

??? Why is this not plausible? If Foch had died, Petain would have been in charge, and France would have behaved very differently. If he had had his way, I think it's very reasonable to assume the Germans would have won. Any wavering on the part of the French would likely undermine British resolve as well.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I see an opportunity to take Arras and Amiens but I remain unconvinced that there was an immediate threat to take Paris. I thought Petain wanted to go South to protect Paris.

If Petain wanted to go South to protect Paris then HE at least must have felt there was an immediate threat. In any case, any appearance of withdrawal could be fatal to morale at this point, and this would have caused a big break with the British.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, you know, it looked a POSSIBLE bet to me, it doesn't have to PROBABLE as a lot of what happens in OTL can hardly have been predicted before hand.

Grey Wolf

 

[Prunesquallor]

AHP> if Foch hadn't been there, Petain woudn't have taken over. They would have to find someone else. To simply have the French commander assuming complete responsibilty would have been too great a wound to British pride. And remember the difference between possible and plausible.

 

[Grey Wolf]

AHP> if Foch hadn't been there, Petain woudn't have taken over. They would have to find someone else. To simply have the French commander assuming complete responsibilty would have been too great a wound to British pride. And remember the difference between possible and plausible.

Yeah, well anyway I lost all interest in this now. Forget it

 

[Valamyr]

Victories on land don't make the German navy any stronger. The German fleet would still be blockaded by the Royal Navy and Germany would have no way to project any power outside of Europe. If Belgium refused to give up the Congo the Germans couldn't take it and there isn't anything the Germans could do to make them give it up.

Aside from the little fact Germany occupies all of Belgium you mean? Beligum itself would be lucky to keep a margin of independence after a German victory, and would certainly be glad to give up its far-flung Congo for it. Dont you think Paris' continued existance is worth something more to the French than a few of its colonies, or even two-thirds of its empire.

But, lets be serious, obviously German victories in WW1, unlike WW2, WOULD give it additional colonial power from the powers who lost on land, France and Belgium. England would probably get away unscathed, but the projection that the French and Belgian empires would be crippled makes perfect sense.

As for the German navy, it wasnt that bad at all, just outmatched by the french-england alliance. Germany would have what it takes to project power to an extent sufficient to enforce its rule over an african empire, not though, to retake colonies lost to japan.

I think it makes perfect sense that they get compensated generously in central africa. It wouldnt matter as much as continental affairs, but it could - WOULD - definitely be done.

Grey wolf, please continue I find the subject very interesting, lets not let a troll and two heaten unbelievers ruin it all. I'm willing to help if you want. And hell, if they dont like the POD we can tweak it a bit. There are many ways for the Germans to win in 1918, i think it was pretty much 66/33 odds in favor of the allies by March 1918, not more than that, mainly because the eastern front was now secured.

 

[Hansmeister]

Aside from the little fact Germany occupies all of Belgium you mean? Beligum itself would be lucky to keep a margin of independence after a German victory, and would certainly be glad to give up its far-flung Congo for it. Dont you think Paris' continued existance is worth something more to the French than a few of its colonies, or even two-thirds of its empire.

But, lets be serious, obviously German victories in WW1, unlike WW2, WOULD give it additional colonial power from the powers who lost on land, France and Belgium. England would probably get away unscathed, but the projection that the French and Belgian empires would be crippled makes perfect sense.

As for the German navy, it wasnt that bad at all, just outmatched by the french-england alliance. Germany would have what it takes to project power to an extent sufficient to enforce its rule over an african empire, not though, to retake colonies lost to japan.

I think it makes perfect sense that they get compensated generously in central africa. It wouldnt matter as much as continental affairs, but it could - WOULD - definitely be done.

Grey wolf, please continue I find the subject very interesting, lets not let a troll and two heaten unbelievers ruin it all. I'm willing to help if you want. And hell, if they dont like the POD we can tweak it a bit. There are many ways for the Germans to win in 1918, i think it was pretty much 66/33 odds in favor of the allies by March 1918, not more than that, mainly because the eastern front was now secured.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I came up with that list. Britain would still be in a strong position, so it would be impossible to get concessions from them. However, Britain would be tired of the war and seing no possibility for victory, would try to make peace. One of the greatest fears of the British would be for Germany to have a port on the English channel, from which it can threaten Britain. Hence, for French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies in Africa I believe Britain would be all too willing to make peace. Remember, submarine warfare was wreaking considerable damage on British commerce and total domination of the european continent would allow Germany to dedicate more resources to naval warfare.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The thing with the POD is it is POSSIBLE, the French most certainly believed that their salvation in 1918 had been a miracle, and Petain was not an adherent of offensive warfare. If the French army had retreated even to cover Paris, it would have been a massive blow to morale. With Haig retreating North to cover the Channel ports, the Germans could have concentrated on Paris.

Perhaps it requires this to actually BE Ludendorff's plan - OTL he intended the Southern strike to be a diversion to a renewed Flanders offensive. If he had had reserves etc ready for the Southern offensive from the start...

I really don't think France could take the fall of Paris, and if France crumbles then Britain has very little chance of convincing its people to carry on, and the USA will have to follow if Britain wants a negotiated peace

Grey Wolf

 

[Ace Venom]

I haven't read this since last night, so be open to flame me if I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said.

I would think that Germany would demand Italy's colonies rather than Portugal's colonies in this scenario. Portugal didn't actually participate in the war, but due to Italy's poor performance in the war, the offering of Italian colonies is a decent compensation for the loss of Germany's Pacific Empire. I don't think Britain really would like to gain a competitor in the Indian Ocean, but going to war again over the Japanese refusal to give Germany back her colonies would be hardly worth it in the eyes of the British.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I haven't read this since last night, so be open to flame me if I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said.

I would think that Germany would demand Italy's colonies rather than Portugal's colonies in this scenario. Portugal didn't actually participate in the war, but due to Italy's poor performance in the war, the offering of Italian colonies is a decent compensation for the loss of Germany's Pacific Empire. I don't think Britain really would like to gain a competitor in the Indian Ocean, but going to war again over the Japanese refusal to give Germany back her colonies would be hardly worth it in the eyes of the British.

Portugal declared war on Germany in mid 1916 and from early 1917 sent a contingent to fight on the Western Front - which force would indeed be in the forefront of the German attack in 1918.

A major part of Portugal's reason was to safeguard their colonial empire which had been threatened witrh division pre-war

OTL German forces had launches incursions into Angola and Mozambique

I think Portugal's empire is doomed

However, it is a good point about Italy. I don't think the Ottoman Empire would be the only one pressing claims against them. Perhaps Germany in Eritrea or taking over the protectorate of the Somali sultanates ?

Grey Wolf

 

[Hansmeister]

I haven't read this since last night, so be open to flame me if I'm just repeating stuff that's already been said.

I would think that Germany would demand Italy's colonies rather than Portugal's colonies in this scenario. Portugal didn't actually participate in the war, but due to Italy's poor performance in the war, the offering of Italian colonies is a decent compensation for the loss of Germany's Pacific Empire. I don't think Britain really would like to gain a competitor in the Indian Ocean, but going to war again over the Japanese refusal to give Germany back her colonies would be hardly worth it in the eyes of the British.

Possession of the Portuguese colonies was a longstanding demands in Germany, and was part of the draft of demands for colonies in 1917. I based my plan to a large part on that one.

 

[Hansmeister]

Novel idea: Tripoli to Austria-Hungary?

 

[Ace Venom]

Novel idea: Tripoli to Austria-Hungary?

Vienna might get thrown the Dodecanese Islands so the Habsburgs would keep their traps shut. Berlin would definitely try to get Libya.

And about Portugal...my bad. I completely forgot they were part of the war. So yes, Germany would definitely get Portugal's colonies, including East Timor. Letting Germany have one Pacific colony would help to keep the Kaiser's mouth shut. As far as France is concerned, it would keep the Germans from asking for Indochina as compensation.

I also personally believe that the Turks will basically be told to shut up. They fared so poorly in the war that the Ottoman Empire would be lucky to keep their monarchy in place. The Turks may clamor for territorial compensation, but I doubt if even Berlin would care to compensate them with the exception of some Russian territory.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I think you look on the Ottoman Empire with somewhat jaundiced eyes. They will DEFINTELY get the Dodecanese back, Italy ought to have evacuated them as part of the peace of 1911-1912 anyway. In Libya, the Senussi almost drove the Italians out before dissiptaing their efforts with an attack on Egypt, and in victory the CP will require an Italian withdrawal whereupon the Senussi and the Turks will resume the pre-1911 status quo

And in the war the Ottoman Empire did not do as badly as you think. They drove the British out of central Mesopotamia once before, they held Palestine a long time, they drove the invaders out of the Dardanelles, they were able, albeit through Russian collapse, to hold their own in E Anatolia and after the Russian peace to advance into the Caucasus.

Grey Wolf