Germany wins WW1 in 1914

Your dead on, just the word the the Yanks were coming kept the French army from totally folding up, plus once the US declares war there is no longer a true mediator left.

With no US (the POTUS making clear we're staying out) I just don't see the French goverment surviving 1918... and definitely the French aren't going to be launching any offensives.

So your in a race to see who collapses first Paris or Berlin. In OTL, the French had the American ace in hole, and Germany had no one to approach as a third party (at least one with leverage).

So Ryan's scenerio is very likely...Now the real question in this TL, is the Washington Treaty (Wilson actually able to dicate) just a "super" truce till either the German's settle the East or French rebuilds and/or they and London convince the Americans a German dominate over middle and east Eurpoe is not good for them... say by 1932?

If the Germans had any sense (which they did) there's no way they'd allow the Americans to be anywhere near the peace treaty. I'd say your best bet is Sweden, which the Germans have an understanding with. Failing that you have; the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and even Siam.
 
If the Germans had any sense (which they did) there's no way they'd allow the Americans to be anywhere near the peace treaty. I'd say your best bet is Sweden, which the Germans have an understanding with. Failing that you have; the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and even Siam.

I agree in a prefect world, the Germans wouldn't want the US (either Wilson, Hughes or TR) involved but, by 1918 they need someone with leveage over the Allies, especially the UK. The UK knows they are winning, abet slowly, and that time favors them (more chance to gain terrority outside Europe). Germany is only a threat to France, to a lesser extend Italy (of the active Allies) at this point, as long as London can keep France in they win, every day is a bigger win.

The US holds the last aces outside the game, last fresh manpower pool, the raw materials, biggest production base, AND the FOOD. If in 1918 a "neutral" US is telling London it's time to talk and be nice....

Also, don't count on the US being completely anti-German (or pro-Allies if you like), it wasn't just Wilson that blamed both sides, and by 1917-18 there where Americans realizing with or without joining the war, the war was going to make the US a player.
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
The common misconception is think that averting the crisis of the Battle of the Marne was averted, then the Schlieffen Plan works. There is an ancillary error that assumes the primary goal of the Schlieffen Plan was to take Paris. Actually destroying most of the French Army was primary---taking Paris was secondary. That plan was going to fail eventually for a number of reasons not the least of which was logistics.

There is also a complementary misconception that all the Russians needed to do was to avoid Tannenberg and lo and behold they would've been in Berlin and game over.


French army hardly had any good logistic organisation either, it was the requistionning of 10 000 taxis that allowed French troops to come to the Marne in the first place...
If the French planned an evacuation to Algeria despite their confidence at the time, it shows well that even they realise German victory was a clear possibility.

As for the British, they had a good navy but their land troops where not as good as German troops, not even as good as the French even. With the French & Russian Empire knocked out, they would not be able to stand a German/Austrohungaryan/Ottoman coalition in the middle-east.


WW1 doesn´t necessarly needs to start in 1914, it could be a few years later.
 
Last edited:
I agree in a prefect world, the Germans wouldn't want the US (either Wilson, Hughes or TR) involved but, by 1918 they need someone with leveage over the Allies, especially the UK. The UK knows they are winning, abet slowly, and that time favors them (more chance to gain terrority outside Europe). Germany is only a threat to France, to a lesser extend Italy (of the active Allies) at this point, as long as London can keep France in they win, every day is a bigger win.

The US holds the last aces outside the game, last fresh manpower pool, the raw materials, biggest production base, AND the FOOD. If in 1918 a "neutral" US is telling London it's time to talk and be nice....

Also, don't count on the US being completely anti-German (or pro-Allies if you like), it wasn't just Wilson that blamed both sides, and by 1917-18 there where Americans realizing with or without joining the war, the war was going to make the US a player.
Quite True ...

In Fact, in One Slightly ASB Thread we Once Tossed Around The Idea of Britain Declaring FOR The Central Powers ...

My Solution was to Have The USA Side with The Entente ...

Not by Challenging British Interests Directly as Most People Assumed, But by Putting Canada's Head on The Chopping Block!
 
Britain was doing a hell of a lot in 1915; Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, other colonial campaigns, Neuve Chapelle and other western front offensives, building up the new army, beating a shell shortage, modifying old and naval guns to equip the new armies. It was worse in 1916 with the massive efforts on the Somme. All of this kept Britain heavily if not fully occupied IOTL.

If Germany was established on the Channel Britain would have a very different focus. It would have to secure it's much longer supply lines to the BEF, which would eat up considerable resources such as shipping, rail capacity, coal and manpower. It would have to fight and win the coastal artillery/mine warfare/light surface combats/through channel shipping campaign in the Dover st narrows. For starters that would use up the old and naval guns which IOTL were used to equip the new army, and most probably many of the men. More men, steel and fuel would be devoted to mining and minesweeping, an ongoing task which would rely on success of other forces if it was to clear mines within range of German guns. Similarly large numbers of small warships would be needed to gaurd any merchant shipping, minesweepers, monitors which were operating closer to the German held coast or transiting the narrows. On top of this mundane but unignorable garbage would be the possibility of dramatic capital ship action in the Channel or even the western approaches. Briain's great captial ship strength would have to be split to gaurd against this possibility because the consequences could be so dire.

Britain would have to win this battle, and I believe that it would win the battle. Eventually gaining full control of the sea right up to the beach itself, to the extent of conducting landings behind German lines as was planned IOTL 1917. But IOTL it took almost 3 years to do the same on a smaller and less dangerous scale. Could it be done in less time on a much bigger scale? Could it be done at all without diversion of considerable resources which IOTL were used at Gallipoli, Nueve Chapelle, Somme, Paschedale, Cambrai and finally the offensive of late 1918? Could the other Entente powers take up the slack?
 
Britain was doing a hell of a lot in 1915; Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, other colonial campaigns, Neuve Chapelle and other western front offensives, building up the new army, beating a shell shortage, modifying old and naval guns to equip the new armies. It was worse in 1916 with the massive efforts on the Somme. All of this kept Britain heavily if not fully occupied IOTL.

But all of this has been butterflied away by the 1914 changes. What's being proposed here would alter British responses and policies accordingly.

If Germany was established on the Channel Britain would have a very different focus.

Indeed; which would mean a drastic reduction in peripheral involvements. You're making the classical mistake of changing one side of the picture without thinking through how the other side will react to those changes.

It would have to secure it's much longer supply lines to the BEF, which would eat up considerable resources such as shipping, rail capacity, coal and manpower.

Why? This is 1914, not 2004. Food etc is supplied from France, the transport network is French, fuel requirements are minor, the only thing that needs to be shipped is ammunition and that's a controllable problem.

It would have to fight and win the coastal artillery/mine warfare/light surface combats/through channel shipping campaign in the Dover narrows.

Not a great problem; the UK drastically outnumbers the Germans and its light forces are qualitatively superior as well

For starters that would use up the old and naval guns which IOTL were used to equip the new army, and most probably many of the men.

Not the great guns we're talking about using. Historically a few were used as railway guns in France and there weren't that many of them. Most surplus naval guns went to arm monitors not to equip the Army. In any case, the UK has excess capacity (the production lines for Royal Navy guns were seperate from export guns which was why Britain used 13.5 inch guns on its battleships but exported 14 inch guns). Manpower requirements for coastal defenses are inconsequential; that's why people built them. They are masisve force multipliers.

More men, steel and fuel would be devoted to mining and minesweeping, an ongoing task which would rely on success of other forces if it was to clear mines within range of German guns.

Agreed; but the Germans would have to make a comparable effort, they have fewer and less capable assets to start with and they have more "other" demands on their time. SO the balance here is very strongly favorable to the UK. If the Germans start to play this game, they are net losers.

Similarly large numbers of small warships would be needed to gaurd any merchant shipping, minesweepers, monitors which were operating closer to the German held coast or transiting the narrows.

Again, true but to execute your plan would also require the Germans to deploy at least an equally large number of warships and they're operating a long way from home base, not right on their own doorstep. So the balance favors the UK, it doesn't run against it. Once again, if the Germans play this game, they are net losers - and being two-time net losers at this point seriously weakens their already tenuous position on land.

On top of this mundane but unignorable garbage

What's being ignored is not the UK force commitment but the scale of the German commitment you're demanding to execute your 'plan'. The catch is the British have the assets to defend against this style of attack, they'd anticipated it, planned the campaign in detail and structured to meet it. I'd suggest you read Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution by Nicholas A. Lambert that will fill you in on how the UK was prepared to defend the Channel. Remember, the British were not stupid, they are not going to sit on their thumbs and let all the things you project happen without doing something about it. They'll be interdicting the coastal battery installation, attriting the minelayers, whatever else is needed the defense.

would be the possibility of dramatic capital ship action in the Channel or even the western approaches. Britain's great capital ship strength would have to be split to guard against this possibility because the consequences could be so dire.

Why? In fact the UK made no such plans to split its fleet. A capital ship raid would have to get past minefields, coastal defense guns, attacks by submarines (of which the UK had a lot) and torpedo attacks by destroyers before it could get anywhere. By the time the battered sinking hulks had got past that lot (if they got past that lot) a handful of pre-dreadnoughts could finish them off. The only dire consequences would by for the Germans' they'd have tossed away a significant proportion of their fleet for no tangible gain (do you think that the merchant ships would just ignore the approaching German squadron? Everything would be heading for the nearest port until said squadron had been sunk which wouldn't take more than a day or so. Once again, remember this is 1914, not 2004. A severe storm would close the channel down for days back then and did so quite regularly during winter. It didn't cause any problems. So there are no dire consequences for the British to worry about, just a temporary interruption in business as usual. The dire consequences for the Germans are the capital ships they sent into the Channel either being sunk there or limping out, their crews frantically trying to stop the flooding and quench the fires only to find the entire Grand Fleet between them and home. And if the High Seas Fleet tries to contest that (having already been weakened by their Channel losses), the British get the decisive battle they want at much better odds that existed at Jutland.

Britain would have to win this battle, and I believe that it would win the battle. Eventually gaining full control of the sea right up to the beach itself, to the extent of conducting landings behind German lines as was planned IOTL 1917.

I don't argue that the British would indeed gain naval supremacy if the Germans did as you suggest; I simply would add that the German losses and diversion of effort would be such that they'll gain it faster and the German effort would be such that the positionb held by the German Armies on land would be much weakened. Therefore the German position is significantly worse than in OTL.

But IOTL it took almost 3 years to do the same on a smaller and less dangerous scale. Could it be done in less time on a much bigger scale?

This is a false question. You haven't yet shown that the German operation resulted in a situation that was larger or more dangerous. Nor have you shown that anything would have to be done in less time or on a larger scale. What we have seen is that the German attempt would be seriously detrimental to their overall position. That's not a surprising conclusion because the Germans never considered trying it. The German General Staff had many faults but military stupidity wasn't one of them; they took one look at the concepts analagous to the ones you are suggesting, worked out the assets required, the likely gains and losses and dropped the whole idea.

Could it be done at all without diversion of considerable resources which IOTL were used at Gallipoli, Nueve Chapelle, Somme, Paschedale, Cambrai and finally the offensive of late 1918? Could the other Entente powers take up the slack?

Simple answer, yes. We're using naval assets that were substantially under-utilized, a Channel defense fleet that was barely used at all and a plethora of naval guns that were later mounted on monitors (a later use not prevented by the earlier use of those guns for coastal defense). The point you're ignoring is that your German plan also involves the diversion of a significant proportion of German resources, the difference being that the Germans did not have the margin of under-utilized naval assets that the British did. So the real question should be what German plans and operations have to be aborted in order to build the fleet and gun batteries required for your plan to be executed (the fact that such a plan would inevitably fail is another matter). They can't just be waved into existance, building them needs assets and those assets have to come from somewhere. You've repeatedly pointed to the UK's need for assets to counter your plan but nowhere have you pointed to what German assets would be needed or where they would come from. In fact there is only one place they can come from - the German Army, and that weakens it at a time whn its already under severe stress.

I'd put it to you that such a diversion of resources away from the German Army and into a German naval offensive would be so deleterious to the German war position that it opens the possibility of the German defeat being brought forward by several months. It's quite possible that the German Russian offensives would be less successful and the Russian collapse may even be delayed or prevented entirely. If that happened, the German 1918 offensive wouldn't happen and the war could easily end much earlier in 1918 than was actually the case
 

Redbeard

Banned
Of course Germany could win in 1914. That year was a close run (litterallY) - and there is a reason the French themselves call it "The miracle of the Marne".

Anyway the thread is not if that happens, but what happens afterwards. As usual my guess is that the German Socialdemocrats win an absolute majority in the next general election (IIRC 1917) and inside the next few years, in a more or less open alliance with capital, thoroughly reform the German political system. The result will be something like OTL Sweden on steroids, and the old colonial powers will be hard pressed when the Germans can show impressive results in general welfare and repeatedly forward morally persuasive stances on colonialism.

One after one nations fall to the new German inspired sociademocratic system, where capital is put to work and communists die out...

...eventually some find it dull, but that is another problem.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
The result will be something like OTL Sweden on steroids, and the old colonial powers will be hard pressed when the Germans can show impressive results in general welfare and repeatedly forward morally persuasive stances on colonialism.

One after one nations fall to the new German inspired sociademocratic system, where capital is put to work and communists die out...

...eventually some find it dull, but that is another problem.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
I cant understand why people keep going on about the splitting of the Grand Fleet; that would definetely happen in the short term.

I would disagree there. The Royal Navy had established plans for the defense of the Channel, these relying on the forces listed (minefields, coastal artillery, light cruiser and destroyer forces based at Harwich, Dover, Portsmouth, Plymouth etc, submarines and torpedo boats. Heavy units are conspicuous by their absence. I see no convincing reason why these plans would suddenly be abandoned because the very eventuality they were intended to counter came to pass. While its true that the Battlecruiser squadron was indeed moved south, this was in response to trans-North Sea battlecruiser raids against which no existing plans existed.

However, your deeper question, why people keep going on about splitting the Grand Fleet, is a very astute one. I believe the answer is their recognition that in a straightforward slugging match, the High Seas Fleet is going to lose and that's that. So to bring about a German victory, the Grand Fleet has to be split and the wish is father to the deed. Which really sums up German naval strategy doesn't it? :D

but the Royal Navy would most certainly be supplied in the long term by British industry to cope with the hugely expansive front.

Assuming that the basic provision here, that the Schlieffen plan succeeds and German is in a much better position, I don't know that the front would be hugely expansive. However, its certainly true that if the campaign had a greater maritime orientation, British Industry could certainly build a much larger Royal Navy without really straining itself. We would certainly see all four Hoods completed and quite possibly a follow-on class of four more (what they would look like depends on the exact maritime history; it may be for example that the Hood class would look like the pre-Jutland design while the Repeat Hoods would look more like the Hood we all know and love. There's room for all sorts of hypotheses there.

If the idea of a German Channel offensive was taken up, we would have a very confusing situation indeed. There's little doubt the RN would wipe the floor (or the seabed) with the forces commited to such an offensive in short order and ot would end with the High Seas Fleet severely weakened - possibly even destroyed if they sortied in an effort to save the units committed to the Channel battle. The resources invested by the Germans in that naval battle would weaken, to some extent, the German Army. So where do things go from there? Amphibious raids along the French and Belgian coast? Possible although the amphibious technology available wasn't really up to much until 1917.

We could almost hypothesize a Napoleonic Wars situation with the UK bankrolling coalition after coalition against Germany until one was finally successful. Now that's an awful prospect, a WW1 that goes on for 20 years.

IF Britain wins the war, then of course it would emerge as the worlds dominant naval power BY FAR. However, like WW2 it would emerge crippled by debt and a huge war industry.

No argument there; Beardmore was destroyed by its expansion during WW1 and the rest of the shipbuilidng industry was left looking pretty sick (far too much capacity, no market).
 
The Royal Navy didn't wipe the floor with anybody in WW1, and I think that if the sea war was taken into the Channel the Germans would avoid unfavourable battles. It would be a grinding war of attrition that would consume British resources which IOTL were used to directly support it's allies on land.

British manpower and industry were a long way from being infinite, if more resources were devoted to one sector then other will have to suffer. If Britain has to gain control of the Channel then the war doesn't become an Alliance war for Russia at all, nor does it become one for France until 1917. Will those powers be able to hang on without British assistance until the Brits have defeated the Germans at sea and then built up a mass army?
 
Of course Germany could win in 1914. That year was a close run (litterallY) - and there is a reason the French themselves call it "The miracle of the Marne".

Anyway the thread is not if that happens, but what happens afterwards. As usual my guess is that the German Socialdemocrats win an absolute majority in the next general election (IIRC 1917) and inside the next few years, in a more or less open alliance with capital, thoroughly reform the German political system. The result will be something like OTL Sweden on steroids, and the old colonial powers will be hard pressed when the Germans can show impressive results in general welfare and repeatedly forward morally persuasive stances on colonialism.

One after one nations fall to the new German inspired sociademocratic system, where capital is put to work and communists die out...

...eventually some find it dull, but that is another problem.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

I'd like to turn this topic in this direction if I could, while encouraging you to keep debating established discussions. I was away from the computer for a couple days and came back a lot of helpful stuff so thank you everyone.

As I'm writing a piece of fiction, I can play around with the specifics a bit. For instance, what if the German troops crossed the border between Luxembourg and Strasburg rather than through Belgium? (Not sure if this is possible just from looking at a map) What if someone arrived at a different plan before the Battle of the Marne with respect to allocating troops? What if the British didn't intervene due to a diminishment of press on the "Belgian atrocities"? There has to be a set of circumstances that would allow Germany to win in 1914/1915, if not winning a World War then at least an amped up Franco-Prussian war, with a dash of Russia.

But Steffen Redbeard is right, I am also looking for what happens afterwards as well.

Thanks again for all your input!
 

bard32

Banned
This is interesting. Germany had a stranglehold on Europe in 1914. German
U-boats sunk Allied merchant ships before the British could counter them.
If they'd continued, if they'd been able to knock Britain out, then the United
States, under Wilson, would have remained neutral, or at best, (worst,) a
co-belligerant. Germany failed to keep the United States out. If Germany
had succeeded, then we would have been kept out.
 
As I'm writing a piece of fiction, I can play around with the specifics a bit. For instance, what if the German troops crossed the border between Luxembourg and Strasburg rather than through Belgium? (Not sure if this is possible just from looking at a map)

Actually the French had such an occurence in mind having fortified a line AFAIR from Verdun to Toul and from Epinal to Belfort creating a gap in which the German army would lose itself to annihaliation by the French forces.
 
The Royal Navy didn't wipe the floor with anybody in WW1

Actually they did; the blockade closed down German trade on Day One and it stayed closed until Germany surrendered. The Germans failed completely to break that blockade. Equally, they failed ito impose one of their own, they came close in 1917 but the British had the naval resources to handle the situation (there's a very good book that deals with this, its called the Navy in Battle and it was written by Arthur Pollen in 1919. It goes into how the British managed to deal with the 1917 submarine threat. It also goes into great detail on what they did to Ostend and Zebrugge.

However, you're missing the point, we're not talking about what the British did historically, we're talking about the putative commitment of German forces to a Channel battle. That's a different matter entirely, a game in which the dice are hugely loaded against the Germans.

and I think that if the sea war was taken into the Channel the Germans would avoid unfavourable battles.

How? Have you looked at a map? The German bases and installations their effort would depend on are within heavy gun range of British shore batteries. The Germans are trying to fight on Britain's doorstep, all the main British naval bases, dockyards, arsenals etc are lined up to defend the Channel. The Germans don't get to "avoid battles", if they try to, they get the battle rammed down their throat anyway. There's nowhere the Germans can go to.

It would be a grinding war of attrition that would consume British resources which IOTL were used to directly support it's allies on land.

Sigh. We've already dealt with this. Yes, the British would be using up resources but so would the Germans. The British have vastly greater naval resources than the Germans and those resources are under-utilized so, at worst, they're making their fleet work harder. The Germans are also going to be taking losses, they are also getting their resources consumed but in their case, they are already running at full stretch. So the resources they use come out of the hide of their Army, weakening their position on land.

British manpower and industry were a long way from being infinite, if more resources were devoted to one sector then other will have to suffer.

Nor were German and exactly the same logic applies. Only, when it comes to a naval engagement, the British have excess resources, the Germans do not. It's not as if the GGS can wave a wand and magically conjure the resources for a Channel battle. A vast complex of coastal batteries, naval bases and minefields is not going to magically appear on the French coast. On the other hand, its British equivalent dosn't have to - its already on the British coast.

If Britain has to gain control of the Channel then the war doesn't become an Alliance war for Russia at all, nor does it become one for France until 1917.

This comment is misguided on a very fundamental level. The British don't have to gain control of the Channel, they already have it. The Germans have to take that control away. The British would be on a strategic defensive and the Germans have the difficult task of trying to seize sea control in enemy home waters against the most powerful navy in the world. Its just not going to happen.

Will those powers be able to hang on without British assistance until the Brits have defeated the Germans at sea and then built up a mass army?

Irrelevent question; the British don't have to beat the Germans at sea. All they have to do is make sure that the Germans get their necks chopped off if they stick them out. Which they did. Your plan simply give sthe British a bigger, juicier, more vulnerable neck to aim for. My guess is that if the Germans tried your Channel strategy, their Navy would be so severely mauled in the process, by 1915 they would be incapable of mounting a serious threat. So the battle cruiser raids don't happen, nor probably does Jutland. Britain's New Army is raised on schedule, that was an entirely different effort from the naval side of things. The German Army is weakened by the resources needed for the futile fighting in the Channel. So the war ends earlier.
 
Bollocks the war is won earlier.

I think you mean the war is won later don't you?

France is practically lost; Sir John French as commander of the BEF, when proposing an evacuation via St. Nazaire if the war went pear-shaped, actively knew that the British wouldnt return for years on end. The focus of the war would be on the Ottoman Empire, and the German Colonies, then and only then the European front.

This is a different scenario to the one I was discussing which represented a very active aggressive German thrust to secure the Channel and isolate the UK from mainland Europe. My point is that such an attack is pretty much fore-doomed to failure and the effort required would signficantly weaken the German land forces, pretty much destroy their naval power and thus result in an earlier Allied victory. I think you're discussing a different scenario where France has essentially collapsed and the UK is carrying on more or less alone.

By then, the British Army would have become adept at warfare on a more massive scale than 1914 (when the BEF was a professional force) and invade, possibly with the tank, and liberate northern France. Even then thats in 1919-1923. Remember the prevarication on the part of the British when it came to the real D-Day- the Americans wanted it in 1942, when the Allies would surely have been whupped; British caution prevented that.

1942 certainly, 1943 is less obvious. Be that as it may, taking the "France is out the war" scenario, I'd more or less agree with you here. However, the "Channel Battle" scenario is a very different kettle of fish.
 
I'm not talking about an agressive thrust to capture the Channel Ports, I'm talking about the best result that the Schleiffen plan could have produced using the resources of 1914. German forces being transferred to the left wing to the right after the success of the frontier battles, rather than being sent East or used on their own offensive. Of course they can't arrive at the front until after the Marne, but would be very handy for the battles which IOTL broke out between the Aisne/Ouse confluence and the Somme rivers between Sept 17-27. With these forces available I think that Germany could have captured Amiens, and used the Somme as it's defensive line to the channel. Handily enough this would have shortened the German line and given them possesion of that bit more French industry.

However I suggested that the German line hit the sea west of Dieppe. This is because of the other great blunder of the OTL German advance, the poorly-done creation of the first 'Army Group' command. Instead of Von Bulow being given command of the 1st and 3rd armies as well as his own 2nd army on August 9th, and then having this revoked on the 17th, another general and staff could be put over the top of these 3 armies at the time. Whether he would be able to take advantege of the opporutnities to encircle Lanzeracs 5th army and isolate the BEF between the 20th and 24th of August is debatable, but if it was even half done it would be a history-shaping victory. Certainly such a commander would push Von Bulow to follow-up his victories at Charleroi and St Quentin and not allow the 50km gap to open between him and Von Kluck by Sept 4-6th. The Germans would stall on the Marne and hold there, rather than having to pull back to the Aisne. The transferred left wing forces would start their flanking attempts from a position about 50km closer to Paris than IOTL, making them that much more dangerous, and more likely to hit the sea considerably west of the Somme.

As for British plans to defend the Channel, did the British have plans to deploy a 60 division army, each division with unprecedented artillery power, to France and sustain it for 4 years? No they did not. But that they could do so was because by the 12th of November 1914 it had become obvious that containing the German navy would be easy, the Dover straight could be patrolled by the oldest and least powerful destroyers the RN had, and the supply lines to the BEF would be both very short and very secure.

If Germany took the Channel coast the Brits would have to react, implement their Channel defence plans to a greater extent than IOTL, even if Germany only expended the same effort over the whole coast as the did IOTL in Belgium. More importantly by making Dieppe or Le Harve the closest usable ports to the BEF the shortest sea journey would be 3 or 4 times longer than OTL and longer rail journeys within France. This alone would mean less divisions in France in 1916, to man these channel defences and long supply lines. Again I reiterate Britain's manpower and industry were not infinite, they can't do everything. Bigger Channel defence and longer supply lines to the BEF can be counted in less divisions in the BEF itself, even before Germany takes advantage of the opportunites it finds itself presented with.
 
As for British plans to defend the Channel, did the British have plans to deploy a 60 division army, each division with unprecedented artillery power, to France and sustain it for 4 years? No they did not. But that they could do so was because by the 12th of November 1914 it had become obvious that containing the German navy would be easy, the Dover straight could be patrolled by the oldest and least powerful destroyers the RN had, and the supply lines to the BEF would be both very short and very secure.

If I recall correctly NO European army initially had the provisions and munitions to sustain themselves in the field for four years - so you point is worthless. Weren't the bulk of the Royal Navy's predreadnoughts were stationed to protect the Channel? Dreadnoughts don't necessarily slaughter predreadnoughts.
 
France, Russia and Germany all had pre-war mass armies; in 1914 Germany mobilised 1.75 million, France 1.1 million and Russia 3.5 million men. Each of these armies had thousands of artillery pieces, each requiring initial stocks of 1000 rounds each. This is their basis for a wartime expansion. The British equivilent is their fleet, yet as well as boosting their huge pre-war fleet with a large continuing capital ship programme they also built a mass army from scratch. It would be different if in the pre-war era Britain equipped the Territorials with modern equipment and made plans to deploy them to France with the Regulars. But that wasn't thought of, although would make a good WI in itself.
 
Let's put it this way, I am developing a back story for a piece of science fiction. In this piece, Germany wins the first World War, and gradually develops into the dominant world power. The Kluck and von Bulow armies getting separated under Moltke's command seems like one of those pivotal moments where history could have diverged widely from what we know today. As I understand it, whether it is Moltke's fault or not is a subject of considerable debate. That's not really the meat of what I'm looking for here, because I can use a number of devices to make the victory over Paris more plausible (such as a last minute plan that has a more efficient strategy.)

I didn't mean to imply that Germany would become a superpower right off the bat, rather that the victory over France is the inciting incident. The further we move away from this event the more artistic license I have, and by the end of the story we have moved pretty far away from 1914. But I am looking for some speculation on a plausible way that Germany could end up assuming the role of the most powerful nation in the world, both politically and technologically. Without the disaster of the First World War, the stab in the back theory, the economic recession and subsequent Depression possibly averted or impact lessened, Hitler's rhetoric wouldn't be as appealing. He might remain a shabby artist. With Hitler's rise to power and the Economic Miracle in mind as proof that the German people can be leveraged by their leaders for good or bad, what could they do with a truly brilliant and mostly benevolent dictator replacing the reign of Hitler and his dubious motivations? I want to explore how nationalism could have actually stimulated positive momentum, while keeping the vague air of displaced cataclysm hanging in the air. Going back to immediately after the defeat of Paris, what would it take to defeat Russia and force Britain to back down? What would the political landscape of Germany be like after the victory? What type of leader would appeal to the German people of the twenties or thirties? I'm focusing almost exclusively on Germany, but what might other important nations be doing?

These questions form the basis for the beginning of my story, there is much more to it but I want to make sure the details have some degree of plausibility. So I encourage you to help me out with a bit of speculation. I have my story arc prepared and I'm trying to build facts around it so I know what world my story exists in before I write it. Any help is appreciated, and your insights so far have been helpful.

Well...

Getting Germany to be THE most dominant power is going to be quite a slog.

They simply do not have the right positioning to do that, they could be one of the top 2 or 3 powers with some ease, but THE number one... not so much.

North America has far to much potential for Germany to overcome without a level of global conquest that would outside her character historically (British propaganda not withstanding), as well as being outside the realm of what the Kaiser would support politically. And that last part is a real problem until Wilhelm 2 dies and it is not likely to be much better under his heirs but it might.

Paris falling within the first year of the war leaves you with a German monarchy which even after the historic war maintained significant support for it politically. Not having the kind of war that saw the slide of German society into chaos would strengthen that support far more likelier then not. This makes Hitler or someone with nearly identical views a non starter as a leader in Germany, and that I think we would all agree is a good thing.

And since Wilhelm found the naked grabbing of land a bit distasteful, the proof of that pudding is the German desire for the Philippines did not end with them bashing Spain over the head and taking them and the treaty of Brest-Litovsk to a degree; Germany did not transfer the territory gained directly to her but rather to client states that were created out of it. Now some will disagree with those conclusions and in part their disagreement will be based in the rather excellent job the entente did of trashing Germany's reputation post victory. But considering documents that surfaced not that long ago that pretty decisively cast Britain in the role of the party actively seeking not only war, but the destruction of as much of the German state as possible? We have to seriously discount if not outright ignore anything based in whole or in part their version of history. It is tainted by a strong motivation to lie.

Part of the reason that I am responding to this is because I came across this thread in a google search while looking for a map I recently saw of what the CP's plans were post victory. I downloaded them on my other machine who in the interim has had a video card failure and I can't access them until I replace the dang thing as the HD in it won't fit in the laptop. Otherwise I would post the map of the plan and a link to the documents (note to all: sync up your history and bookmarks between your laptop and desktop fairly frequently). But in comparison to what the entente actually DID and what the Germans planned to do? The Germans plans were by far the least evil, the least expansionistic and grabbed the least land from others. By comparison between the dream outcome of the CP's and the actions of the entente the Germans were positively little Mary sunshine. Sure it called for in the West the Dutch coming into the German sphere of influence economically and if the Belgians did not wish to transfer key parts of the Congo then they would as well. But the amount of colonial transfers was quite minimal: Upper Kameroun, Dahomey and the pre approved by the British splitting of the Portuguese colonies are the highlights of what I can remember. The Brits did not have to give up anything as far as I can recall and the French get docked nearly nothing. The only losers are the Portuguese who if the war had not happened would have had their empire carved up with the Brits holding the fork while the Germans moved the knife.

And the motivation for the transfers that did occur in their post war plans was to ensure a secure source of raw materiel for German industry. Making it a bit unlikely that they would wish to part with their colonies in the event of them winning the war either through a negotiated peace or outright victory. The point of them building up the Hochseeflotte was so that they could protect those resources and considering the amount of resources that took it is a strong indicator of the importance that they placed on those colonies in the long view.

So... you knock France out of the war reasonably early; Italy and Romania would join the CP as would the Turks. The Japanese might have motivation to stay out of the war but won't as honor would dictate they honor their treaty with England. Never underestimate the value of not losing face when it comes to Japan of that era or any other, they'll honor the alliance and in the doing you will see if they mirror their historic fleet deployments some kind of fighting between the IJN and the RM in the Med of all places. The Japanese had a substantial number of ships in the Med doing convoy duty during the actual war so there is no reason to think that they would have fewer given that the situation is not going to be better for the entente then historical. Net result is Italy and Japan bashing it out with the Austrian fleet thrown in as well as the Turks and whoever else wants a piece of that fight.

Which brings us to the question: What of the French fleet?

If Germany has knocked the French out and there exists the possibility of the Germans acquiring the ships at the treaty table, would Britain perform Mars El Kabir a generation sooner? And if so, what effect would it have on the French and the greater perception of the British in the rest of the world? I think that the British would with little hesitation turn their guns on the French fleet and that the French would be none to pleased by it, nor would the American reading audience. It comes across as a bit to ruthless in that era to civilians and that kind of thing can have political consequences.

Britain would be a bit hard pressed to mount an invasion of Europe via France and with the French out I can't imagine the Belgians staying in for very long making it unlikely for Britain to move a huge amount of troops into Belgium. The Dutch are going to stay out of it, so Britain will have to content herself in bashing on colonies for as long as it takes Germany to defeat Russia which won't be all that long really. At the end of that, Britain is going to have to come to the table and in doing that likely accept a return to the status quo.

Now that would be enough to make Germany the de facto second or third power in the world and it is likely given the probable gains from the West and in the East that she would be able to maintain that status for a couple of generations at the least.

Post war we probably would still see a Russian civil war during which time the Japanese are going to try and grab some of the Russian Far-East but this time I don't think that there is going to be enough leverage to make them give it up once they grab it. Don't have much to base that on but a gut feeling, and since I trust my gut more often then not... Also my gut is telling me that we probably won't see the Austrian empire around for very long as even being on the winning side during the war will not be able to plug up all the hits to the hull she had taken the last century; she was simply to damaged to really have a chance of staying together much beyond 1933. How that might play out with Italy being in the mix would depend upon timing and personalities in charge, not really sure Italy and Germany would maintain being allies beyond Il Duce coming into power (odds still favor that as Italy would still have been on the winning side regardless and still would not have likely gained much if anything for the effort so likely to still have the same conditions present for it). If they are allies when the break up of AH occurs I know that Italy will press of Istria and Dalmatia, and considering the German penchant for trying to restore her 15th century if not earlier borders when they have a chance of doing so; I don't think that is going to go very far as it is very likely that Austria will try and join with Germany as intact as possible and Germany will want that to happen.

Hungary is going to try and hold onto as much of the territory that were assigned to her crown as she can but considering the situation might have to cough up Dalmatia as the Austrians are going to be pissed and that is likely to translate as the Germans being miffed or ticked off and they can appease the Italians with Dalmatia as a way of keeping Istria intact and tossing a bit of mud on the Hungarian's cookie.

The Czech's will likely become a Bohemian client state of the new Germany as even in the historic timeline there was considerable support for some sort of economic union with Austria with greater autonomy rather then outright independence. This could translate into something similar with Germany w/Austria if not outright joining if they can have the same kind of status as Bavaria in the second reich. An event that is probably acceptable given the amount of industry in the country that could be joined with Germany without firing a shot. The Czechs would probably go for it given the access to overseas markets that they would get for nearly free and if they are given the "Bavarian" option they will have much of the trappings of independence without a boatload of the overhead costs for it(they would be able to maintain a separate military inclusive of air force and a separate though attached to the German mission diplomatic presence as well as as great amount of internal autonomy that Bavaria had). With the inclusion of Bohemia and Moravia as well as Austria proper into Germany along with all of those resources and industry that would propel Germany pretty easily one step up the great power ladder.

Given the client states in the East and West (taking the Dutch economic incorporation as a given in this timeline), and the erosion of the Russians because of the war and probable civil war as well as whatever damage has been done to the French state, that would put Germany easily as the number two power behind Britain and just ahead of the US. Britain just has way to big of an empire to overcome quickly, we are talking about 25% of the globes surface lays under the Union Jack and a sizable portion of her population and resources. That is not something that Germany can overcome quickly nor would she want to as the garrisoning of such would be a mighty strain on her.

In the long term, say the rest of the 20th century, and if there is no second world war and no post colonism, it is likely that the top three are going to remain the top three though their positions might fluctuate. It is also possible that the Russians might get close to cracking into it just do to land area and resources available.

But here is the thing: Even if there is no second world war, and that is not very likely given the realities; there WILL be a post colonial era and that is where Britain is going to take it in the shorts! Far more of her is tied to overseas colonies that will be breaking away then are the Germans. Germany will still likely have her client states in the East and in the West it is true that the Dutch will lose the NEI as a result of post colonialism, they won't be as negatively impacted as Britain will be by the loss of India. Though the timeline favors slightly orderly transitions of colonies to dominions or allied client states then not. That being said though the German clients in the East are still going to be there and with far more robust economies then the newly released members of the British commonwealth and given how the Germans ran their colonies in comparison to the British that will also be the case more likely then not with her former colonies. The Germans actually had a better colonial administration set up the the British in the long term, they relied a lot more on natives doing the job then did the Brits and they trained them to do those jobs. The result would be colonies better able to stand on their own two feet and with a broader class of native leaders then the English model making for more orderly and stable former colonies.

Now the Ottomans are going to be a bug in the ointment so to speak...

They just might last long enough to be a real major pain in the butt when they start coming apart. The Germans are likely to pour a lot of resources into them during the period that they are still around, and those resources will be targeted at developing their resources such as the massive amounts of oil...

So when they come apart, and it is likely to happen for much of the same reasons that it will happen to AH though it may take a bit longer due to population densities in some of the areas (you are only ever going to have a certain percentage of a population group actually get off their butts and take direct action to free themselves, so in low density populations it easier for a large population density state to maintain order as they will have a net manpower advantage); it will just eventually become to much of a PITA for the German population to want to deal with and the Turks won't be able to hold things together for very long after that on their own.

This will leave a great potential for a set back to German long term planning as well as a rather substantial loss of critical resources that will be hard to make up for.

Well I have prattled on more then long enough...
 
Top