Is a Central Power Victory (1918) MittelAfrika possible?

[Incanian]

Let's say Germany reaches Paris, and "wins". Is a MittelAfrika, like in Kaiserreich, or what many Germans thought of possible?

Ones like these:

 

[Riain]

Yes, in fact it's a virtual certainty in order to get Germany out of Belgium and northern France.

 

[Incanian]

Yes, in fact it's a virtual certainty in order to get Germany out of Belgium and northern France.

Wouldn't the colony have trouble due to it's massive size (talking about a 1918 victory)

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Wouldn't the colony have trouble due to it's massive size (talking about a 1918 victory)

It depends on exactly what Mittelafrika entails.

Let's get real here; unless Germany can get the British to agree to a separate peace with everyone else, they're getting diddly-squat except maybe a status quo ante bellum settlement.

I think the British could agree to a separate peace. In which case, Germany loses Sudwestafrika and Tanganyika, but probably gains Belgian Congo (or at least, de facto control over it) and French territory in exchange for an independent Belgium with neutrality guaranteed (to appease the British public). Mittelafrika in this case would likely consist of Kamerun, Belgian/French Congo, and the Ubangi-Chari region.

You have to remember that by 1916 all of Germany's colonies are in the hands of the Entente. They don't get to keep them unless they can out-navy Britain and the rest, which, well, they can't. The only way to retain overseas territory is through negotiation, which means the Germans need a favourable position in France (i.e. occupation of Paris).

 

[Riain]

Wouldn't the colony have trouble due to it's massive size (talking about a 1918 victory)

What sort of trouble? Britain had few problems with India and it's pretty big, nor its swathe of territories in Africa let alone Canada and Australia.

It depends on exactly what Mittelafrika entails.

Let's get real here; unless Germany can get the British to agree to a separate peace with everyone else, they're getting diddly-squat except maybe a status quo ante bellum settlement.

I think the British could agree to a separate peace. In which case, Germany loses Sudwestafrika and Tanganyika, but probably gains Belgian Congo (or at least, de facto control over it) and French territory in exchange for an independent Belgium with neutrality guaranteed (to appease the British public). Mittelafrika in this case would likely consist of Kamerun, Belgian/French Congo, and the Ubangi-Chari region.

You have to remember that by 1916 all of Germany's colonies are in the hands of the Entente. They don't get to keep them unless they can out-navy Britain and the rest, which, well, they can't. The only way to retain overseas territory is through negotiation, which means the Germans need a favourable position in France (i.e. occupation of Paris).

Are you suggesting that Britain keeps fighting when France has surrendered, so that she can keep her gains in Africa and the Middle East?

Germany doesn't need to occupy Paris to force Britain to cough up African colonies; Dunkirk, Calais, Boulougne and Le Harve will be sufficient.

 

[Analytical Engine]

It's certainly possible - the only question is how big is it.

The UK isn't going to lose any land in this scenario - Germany has no ability to force this to happen. Realistically, only France, Belgium and maybe Italy (if Italy is even in the Entente in the first place) will lose territory.

Given the Entente occupies all of Germany's colonies, except a shifting portion of Tanganyika, Germany will have to negotiate to get them back.

The question then is what does Germany want and what does it have to do to get it?

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

What sort of trouble? Britain had few problems with India and it's pretty big, nor its swathe of territories in Africa let alone Canada and Australia.

I see your point here, but Canada and Australia are not in any way comparable to India or the African empire.

Are you suggesting that Britain keeps fighting when France has surrendered, so that she can keep her gains in Africa and the Middle East?

No, I'm suggesting that Britain keeps fighting so that she can win, because that's what WWI was about. For the public, the reason was Belgian sovereignty/German aggression, followed by national pride. For government, it was the balance of power on the continent. Germany can't beat Britain. The best it can do is come to an impasse, but even in that case what incentive is there for Britain to give anything to Germany?

Return to the status quo ante bellum in Western Europe, and ask for nothing else. What's Germany going to do? Say no? They aren't going to take down the Royal Navy, and the longer they remain in occupied territories the more likely it is that resistance to their presence will grow. The latter probably isn't something the Germans are thinking about at the time, of course.

Germany doesn't need to occupy Paris to force Britain to cough up African colonies; Dunkirk, Calais, Boulougne and Le Harve will be sufficient.

I don't buy it. The Germans were driving for Paris, not the Channel ports.

 

[Riain]

No, I'm suggesting that Britain keeps fighting so that she can win, because that's what WWI was about.

The OP states CP victory, not CP defeat, so presumably Britain is either defeated or on the ropes and almost defeated.

Germany can't beat Britain.

They most certainly can, not with OTL's course of events but then again the OP states CP victory so OTLs course of events isn't going to occur.

I don't buy it. The Germans were driving for Paris, not the Channel ports.

The OP didn't state a 1918 PoD for victory, but even if they did once the French eject the BEF from France because Paris is taken the key position for the Germans fighting the British becomes the French Channel coast.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

The OP states CP victory, not CP defeat, so presumably Britain is either defeated or on the ropes and almost defeated.

'Victory' can mean anything. A maximum German victory where they get everything they want is ASB. A realistic victory is one where Germany doesn't lose.

They most certainly can, not with OTL's course of events but then again the OP states CP victory so OTLs course of events isn't going to occur.

No, they can get Britain to the negotiating table, but they can't defeat the British. There is a difference.

The OP didn't state a 1918 PoD for victory, but even if they did once the French eject the BEF from France because Paris is taken the key position for the Germans fighting the British becomes the French Channel coast.

I never said...?

My assumption is generally a 1915 treaty following a successful push to Paris after the First Battle of the Marne. In any case, the longer the war goes on the more likely it is that the CP's lose. OTL events didn't happen just randomly - there were reasons for everything that occurred.

And besides; Germany is only going to go after the Channel Ports if Britain doesn't come to the table. If Britain comes to the table after Germany wins Paris, which, IMO, is likely (once the French surrender the British aren't going to fancy fighting for much longer), then the odds of Germany occupying the Channel ports are slim to none. And if the fighting continues, then what good are the Channel ports to Germany? The Royal Navy can and will bombard them, which, I imagine, makes German entrenchments difficult to maintain for long.

 

[pompejus]

'Victory' can mean anything. A maximum German victory where they get everything they want is ASB. A realistic victory is one where Germany doesn't lose.

The following terms would mean a great victory for Germany and not terribly unreasonable:
Brest Litovsk in the east
Annexation of Luxemburg
Minor border corrections with France (Belfort, Brie-Longwy and such)
Repartations from France
Restoration of all German colonies
Annexation of some French and maybe Belgian African colonies

In this case Britain can even pretend they actualy won the war, since Belgian independence is restored. So I think Britain might accept this peace if both Russia and France are out of the war.

 

[Riain]

'Victory' can mean anything. A maximum German victory where they get everything they want is ASB. A realistic victory is one where Germany doesn't lose.



No, they can get Britain to the negotiating table, but they can't defeat the British. There is a difference.



I never said...?

My assumption is generally a 1915 treaty following a successful push to Paris after the First Battle of the Marne. In any case, the longer the war goes on the more likely it is that the CP's lose. OTL events didn't happen just randomly - there were reasons for everything that occurred.

And besides; Germany is only going to go after the Channel Ports if Britain doesn't come to the table. If Britain comes to the table after Germany wins Paris, which, IMO, is likely (once the French surrender the British aren't going to fancy fighting for much longer), then the odds of Germany occupying the Channel ports are slim to none. And if the fighting continues, then what good are the Channel ports to Germany? The Royal Navy can and will bombard them, which, I imagine, makes German entrenchments difficult to maintain for long.

Therein lies the issue for all WI like this, the specific circumstances of the victory.

That said Germany did get a small section of Belgium coastline which they fortified to the extent that the RN could not effectively attack it. In addition the so called Race to the Sea got Germany within striking distance of the French channel ports in 1914. Again in 1918 one phase of the spring offensive saw the Germans get within striking distance of the the channel ports. These ports are to Britain what the German occupation of northern France was to France, a massive threat and burden simultaneously, Britain was extremely lucky that Germany fell short of capturing them.

 

[Incanian]

The following terms would mean a great victory for Germany and not terribly unreasonable:
Brest Litovsk in the east
Annexation of Luxemburg
Minor border corrections with France (Belfort, Brie-Longwy and such)
Repartations from France
Restoration of all German colonies
Annexation of some French and maybe Belgian African colonies

In this case Britain can even pretend they actualy won the war, since Belgian independence is restored. So I think Britain might accept this peace if both Russia and France are out of the war.

Problem is, no matter how much Britain poses this as a "victory" everyone on earth knows Britan lost the actual war. They failed to defend its allies, and now Prussia isn't just a European power, it's a world power, by taking so much land from Russia, about 1/3 of their materials, setting Russia back by decades. Making France lose its second war against Prussia, and destroying the French spirit. And also the fact Germany has newly established allies in Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottomans.

 

[BlondieBC]

Exactly what it says in the title.

Yes, there are several ways. And all of them depend on the CP winning decisively in Europe (France and Flanders).

• There is the classic Belgian colonies for leaving Belgium. For this you just need a solid German win. Then we have an interesting negotiation. The UK lacks the army to expel the Germans from the coast and Calais. The Germans lack the navy to get the ego colonies back. There is a simple compromise where Germany gets some of its colonies back plus the Congo for pulling back to a line acceptable to the UK in Flanders.
• We could also see military victories where the Germans do much better in Africa combined with doing better in Europe. Broadly speaking, as the Germans do better in France in 1914 and maybe 1915, more pressure will be applied to the French and British leaderships to divert troops to Flanders compared to OTL. After all, Nigeria can be taken back at the UK leisure if the UK cleanly wins the war. You need a second variable here. The supply lines to Africa need to remain more open. If you can get a thousand or two thousand more Germans to Cameroon, the Germans have a good shot of holding the coast.
• You have not limited this to post July 1914 POD, so you simply can have Germany reinforce the colonies. We can spend a lot of times on the detail, but a extra regiment or maybe just a battalion of infantry per major African colony plus light shipping would be enough to hold the colonies. You also need the Germans to win in Europe, but here it can be slow. The Germans had a lot more cruisers and smaller ships in colonies a few years before WW1, but these ships had become too old and were largely scrapped. The Germans did not build replacements before the war.

 

[BlondieBC]

It depends on exactly what Mittelafrika entails.

Let's get real here; unless Germany can get the British to agree to a separate peace with everyone else, they're getting diddly-squat except maybe a status quo ante bellum settlement.

I think the British could agree to a separate peace. In which case, Germany loses Sudwestafrika and Tanganyika, but probably gains Belgian Congo (or at least, de facto control over it) and French territory in exchange for an independent Belgium with neutrality guaranteed (to appease the British public). Mittelafrika in this case would likely consist of Kamerun, Belgian/French Congo, and the Ubangi-Chari region.

You have to remember that by 1916 all of Germany's colonies are in the hands of the Entente. They don't get to keep them unless they can out-navy Britain and the rest, which, well, they can't. The only way to retain overseas territory is through negotiation, which means the Germans need a favourable position in France (i.e. occupation of Paris).

Depends on the POD and the ATL. Keep the USA out of the war, then Germany will win in 1917 or 1918. The UK then faces a choice of a long war or series of wars such as the Napoleonic wars or making peace. Both options are easily possible. If the UK goes with peace, we can get between a cease fire in place (Germans have large naval guns in Calais) to the other extreme where the UK sells out it lost ally's colonies for concessions in Flanders.

I do tend to agree that retaining SWA is not likely unless the colony is held by the Germans at the end of the war. And this would be a very difficult task.

Also, on you 1916 comment. We are probably two years past the POD, if not more. We don't know who holds what besides some obvious things like Tsingtao

 

[Incanian]

Yes, there are several ways. And all of them depend on the CP winning decisively in Europe (France and Flanders).

• There is the classic Belgian colonies for leaving Belgium. For this you just need a solid German win. Then we have an interesting negotiation. The UK lacks the army to expel the Germans from the coast and Calais. The Germans lack the navy to get the ego colonies back. There is a simple compromise where Germany gets some of its colonies back plus the Congo for pulling back to a line acceptable to the UK in Flanders.
• We could also see military victories where the Germans do much better in Africa combined with doing better in Europe. Broadly speaking, as the Germans do better in France in 1914 and maybe 1915, more pressure will be applied to the French and British leaderships to divert troops to Flanders compared to OTL. After all, Nigeria can be taken back at the UK leisure if the UK cleanly wins the war. You need a second variable here. The supply lines to Africa need to remain more open. If you can get a thousand or two thousand more Germans to Cameroon, the Germans have a good shot of holding the coast.
• You have not limited this to post July 1914 POD, so you simply can have Germany reinforce the colonies. We can spend a lot of times on the detail, but a extra regiment or maybe just a battalion of infantry per major African colony plus light shipping would be enough to hold the colonies. You also need the Germans to win in Europe, but here it can be slow. The Germans had a lot more cruisers and smaller ships in colonies a few years before WW1, but these ships had become too old and were largely scrapped. The Germans did not build replacements before the war.

I decided to limit it to the widely used 1918 victory, and where Germany takes Paris and tries to get peace with Britan.

My main idea of "MittelAfrika" comes from maps like this.

Ones likes these are the ones I view as "MittelAfrika"

 

[BlondieBC]

'Victory' can mean anything. A maximum German victory where they get everything they want is ASB. A realistic victory is one where Germany doesn't lose.

No, they can get Britain to the negotiating table, but they can't defeat the British. There is a difference.

I never said...?

My assumption is generally a 1915 treaty following a successful push to Paris after the First Battle of the Marne. In any case, the longer the war goes on the more likely it is that the CP's lose. OTL events didn't happen just randomly - there were reasons for everything that occurred.

And besides; Germany is only going to go after the Channel Ports if Britain doesn't come to the table. If Britain comes to the table after Germany wins Paris, which, IMO, is likely (once the French surrender the British aren't going to fancy fighting for much longer), then the odds of Germany occupying the Channel ports are slim to none. And if the fighting continues, then what good are the Channel ports to Germany? The Royal Navy can and will bombard them, which, I imagine, makes German entrenchments difficult to maintain for long.

Germany can easily win a sizeable victory, the Germans just can't win a total victory.

The butterflies in your scenario are much greater than you are thinking about. Go two or three levels into the butterflies, and everything looks different. Italy probably does not enter the war. If the French army is beaten, the BEF either has to evacuate Flanders or be destroyed. The BEF is just too small to handle 3-5 full German armies. And really, it is not that hard a POD to write. The French 5th Army is destroyed. (POD better German decisions or worse French). Butterfly #1, the BEF hits the Germans initially not a a weak point, but head long into a stronger portion of an German Army. Butterfly #2, Germans hold Marne. Butterfly #3, BEF is forced to retreat to England or west of Somme by series of German actions. The Germans will end up holding the the channel ports by default. Basically, walk into them. Butterfly #4, British panic about German invasion, so more land units moved to England than OTL.

The Germans can use the channel ports plus smaller shipping plus land based artillery to shut down trade in the channel, and this will be very disruptive to the UK.

Now yes, the RN will attack the channel ports much like it attacked Flanders IOTL.

 

[BlondieBC]

I decided to limit it to the widely used 1918 victory, and where Germany takes Paris and tries to get peace with Britan.

My main idea of "MittelAfrika" comes from maps like this.

Ones likes these are the ones I view as "MittelAfrika"

SWA if very, very hard to hold since South Africa will throw its full weight here. Madagascar seems a bit much, unless a negotiated area. Read ATL below for my views. Also remember that I am reinforcing Africa well before the war starts.



If you wait until the war starts or very near when the war starts, I think Cameroon, French Equitoral Africa, Congo, German East Africa is about the limit that you can get without exceptional POD's. Togoland falls too fast. SWA is hard to hold. Africa is just so big.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/prince-henry-of-prussia-the-rise-of-u-boat.225455/

 

[Incanian]

SWA if very, very hard to hold since South Africa will throw its full weight here. Madagascar seems a bit much, unless a negotiated area. Read ATL below for my views. Also remember that I am reinforcing Africa well before the war starts.



If you wait until the war starts or very near when the war starts, I think Cameroon, French Equitoral Africa, Congo, German East Africa is about the limit that you can get without exceptional POD's. Togoland falls too fast. SWA is hard to hold. Africa is just so big.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/prince-henry-of-prussia-the-rise-of-u-boat.225455/

I was just thinking of as close to our timeline, without altering anything besides a capture of Paris.

 

[BlondieBC]

I was just thinking of as close to our timeline, without altering anything besides a capture of Paris.

Then you have option #1, a negotiated peace. Both Cameroon and German East Africa have the Germans controlling the interior. The UK evacuating the cost is a minor concession. Then the French give up French Equitorial Africa as part of the Germans leaving most of France. German withdraws from Belgium and guarantees neutrality in exchange for the Belgium Congo. German also get enough of France in a border adjustment so they don't have to go through Belgium next time. The UK gets SWA and some small stuff in the Pacific.

Probably no major German gains in the east since the war ends to fast for Russia to get mauled. A-H vassalize Serbia. UK keeps Basra, but Ottoman keep rest. Maybe some border adjustment for Ottomans from Russia in exchange for something Germans give back around Poland. Bulgaria might get slice of Serbia is still joins the war.

Edit.


BTW: Germans just got a giant money pit.

 

[oofo]

Germany can't beat Britain

If the British Expeditionary Force is forced back to off of the continent, Germany has beaten Britain. Belgium would have signed a separate peace (In OTL they sent out feelers to open peace negotiations in July 1918, but quickly stopped after the Marne counterattack; their surrender is practically garunteed if Britain is forced off the continent). France goes soon after.

The British leadership (civilian and military) knew that the war was effectively over if France was knocked out. With the Germans in control of the Channel ports, the Dover Barrage can’t be maintained and traffic in the channel grinds to a halt, resulting in shortages in Britain. Meanwhile goods can enter Germany through now neutral France as well as overland from Spain and Portugal. The British blockade becomes a farce. They have no leg to stand on in any negotiations. If they want the Germans to concede at all on Belgium, they will have to do some bargaining.

The idea that is often thrown around that all British colonies would be untouchable sacred land in peace negotiations is stupid, colonies were exchanged all the time in peace deals historically. They weren’t considered a core part of a nation’s territory. Britain would likely be forced to give up at least part of their colonies in Africa, likely in exchange for Togoland, which the German foreign ministry was apparently willing to part with.