Is a Late CP Victory Possible?

[ArtosStark]

Without an American intervention, is a 1918 victory in the cards?

I am actually of the opinion that short of Entente lead drinking or German friendly ASB’s, Germany cannot win after 1914, and even 1914 is iffy at best.

The German Army had many things going for it. They tended to learn at least marginally faster than their opponents, they maintained a higher tempo than their opponents and , on the Western Front, the strategic situation allowed them to use the power of the defensive. Just to name a few.

But no amount of any of those advantages were enough to make up for the strategic and diplomatic situation that Germany had found herself in. German political and diplomatic failings in the 2 decades (or more, depending on how you look at it) prior to WW1, encouraged by military thinking that gambled everything on an ability to return to battles of annihilation, basically wrote cheques that Germany could not cash.

Even without American Entry, chances of German victory had long past by 1917-18. German leadership could perhaps have taken the hint and used the territory they did hold to bargain for a more lenient peace terms. But if the German leadership system was equipped to do that, they probably would not have gotten themselves into the situation in the first place. And even then, it would have taken considerable convincing on the Entente side.

 

[NoMommsen]

... no matter how many german flags fly over france it doesnt magically make food appear on the starving germans tables

... not magically ... but taken from french tables it well does.

 

[Crazyduck156]

... not magically ... but taken from french tables it well does.

Sounds like an excellent way to make sure the french never surrender

 

[Riain]

Sounds like an excellent way to make sure the french never surrender

Haven't they already surrendered?

 

[Riain]

I am actually of the opinion that short of Entente lead drinking or German friendly ASB’s, Germany cannot win after 1914, and even 1914 is iffy at best.

The German Army had many things going for it. They tended to learn at least marginally faster than their opponents, they maintained a higher tempo than their opponents and , on the Western Front, the strategic situation allowed them to use the power of the defensive. Just to name a few.

But no amount of any of those advantages were enough to make up for the strategic and diplomatic situation that Germany had found herself in. German political and diplomatic failings in the 2 decades (or more, depending on how you look at it) prior to WW1, encouraged by military thinking that gambled everything on an ability to return to battles of annihilation, basically wrote cheques that Germany could not cash.

Even without American Entry, chances of German victory had long past by 1917-18. German leadership could perhaps have taken the hint and used the territory they did hold to bargain for a more lenient peace terms. But if the German leadership system was equipped to do that, they probably would not have gotten themselves into the situation in the first place. And even then, it would have taken considerable convincing on the Entente side.

I see WW1 as a competition between Germany's tactical and operational advantages and Britain's strategic and political advantages; Germany's task is to use their tactical-operational lead to secure victory before Britain can fully bring their strategic-political strength to bear. The issue is that the tactical-operational gap can be (and was) closed by Britain and their strategic-political strength is slow acting, so Germany needs to put itself in a war winning position in 1914-15, which it didn't. In theory Germany could have increased their strategic-political skills, but their country wasn't set up to do that.

This is why the Moltke offensive is so important, it could (and likely should) have put Germany in a good position to win the long war even putting aside the exaggerated aim of the offensive.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Haven't they already surrendered?

They were seeking an armistice in the mentioned TL. If one of the terms is give us all your food, the answer is going to be somewhere between no and f**k no

 

[Riain]

They were seeking an armistice in the mentioned TL. If one of the terms is give us all your food, the answer is going to be somewhere between no and f**k no

'ALL' of your food won't be one of the terms, but certainly there will be demands for large scale food transfers just like gold, cash money, horses, trains and all sorts of other stuff. France can always refuse or delay, but the Soviets did that after their armistice and Germany went on the offensive, made huge advances and laid out even worse conditions.

France has lost, they're suing for peace, they know what's coming and what the consequences are for not accepting. They will accept a hungry year when the alternative is further offensives and worse outcomes.

 

[Drizzt]

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?

What your summary of the situation forgot: US troops were few and late in arriving. Money was not. In OTL the US joined the war just as Entente collateral was about to run out and gave them unsecured loans, something that even Entete fanboys like Wilson had been against. Without those Germany isn't the only one who's home front is cracking and they are the ones who just knocked out a major and a minor power whereas Britain and France have no victories to celebrate.

 

[Riain]

What your summary of the situation forgot: US troops were few and late in arriving. Money was not. In OTL the US joined the war just as Entente collateral was about to run out and gave them unsecured loans, something that even Entete fanboys like Wilson had been against. Without those Germany isn't the only one who's home front is cracking and they are the ones who just knocked out a major and a minor power whereas Britain and France have no victories to celebrate.

Without secured loans for the US from April 1917 the Entente doesn't immediately have to surrender. I don't think the British and French will think seriously about their position until after Caporetto and the Russian-German armistice in late 1917, and even then throwing in the towel won't be Option 1. I think Germany will have to launch something akin to their OTL Spring offensive, but ITTL it will be their winning attack much like IOTL the Entente won with the 100 Days Offensive.

 

[lukedalton]

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.

If you ask an armistice in this condition you basically surrender and put yourself at the enemy mercy, France has his industrial north destroyed, the army are mutinous (for reason) and i doubt that after that the rest of the entente will support her diplomatically...in this condition, the peace treaty is whatever condition the German give you, otherwise what bargain chip you have?

 

[Riain]

There is always a period of time between the armistice to stop the fighting and the Treaty to settle the issues. The Germany-Russian armistice was on 15 Dec 17 and the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was 3 March, although this was a result of deliberate delaying tactics that lead to the resumption of fighting. The Armistice in the West was 11/11/1918 and the Treaty of Versailles was signed 28 June 1919, some 7 months later and a week after the Germans scuttled their fleet at Scapa Flow.

 

[lukedalton]

There is always a period of time between the armistice to stop the fighting and the Treaty to settle the issues. The Germany-Russian armistice was on 15 Dec 17 and the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was 3 March, although this was a result of deliberate delaying tactics that lead to the resumption of fighting. The Armistice in the West was 11/11/1918 and the Treaty of Versailles was signed 28 June 1919, some 7 months later and a week after the Germans scuttled their fleet at Scapa Flow.

You settle any issue only if you have bargain chips, something to pressure the other side to make concession, otherwise you do as Germany OTL, shut up, grumble and sign the treaty and it was signed so much later more for inter-entente politics than for any capacity of Germany to negotiate something

 

[Riain]

You settle any issue only if you have bargain chips, something to pressure the other side to make concession, otherwise you do as Germany OTL, shut up, grumble and sign the treaty and it was signed so much later more for inter-entente politics than for any capacity of Germany to negotiate something

The Entente's bargaining chip is that Britain lost no territory although is under mortal threat from blockade following a successful German offensive in 1918, they have German colonies and were maybe advancing against the Ottomans. That said by 1918 Germany's war aims in the west were pretty limited; western acceptance of Germany's eastern gains, no punitive trade barriers against Germany and return of colonies, anything on top of that is gravy.

 

[lukedalton]

The Entente's bargaining chip is that Britain lost no territory although is under mortal threat from blockade following a successful German offensive in 1918, they have German colonies and were maybe advancing against the Ottomans. That said by 1918 Germany's war aims in the west were pretty limited; western acceptance of Germany's eastern gains, no punitive trade barriers against Germany and return of colonies, anything on top of that is gravy.

Germany itself don't have a clear idea of what her war aims where and honestly between the UK and Germany, i doubt that's the UK the one who go down due to any blockade as Germany is already in dire condition and it's not the Entente that had some bargain chip, it's the UK that have it and in this scenario is doubtfoul that will sacrifice their gain for the sake of the surrendering French

 

[BELFAST]

What could have made a difference is no war loans from America. so cash and carry only. This could mean the Entente running out of money and resources before they can win. The best-case scenario for the cp is taking over France and the RN struggling to maintain a blockade on Germany,
At that point, some kind of peace might be possible by mid-1917.

 

[Riain]

Germany itself don't have a clear idea of what her war aims where and honestly between the UK and Germany, i doubt that's the UK the one who go down due to any blockade as Germany is already in dire condition and it's not the Entente that had some bargain chip, it's the UK that have it and in this scenario is doubtfoul that will sacrifice their gain for the sake of the surrendering French

The US is not in, Russia is defeated, France is defeated and Italy is reeling from Caporetto what exactly is Britain fighting for?

Defeat of France means Germany can move it's uboats to the ports in the Channel, bypassing 4 years worth of mine barrages built on the Flanders coast and in the Dover Strait, and long range guns can bombard Dover making it untenable. There is no way Britain can eke out any sort of victory without allies, nor is the blockade nearly as effective anymore, to say nothing of the fate of the BEF. Is Britain going to remain in the fight and risk Germany annexing ports or getting prolonged access outside the North Sea all in order to keep some shitty colonies in Africa?

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

The US is not in, Russia is defeated, France is defeated and Italy is reeling from Caporetto what exactly is Britain fighting for?

France is defeated how exactly? You haven't explained how, and David Flin already explained how the French morale was not on the verge of shattering as is so often believed. Your plan hinges on France surrendering first, yet the how is left unexplained.

and long range guns can bombard Dover making it untenable.

Long range guns which were developed purely for inspiring terror in Parisians, not in knocking out fortifications, hence their small payload and abysmal accuracy.

Is Britain going to remain in the fight and risk Germany annexing ports

Whose ports?

If it's French or Belgian ports, that was already part of the German plan.
I hope you don't mean British ports, because then my neighbors will be really angry with my laughter at this hour.

or getting prolonged access outside the North Sea all in order to keep some shitty colonies in Africa?

"Prolonged access" = nothing meaningful because the submarines already have that regardless of where they're penned, and the surface fleet is NOT coming out to party after the drubbing they got at Jutland.

"some shitty colonies in Africa" = WTF are you talking about? You mean to say that the Germans are going to naval invade Nigeria, or somehow obtain those colonies in a peace treaty when they haven't been occupied and can't be reached by German forces? Even if we just skip to the part where France loses, how is Germany going to squeeze anything out of Britain?

 

[Riain]

France is defeated how exactly? You haven't explained how, and David Flin already explained how the French morale was not on the verge of shattering as is so often believed. Your plan hinges on France surrendering first, yet the how is left unexplained.

Long range guns which were developed purely for inspiring terror in Parisians, not in knocking out fortifications, hence their small payload and abysmal accuracy.

Whose ports?

If it's French or Belgian ports, that was already part of the German plan.
I hope you don't mean British ports, because then my neighbors will be really angry with my laughter at this hour.

"Prolonged access" = nothing meaningful because the submarines already have that regardless of where they're penned, and the surface fleet is NOT coming out to party after the drubbing they got at Jutland.

"some shitty colonies in Africa" = WTF are you talking about? You mean to say that the Germans are going to naval invade Nigeria, or somehow obtain those colonies in a peace treaty when they haven't been occupied and can't be reached by German forces? Even if we just skip to the part where France loses, how is Germany going to squeeze anything out of Britain?

This is not my thread and the OP didn't specify the manner of victory, only that the US didn't get involved and Germany won the war. Maybe you should take it up with the OP.

You seem confused, perhaps look into long range siege guns, Germans war aims after 1917 and what Britain considered existential threats and re-engage with the thread.

 

[lukedalton]

The US is not in, Russia is defeated, France is defeated and Italy is reeling from Caporetto what exactly is Britain fighting for?

Defeat of France means Germany can move it's uboats to the ports in the Channel, bypassing 4 years worth of mine barrages built on the Flanders coast and in the Dover Strait, and long range guns can bombard Dover making it untenable. There is no way Britain can eke out any sort of victory without allies, nor is the blockade nearly as effective anymore, to say nothing of the fate of the BEF. Is Britain going to remain in the fight and risk Germany annexing ports or getting prolonged access outside the North Sea all in order to keep some shitty colonies in Africa?

Italy at the time has already rebuild his army as the failed austrian offensive at second battle of Piave showed and no the italian government will not surrender as their choice is between the tender mercy of Wien if they stop fighting and revolution if they don't bring home some result; so it's very probable that the British will redeploy in Italy or launch in any case an offensive that the Austrian don't have the capacity to resist anymore and frankly by the end of their offensive the Germans will be in need to R & R to be fight capable again so for now the Austrian are on their own.

Yes Dover is on the range of the gun and the gun are on the range of the gun of the royal navy plus look more like a terror weapon than something of real military utility and sorry but i doubt that the UK will collapse immediately from the German blockade and the Germans are already on the rope in term of food and is difficult to look to the war aims of Germany as they (like the Austrian) changed a lot and were not really codified

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

This is not my thread and the OP didn't specify the manner of victory, only that the US didn't get involved and Germany won the war. Maybe you should take it up with the OP.

OP did not specify a victory. OP asked if it was possible with a POD of 1917 or '18, and gave some observations to set the scene.
In fact, the entire thread is titled "Is a late CP victory possible?"

My answer: "No."
Your answer presumes "Yes, of course!" and then skips to the post-victory end credits where they're glaring at Britain across the Channel after marching through Paris.

You seem confused, perhaps look into long range siege guns, Germans war aims after 1917 and what Britain considered existential threats and re-engage with the thread.

You seem ignorant, and eager to hide that ignorance with blithe deflections.

1. The effective range of the gun you mentioned is 22 kilometers; the English Channel is 33 kilometers wide at its shortest point near Dover.
It can fire out to 47 kilometers, but there's a reason that maximum range =/= effective range: loss of accuracy. So no, there is nothing with which the Germans can suppress defenses on the opposite side of the Channel.

2. German war aims never included annexing English ports. If you think otherwise, show citations; if you do not, explain what you meant about risking "Germany annexing ports."

3. Existential threats = the submarines starving Britain of supplies. Unless the High Seas Fleet were to double in size and grew another pair of testicles, invasion was never a realistic consideration no matter how hard the British propaganda press wanked over the idea, and certainly not after Jutland.