"Hello there, (Indian or Irish nationalist movement), would you be interested in obtaining a delivery of 10,000 Mosin Nagants, only slightly used? There's more where that came from if you're satisified with our free shipping!"

And they're supposed to get those to India... how exactly? Plus, the Brits can do the same thing with partisans in the Balkans since Bulgaria and AH are already falling apart, which would create a dumpster fire to Germany's south...

Berlin loses if she tries to play the long game. She simply has too many pots on the stove by 1918 to simultaneously hold the Anglo-Americans back everywhere, keep her allies together, consolidate the East, and put sufficent pressure on the Empire to get a total victory.
 
Germany's financial situation (just as Britain's) was in shambles and any war is going to be followed by a post-war depression at least for 2 years or so as the economy adjusts to peacetime. Additionally, Germany is going to be busy propping up its allies and puppets in the East, so by 1918 colonies might not be a major immediate objective.

Back to the initial question at hand, I think the Pacific colonies are lost as Japan will not return the Pacific Islands, and it is of little value for Germany to pick a fight over them. The same goes for Papua, Samoa and Nauru as the Australian and New Zealand governments were more independent by 1918 and would refuse to return the territory. Again, for Germany to launch an invasion with these countries over small islands is probably not worth the trouble.

The easiest colonies to obtain would be Kamerun and Togo. In East Africa, von Lettow-Vorbeck was still fighting with hit and run campaigns in Northern Mozambique and later Northern Rhodesia. Returning German East Africa to Germany in its entirety might be possible in exchange for some other concession from the Germans regarding the Channel Ports. Obtaining Mozambique North of the Zambezi from Portugal is also a real possibility. Portugal itself is weak and its finances were in shambles due to the war so they might have to cede Mozambique south of the Zambezi to Rhodesia and the Union of South Africa.

In South Africa, the Smuts government also was far more independent and told the British government that Southwest Africa would not be returned to the Germans. Afrikaners made up around 25% of the European population prior to WWI and again Germany might be willing to cede this in exchange for the Belgian Congo and even Northern Angola. A possible partition of the Belgian Congo is possible as the planned Katanga Railway linking the Rhodesias to Atlantic would most certainly place Katanga within British control giving the British Angola south of Luanda so they could control the port of Lobito and the Benguela railway. The islands of São Tomé and Príncipe might have also been of interest to the Germans, this again depends on the British being willing to negotiate it away.

For the French to gain some concessions in Europe they may cede most of French Equatorial Africa, to join it with Kamerun and the majority of the Belgian Congo to form a German Mittelafrika. Dahomey, Madagascar and even French Morocco are other territories that the Germans would possibly be interested in. Though Germany would have lost its Pacific and Asian colonies, the establishment of a large colony in central Africa would have been seen as a victory at home.

First I think the financial situation for Germany is not that bad, the bulk of her war debt is inflated currency and internally held, paying it down simply plows money back into the economy so long as one can contain further inflation, prevent deflation and curb capital flight. It isn't pretty but it is not ruinous. Germany needs to fire up industry and get back to exporting as soon as possible, that means it needs foreign currency, gold or credit, soon rather than later. I think you see austerity like post-WW2 Britain as the industrialists are prompted to go earn hard cash. Worst case you see the same barter style trade that pre-WW2 Germany evolved to work around its weak currency and lack of gold. So more trade with China, South America, the other places where hard goods can be traded for raw materials. That is a direct threat to the London financial empire and gold system, so Britain needs to engage Germany before she builds too much independent trade. And if the USA is warm to it, Germany likely gets loans and raw materials from her, circumventing the British and kicking off a profitable relationship outside British control. Thus for me the colonies are far less vital.

The USA will not prefer Japan gaining the Pacific islands, we might have Germany sell them to the USA to raise cash, that would be a twist. OTL the British backed Japan getting them to curb American growth in the Pacific, the USA conceded in part because as Japanese territory they could freely be used in war where if still German they are potentially off-limits neutral ground. I toy with the USA getting leased bases in the Islands to draw Germany and America together opposed to Japan.

I think any division of Portuguese or Spanish colonies is in the future and not likely to be put forward in the armistice at war's end. I agree that if more needs given it comes out of France's possessions. And I like Germany demanding stuff that Britain must press hard on SA or Australia to cough up, that is good diplomacy, further breaking the unity of the Empire, even if it fails the Germans have made Britain lose something pressuring them. I think push come to shove the British can force the Dominions to yield but it will accelerate the demise of British dominance in the Empire, it should short circuit any Imperial Preference working, and if we give the Germans that much skill, they have set up a transition to becoming the alternative partner. Australia will see the USA first and next Germany as good friends in opposing Japan, SA will have a German counter-weight in the rise of Afrikaner political power, the fate of Rhodesia and how decolonialization proceeds. Like Canada, SA might quickly become more about trade with Germany than the UK, and like Canada it might finds its interests at odds with London very quickly.

To guide a far better style of administration I rely on Wilhelm Solf getting a bigger voice. Who in the German Foreign Office has any vision at all? We need a very crafty player to get us so much out of the colonial fight.
 
"Hello there, (Indian or Irish nationalist movement), would you be interested in obtaining a delivery of 10,000 Mosin Nagants, only slightly used? There's more where that came from if you're satisified with our free shipping!"
Only ten thousand? They offered the IVF over a hundred thousand in 1916, plus machine guns, light after and explosives.
If Germany won there'd be far more materiel available, and possibly some other aid. "Volunteers" with a few "scrappped" U-boats perhaps?
 
And they're supposed to get those to India... how exactly? Plus, the Brits can do the same thing with partisans in the Balkans since Bulgaria and AH are already falling apart, which would create a dumpster fire to Germany's south...

Berlin loses if she tries to play the long game. She simply has too many pots on the stove by 1918 to simultaneously hold the Anglo-Americans back everywhere, keep her allies together, consolidate the East, and put sufficent pressure on the Empire to get a total victory.

Alright, maybe not India, at least not during a war, but Ireland is a matter of finding a nice deserted beach and pulling a cargo sub like Deutschland up to it. I'm sure the Irish would be interested in some 'surplus' Lee-Enfields.

Only ten thousand? They offered the IVF over a hundred thousand in 1916, plus machine guns, light after and explosives.
If Germany won there'd be far more materiel available, and possibly some other aid. "Volunteers" with a few "scrappped" U-boats perhaps?

My thought was more that would be a initial shipment, and if the groups expressed interest in continuing shipments then they could work something out.
 
Alright, maybe not India, at least not during a war, but Ireland is a matter of finding a nice deserted beach and pulling a cargo sub like Deutschland up to it. I'm sure the Irish would be interested in some 'surplus' Lee-Enfields.

No question on that. What I'd contest, though, is if you'd find enough radical enough Irish to make use of those Lee-Enfields that they could overcome British and Loyal Irish (Hell, even those who are content with Dominion/Home Rule status) elements. Plus, does Germany really want to start that game? Because the British could do the same thing in Eastern Europe if this whole thing extends out into a Cold War... which is a conflict neither side really wins in the long run. Add that to the fact that, if Germany is being too belligerent about all this the Americans are likely to try to undermine their commerical presence in the Western Hemisphere, and its a receipe for Germany finding herself in an increasingly troubled position economically; having to sustain high lives of militerization just to keep her system of clients to together right as her market oppritunities to get the money to fund said military are being throttled in all directions (The British Empire throwing up trade barriers and, obviously, the Russian market gone with the Soviets not exactly taking part in the most international commerce). Reproachment and restoration of normal commerical relations with the world is vital to Germany's long-term economic health.
 
I think its more a disagreement about what is meant by "beaten". Especially this late in the war, its less that Britain comes to the table as vanquished/defeated power, and more that she comes to the table having not achieved her "offensive" goal (IE the containment of Germany). So, she "loses" in the sense that she fails to beat Germany, but herself is not beaten. There's a distinct difference between the two, especially when it comes to the perceptions, leverage, and expectations underlying peace negotiations.

Britain will have lost some 500,000 men, endured the uboats, bombing, coastal raids and the like only to be shorn of her allies and achieved nothing other than make herself an enemy of the most powerful country in Europe, which is now well and truly encamped on the Pas de Calais. I don't think the British people and Parliament will see the bright side and consider themselves to have a lot of leverage, indeed they will do virtually anything to get the Germans off the Channel coast, all of Africa isn't worth that.
 
What I'd contest, though, is if you'd find enough radical enough Irish to make use of those Lee-Enfields that they could overcome British and Loyal Irish (Hell, even those who are content with Dominion/Home Rule status) elements.

Why would the Irish be more loyal to the British in a CP victory scenario than OTL? If the British are losing in a late CP-Victory scenario they're most likely going to introduce conscription in Ireland which would drive even more people away from Home Rule than OTL (the 1918 Conscription Crisis and Lloyd George's plan to tie conscription to the introduction of Home Rule is what destroyed support for Home Rule OTL) and start the Irish War of Independence early. The IRA were estimated to have at max only 3,000 rifles OTL so 20,000 or 60,000 rifles would make a huge difference to the war of independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was only signed after all because the IRA were close to running out of supplies.
 
Last edited:
Alright, maybe not India, at least not during a war, but Ireland is a matter of finding a nice deserted beach and pulling a cargo sub like Deutschland up to it. I'm sure the Irish would be interested in some 'surplus' Lee-Enfields.
Somewhere like Fenit perhaps?

My thought was more that would be a initial shipment, and if the groups expressed interest in continuing shipments then they could work something out.
It would really depend on if they were arming the IVF in anticipation of a major uprising, or to create a force capable of further action.

No question on that. What I'd contest, though, is if you'd find enough radical enough Irish to make use of those Lee-Enfields that they could overcome British and Loyal Irish (Hell, even those who are content with Dominion/Home Rule status) elements.
Are you familiar with the Irish War of Independence at all?

Britain will have lost some 500,000 men, endured the uboats, bombing, coastal raids and the like only to be shorn of her allies and achieved nothing other than make herself an enemy of the most powerful country in Europe, which is now well and truly encamped on the Pas de Calais. I don't think the British people and Parliament will see the bright side and consider themselves to have a lot of leverage, indeed they will do virtually anything to get the Germans off the Channel coast, all of Africa isn't worth that.
There will also be a huge degree of war weariness and a desire to end the conflict once-and-for-all; this will probably lead to greater concessions.
OTL Britain in 1918-9 saw an upsurge in civil unrest, labour disputes and military and naval mutiny; in a defeated state these would probably be worse.

Why would the Irish be more loyal to the British in a CP victory scenario than OTL? If the British are losing in a late CP-Victory scenario they're most likely going to introduce conscription in Ireland which would drive even more people away from Home Rule than OTL (the 1918 Conscription Crisis and Lloyd George's plan to tie conscription to the introduction of Home Rule is what destroyed support for Home Rule OTL) and start the Irish War of Independence early. The IRA were estimated to have at max only 3,000 rifles OTL so 20,000 or 60,000 rifles would make a huge difference to the war of independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was only signed after all because the IRA were close to running out of supplies.
Indeed. The attempted introduction of conscription in Ireland had a far greater impact on the radicalisation of Irish nationalists than the Easter Rising, aided by the adriot manipulation of the "German Plot" by Gay and Collins. An actual introduction of conscription would have led to large scale civil (and uncivil) disobedience plus armed responses.

Lets also not forget that in the longer term an independent Ireland that'd friendly to Germany would be extremely valuable in Great War II. The importance of, for example, Queenstown/Cobh to anti-submarine operations cannot be forgotten. Both Britain and Germany would be aware of this.
 
Why would the Irish be more loyal to the British in a CP victory scenario than OTL? If the British are losing in a late CP-Victory scenario they're most likely going to introduce conscription in Ireland which would drive even more people away from Home Rule than OTL (the 1918 Conscription Crisis and Lloyd George's plan to tie conscription to the introduction of Home Rule is what destroyed support for Home Rule OTL) and start the Irish War of Independence early. The IRA were estimated to have at max only 3,000 rifles OTL so 20,000 or 60,000 rifles would make a huge difference to the war of independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was only signed after all because the IRA were close to running out of supplies.

It woulden't, nessicerily. I also fail to see why the British would be looking to extend conscription to Ireland in the event of the war on the Continent being effectively ended (If the BEF is as truely pushed away as the OP suggests, its not like Britain is looking for untrained bodies to fill out a massive land army). However, if the Irish Nationalist movement gets wound up too heavily with Berlin's puppet strings its going to lose a bit of wind from its sales... and as I pointed out, the Entente can do the same thing with the massive number of Nationalists Germany has to keep the pressure on in all its other conquests. Are things going to be rosey for the UK? No, but if I may paraphrase a quote from before the war "A nation can handle one Ireland, like Britain, or even three Irelands, like Germany. But Austria was a nation entirely made up of Ireland (And now the German Mittleuropa is too)". Germany and her allies are also facing increased industrial problems, mass starvation, civil unrest, lagging morale, ect. (Indeed, alot of the propaganda around the Kaiserschlact wasen't that it'd win the war, but that it'd be the offensive that got the Entente to sit down and negotiate peace... which Germany can't push for "Total Victory" on). You'd need a POD before 1918, with the victory more than just collapsing over the finish line, in order to get Germany walking away with everything she could conceivably want.

Especially since, as pointed out, an Ireland that's a client of Germany is a knife in Britain's side and she knows it. If Germany looks like they're trying to set up such a regeime, than the British just got justification to stick more steel in their spine since the war has now shifted to a defensive justification on their end, rather than being a call to spill more blood and treasure just to make the Germans hurt more.

I'm not saying that a CP victory is out of the cards; indeed, if we assume the Russian Revolution I'd say the odds are better than even of the Germans coming out of the war ahead in the predictable scenarios. However, in order to get any kind of crushing defeat where the Germans essentially get to toss the sword of the vanquished on the tribute scale, you need a POD before the 1918 offensives. If Britain wants to not accede to suboridination of Germany, she's only going to accept peace terms that put Germany in a domineering position everywhere in the event of total defeat. Its simply suicidal in anything behyond the shortest term of do otherwise, and with the Americans backing her up (Again, more likely in the even this isen't pushing for terms to "punish" Germany or expand imperially so much as defend Anglo-American interests in the vital spaces they already exist) she has more endurance left than the Germans.
 
Last edited:
Top