Central Victory: Fate of German New Guinea?

Side question: if the CP wins and Japan is the only successful Allies member, does the UK dare terminate the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

The alliance with Japan was about containing Russia, the icing was countering German ambitions. With Russia gone, and Germany removed for now, Japan is a liability. Thus in OTL London could acquiesce to the USA, but here the USA is not an ally, indeed likely an antagonistic neutral barely harboring her ambitions or contempt. So once again Japan returns to value. I am on the fence if Germany would force through Tsingtao, Wilhelm loved it, it really is a prestige symbol for her victory, but Britain needs to keep Japan on side, not let Germany back in and get a peace in Europe more valuable than the piddles in Asia. AS loathe as Japan is to hand it back, Japan might already be eyeing Manchuria, that ups Japan's stake in China, a blow to London, but one they might find palatable in the heat of the moment. Taking a parallelism course, I say Japan takes Manchuria from Russia, Germany gets her lovely brewery back, and we set Asia up for some messy wrangles. Anglo-Japanese relations can break down later, the USA can nose in, Germany can align with China or if you really want to twist it, Japan, giving us a spooky collision course despite totally redoing Europe. Otherwise I think we screw China in TTL with too few ways to resurrect her.
 
I think a real weakness of this site is the lack of WW1 TLs that carry through to end with a CP victory. I think people think that a CP victory is pretty much OTL's war but with a different result, and don't give any thought to what it actually takes to make Britain sue for peace.

IOTL Britain's economy actually grew by a few percent whereas Germany's shrank by something like 27% and France's shrank by something like 23%. In a scenario where Britain sues for peace her economy will shrink, people will suffer serious rationing and privation.

IOTL Britain suffered few direct attacks; some naval raids and bombing that was light compared to WW2, so much so that there is a 9.2" coastal gun battery about a mile east of Dover in a place starting with L that's so unimportant to WW1 I can't find on the internet. In a scenario where Britain sues for peace these direct attacks will be nightmarish; long range guns will bombard Kent, the skies over Kent will be a war zone and regular naval bombardment will occur more regularly and further afield.

IOTL the BEF suffered horrific losses, but it was the price of victory. In a scenario where Britain has to sue for peace the BEF is defeated; perhaps a large part is captured while another large part is evacuated from France with the loss of its equipment so OTLs losses are the price of defeat.

When you add these things together the notion that Britain will continue to fight with a defeated army, suffering populace and under close attack in order to hold onto German colonies is laughable. I think they won't be able to cough them up fast enough to make the shelling stop.

That is why I look to 1916, the British accounting should tell them the war is winnable at too great a cost, their allies are not going top pay it, maybe France will, but Russia and Italy will break or cost so much to keep fighting that you might as well have lost. Britain is not subject to invasion but I think paranoia does not rule it out, at all costs preserve the fleet, get Germany to sit and talk it out like days of old, try not to lose the whole Empire. Germany has victory disease, so I fall back on 1917 being the year she goes offensive in a big way. The Entente should shift more defensive to husband the resources, after the cold winter of 1916 and the slow progress, Germany sobers up, the domestic mood may be ripe to talk. Britain can still offer the olive branch, the Germans still feel kinship to them, otherwise we force the war into 1918 still and the Entente is running on the fumes, impoverishing itself to maintain the line or slow the advances that increasingly will look overwhelming. I think that is how people get to 1919. But as soon as Russia falls, I think Italy wavers, A-H is in no position to demand but it begs for reason, Germany is getting close to a victory it cannot afford, it might actually see it. So I am not convinced we need to get as desperate. Britain in my opinion can offer good terms, Russia screwed itself, Italy is somewhere in between, and France is the sacrificial lamb. What is hard to find is that nexus where each side feels a deal is better than another call, or raise or worst to be folded under.
 
The best scenario for Germany is the Schlieffen Plan goes perfectly, Paris is surrounded and France surrenders by mid October 1914. The British forces are either captured or retreat back over the channel with out having to worry about air attack a 1914 Dunkirk retreat would be quicker and with less casualties. The Germans can the negotiated a truce with the British with their western flack secure and concentrate on the Russians.They may very well be happy to allow the Australians to keep New Guinea and the Japanese Micronesia and New Zealand Samoa in return for recognizing their possession the more resource rich Belgium Congo & French Indochina. German friendly puppet governments would be set up in both countries with their industries refocused on helping German defeat Russia.

Unfortunately that's a very unlikely scenario. The German advance had to stop somewhere, even if it managed to be more successful, and the French would be able to hold the line with the reserve divisions they hadn't committed and wait for the Russian steamroller that was promised.

Hope was as persistent as a weed in WW1, in the early years there was always a development just around the corner that promised to bring victory, so the combattants wouldn't surrender.
 
That is why I look to 1916, the British accounting should tell them the war is winnable at too great a cost, their allies are not going top pay it, maybe France will, but Russia and Italy will break or cost so much to keep fighting that you might as well have lost. Britain is not subject to invasion but I think paranoia does not rule it out, at all costs preserve the fleet, get Germany to sit and talk it out like days of old, try not to lose the whole Empire. Germany has victory disease, so I fall back on 1917 being the year she goes offensive in a big way. The Entente should shift more defensive to husband the resources, after the cold winter of 1916 and the slow progress, Germany sobers up, the domestic mood may be ripe to talk. Britain can still offer the olive branch, the Germans still feel kinship to them, otherwise we force the war into 1918 still and the Entente is running on the fumes, impoverishing itself to maintain the line or slow the advances that increasingly will look overwhelming. I think that is how people get to 1919. But as soon as Russia falls, I think Italy wavers, A-H is in no position to demand but it begs for reason, Germany is getting close to a victory it cannot afford, it might actually see it. So I am not convinced we need to get as desperate. Britain in my opinion can offer good terms, Russia screwed itself, Italy is somewhere in between, and France is the sacrificial lamb. What is hard to find is that nexus where each side feels a deal is better than another call, or raise or worst to be folded under.

I think by 1916 the British are up to their necks in the sunk costs fallacy and aren't going to conduct a rational assessment of the costs of the war.
 
Germany has WON the war, won it!

For Britain this means the defeat of the BEF in France, the uboats operating from bases beyond the Dover mine barrage, bombers and long range guns operating from the Pas de Calais all after 4 years of war.

In this situation Britain has to choices; give Germany what she wants or keep getting bombed etc.

Man your answer is always "GERMANY GETS EVERYTHING IT WANTS!" like no matter the scenario.
 
Man your answer is always "GERMANY GETS EVERYTHING IT WANTS!" like no matter the scenario.

There is no definitive list of what Germany wants, but in WW1 the victors dictated the terms to the defeated. I find it strange that people accept that Brest Litovsk and Versailles happened but in a victory over the British something different would happen.

In what circumstances does the loser tell the winner what's happening?
 
I think by 1916 the British are up to their necks in the sunk costs fallacy and aren't going to conduct a rational assessment of the costs of the war.

Thus I can find a way to stumble into 1917 despite the war having been effectively lost before then, it gets me parallel to OTL in many ways, so I still need departures before to steer it to a stalemated end, otherwise is goes to a bloody wreck of an end.
 
There is no definitive list of what Germany wants, but in WW1 the victors dictated the terms to the defeated. I find it strange that people accept that Brest Litovsk and Versailles happened but in a victory over the British something different would happen.

In what circumstances does the loser tell the winner what's happening?
The thing is: The BE and the Kaiserreich in the end cant really force one on each other. Thats the difference, they must come together at a table.
 
For Britain this means the defeat of the BEF in France, the uboats operating from bases beyond the Dover mine barrage, bombers and long range guns operating from the Pas de Calais all after 4 years of war.

I don't think bombers and long range guns means Germany can now suddenly defeat the Royal Navy. Terrifying for civilians sure, but strategically problematic these things are not in WWI. As far as I'm aware of anyway.

But yes the UK might still let Germany keep New Guinea for more leniency to France/Belgium.
 
I don't think bombers and long range guns means Germany can now suddenly defeat the Royal Navy. Terrifying for civilians sure, but strategically problematic these things are not in WWI. As far as I'm aware of anyway.

But yes the UK might still let Germany keep New Guinea for more leniency to France/Belgium.

Yes, it's the civilian population that will compel the government to sue for peace. If the British want to play hardball after losing the war then these direct attacks will continue, that's the price the civilians will have to pay to keep German colonies.
 
The thing is: The BE and the Kaiserreich in the end cant really force one on each other. Thats the difference, they must come together at a table.

IOTL Western allies were able to compel Germany to lose 12% of her territory, including a huge swathe in the east, without actually invading Germany. If the fates are reversed then Germany would be able to compel Britain to do serious things without invasion.
 
IOTL Western allies were able to compel Germany to lose 12% of her territory, including a huge swathe in the east, without actually invading Germany. If the fates are reversed then Germany would be able to compel Britain to do serious things without invasion.

My caveat would be that Germany was subject to invasion and felt closer to collapse, in reality it was H-L who surrendered, I think the home front was not as defeated as them. The UK is further from invasion and I am not certain it felt defeated. And I question if the military leadership would be as ready to quit. I think it really comes down to whomever is PM, the British are oddly one man ruled.
 
Yes, it's the civilian population that will compel the government to sue for peace. If the British want to play hardball after losing the war then these direct attacks will continue, that's the price the civilians will have to pay to keep German colonies.

I think this depends on the nature of the win. I would assume there's still active fighting along a frontline in the west drawn somewhere from upper Normandy that goes south of Paris to Switzerland. Assuming a 1916 win in the East Russia has probably taken Germany's "get out of jail free" card and has ceded Poland and Lithuania, and potentially some parts of Belarus and Ukraine (and maybe Latvia?). I don't see the reason Germany tries to push for more when it can already cripple France and win Belgium. On the other hand if we're going by a ~1918 win I don't see where the political will to push for more comes from.

In both cases what I really can't see is Germany actually gaining a significant number of colonial holdings - I doubt the British would accept anything except token concessions unless Germany won by some near-ASB proto-Dunkirk where they destroy the BEF.

My caveat would be that Germany was subject to invasion and felt closer to collapse, in reality it was H-L who surrendered, I think the home front was not as defeated as them.

I'm not exactly well-informed on this matter but could Germany actually have gotten a better result by fighting on longer? I feel like it only could've been worse. They had burned through the last of their reserves, and though the French had as well the US had joined the fight. And the Soviets were planning to act against the Germans in their Brest-Litovsk gains anyway, so whether or not the occupation would help the German homefront in terms of food and supplies significantly within the next 1-2 years seems questionable. So within this timeframe there's probably only Entente gains and German losses, and depending on what these losses are it might render the war totally untenable.
 
IOTL Western allies were able to compel Germany to lose 12% of her territory, including a huge swathe in the east, without actually invading Germany. If the fates are reversed then Germany would be able to compel Britain to do serious things without invasion.
Umm... what? That is not at all how any of this would go, the allies (and I meen all the allies) where able to force Germany to give up that taratory because everybody knew they could invade Germany whith impunity, Germany can't do that whith Briton. But after 3+ years of fighting in the trenches only for the BEF to be kicked out over France is going to serverly damage British morale, honestly at that point I have a hard time seeing Briton not gust giving up the colonies and trying to rebuild for a round two, but no reparations (although whith the blockade landing emediatly you wouldn't have a humanitarian crisis in Germany alto maby in france) and that still dosnt deal whith the Japanese who have varly fought, let alone been defited by Germany. The best way I see this going down is Germany giving it's posetions to Japan in exchange for "reparations" in Germany and for sale if that to the Japanese and Germany gust replacing it's losses whith French posetions like Indochina.
 
<SNIP>In both cases what I really can't see is Germany actually gaining a significant number of colonial holdings - I doubt the British would accept anything except token concessions unless Germany won by some near-ASB proto-Dunkirk where they destroy the BEF.



I'm not exactly well-informed on this matter but could Germany actually have gotten a better result by fighting on longer? I feel like it only could've been worse. They had burned through the last of their reserves, and though the French had as well the US had joined the fight. And the Soviets were planning to act against the Germans in their Brest-Litovsk gains anyway, so whether or not the occupation would help the German homefront in terms of food and supplies significantly within the next 1-2 years seems questionable. So within this timeframe there's probably only Entente gains and German losses, and depending on what these losses are it might render the war totally untenable.

Frankly the British are loathe to expand Germany's overseas Empire, likely equally loathe to even return Germany to her rather modest pre-war holdings, but colonial possessions are cheap money at the negotiating table. My assumption, subject to being quite flawed, is that Britain wants Germany to evacuate France and Belgium. If so, what can she offer? I think we dwell on the colonies because they were historically horse traded, the problems go "over there," and the burden shifts to them who are not citizens or voters.

My admonition is that the leadership here needs to actually see that victory is too expensive, something I think is elusive. Frankly I think Germany could have gotten a good deal in 1916, the Entente could have gotten off cheaper at about the same real results, Russia should have bowed out before 1916, but never did all sides see the value of a deal at the same time. Germany until 1918 really did look closer to victory than further away, especially to Generals who were not strong logisticians, Generals who had near zero political or diplomatic sensibility, and the Entente was not any better as the war kept getting costlier to win. Maybe it is ASB but we need the civilian government to reassert itself, we need the Kaiser to be the Kaiser, if he says we negotiate then the officer corps will obey, those who do not are traitors, at bottom that is how I see both Hindenburg and Ludendorff, they betrayed their loyalty to country, king and people seeking personal glory and a legacy in the annuals of military heroes. Both wanted to be king. They are a major hurdle to getting Germany to call for terms while she is ahead.
 
Umm... what? That is not at all how any of this would go, the allies (and I meen all the allies) where able to force Germany to give up that taratory because everybody knew they could invade Germany whith impunity, Germany can't do that whith Briton. But after 3+ years of fighting in the trenches only for the BEF to be kicked out over France is going to serverly damage British morale, honestly at that point I have a hard time seeing Briton not gust giving up the colonies and trying to rebuild for a round two, but no reparations (although whith the blockade landing emediatly you wouldn't have a humanitarian crisis in Germany alto maby in france) and that still dosnt deal whith the Japanese who have varly fought, let alone been defited by Germany. The best way I see this going down is Germany giving it's posetions to Japan in exchange for "reparations" in Germany and for sale if that to the Japanese and Germany gust replacing it's losses whith French posetions like Indochina.

In 1918 the Germans were dealing with the Communists in their peace negotiations, and the Communists were not negotiating in good faith and spinning it out in the hope of a revolution in Germany. In response Germany went on the offensive and made huge advances against minimal opposition; they would catch trains to find stations unoccupied, leave a guard detachment and keep going. This caused the Communists to immediately cave into even harsher German demands than before.

In Britain's case the scenario would be BEF defeated, France collapsed and occupied, uboats based on the Channel with free access to the Atlantic, long range guns making Dover untenable and bombers roaming at will to London; Britain has asked for an armistice. If Britain starts balking at German demands then the Germans start sinking ships, dropping bombs, firing guns again until the defeated Britain complies, after all it war Britain who asked for the fighting to stop.
 
n both cases what I really can't see is Germany actually gaining a significant number of colonial holdings - I doubt the British would accept anything except token concessions unless Germany won by some near-ASB proto-Dunkirk where they destroy the BEF.

Britain has a choice; keep Germany based in France and Belgium or pay them off with colonies.
 
Britain has a choice; keep Germany based in France and Belgium or pay them off with colonies.
Plus this isn't the Napoleonic wars brition dose not have the will to try to blockade all of Europe after all it's been through the last 3-4 years.
 
Top