Could the Central Powers have won WW1?
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Redbeard
Banned
Of course they could, and were close several times.
The result would not necessarily have been the world descending into Teutonic darkness. Germany before the war was well underway in the process of developing into a modern (social)democracy, and in case of a quick German victory my best bid is that Germany continues this development.
WWII, nazis etc. as we know them certainly wouldn't have been possible.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
The result would not necessarily have been the world descending into Teutonic darkness. Germany before the war was well underway in the process of developing into a modern (social)democracy, and in case of a quick German victory my best bid is that Germany continues this development.
WWII, nazis etc. as we know them certainly wouldn't have been possible.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Rule of 9
To answer the general question.
Yes, the CP could win but not as quickly as the Schlieffen Plan fantasized.
Another way to express this is my Rule of 9. It categorizes outcomes of the war for Germany on a scale of 1 to 9. 1 is the worst for Germany and 9 is the best. A 5 is an approx ante bellum negotiated settlement. Versailles was a 3. My rule of 9 is that any outcome other than a 3 makes anything resembling World War Two as we know it impossible (a 1 or 2 makes Germany too weak, while a 4 or better averts Nazism).
Actually though I think a 9 outcome was impossible--this is the confusion at work in the Uber Allies thread.
To answer the general question.
Yes, the CP could win but not as quickly as the Schlieffen Plan fantasized.
Another way to express this is my Rule of 9. It categorizes outcomes of the war for Germany on a scale of 1 to 9. 1 is the worst for Germany and 9 is the best. A 5 is an approx ante bellum negotiated settlement. Versailles was a 3. My rule of 9 is that any outcome other than a 3 makes anything resembling World War Two as we know it impossible (a 1 or 2 makes Germany too weak, while a 4 or better averts Nazism).
Actually though I think a 9 outcome was impossible--this is the confusion at work in the Uber Allies thread.
The longer the war goes on the better I feel it is for the allies. Once the USA is in I feel that there is no real way for the Germany and its allies to win.
One thing that I wonder one is “what†will Germany think is a win? If France goes under but continues to fight from its colonies with the British Empire will Germany continue to fight on or just cold shoulder them.
The allies never invaded Germany proper yet they thought they had won. Was this a real victory or just a mirage?
One thing that I wonder one is “what†will Germany think is a win? If France goes under but continues to fight from its colonies with the British Empire will Germany continue to fight on or just cold shoulder them.
The allies never invaded Germany proper yet they thought they had won. Was this a real victory or just a mirage?
That is usually the consensus. However, I would not be so sure, this is not WW2: Russia is gone, and with it the second front (just garrison duty in the occupied areas plus some support to the Whites); there is no carpet bombing of the cities; the allies (in particular the French) are truly sick of the war and the death toll it brought. I agree that there is no chance for a full German victory; OTOH, a peace by exhaustion on the Western front is in the cards. Germany looses the colonies, but keeps the gains in the East. The Baltic becomes a German lake. AH might loose Bosnia and give some land compensation to Italy.dreadnought2041 said:
The British would be likely to go in for the kill of the Ottoman Empire, with the Greeks in tow.
It would be a better situation than what came out of Versailles, but I doubt it might be a stable situation.
My bet is for the cold shoulder. And UK would not be so eager to pursue a continental war they cannot win.dreadnought2041 said:
This argument is the typical German revanchist onedreadnought2041 said:
: the Army was winning, and it was betrayed by Socialists, Anarchists and Jews, Jews, Jews..The truth is that both sides were close to exhaustion, and Ludendorff lost his nerves when the offensive of the spring 1918 failed. When a CiC gets convinced that his side has lost, that's it.
Its true that it was only in 1918 that the USA started to have an influence on the Western front in terms of military power. They had taken certain heavy eqp from the French and British to there detriment.
The real effect I feel to start with was on the moral of the allies. They had been fighting for 4 year with not much to show. They can see that the Russians have gone under and they must know that Germany is going to make one last attack to try and break the deadlock.
With the arrival of fresh American divisions the allies knew that it was only a matter of time. They knew they could not lose the war now but could they win it?
The blockade of Germany was really starting to bite and there was now no chance of lifting it. The HSF was in no position to fight with the Grand Fleet. The people at home were on the verge of starvation and Turkey was looking like going under. The only hope was for Germany to break the allies in there 1918 offensive.
It seems to me rather like the Ardennes offensive in 1944. Both had to be done but the chances were very slim. Roll the dice and hope you get a double 6.
The real effect I feel to start with was on the moral of the allies. They had been fighting for 4 year with not much to show. They can see that the Russians have gone under and they must know that Germany is going to make one last attack to try and break the deadlock.
With the arrival of fresh American divisions the allies knew that it was only a matter of time. They knew they could not lose the war now but could they win it?
The blockade of Germany was really starting to bite and there was now no chance of lifting it. The HSF was in no position to fight with the Grand Fleet. The people at home were on the verge of starvation and Turkey was looking like going under. The only hope was for Germany to break the allies in there 1918 offensive.
It seems to me rather like the Ardennes offensive in 1944. Both had to be done but the chances were very slim. Roll the dice and hope you get a double 6.
Max Sinister
Banned
I don't think that a victoriuos Germany would build a peaceful Europe. Better than with WW2 and nazis yes, but not perfect either. If they'd form a kind of European Community, they'd maybe even hamper European unification - because France and other states forced into this union wouldn't like it and try to escape as soon as Germany couldn't hold that union together anymore (which would happen).
Of course, there are several ways how the Central powers could win. I think the best way would be if they defended in the West, did not invade Belgium (maybe even Britain would stay out then) and attacked Russia and Serbia. Russia could get rid of the Czar, no big loss.
Of course, there are several ways how the Central powers could win. I think the best way would be if they defended in the West, did not invade Belgium (maybe even Britain would stay out then) and attacked Russia and Serbia. Russia could get rid of the Czar, no big loss.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Steffen what you say is tru of the land battle....
but don't forget about the war at sea, where the US contribution probably began by the summer of 1917.
No doubt about it Britain was vastly navally superior to Germany and
capable of blockading it. However, the effects, and even the
effectiveness of the blockade itself grew over time.
The blockade still had leaks in early 1917. The entry of the United
States, and its Navy however, almost instantly contributed to
air-tightening the blockade. Blockade patrols were reinforced, and
more importantly, Britain and the USA totally clamped down on the
transit of goods to Germany through the Nordic states and Netherlands.
This had already been greatly restricted, but until the spring of
1917, some low level of commerce had been permitted to avoid
irritating the most important neutral, the US. In other words, the Allies became more hard-ass towards Denmark at this point.
Also, interned German and Austrian shipping in the US, which had been
sitting idle in American ports, became available for Allied use in the
spring of 1917.
Finally the American Fleet became ready by the summer of 1917 to
suggest convoys, an idea the British Admiralty had been resisting
until then (in WWII by contrast, the US was the dullard on convoys and
the British had the right idea first), and once decided, was able to
help convoys, reducing the U-Boat threat and helping get supplies
across.
So, although it took over a year for the US to have even a
quantitative impact on the ground war, it much more quickly made a
difference in the war at sea.
So, if you remove the US from the equation, who have the possibility
of the Germans importing some goods from overseas during 1917 and
1918, you don't have free interned shipping, and convoys may not start
as early or be as effective, leading to higher losses from U-Boats.
[Assuming of course, the PoD is not a German decision to abstain from
U-Boat warfare, but instead the passage of the act keeping US
passengers off belligerent ships. If the PoD involves Germany simply
abstaining from U-Boats and Zimmerman, the looser blockade still
benefits them and the Allies still don't get interned shipping, but
the Allies are better off than in the first option].
So, what will be the cumulative effects of a somewhat worse Allied
supply situation [Yes all sophisticated militarty hardware came from
France and Germany, but bulk rations and so on came from overseas]and
a somewhat better German supply situation by spring 1918? Especially
if Mike Stone is correct that in OTL the winter of 1917-1918 was
actually not as bad as that of 1916-1917 for Germany?
but don't forget about the war at sea, where the US contribution probably began by the summer of 1917.
No doubt about it Britain was vastly navally superior to Germany and
capable of blockading it. However, the effects, and even the
effectiveness of the blockade itself grew over time.
The blockade still had leaks in early 1917. The entry of the United
States, and its Navy however, almost instantly contributed to
air-tightening the blockade. Blockade patrols were reinforced, and
more importantly, Britain and the USA totally clamped down on the
transit of goods to Germany through the Nordic states and Netherlands.
This had already been greatly restricted, but until the spring of
1917, some low level of commerce had been permitted to avoid
irritating the most important neutral, the US. In other words, the Allies became more hard-ass towards Denmark at this point.
Also, interned German and Austrian shipping in the US, which had been
sitting idle in American ports, became available for Allied use in the
spring of 1917.
Finally the American Fleet became ready by the summer of 1917 to
suggest convoys, an idea the British Admiralty had been resisting
until then (in WWII by contrast, the US was the dullard on convoys and
the British had the right idea first), and once decided, was able to
help convoys, reducing the U-Boat threat and helping get supplies
across.
So, although it took over a year for the US to have even a
quantitative impact on the ground war, it much more quickly made a
difference in the war at sea.
So, if you remove the US from the equation, who have the possibility
of the Germans importing some goods from overseas during 1917 and
1918, you don't have free interned shipping, and convoys may not start
as early or be as effective, leading to higher losses from U-Boats.
[Assuming of course, the PoD is not a German decision to abstain from
U-Boat warfare, but instead the passage of the act keeping US
passengers off belligerent ships. If the PoD involves Germany simply
abstaining from U-Boats and Zimmerman, the looser blockade still
benefits them and the Allies still don't get interned shipping, but
the Allies are better off than in the first option].
So, what will be the cumulative effects of a somewhat worse Allied
supply situation [Yes all sophisticated militarty hardware came from
France and Germany, but bulk rations and so on came from overseas]and
a somewhat better German supply situation by spring 1918? Especially
if Mike Stone is correct that in OTL the winter of 1917-1918 was
actually not as bad as that of 1916-1917 for Germany?