Entente demands unconditional surrender in 1918

[Bmao]

My opinion is that if the Germans are resolved to fight on until the bitter end, they could possibly last into 1920. Both the Rhine and the Southern alps are relatively easy to defend and would hold out for a long time, perhaps half a year each. That is assuming that the United States would be also willing to fight on the principle of unconditional surrender of Germany.

If not, and the US pulls out of the war, and the British and the French still insist upon unconditinal surrender, Germany may last long enough so that the raw materials from the east start flowing in.

 

[alt_historian]

Why would the military overthrow the Kaiser because the Entente is demanding unconditional surrender? Even if the military were inclined to launch a coup, why would they be getting rid of the Kaiser when most of the officers were staunch monarchists?
...

Also, Wilhelmine Germany post-1916 was in effect a military dictatorship (I know it needs a source, but I've seen that argument elsewhere): Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the heads of this government. Kaiser Bill was essentially a figurehead anyway after 1916. So, why would the military bother 'overthrowing' him when they were already in control? And as you point out, many were staunch monarchists in the first place.

 

[alt_historian]

My opinion is that if the Germans are resolved to fight on until the bitter end, they could possibly last into 1920. Both the Rhine and the Southern alps are relatively easy to defend and would hold out for a long time, perhaps half a year each. That is assuming that the United States would be also willing to fight on the principle of unconditional surrender of Germany.

If not, and the US pulls out of the war, and the British and the French still insist upon unconditinal surrender, Germany may last long enough so that the raw materials from the east start flowing in.

Oh great, I hadn't thought about the physical barriers to invasion... the Rhine should indeed be fairly easy to defend: Given the generally slow, grinding pace of much of WWI, they will have plenty of time to set charges on all the bridges, move away or destroy all riverboats and barges they can find, and so on. And (AFAIK) unlike WWII, the Allies don't have any amphibious equipment or pontoon bridges etc. They could hold out on the Rhine for a long time.
The Bavarian Alps of course are different. The Italians at least have plenty of experience of mountain combat, so it may well be easier for the Allies to push up from the south.

On the other hand, if anyone has any imagination they will detach some forces from the Western Front, let the Americans plug the gap there, and try out an amphibious invasion of Northern Germany while their back is turned, as it were. I mean, we had a big navy (AFAIK) sitting up in Scapa Flow doing nothing much.
I just thought, about that idea: where are we going to get the transports, landing ships etc? Any ideas?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

On the other hand, if anyone has any imagination they will detach some forces from the Western Front, let the Americans plug the gap there, and try out an amphibious invasion of Northern Germany while their back is turned, as it were. I mean, we had a big navy (AFAIK) sitting up in Scapa Flow doing nothing much.
I just thought, about that idea: where are we going to get the transports, landing ships etc? Any ideas?

I think the memories of Gallipoli are probably a bit too fresh for the Allies to consider another large-scale amphibious invasion. That's not to mention that Germany's formidable fleet would have to be destroyed before an invasion could be considered, and while the Entente fleet is quite capable of beating the Germans it will not be quick or easy, especially if the Germans will be fighting in their home waters. If it's done right it could work, but it will be difficult and risky, and after Gallipoli I don't think a plan like that could be approved.

The fact that WWI Germany was already being run by the military was quite good, and just another reason why the army would not want to overthrow the Kaiser. On the other hand, I could see a putsch if the Reichstag tried to reassert itself, but that would end with the Kaiser still in place with Hindenberg and Ludendorff as his "trusted advisors."

 

[alt_historian]

I think the memories of Gallipoli are probably a bit too fresh for the Allies to consider another large-scale amphibious invasion. That's not to mention that Germany's formidable fleet would have to be destroyed before an invasion could be considered, and while the Entente fleet is quite capable of beating the Germans it will not be quick or easy, especially if the Germans will be fighting in their home waters. If it's done right it could work, but it will be difficult and risky, and after Gallipoli I don't think a plan like that could be approved.

Oh, I don't know about the Gallipoli factor. Yes, obviously memories were fresh, but if the allies are desperate enough they may well try it.

The fact that WWI Germany was already being run by the military was quite good, and just another reason why the army would not want to overthrow the Kaiser. On the other hand, I could see a putsch if the Reichstag tried to reassert itself, but that would end with the Kaiser still in place with Hindenberg and Ludendorff as his "trusted advisors."[/quote]

Yes... and we all know just how trustworthy 'trusted advisers' usually turn out to be...

Assuming that this does not happen (i.e. there is no attempted coup, and the Kaiser remains 'in power', do you think the personal stature of Ludendorff, and especially Hindenburg, would be increased or lessened? Its hardly possible to increase Hindenburg's popular standing in Germany during and after OTL WWI. To say he was a national hero after Tannenberg would be understating it, if anything.

[FONT=&quot]"Hindenburg became in the popular mind the symbol of the state’s might and the guarantor of victory… Hindenburg seemed like a rock, steadfast and imperturbable, that no enemy could defeat.” [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A. Dorpalen, Hindenburg and the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Weimar[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Republic[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Princeton, USA, 1964), p. 10.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Would such a reputation be further enhanced by a steadfast commitment to fight on, no matter what the cost? Or would it be diminished by refusal to admit defeat? https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/#_ftn1[/FONT]

 

[Bmao]

If the Entente demanded unconditional surrender of Germany, I could well imagine that Hindenburg's stature would only be further increased if he pledged to fight on no matter the cost. It would sort of be like Chruchill during the dark days of 1940, in which in many eyes Britain seemed doomed to defeat.

 

[alt_historian]

If the Entente demanded unconditional surrender of Germany, I could well imagine that Hindenburg's stature would only be further increased if he pledged to fight on no matter the cost. It would sort of be like Chruchill during the dark days of 1940, in which in many eyes Britain seemed doomed to defeat.

Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines. Oddly I hadn't considered wartime Churchill as a template, but I suppose it would be a similar situation. Except even more so, because unlike the proposed scenario, I don't think - when he was in any position to do something about it - Hitler ever actually demanded we surrender unconditionally. Its simply that the conditions he was asking for were quite harsh, considering that we hadn't even attacked Germany directly until 1940. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So in the proposed situation, there might be even more of a "we shall fight them on the beaches" aspect to it: except in this case, it would be more along the lines of:
"We shall fight them on the Rhine. We shall fight them in the Alps. We shall fight them in the towns, and in the streets. We shall fight them on the Donau, and on the Main. We shall fight them in the Thuringer Wald, we shall fight them on the Weser... we shall never surrender!"

 

[Max Sinister]

Germany was at the end of its rope. The people were hungry (don't know whether the Ukrainian grain could've still changed something), in November, the sailors of the Kriegsmarine in Kiel rebelled because they didn't want to fight for a lost cause anymore, all of Germany's allies had capitulated or were close to. Probably chaos would've broken loose, and noone can tell who could've won - Monarchists / military, Socialists / Communists, or democratic republicans.

 

[Gladi]

Oh great, I hadn't thought about the physical barriers to invasion...

Ahem, there is thousand kilometer long border with Austria-Hungary, which would have just been knocked out of war with its rail network intact.

 

[LordKalvan]

Germany was at the end of its rope. The people were hungry (don't know whether the Ukrainian grain could've still changed something), in November, the sailors of the Kriegsmarine in Kiel rebelled because they didn't want to fight for a lost cause anymore, all of Germany's allies had capitulated or were close to. Probably chaos would've broken loose, and noone can tell who could've won - Monarchists / military, Socialists / Communists, or democratic republicans.

The Kriegsmarine mutiny of november is a good point. And the sailors had suffered somehow less than the average infantry man.
A red insurrection is in the cards, too. How can someone assume that Germans will fight to the bloody end?
Everyone (including the generals) knows very well that it's game over.

 

[dummnutzer]

The Kriegsmarine mutiny of november is a good point. {SNIP} Everyone (including the generals) knows very well that it's game over.

One reason for the Kieler Matrosenaufstand was the order to sacrifice the fleet in a heroic death struggle to ensure the future of a post-war navy (Flottenbefehl 24.10.1918 calls it a "Todeskampf").

The sailors were not willing to die in a hopeless suicide run to please some admirals. Smart guys.

But in this ATL there would be no order 24.10.1918, as the Hochseeflotte would be needed to defend the coast and secure Baltic supply lines. This is a sensible and doable mission: The sailors would have been willing to continue fighting on the defensive IMHO, backed up by mines, torpedo boats, subs and coastal artillery to avoid an unconditional surrender.

 

[Datner]

sailors would have been willing to continue fighting on the defensive

A read of "All quiet on the western front" will show that German soldiers were more concerned with defending their last rotten slices of bread from rats more then they were interested in defeating British and French soldiers.
And a short description on how after securing a French position the soldiers are shocked at number of food the French have shows that Germany was in no condition to win any continued struggle.
It was simply a starving failed empire with many of its subjects either willing to support communists, and milions of others who were non-German starting up insurgencies in to break free from Germany. The fall of Germany would be quick.

 

[dummnutzer]

Nobody in this thread has denied that Germany would have lost. One poster argued for 1920, most for 1919. Late 1919 seems OK to me.

This is not some Teutonic wank fest. Relax.

"Im Westen nichts Neues" is a novel, certainly a great one, but only a novel.

Are You certain that Your assessment of military capabilities in 1918 is not clouded by historical grudges?

 

[Datner]

is a novel, certainly a great one, but only a novel.

It's an account on how soldier's lived and how they saw the war. The only ones who want to keep fighting are old professors in the soldier's town and command staff away from front.

Are You certain that Your assessment of military capabilities in 1918 is not clouded by historical grudges?

I don't think so-after all German soldiers in 1918 just surrendered their arms when asked in many territories that were part of Germany. The only willing ones to fight were militias from nationalist circles-but they were too few to change the final outcome.
The British Blockade was succesfull in stoping German desire to conquer Europe.

 

[dhouse1205]

Conquer Europe? I thought it was the crisscrossing alliances and treaties of the time that forced Germany to take the initiative? Germany's treaty with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire at the time pretty much obliged them to declare war on any nation that attacked its allies. Sure it was Serb's who lit the match on the powder keg, but the Serb's had a huge sympathizer with the Tsar of Russia who was allied with France and Britain.

Take into consideration that the Austrian's were going to commence a crackdown on Serbia, the German's thought that the Russian's would get involved which would set them at odds with the Austrians which would in turn involve Germany. And quite frankly in the 3 way alliance between France, Britain and Russia, Russia is the weakest of the three and France was right next door. IT made perfect sense to try to knock out France first.