CP Victory - Effects in Japan?

OP stated that the USA remained neutral.Without the USA in the war Russia may come to terms earlier than OTL. If Germany achieves an armistice with Belgium, France and Italy the UK would not be in a position to enforce a continental blockade.

Fair enough. That still doesn't solve the issue of sub warfare. Germany can interdict British shipping however they want. That still doesn't mean they can hit neutral ships carrying supplies, much less the US. And then there's the issue of retaking the colonies. The only German presence in Africa by that point is Lettow-Vorbeck, and he can't really do much more to regain the colonies. It's likely Germany could get some of their African colonies back, and central African French and Belgian ones, but if they're not able to going to go all out against Britain and take the isles, they're going to face a stalemate anyway.

The best solution for Japan would be if they could offer payment to Germany for the islands they occupy. Otherwise you might end up with a cessation of hostilities and no German Japanese peace treaty. Without a peace treaty Germany could be inclined to support China in any Sion-Japanese dispute.

Pretty sure Germany is going to demand reparations anyway. Maybe they'll demand the isles back but that's way down the list of priorities.
 
While it is highly unlikely that Germany can conquer Britain, Britain is by no means invincible. Sea power is a product of fleet and geography and in September and October 1914 Germany came close to upsetting British naval geography as the 'Race to the Sea' hung in the balance. If Germany had captured the Channel ports their entire naval strategy would have been more effective and the threat to Britain much greater. Given the OP said Britain has been defeated I can only assume Germany has done something to defeat Britain along the lines of gaining the Channel ports and conducted an extremely effective naval blockade, most likely combined with beating the BEF in France.

In such a scenario Britain will most likely have the strength to resist occupation but not to dictate terms to Germany about colonies because Germany is the victor and will be in a much stronger position than Britain.

As for the dismissal of a 'Continental System' because of the experience of Napoleon, that doesn't apply in 1917-18. Railways make the exploitation of continental resources highly effective, indeed railways are what makes Superpowers possible. Also telegraph and radio communications means that blockade running is much more difficult than it was in Napoleons day, so attempts to thwart a blockade will be much tougher in 1917 than it was in 1807.

It doesn't actually say Britain had been 'defeated', and therefore I continue to support the idea that it was impossible for Imperial Germany to overcome the British Empire. I agree that a German capture of the Channel Ports would have presented a grave threat (obvious point from which to launch an invasion; potential for inception of British vessels through the Straits etc.), but hardly an existential one. It is also my view that the BEF could have evacuated France via Bordeaux or even Marseilles if necessary - if there is a risk of complete destruction of the BEF or a French collapse, for example.

Germany will certainly be in a dominant position in Europe. However, as a World War, other regions of the globe are relevant to the outcome of the conflict. Germany cannot emerge victorious anywhere other than Continental Europe, and is doomed to fail outside of it.

I don't think even a victorious Germany will have the strength to enforce such a system, railways or otherwise. Germany has to prop up its puppets in the East; fight insurgencies within Germany itself (the British blockade will remain very much in force); provide food for its occupied regions, taking some away from the homeland; hold down either ceded Francophone territory or a rebellious, non-surrendering and politically volatile France; and, probably, keep Austria-Hungary and possibly the Ottoman Empire afloat. I very much doubt that they will be capable of enforcing any continent-wide embargo of Great Britain.
 
How does Germany win a late victory without defeating Britain?

Germany can 'win' the war by subduing the French and knocking the Russians out of the war. After that, Italy is likely to make peace. Germany will be the victor, but the British will still have a very powerful say in any colonial transfers in the peace agreement. Britain itself cannot be defeated, but there is little reason to continue the fight alone as long as British interests are protected to at least some extent.
 
Germany can 'win' the war by subduing the French and knocking the Russians out of the war. After that, Italy is likely to make peace. Germany will be the victor, but the British will still have a very powerful say in any colonial transfers in the peace agreement. Britain itself cannot be defeated, but there is little reason to continue the fight alone as long as British interests are protected to at least some extent.

That seems to ignore the 5 armies deployed in France that are liable to be defeated in battle, the uboat campaign and potential for other naval success in battle and the massive financial over commitment undertaken by Britain which the US propped up from early 1917. Britain was a long way from being invicible in WW1 and could be defeated by Germany in the right circumstances.
 
Yeah I figure that some of Germany's colonies might be returned. Say East Africa and Cameroon (since those two held out the longest) and they also pick up French Equatorial Africa and the Belgian Congo in exchange for limited concessions in Europe from France and Belgium (Britain might like that since it could mean Belgium stays independent and thus Britain has achieved its principle war goal from 1914).

I'm of this opinion. Expecting a permanent loss of German colonies in the event of a German victory is ludicrous. I would expect some territorial adjustments in Africa as some form of compensation for lost colonies in Asia. This could easily come at the expense of Belgium (in exchange for withdrawing from Belgium on the continent and some potential compensation). Equatorial Africa is a potential option as well. Britain also likely wouldn't support Germany trying to claim Indochina as compensation for lost colonies. Money could soften the blow.

Returning other colonies would be difficult since Germany would have to demand them from countries which it can't enforce its will on. South West Africa has been annexed by South Africa and the Pacific Colonies have been annexed by Japan and Australia. Germany can't force those countries to return them nor can the British.

Britain could put pressure on South Africa and Australia, but not Japan. Considering Britain is effectively conceding Eastern Europe to Germany, I doubt Britain is going to make a ton of effort to do this. Now this doesn't mean Italy wouldn't be punished by the Central Powers, so it wouldn't surprise me to see Italy's African colonies fed to Germany as some form of compensation for the loss of its presence in the Pacific. If Britain tries to put pressure on Japan, it'll put a major strain on the alliance. If you're playing the long game, it would be foolish not to expect Russia to become a problem in the future. Maintaining good relations with Japan is in the best interests of Britain. It certainly works for Japan at this point.
 
That seems to ignore the 5 armies deployed in France that are liable to be defeated in battle, the uboat campaign and potential for other naval success in battle and the massive financial over commitment undertaken by Britain which the US propped up from early 1917. Britain was a long way from being invicible in WW1 and could be defeated by Germany in the right circumstances.

If the situation in France becomes critical, Britain will evacuate its troops rather than see them destroyed. They could be transported to Italy via Marseille or overland, or to the Isle from the Channel Ports or Brest.

Germany could not compete against the Royal Navy. Even a victory in a scenario such as Jutland would simply have seen more forces reassigned to the North Sea, not inflict a decisive defeat on the RN. U-boats were insufficient for the task of blockading Britain to the point of surrender. While the British economy would be strained to the limit, it is important to remember that the Germany economy will be doing even worse - unlike the British, there is no one to loan money to the Reich.

While I agree that the UK might agree to a peace due to economic issues, should it come to a contest of which economy can hold out the longest, I don't think the victor would be in doubt.
 
So lets say you have a Central Powers 1914 Victory. Lets say Germany and Austria setup for the defense in East Prussia and Galacia, No Battle of Gumbinnen (no early withdraw of western front forces to east Prussia, Austrian army remains intact in Galacia, Germany wins Battle of Marne, hold Rhiems, encircle Verdun, and hold Amiens and Calais before front solidifies.

From a position of advantage and fearing the blockade, in early November 1914 Germany offers easy terms to France and Russia, No European losses of territory for France, France loses a strip of African territory up to the Niger to Germany (added to Togo), Germany keeps Liege and Luxembourg. Russia agrees to 2 year Austrian occupation of Serbia and predominance of German interest in Turkey but no territorial losses.

Britain agrees to peace at pre-war status quo (with the Germans given a free hand against Japan if Japan doesn't make peace).

If Japan fights on then, this seems like the perfect opportunity for Tirpitz and the Navy boys to make some noise and justify the Navy with the German people. With merchant shipping released with the peace and perhaps with some logistical help from Netherlands colonies and maybe even Russia the Germans send the high seas fleet and a few divisions to take things back!!!

(New Zealand and Australia give back Rabaul, Lae and Samoa as the new base of German operations against Japan).
 
Returning other colonies would be difficult since Germany would have to demand them from countries which it can't enforce its will on. South West Africa has been annexed by South Africa and the Pacific Colonies have been annexed by Japan and Australia. Germany can't force those countries to return them nor can the British.

Iirc most of the "British" forces in East Africa were also South Africans.
 
Any thoughts on the attitude of the US?

Would they press for the return of Tsingtao to China, and if so would either Germany or Japan be likely to agree?
 
My assumption is that the USA remains a hostile neutral but never goes to war and that gives us a stalemated "victory". I could see an armistice as all sides exhaust out in 1918, Germany coming to terms with the political upheaval internally likely has very little endurance let alone enthusiasm for an adventure in Asia. The Kaiser simply adored Tsingtao despite apparently having no affection for the Chinese or Asians generally. His insistence over honor might facilitate his being forced to step down, especially if the Entente demand it as a sop to their electorate. The German Navy does not appear to have the legs to get beyond the North Atlantic as an effective fight force. Thus I see the successor government dominated by Social Democrats willing to cede the Asian possessions for cash and trade deals, a precursor to the later barter arrangements under Hitler.

A truly savvy Government realizes that extra-territoriality is worth trading away for minor damages and respect for that privately held property existing, Japan merely "buys" out German business concessions leaving Germany the "neutral" middle man in China. Push for Tsingtao to be a Chinese city but open to business, especially nudging the USA to see it as the real "open Door." It earns Chinese future friendship, knocks the Japanese off the map as more than a commercial rival and thus embracing the "Open Door" gets the USA friendlier.

An even savvier still the Germans demand Micronesia back as a point of honor, no one sees them as valuable, but offer their neutrality to the USA in any future conflict versus Japan. The USA was undercut by the British in that maneuver OTL, but here the USA would quickly realize that Germany the "ally" in the Pacific letting the USN thrust to the Philippines would set a wedge in Anglo-American relations with true strategic implications. The Germans could have set the British against Japan as the British run roughshod over Japan's opinion to get the peace they want. Again setting in motion the breakup of another alliance. Here I tend to think Japan would want good relations with Germany and does not lose anything consequential.

Whether this is too much loss of face is hard to tell until I did deeper into Japanese diplomatic, business and political thought in this period but I have a book or two in the cue to shed light on it.
 
After France lost the World war 1 to German empire
it's realistic option that Japan take control of French Colonies in Asia like Indochina or French Polynesia.
Much to anger of Germany and USA
I guess that Empire of Japan evolve like OTL and invade north China what end in 1941 with Attack on Pearl Harbor and Invasion of east Pacific
This would let to interesting Alliance: USA, German Empire and Britain against Empire of Japan
you know "The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend"
 
I think the whole idea of Britain dictating the peace or being able to horse trade from a position of strength after defeat is silly with a late CP victory. As France crumbles, its revolution will spill over into Britain and Italy. Sure, peace with Britain might not come well into 1919 because Britain may try to do what posters are suggesting, but Germany has won the war with the capitulation of Russia and France. Simple as that. When the German public reads of the Kaiser's troops on parade in Paris, internal dissent against the war will collapse. Britain, on the other hand, will face an ever increasing wave of general strikes and riots to end the war. Governments will fall in rapid succession. Meanwhile, Germany will consider anything short of the full restoration of its pre-war possessions in Africa and its forced concessions from Belgium and France to be a non starter for peace. If it's necessary, Germany can eject the British from the Ottoman Empire and threaten the Suez. In this scenario the future of the house of Windsor is uncertain, much less the British empire.

Basically, there is little stopping Germany from eventually carving out most of Africa as its colonial possession, because British and French (and Russian) primacy in world affairs will be broken for the next 20 years. Instead of OTLs armistice followed by the interwar period followed by WWII, look for a gradual ending to the Great War, followed by the emergence of an Orwellian tripolar geopolitical system dominated by the US, Germany, and Japan, with shifting alignments of two against the third and minor powers between them.
 
Last edited:
If the situation in France becomes critical, Britain will evacuate its troops rather than see them destroyed. They could be transported to Italy via Marseille or overland, or to the Isle from the Channel Ports or Brest.

Might be easier said than done. During Michael, Haig's staff did draw up plans to retreat across the Somme, but these involved abandoning or destroying nearly 90% of their arms and equipment. The BEF would have had to be re-equipped virtually from scratch.

If France has been knocked out, then obviously British troops can't travel across it. If it hasn't, then presumably any British troops that are still combat-ready will still be fighting there, rather than going to Italy.

In any case, if France falls, Germany's next order of business will be to move troops from there to Bavaria and into Tyrol, to deal a similar blow on that from=nt. Italy is hardly going to last long once the CP no longer have a Western Front to absorb most of their strength.
 
What's keeping the Germans from using all those resources freed up by the end of the war on the continent to build so many submarines that they could line them up in the channel and walk over them to England to force them to give up? This is 100 years after Napoleon, things have changed, the channel is not the defensive wall it used to be, artillery can shoot from one side to the other, aircraft can just fly over it and submarines beneath it. Even ignoring the debts to the USA the UK would be hard pressed to continue the war after it ended on the continent.
 
Top