Is a Late CP Victory Possible?

[CHKeeley]

As always, summer has come and I’m in the need of a creative project. And what better way to drastically rewrite the 20th century than to return to the classic CP victory scenario. I’ve been looking through old threads discussing 1917/1918 CP victories trying to get a handle on the plausibility of it without any more drastic divergences. So far, I’ve seen some pretty strong disagreements in threads going back over a decade, but it doesn’t look like there’s any consensus on it from people who know what they’re talking about.

If we handwave American intervention in the war, then in early 1918 we are looking a scenario where the Central Powers are trying to use all of their available forces to strike another knockout blow on the Western Front. But, of course, Germany is a ticking time bomb because of the social ferment from blockade, hardship, and industrial slaughter. They need to do something fast, and don’t have the luxury of waiting around. Those vaunted harvests from Ukraine aren’t coming any time soon. Opinion on whether Operation Michael can achieve a French collapse without American intervention seems roughly divided, with those saying it cannot seemingly just a little more plausible. The French are battered, but they aren’t as deteriorated socially as the Germans are and it sounds like it’s gonna take more energy to knock them out than Germany has in the tank. Could a blow against Italy trigger a chain reaction? It seems like they were really on the ropes after Austro-Hungarian successes, but also would an Italian withdrawal do much to add time to the German clock?

I’d like to see what people think and reopen the can of worms. Without an American intervention, is a 1918 victory in the cards? Would an attempt at a negotiated settlement even work at this point? Or is the game pretty much up for the Central Powers by this point?

 

[Nivek]

As always, summer has come and I’m in the need of a creative project. And what better way to drastically rewrite the 20th century than to return to the classic CP victory scenario. I’ve been looking through old threads discussing 1917/1918 CP victories trying to get a handle on the plausibility of it without any more drastic divergences. So far, I’ve seen some pretty strong disagreements in threads going back over a decade, but it doesn’t look like there’s any consensus on it from people who know what they’re talking about.

If we handwave American intervention in the war, then in early 1918 we are looking a scenario where the Central Powers are trying to use all of their available forces to strike another knockout blow on the Western Front. But, of course, Germany is a ticking time bomb because of the social ferment from blockade, hardship, and industrial slaughter. They need to do something fast, and don’t have the luxury of waiting around. Those vaunted harvests from Ukraine aren’t coming any time soon. Opinion on whether Operation Michael can achieve a French collapse without American intervention seems roughly divided, with those saying it cannot seemingly just a little more plausible. The French are battered, but they aren’t as deteriorated socially as the Germans are and it sounds like it’s gonna take more energy to knock them out than Germany has in the tank. Could a blow against Italy trigger a chain reaction? It seems like they were really on the ropes after Austro-Hungarian successes, but also would an Italian withdrawal do much to add time to the German clock?

I’d like to see what people think and reopen the can of worms. Without an American intervention, is a 1918 victory in the cards? Would an attempt at a negotiated settlement even work at this point? Or is the game pretty much up for the Central Powers by this point?

A SHIFT IN PRIORITIES PULLED IT VERY WELL SO is having a good POD

 

[Big Schwartz]

As always, summer has come and I’m in the need of a creative project. And what better way to drastically rewrite the 20th century than to return to the classic CP victory scenario.

Just curious, is this question your definite starting point, as in a 1917ish PoD specifically? Or is the focus on rewriting the 20th century in general with a long, drawn out war that ends in German victory? Because in that case there are many ways to do that will give you a lot of freedom from an author's perspective.

Example. Have Roosevelt not run 1912. From what I understand Taft saw WWI as a European affair. Also, afaik Taft had certain ideas regarding imperialistic ambitions towards Mexico. Plus with the backdrop of keeping Wilson out of office you can totally rewrite race relations in the states. So there's several ways to make things look very different on that side of the Atlantic.

On the European side, again, you have free reign as an author with such a PoD, especially without America. You can even have Taft be even more neutral and not supply the Entente with arms giving Germany an edge (or supply both sides).

Another angle to look at is neutral Greece and Bulgaria. Here. This has several pros and cons as discussed, but the comment I found interesting is it helps entente short term but CP long term, especially regarding available grain from Romania and no Salonika campaign.

Either way, I know there are much more studied members that'll give you better answers to your initial question, but as you said this topic has been done an awful lot.

 

[Nivek]

A Shift in Priorities

A Shift in Priorities After Generals von Hindenburg and Ludendorff had already scorned the demonstration of the so-called “Bremer-Wagen”, an early but very flawed German attempt in tank construction, in March 1917, the failed Entente tank actions near Arras and Juvincourt in April 1917 did...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[CHKeeley]

Just curious, is this question your definite starting point, as in a 1917ish PoD specifically? Or is the focus on rewriting the 20th century in general with a long, drawn out war that ends in German victory? Because in that case there are many ways to do that will give you a lot of freedom from an author's perspective.

I’m thinking the focus would be more on the social and political developments of post-war Europe, but in order to really get the kind of upheaval we saw IOTL then a drawn out war similar to OTL is necessary. But yeah I’m not particularly averse to longer term changes so long as the European war looks pretty similar. I do like the suggestion for the Salonika front - I’ll take a look at that!

 

[Riain]

In my mind a long war is a virtual certainty, victory for either side can't come before 1917 even with such great and early PoDs as the Germans destroying a French Army or two in their initial offensive.

In my mind the later the PoD the tougher it is to get a CP victory. Indeed the later the PoD the tougher it is to even get the PoD itself, the continuing war narrowed the choices of the people responsible for such PoDs. For example in order to not being in the US in April 1917 many people say not to have USW, but Germany was in a position where they had to do something so the choice isn't USW or nothing it's USW and something like a 'sharpened' uboat campaign like that of early 1916 which is likely to generate a response all of it's own.

 

[Mikestone8]

Plus with the backdrop of keeping Wilson out of office you can totally rewrite race relations in the states.

Why exactly? Federal Government departments might never have been seegregated, which is good as afar as iit goes, but woukd that make any major difference at State level? m

 

[Crazyduck156]

A Shift in Priorities

A Shift in Priorities After Generals von Hindenburg and Ludendorff had already scorned the demonstration of the so-called “Bremer-Wagen”, an early but very flawed German attempt in tank construction, in March 1917, the failed Entente tank actions near Arras and Juvincourt in April 1917 did...

www.alternatehistory.com

1918s germany making 800+ tanks (somehow), crushing the BEF (somehow) and winning the war (somehow)

Fairly standard kaiserwank really

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

1918s germany making 800+ tanks (somehow), crushing the BEF (somehow) and winning the war (somehow)

Fairly standard kaiserwank really

Looking at the guy's post history, it is nothing but this one fic for the last two years at least.

And just from a preliminary read, I'm already tempted to make a checklist of all the ugly kaiserboo tropes it's ticking.

Opinion on whether Operation Michael can achieve a French collapse without American intervention seems roughly divided, with those saying it cannot seemingly just a little more plausible.

Are you kidding me? The Americans were barely present at all at that point, and got only 77 casualties as a result.
This is because the whole idea for Michael was to attack before the bulk of American forces arrived in May.

I’d like to see what people think and reopen the can of worms. Without an American intervention, is a 1918 victory in the cards? Would an attempt at a negotiated settlement even work at this point? Or is the game pretty much up for the Central Powers by this point?

No, don't know (but probably not), and yes.

American forces did not arrive in great numbers until May/June, and most of them were not sent to the part of the lines that the Germans focused on in June and July. They had a much larger effect during the 100 Days' Offensive, but by that point the Germans could have launched another offensive toward Paris if they didn't pause to catch their breath and they still would only have two months at most before revolution back home broke out. And there is no chance of a Spring Offensive: Autumn Edition being successful, because the new stormtrooper tactics used in that spring got great results, but they also ate through the experienced men needed for them like crazy, which meant that a follow-up offensive simply wasn't possible.

Without the Americans on hand, the 100 Days Offensive is either limited or doesn't happen, and the war ends deeper in French territory, but it still ends in a German defeat.

 

[RedSword12]

Of course it's possible.

 

[Nivek]

1918s germany making 800+ tanks (somehow), crushing the BEF (somehow) and winning the war (somehow)

Fairly standard kaiserwank really

Looking at the guy's post history,

Did you even read the TL?that was one of a hell of a gamble and he is loyal his TL

 

[Crazyduck156]

Did you even read the TL?that was one of a hell of a gamble and he is loyal his TL

I read up to the point where germany had won the first world war after somehow destroying the BEF after somehow acquiring all those tanks (which seeing at OTLs germany total tank production count which could generously be called limited suddenly pulling 800 out their behinds in 1917 germany - a country struggling to feed its population - at seemingly no cost can only really be called a wank) at which point I decided there was no need to continue

 

[Catspoke]

Looking at the guy's post history, it is nothing but this one fic for the last two years at least.

And just from a preliminary read, I'm already tempted to make a checklist of all the ugly kaiserboo tropes it's ticking.

Are you kidding me? The Americans were barely present at all at that point, and got only 77 casualties as a result.
This is because the whole idea for Michael was to attack before the bulk of American forces arrived in May.

No, don't know (but probably not), and yes.

American forces did not arrive in great numbers until May/June, and most of them were not sent to the part of the lines that the Germans focused on in June and July. They had a much larger effect during the 100 Days' Offensive, but by that point the Germans could have launched another offensive toward Paris if they didn't pause to catch their breath and they still would only have two months at most before revolution back home broke out. And there is no chance of a Spring Offensive: Autumn Edition being successful, because the new stormtrooper tactics used in that spring got great results, but they also ate through the experienced men needed for them like crazy, which meant that a follow-up offensive simply wasn't possible.

Without the Americans on hand, the 100 Days Offensive is either limited or doesn't happen, and the war ends deeper in French territory, but it still ends in a German defeat.

Agree the German can't just do OTL 1918 offensives and expect to win. But maybe they don't have to.

Without the USA in, the supply situation is incrementally better. USA Belgian relief is still adding food to the CP area, still easier to get strategic supplies indirectly via USA through neutrals. So better potential to linger on until 1919 at least.

It would be better in 1918, if attacking at all, to attack the weakest opponents they can find, Italians, Greeks, French, it's about capturing supplies, creating headlines, minimizing casualties, and minimizing supplies used on their side.

Also requires an ongoing peace offensive with reasonable terms on their side, which might convince Allied individuals and governments it's not worth going over the top.

Easiest bargaining position for Germany is ok we will give up our colonies, even our submarines, 1914 pre war status quo in the west. Pay for private party damages in Belgium and France, but the CP get to largely keep their arrangements in the east and Balkans.

A huge win for the Germans, but still face saving for France and Britain. For Britain especially who restores her channel security and picks up these German colonies, which she seems to over value.

Even if the Germans had to give up Alsace Lorraine to get a peace, it's still a huge victory with the new arrangements in the east.

The biggest issue is do the Germans have this kind of diplomatic and political finesse to see it through.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

To the victor, go the spoils is basically what you are looking for.

 

[lukedalton]

To the victor, go the spoils is basically what you are looking for.

and even that rely on the french suddenly decide to surrender and put themself at the mercy of the Germans and the Anglo-American uncapable of doing nothing

 

[Crazyduck156]

and even that rely on the french suddenly decide to surrender and put themself at the mercy of the Germans and the Anglo-American uncapable of doing nothing

Its also one of the few that remember that no matter how many german flags fly over france it doesnt magically make food appear on the starving germans tables

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

and even that rely on the french suddenly decide to surrender and put themself at the mercy of the Germans and the Anglo-American uncapable of doing nothing

It is not a sudden decision, nor a sporadic one. From what I remember (as I read the story a few months ago) the Germans managed to secure (or encircle) Paris and other strategic French cities, effectively cutting off 80% of their industry, paralyzing their railroad network and supply and demoralize an already mutinous French Army, this was a real problem even during WW2 though to a lesser extent, just shows how important Paris as a central hub of strategic value is. The decision for an armistice was facilitated by problems slowly pilling up since 1916 in the French government, even when France 'won' WW1 its economical, societal and military situation could be best described as bad, so it is no wonder that without hindsight, seeing German success after success, losing vital railway hubs, a crippling debt and a possible French revolution/mutiny, a sensible choice would be to see the terms for a peace deal to save as much as you could before it is too late.

 

[lukedalton]

It is not a sudden decision, nor a sporadic one. From what I remember (as I read the story a few months ago) the Germans managed to secure (or encircle) Paris and other strategic French cities, effectively cutting off 80% of their industry, paralyzing their railroad network and supply and demoralize an already mutinous French Army, this was a real problem even during WW2 though to a lesser extent, just shows how important Paris as a central hub of strategic value is. The decision for an armistice was facilitated by problems slowly pilling up since 1916 in the French government, even when France 'won' WW1 its economical, societal and military situation could be best described as bad, so it is no wonder that without hindsight, seeing German success after success, losing vital railway hubs, a crippling debt and a possible French revolution/mutiny, a sensible choice would be to see the terms for a peace deal to save as much as you could before it is too late.

The problems are
- they have seen the nice term given to Russia and Romania, so i don't see that great incentive to surrender
- The americans and all their supply are coming and there are a lot of sign that the Germans are on the last leg in term of food and material
- the anglo-american can't do anything about it or send troops on Italy because sure the mutinous French Army (that even during the OTL mutiny refused simply to fight offensively and not give up defence) will fight the former allies to support the Germans

 

[David Flin]

and demoralize an already mutinous French Army,

No need to read further.

The French Army mutiny was not, in the strictest sense, a mutiny, more of a work to rule. They refused general offensives with little prospect of success, and wanted rotation and food supply sorted out. They were still prepared to hold the line and conduct local offensives which had a good chance of achieving moderate objectives.

Anyone who describes the French army of that period as mutinous and demoralised really doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. The poilu was not objecting to fighting the war. He was objecting to it being fought badly. No more, no less. Supplies and rotations as efficient as the British, and attacks that were more likely to produce positive results.

To give an idea of the impact of the so-called mutiny, the Germans never realised that there was a mutiny going on in the trenches opposite until after the war.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

The problems are
- they have seen the nice term given to Russia and Romania, so i don't see that great incentive to surrender
- The americans and all their supply are coming and there are a lot of sign that the Germans are on the last leg in term of food and material
- the anglo-american can't do anything about it or send troops on Italy because sure the mutinous French Army (that even during the OTL mutiny refused simply to fight offensively and not give up defence) will fight the former allies to support the Germans

Reason why they asked for an armistice and not a peace treaty first, which in story it took a long time to come to an agreeable peace deal, in which Germany lost some of its colonies and gained little of French territory. (A few square kms) Not sure how much aware were they about the food and material situation post Brest Litovsk given their fear of Russian resources sustaining the Central Powers, or Romanian grain for that matter.

Who said anything about the French to fight for the Germans? There's also the question if the Americans will want to fight the French's battles when the soldiers will refuse new bloody offensive actions. The antiwar sentiment during WW1 was not small, nor the idea of fighting for the Empires of Europe nonexistent.

No need to read further.

The French Army mutiny was not, in the strictest sense, a mutiny, more of a work to rule. They refused general offensives with little prospect of success, and wanted rotation and food supply sorted out. They were still prepared to hold the line and conduct local offensives which had a good chance of achieving moderate objectives.

Anyone who describes the French army of that period as mutinous and demoralised really doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. The poilu was not objecting to fighting the war. He was objecting to it being fought badly. No more, no less. Supplies and rotations as efficient as the British, and attacks that were more likely to produce positive results.

To give an idea of the impact of the so-called mutiny, the Germans never realised that there was a mutiny going on in the trenches opposite until after the war.

Yes, it was hyperbole and I admit my mistake in that regard, but the point stands, the French Army was in a bad state, defensive actions and less pointless/bloody battles were not going to happen in a scenario where Paris, Amiens and other important cities were in German hands and required capture. What is to say that the average French soldier in this TL won't turn mutinous after being asked to fight for places that they already fought for months or years ago? With the war situation looking even grimmer while still having bad/wasteful officers above you?