Germans take and hold Amiens in 1918

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if the Germans managed to take and hold the logistic hub of Amiens during the Kaiserschlacht offensive? According to Foch, Haig, Petain, Clemenceau, Wilson, and Llyod-George, this was the one objective that the Germans could take that would prompt the Allies to make peace after the US entered the war, because it would cut off the British from 43% of their supplies, separate the French and British armies, and potentially cause the British to fall back on the Channel Ports to ensure proper supply, which would have caused the French government to collapse and a peace government to rise.
As far as how the Germans could have done this, there were several chances to do so had Ludendorff not screwed up. But I'm not interested in talking about the how, but the results of Amiens falling and staying in German hands for long enough to provoke a diplomatic response. Is this enough for the Germans to eek out a peace deal?
 
Interesting. So I am guessing the Germans would launch Georgette just the same, but there is no Operation Blucher but instead continued attacks against the British (no point in attacking the French because the British can't move reserves down there anyway and you would want to force the British to expend supplies in a supply limited situation.

Its hard to imagine the British just running out of supplies and surrendering though. They would improvise something to land supplies on beaches or improve the remaining land connection to at least allow a defensive fight.

However there would be no build up here and any eventual couter attack would have to be south of Amiens. The Germans would be in better shape because they would still hold their original lines along the Asine and any success they have up north shortens their lines.

Additional German success would delay allied offensives in Salonika, Italy and Palestine as the British would move all their reserves to france (south of Amiens).

Campaign extends into 1919, however the Germans are completely on the defensive and knowing their allies are shakey would leave divisions in Italy (8 divisions), Salonika (4 divisions) and Turkey (1 at the straits and 1 in the Taursus mountains) to prop up these theaters and since these areas are not great avenues for advance with the Germans defending them nothing happens there really (the Allies do take Syria and the rest of Iraq).

So all the main action is on the west front with the Allies reaching the Rhine at some point in the year, that with the threat of a strategic air campaign as long as the allies want and with the complete defeat of the german submarine offensive, the Germans ask for peace. The eventual allied victory will be seen more as an American victory as compared to OTL, perhaps this American peace might be more lasting.
 
Its hard to imagine the British just running out of supplies and surrendering though. They would improvise something to land supplies on beaches or improve the remaining land connection to at least allow a defensive fight.

This isn't Gallipoli. The BEF is a bit too large to be supplied that way. They'd need a port with decent railway links to wherever the new front line was, and if Calais and Boulogne go, the nearest decent-sized one is Le Havre. That means falling a long way back (supposing they can), and being at least temporaily out of the game.


Campaign extends into 1919,

Why? Either the German offensive is turned back or it isn't. If not, they win in 1918. If it is, they will quit when the front approaches their border - most probably still in 1918. 1919 is unlikely to come into it.


however the Germans are completely on the defensive and knowing their allies are shakey would leave divisions in Italy (8 divisions), Salonika (4 divisions) and Turkey (1 at the straits and 1 in the Taursus mountains) to prop up these theaters and since these areas are not great avenues for advance with the Germans defending them nothing happens there really (the Allies do take Syria and the rest of Iraq).

There isn't likely to be any Salonika front. With the BEF at least temporarily out of the game, France will need every spare soldier, so the ones in Macedonia are virtually certain to be recalled toot sweet.

So all the main action is on the west front with the Allies reaching the Rhine at some point in the year, that with the threat of a strategic air campaign as long as the allies want and with the complete defeat of the german submarine offensive, the Germans ask for peace. The eventual allied victory will be seen more as an American victory as compared to OTL, perhaps this American peace might be more lasting.

What do you mean by "reaches the Rhine"? If you mean under an Armistice, as OTL, that could well be. However, there is no reason to suppose that actual fighting will continue past roughly where it ended OTL. The Germans will look for peace as soon as their borders are threatened, and the European Allies, fearful of complete American domination of the peace, will be anxious to terminate hostilities before this has a chance to happen. So the Armistice will still be granted. The AEF, totally dependent on them for equipment and supplies, cannot continue the war unilaterally, even supposing Wilson wants to, which he won't.
 
Depends on how bad a shape the French government is in.

The problem with this time line is the German home front is collapsing. The German people are starving and restless. The german army is sick with the swill they fed the Russian army the previous year.

Unless they compel terms by June, the victory is pretty hollow and Germany goes splat in November anyway, just due to the food shortages.
 

Deleted member 1487

Interesting. So I am guessing the Germans would launch Georgette just the same, but there is no Operation Blucher but instead continued attacks against the British (no point in attacking the French because the British can't move reserves down there anyway and you would want to force the British to expend supplies in a supply limited situation.

Its hard to imagine the British just running out of supplies and surrendering though. They would improvise something to land supplies on beaches or improve the remaining land connection to at least allow a defensive fight.

However there would be no build up here and any eventual couter attack would have to be south of Amiens. The Germans would be in better shape because they would still hold their original lines along the Asine and any success they have up north shortens their lines.

Additional German success would delay allied offensives in Salonika, Italy and Palestine as the British would move all their reserves to france (south of Amiens).

Campaign extends into 1919, however the Germans are completely on the defensive and knowing their allies are shakey would leave divisions in Italy (8 divisions), Salonika (4 divisions) and Turkey (1 at the straits and 1 in the Taursus mountains) to prop up these theaters and since these areas are not great avenues for advance with the Germans defending them nothing happens there really (the Allies do take Syria and the rest of Iraq).

So all the main action is on the west front with the Allies reaching the Rhine at some point in the year, that with the threat of a strategic air campaign as long as the allies want and with the complete defeat of the german submarine offensive, the Germans ask for peace. The eventual allied victory will be seen more as an American victory as compared to OTL, perhaps this American peace might be more lasting.


The British problem was not port capacity, but rather rail capacity north of the Somme. Their logistics were very shaky and actually collapsed during the Somme offensive in 1916 until a civilian rail expert was brought in to reform the time tables. Still, there were a dearth of rail lines north of the Somme and through Amiens ran the only double track line across the Somme.

So the problem is that if Amiens falls the British simply cannot make up the necessary supply losses of losing access to their Southern Ports. This won't make then surrender of course, but it could cause a supply problem grave enough to force the British armies north of the Somme to fall back on their ports to ease the strain. They can hold out in bridgehead-like bubbles around the important ports of Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk.

In the scenario I envision Hoffmann, who seemed to recognize the choke points in the British supply system, talks to Ludendorff who than makes Amiens the focus of Kaiserschlacht. That means focusing on the 18th army as the primary force tasked with bursting through the weak British 5th army, while the 2nd army to their north focuses on cutting off the Cambrai pocket from the flank and rear while fixing it with minor frontal attacks. It will also focus on fixing the attention of the British 3rd army north and directly South of the Somme river. It will progress no further than the Ancre river and seize Albert.
The 17th army is then not taking part in the offensive, as there is no reason to attack Arras and Albert from the North. Instead they just shell Arras and Bapaume, the chief supply line into the Cambrai salient, to confuse the British as to what their role is and to make the British 3rd army wary of dispatching reserves south. Obviously MARS isn't launched.
The German 7th army will participate with a large version of ERZENGEL to pin the French 6th army, which refused to use the elastic defense ordered by Petain due to the ideological views of Duchene, its commander, that will focus on clearing the north bank of the Aisne river and reclaiming the Chemin des Dames, while also seizing Soissons and Compiegne. This will have the goal of convincing the French that Paris is the main goal and to draw the French reserves in further South away from the German 18th army between the Oise and Somme.

Here too the Germans will make better use of their resources. Historically they only used about 42% of their heavy artillery batteries on the Western Front for MICHAEL, so here its bumped up to 60%. This is partly to aid ERZENGEL, but also to give the German 2nd army more guns. Also these batteries will allow for a greater transfer of forces north for GEORGETTE, which will be different ITTL. It will focus on taking Hazebrouck and bypassing Mt. Kemmel and cutting off the critical rail hub in that city.

Cutting both of those critical rain junctions should be enough to collapse the British supply system, which now would have only a single double tracked heavy duty line running along the Channel coast and through each port. It would back up supplies so badly that the British would have no choice but to withdraw or surrender to lack of food/munitions.

So quick summary: MICHAEL is the 2nd, 18th, and 7th armies attacking with the 2nd and 7th fixing the British 3rd army and French 6th army/reserves respectively. The 18th army will then have less opposition and can move more quickly to reach Amiens before the British can move up reserves, while also bypassing the French defenses of the city, built in 1915 and sited on the Ancre river.

Given that the Germans can hold Amiens when they take it, have enough troops to create a line to intercept the French to the South, while also making a British counterattack weaker and causing major supply difficulties, which become fatal when Hazebrouck is taken.
 
Why? Either the German offensive is turned back or it isn't. If not, they win in 1918. If it is, they will quit when the front approaches their border - most probably still in 1918. 1919 is unlikely to come into it.

If the Allies are in trouble in the west in 1918, I can see them delaying attacking at Salonika or Italy and Palestine. With Germany also in a better position on the western front I just can't seeing them accepting anything like OTL armistice terms and I can't see the Allies asking for less.

There is no need for a last ditch crazy naval offensive and morale is better because all the fronts are in pretty decent shape.

The war will continue until 1919. And while the Germans might be running out of strategic supplies are they really running out of food? The Germans and their Allies control a big chunk of Russia at this point and have access to whatever else is in the communist parts (cotton etc..) even if they have to buy it with gold.

With a sprinkling of German divisions to help defend the south and a smaller front to defend (assuming the attack has to come south of Amiens). I can see ther German resisting until their situation approaches OTL amistice (i.e. the Rhine) and which point resistance is futile if the Allies are bombing their cities and they can't retaliate.
 
With a sprinkling of German divisions to help defend the south and a smaller front to defend (assuming the attack has to come south of Amiens). I can see ther German resisting until their situation approaches OTL amistice (i.e. the Rhine) and which point resistance is futile if the Allies are bombing their cities and they can't retaliate.

The OTL armistice line was nowhere near the Rhine, except in Upper Alsace.

This was my point. Victorious Allies may get to the Rhine, as OTL, under the terms of an armistice, but the chances of the fighting front going there are zilch. If it even looks like happening, the Germans will forestall it by suing for peace, which the Allies, by now getting more afraid of American domination than German, will hastily grant.
 
So the problem is that if Amiens falls the British simply cannot make up the necessary supply losses of losing access to their Southern Ports. This won't make then surrender of course, but it could cause a supply problem grave enough to force the British armies north of the Somme to fall back on their ports to ease the strain. They can hold out in bridgehead-like bubbles around the important ports of Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk.

Thats pretty catastrophic for the Allies. Seems like 1918 really is blown for the Allies as far as doing anything positive. The smart thing for the Germans to do is negotiate with he British directly for peace. The only scenerio I see the British agreeing to is if the Germans give up all their colonies and the evacuation of most of Belgium with a naval size agreement and the elimination of most the German submarine fleet and strategic air forces. I just can't see the British ever agreeing to any peace that could lead to eventual German submarine bases in Africa, even if it means evacuating the BEF to england and continuing to enforce the blockade with american help, even if that means 10 more years of (limited) war.

However if the Germans would agree to the 1914 boundry in the west, loss of colonies, naval limitations, they could probably keep a bunch of their eastern gains. I don't know if their smart enough to ask for something like that though.
 
The OTL armistice line was nowhere near the Rhine, except in Upper Alsace.

This was my point. Victorious Allies may get to the Rhine, as OTL, under the terms of an armistice, but the chances of the fighting front going there are zilch. If it even looks like happening, the Germans will forestall it by suing for peace, which the Allies, by now getting more afraid of American domination than German, will hastily grant.

You may be right, Allied armies driving through France might cause a political change in Germany like OTL meaning she can't resist any more and has to ask for terms, but OTL amistice terms were totally harsh, basically Germany disarms and is at the mercy of the Allies. I would think that a Germany with its other fronts intact and no revolution at home would try to resist at the 1914 German border to resist those harsh terms.

And how bad is American domination for the Allies. American armies will go home after the peace is won. America will see to it that France gets Alsace Lorriane and that a strong Poland is created and that Germany loses its colonies and that Germany is disarmed. There is no need to offer Germany any less harsh amistice terms that would lead to the Allies getting less than that.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ultimately if the French government collapses and they cut a separate peace for leniency that could trump the American presence. The French were terrified their army would revolt and the French public would go Russian revolution on them. OTL they had to used front line units to strike break in 1918 during the German offensives. If the British have to withdraw to the ports, the the French army is alone and ripe for collapse.
 
Wonder if the sudden collapse of the British could cause serious unrest in France or not. Probably more likely if the government offers peace than not, knowing the French.
 
Wonder if the sudden collapse of the British could cause serious unrest in France or not. Probably more likely if the government offers peace than not, knowing the French.

Depends on how fast the Americans shore up the front. If the French stay strong into late 1918 the Germans will start showing strain at home and likely will have to leave the war, though on better terms than OTL.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
POD: Amiens taken and held until the snow melts in 1919.

Most likely the Germans focused there attacks, so they take about the same amount of land, but it is a bulge that goes towards Amiens. The offensive was having logistical problems and Germany was losing men faster than they could replace them. The Germans will dig in, and will not try another offensive that year.

The British will withdraw north of the Somme, and use the Somme as there new defensive line. The Americans will be rushed into the line, and will hold the line from Abbeville on the Somme to the French line. The Americans are green, but there numbers will stop the Germans short of the coast. Winter will set in, and the Armies will prepare for the Spring offenses of 1919. By Spring, the USA will have over 1.5 million troops in France. I don't think France will collapse, but i have no good way to show exactly how much a country can take before collapsing.

The British/French may pull troops from other areas, but i don't see anything in the operations that prevents A-H from collapsing. In early Spring the British and Americans will launch the main offensive, and France will do some token attack. The Americans will have greener troops with enthusiastic commanders, and will take very heavy losses. The British will do a major tank operation, since they were not able to launch one in 1918. The Americans will use the Amiens-Cambrai-Brussels Axis. The British will do the Lilli-Brussels Axis. Both will be broad front attacks of at least 30 miles wide. By September the Allies will have Brussels, but be exhausted. Germany will ask for peace sometime in 1919. By the end of 1919, the USA will have 4 million troops in France, less losses.

The key issue is internal morale. Does one more defeat push France over the edge? And does something butterfly away A-H collapse? My guess is France survives, and A-H collapses, and Germany still gets harsh terms. If either one of these reverses, then there may be a negotiated, "fairer" peace.

America will have a very anti-war felling back home, and will withdraw its troops very fast once the war is over. The democrats do even worse than in OTL in 1920. Wilson will be incapacitated by the time the peace treaty discussion starts, so the terms will be closer to the initial demands of the British/French in OTL. Possibly even the League of Nations is not created, Germany is split into many small German states, etc.

I made a lot of assumptions, but i hope this helps. Unless France collapse in 1918 due to loss of Amiens, the war ends the same, but there are a lot more losses, and a lot more American losses.
 
Interesting. So I am guessing the Germans would launch Georgette just the same, but there is no Operation Blucher but instead continued attacks against the British (no point in attacking the French because the British can't move reserves down there anyway and you would want to force the British to expend supplies in a supply limited situation.

Its hard to imagine the British just running out of supplies and surrendering though. They would improvise something to land supplies on beaches or improve the remaining land connection to at least allow a defensive fight.

However there would be no build up here and any eventual couter attack would have to be south of Amiens. The Germans would be in better shape because they would still hold their original lines along the Asine and any success they have up north shortens their lines.

Additional German success would delay allied offensives in Salonika, Italy and Palestine as the British would move all their reserves to france (south of Amiens).

Campaign extends into 1919, however the Germans are completely on the defensive and knowing their allies are shakey would leave divisions in Italy (8 divisions), Salonika (4 divisions) and Turkey (1 at the straits and 1 in the Taursus mountains) to prop up these theaters and since these areas are not great avenues for advance with the Germans defending them nothing happens there really (the Allies do take Syria and the rest of Iraq).

So all the main action is on the west front with the Allies reaching the Rhine at some point in the year, that with the threat of a strategic air campaign as long as the allies want and with the complete defeat of the german submarine offensive, the Germans ask for peace. The eventual allied victory will be seen more as an American victory as compared to OTL, perhaps this American peace might be more lasting.
It would have a lot of consequences concerning the Allied colonies. For instance, India was to take complete control of the Mesopotamian Front had the war lasted into 1919. This might actually push through dominion status, and lead to a model for other countries.
 
POD: Amiens taken and held until the snow melts in 1919.

Most likely the Germans focused there attacks, so they take about the same amount of land, but it is a bulge that goes towards Amiens. The offensive was having logistical problems and Germany was losing men faster than they could replace them. The Germans will dig in, and will not try another offensive that year.

The British will withdraw north of the Somme, and use the Somme as there new defensive line. The Americans will be rushed into the line, and will hold the line from Abbeville on the Somme to the French line. The Americans are green, but there numbers will stop the Germans short of the coast. Winter will set in, and the Armies will prepare for the Spring offenses of 1919. By Spring, the USA will have over 1.5 million troops in France. I don't think France will collapse, but i have no good way to show exactly how much a country can take before collapsing.

The British/French may pull troops from other areas, but i don't see anything in the operations that prevents A-H from collapsing. In early Spring the British and Americans will launch the main offensive, and France will do some token attack. The Americans will have greener troops with enthusiastic commanders, and will take very heavy losses. The British will do a major tank operation, since they were not able to launch one in 1918. The Americans will use the Amiens-Cambrai-Brussels Axis. The British will do the Lilli-Brussels Axis. Both will be broad front attacks of at least 30 miles wide. By September the Allies will have Brussels, but be exhausted. Germany will ask for peace sometime in 1919. By the end of 1919, the USA will have 4 million troops in France, less losses.

The key issue is internal morale. Does one more defeat push France over the edge? And does something butterfly away A-H collapse? My guess is France survives, and A-H collapses, and Germany still gets harsh terms. If either one of these reverses, then there may be a negotiated, "fairer" peace.

America will have a very anti-war felling back home, and will withdraw its troops very fast once the war is over. The democrats do even worse than in OTL in 1920. Wilson will be incapacitated by the time the peace treaty discussion starts, so the terms will be closer to the initial demands of the British/French in OTL. Possibly even the League of Nations is not created, Germany is split into many small German states, etc.

I made a lot of assumptions, but i hope this helps. Unless France collapse in 1918 due to loss of Amiens, the war ends the same, but there are a lot more losses, and a lot more American losses.
A French economic collapse would be a very real issue. If they surrender, the Brits literally have no ground to fight on, and I could see a status quo ante bellum actually happening, at least concerning Germany.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
A French economic collapse would be a very real issue. If they surrender, the Brits literally have no ground to fight on, and I could see a status quo ante bellum actually happening, at least concerning Germany.

I agree it is a real issue, but i do not know how to quantify "it". Morale can be workable, then a few months later a country can be in anarchy. Tunisia was stable but repressive, then a guy sets himself on fire, and few weeks later the government has collapsed. Syria has been shooting its citizens for months, and seems stable for now. How does one look at something like Syria, and say with any accuracy that XXX more civilian deaths will collapse the country.

The fall of Tsarist Russia is obvious in hindsight, but was not obvious before hand. If the Germans had know on January 1, 1917 that Russia would collapse, i doubt they resume unrestricted submarine warfare. Or to put another way, how many more soviet divisions did Hitler need to destroy before the Soviet Union collapsed? I do not see how one even begins a credible analysis on the subject.
 
Just to keep in mind, the French mutinies were about "no more pointless attacks" and not "no more war." They'd be quite willing to defend themselves against a German attack.
 

Deleted member 1487

Just to keep in mind, the French mutinies were about "no more pointless attacks" and not "no more war." They'd be quite willing to defend themselves against a German attack.

OTL by the end of 1918 the French army was at the point of "No more war. Full Stop." Remember the mutinies were in April 1917, which is nearly a fully year prior to the March-April offensive. Its a whole new game for the French army and their attitudes have changed considerably from the mutinies, especially as they really haven't done any fighting for a year. They are not relishing the prospect of more. If the British have to withdraw to the Channel ports then they take no more part in the fighting, because they cannot operate far enough beyond them. That gives Germans the ability to then fight the French one-on-one, which could/would have massive effects on their morale. Especially as they have no reserves beyond 1-2 US divisions that were able to actually fight. Plus the have an open flank now that their allies withdrew North of the Somme and French reserves are committed to shoring up their own 6th army, which in my scenario would take a beating during MICHAEL.

The biggest problem isn't the army's morale, but the civilians'. The population could take the new VERY badly and start a revolution at home. That was the #1 fear of the French government, not another army mutiny or refusal to fight.
 
Top