Kaos of War 1914-1954

[Jim Smitty]

Kaos of War 1914-1954

Ok I got this idea when I was doing R&D for United American Flight 817 as I was reading up on one of the ship classes I had serving in the ROCN just before the start of World War III in that timeline.

Although from a modern viewpoint, a conflict between the US and Great Britain seems implausible, US Navy planners during this time and up to the mid-1930s considered Britain to be a formidable rival for power in the Atlantic, and the possibility of armed conflict between the two countries plausible enough to merit appropriate planning measures. (it has been suggested that the Washington Naval Treaty may have actually prevented such a war from occurring, thereby indirectly affecting the outcome of World War II.)

This got me thinking what would it take for the US and British to come to blows in say the late 1920s or early 30s. Now normally I don’t post these ideas on AH.com/CF.net or any other sight and saves them for the day I finally get to write them. But this is so far out there I would like to see what is out there and people think. This is just the wars and major foreign policies/treaties. Domestic issues would take too long to get it right. All rights reserved to me.

POD: Theodore Roosevelt dies during the River of Doubt Expedition in 1913.

World War One 1914-1918
-Between 1914 and early 1917 things are more or less OTL. Some minor things are different but nothing really worth noting.

-Then in late 1916 in America because of T.R. not being there Charles E Hughes wins California and New Hampshire. There by winning the White House.

-Then in late a German agent who is fictional learns that the US is becoming weary of loaning the Entente more money. With a change of German foreign ministers (Zimmermann loses his job in a cabinet move), Germany never goes to unrestricted submarine warfare. Even though America has just started a war with Mexico, Germany decides its best not to give the US a reason to enter this war. Following the start of the Second Mexican American War the US supplies slow downs to a faction of what they were before. All loans are cut off.

-Then when the Germans launches their Spring Offensive in 1918, the Entente who are short on money and supplies are unable to stop the German offensive. Paris falls in June 1918. This is followed by the French throwing in the towel and asking for German terms. With France asking for peace, the rest of the Entente also start asking for cease fires with the CP.
In the treaty that follows that ends this war the Entente agrees that Brest-Litovsk is the binding. France and Italy is hammered with reps that are just as bad as Germany was OTL with Versailles. Germany gains the rest of Lorraine from the French on European Soil and Luxembourg. In Africa German East Africa is returned to Germany as is German West Africa(Minus Togoland). Germany Southwest Africa is kept by the British the British also keeps Togoland. The Germans pick up French and Belgium Congo as well as Italian Somaliland. In Pacific the Germans cut their losses there and those territories go to who got them OTL. Austria-Hungary with all their issues decides against annexing any Italian Territory and force their own reps on Italy. Bulgaria regains everything it lost in the Second Balkans War save for what the Ottomans took back. Romania is hit with reps but don’t have it no were as bad as the French or Italians do. Ottomans get their borders returned to pre-war positions when talking about their borders with the British.

Second Mexican American War 1917-1919
-In early 1917 Pershing’s forces in Mexico get into a large battle with the forces of Carranza. With Wilson being a lame duck decides to pull back not wanting to start a war. But when Hughes takes over he orders Pershing back into Mexico and gives him a much free hand. Once again they get mix up in a battle with the forces of Carranza. Notes are passed between Washington and Mexico City. Then the US gives Mexico a list of demands, Mexico tells the US to drop dead. The US DOWs Mexico.

-The US has to build up its forces before it could launch more than a Punitive Expedition into Mexico but in the mean time they cut off Baja and land Marines in Veracruz. Then a month after the war started the Army starts a 14 month campaign in Mexico. Carranza is capped by his generals. Following the fall of Mexico City there really isn’t anyone left besides Emiliano Zapata left to make peace with. Zapata and the US cuts a deal. Zapata and the US sign the Second Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The US annexes the Baja Peninsula and Sonora. The US agrees to support Zapata so long as he keeps the troubles on the Mexican side of the border. The bulk of the Mexicans in Sonora move out after the US annexes the place. The war was a bloody on both sides, but no were on the order on of World War One.

Russian Civil War 1917-1923
Fought for the same reasons as OTL. The ending is different through. The Japanese dig in and fight like hell and the Soviets decided they had enough and sign a treaty giving up said territory, covered under the Japanese-Soviet War in more detail.

The Eastern Rebellions 1919-1921
-The different areas that Germany annexed under the terms of the Brest-Litovsk are basically pissed with their leadership and raise up against the Germans. Even through the Germans are tied they aren’t about to let their new empire go. They go in and crushes these rebellions and go about performing Ethnic Cleansing (Forced Migration) these areas and opening them up for Germans. The Ukraine looses its independence because of this and becomes part of the German Empire after a lot of Ukrainians and Russians head for where ever they can, mostly back into the Soviet Union or Mexico.

Japanese-Soviet War of 1919-1924
-The Japanese have a chip on their shoulder from being on the losing side of World War One even through it did gain some territory out it. Looking to make gains they occupy Primorsky Krai and Northern Sakhalin in 1919. The Soviets really don’t start pressing the Japanese till 1921 through as they start to get the upper hand against the Whites. The war between the Japanese and Soviets goes on for three more years before the Soviets decided they have other issues and decided to cut their losses and give up on both areas. Again its another bloody war but the Japanese wanted to get even with the Russians for giving up in 1917.


Second World War 1931-1934
-Following the crash of 29 things between the US and UK go downhill, even though things before this wasn’t great. There were no naval treaties ITL so the US has built up a fleet that could match the UK, and UK has been harmed by the loss of World War One. The US is demanding repayment of the loans the US gave to the UK and France. France and Italy falls into Civil Wars in 1930 following the failure of the economic systems. This is a battle between the far right and far left in both nation

-The US moves to siege French Caribbean and Pacific territories as the Communist gain the upper hands in France. The UK also moves to do the same thing in Africa as well as the Caribbean and Pacific along with Italian Colonies. A number of minor naval battles are fought in the Pacific and Caribbean and Pacific between the USN and RN. This leads to notes being passed that have demands that neither nation will agree to. The US DOWs the British.

-The Japanese who broke with the British following their war with the Soviets, seeing a chance to grab more of China and starts a war there as the US and UK are in a pissing match with each other. Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand all break with the United Kingdom and declaring to be neutral in this war between the US and UK. Canada never got the chance to do this with the US army and marines thrusting north before Canada could break off with UK. The US uses the war to bounce back from the Great Depression as it spends money on its military like a drunken sailor and the UK has issues getting money. American goals are to keep the French colonies it was taken in lieu of payment from the French who were skipping out on payments as they were being taken over by the communist, Western Canada, and different Pacific and Caribbean Islands of the British, and get payment for the loans dating from World War One. The British want to hold on to what they have and agree to changes in loan terms that are favorable to the British. The Japanese want to make gains in China. China wants to hold on what it has.

-With US industry and money the British couldn’t hope to stand up to the Americans. And by late 1933 they can afford to keep the war going on and agree to sign a peace treaty with the US. Then in 1934 with their military still huge from their war with the British they tell the Japanese to come to terms with China or else. Seeing how large the American fleet is and knowing they could defeat them in open battle agree and come to terms with the Chinese.

-America gains Canada from Manitoba west, Newfoundland, the Bahamas, Belize, Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Fiji, and the small Pacific islands. The Venezuela who joined the war on the side of the US in a pure land grab take British Guiana. Its also agree that the US will keep all of the French colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific save for Indochina. Indochinese used the French Civil War to throw the French out and US didn’t want another Philippines War and the British couldn’t hold it. The US allows the British to hold the French and Italian colonies because they don’t want them. The remaining parts of Canada become an American puppet. Japan gains Manchuria, Mengjiang, Hainan, and the Shandong Peninsula. The UK still has to make loan payments on US terms.

-Side effect is the United Kingdom goes Fascist.

Chaco War
Largely OTL

World War 3 1951-1954
-The world by 1951 is a racially different place now than from OTL. The US has created a hegemony in North America. Germany has a vast Empire in Eastern Europe that is mostly German now. Austria Hungary is nothing more than a German puppet now and Germany is opening talking of annexing German speaking lands into their Empire and spinning off the other areas into puppets. The Ottomans have come back and are a respectful middle power that is aligned with the Germans and have kept from becoming the other Austria Hungary. The French and Italians have when red in their civil wars and want revenge against the US and Germans. The British are a fascist power that also wants revenge. Japan is waiting for a chance to make another land grab in either China or the Soviet Union. They are talking in private about the possibly of an alliance with Germany against the Soviet Union. Mexico has taken in a shit load of Polish, Ukrainians, and other Eastern Europeans that have been forced out of their homelands because of the German Forced Migration following the failed rebellions in 1919-21 and they are gaining power in Mexico. The same could be said of Argentina and other South American nations. Finland is the only nation that kept from having the fate of other areas of former Russian Empire. But they have a German King and are aligned with the Germans, but they are not a puppet. All it would need is a spark to start another World War.

-That sparks comes when the French, Italians, and Soviets launch a massive assault on Germany following the Germans moving to annex the German speaking lands of Austria Hungary and spinning off the other areas into puppets in their own right. The British join in to grab the German African colonies. They try to blockade the Germans which only serve to piss off the US. The US demands they leave US ships alone. The British then launches a Pearl like attack on the US naval base at Bermuda. Japan joins this war for a pure land grab. The Chinese stab the Japanese in the back to retake their land they lost in the Second World War. Argentina joins in on the US/German/Japan alliance to take the Falklands. Chile sticks a knife in the Argentina back. Which causes Peru and Bolivia to attack Chile.

-It becomes a free for all with everyone wanting to grab land and cripple the others to the point this can never happen again. The US ends this war in 1954 with mass use of nuclear weapons. Following the war there is another round of Forced Migration by the Germans and are joined by their Japanese “allies” in this. France, the United Kingdom, Italy, China and the other players on their side of the war get a version of Morgenthau Plan that is on steroids.

-Germany gets a hegemony in Africa and Europe, the Ottomans get one Middle East. Asia becomes a pissing match between Japan and the United States. But all sides are tied enough not to come to open blows before they figure out what a game changer nuclear weapons are.

-Territory wise is a as follows. Germany gains the remaining colonies in Africa. In Europe they gain Champagne Ardenne and Franche Comte from France. From Russia they gain everything up to the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan Line save for lands to given to Finland and Ottoman Empire. But the lands these nations get are minor when put up against the massive land grab the Germans just made. The US takes the remaining British colonies in the Caribbean. In the Far East they move only against the Soviets and take Kamchatka Krai, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Magadan Olbast, and the Sakha Republic. The Japanese take the rest of the Far Eastern Federal District from the Soviets, they also take Zabaykalsky Krai from the Soviets. In China the Japanese take Leizhou Peninsula, the rest of Inner Mongolia, Shanghai, Tianjin, Beijing, Hebei, Ningxia, and the city of Guangzhou. They take Hong Kong, Singapore, and British Malaya from the British. India becomes three or four major nations with a few minor ones to boot. Ireland becomes an American puppet this all of Ireland. The minor South American plays all make gains at the cost to Chile.

-A three way cold war starts between the US, Germany, and Japan. Battle grounds are mostly in India and South America. Note I don’t support Ethnic Cleansing any shape or form. But I see it happen if these events unfolded instead of OTL.

 

[cortz#9]

Very interesting. I've wondered about this scenario myself. Does Russia not go Communist in this scenario?
Also I have to wonder if Germany might not get the bomb first without Nazis.

 

[lukedalton]

Problems are that with a so late victory A-H and the OE are now won a ticket towards the dustbin of history; what Germany can do is prop them out for some time but add that to the rebellion on the east and the internal German political problem (rise of the socialist and the discredited old order, plus frankly the people and the enstablishment will be wary of continued bloodshed) seem that the prospect of any German created MittelEuropa are grim.

Expect that Italy and France default and frankly at the moment there is little that Germany can do as her hand are a little tied...maybe is this that bring the Great Depression; plus the US can't ask any repayment, if they don't give no unsecured loan mean that the British just paid them and their allies in 1917 and there is none left.

Any war between US and UK will be interesting, sure the Americans have the money...but not as much experience in anything related to modern warfare, expecially without any involvement in WWI...honestly, the italian army in Libya will have more change than them against the British, sorry but the US army at the time (1914) was a sick joke and no experience in Europe will mean that nothing will change (and even in OTL at the start of WW2 the american army was even less dangerous of the Italian), their invasion of Canada will be probably an Epic Fail at least the first time, and frankly the US has gone out of the Depression thanks to WWII...because they had sold weapons and materials and they were unthouched by the war, here the goverment will don't have the money for any rearmament before, unless he goes for the Hitler way and indebt himself to death.

Regarding Germany gaining any type of colony in a peace Treaty, well expect that the British occupy anything so to block any German attemps to put feet there, and frankly there is not much that Berlin can do for

 

[Jim Smitty]

Very interesting. I've wondered about this scenario myself. Does Russia not go Communist in this scenario?
Also I have to wonder if Germany might not get the bomb first without Nazis.

Yes the Russians when communist.

As to why Germany doesn't get the bomb first is because they got bombed by the Communist alliance/Britain. Even with that not withstanding they were close to getting the bomb when America started dropping them.

 

[Jim Smitty]

I'm surprised I haven't heard more on this.

 

[The Gunslinger]

With a hostile America and a victorious Germany I very much doubt that Britain will break with Japan.

The only reason it happened OTL was that Germany was no longer a threat, and America was friendly. If neither of these happens I doubt it ends.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Kaos of War 1914-1954

Let me look at this first post bit by bit. I won't respond to anything that I think is entirely plausible; I have no interest in quoting a section of text and then writing "OK" or some equivalent lots of times over. So this will probably come across as quite negative in tone, but please don't take it as an insult.

Also, I know little of the history of the world outside Europe, so I'll simply not comment on such things as the proposed Second Mexican-American War.

-Then in late a German agent who is fictional learns that the US is becoming weary of loaning the Entente more money.

The US was incredibly tight-fisted IOTL; it only ever gave the Entente loans which were secured, mostly by British property in the US. The US wasn't weary of loaning money; it was only lending money which it was sure it could get back, and refusing to lend a penny that it wasn't sure it would get back. This isn't a criticism of US actions, it's simply a statement of fact; the US federal government actively tried to prevent unsecured loans from being made to the Entente powers.

With a change of German foreign ministers (Zimmermann loses his job in a cabinet move), Germany never goes to unrestricted submarine warfare.

Difficult. Germany went to unrestricted submarine warfare because the British blockade was really, really nasty for its economy and because of a major culture in German politics which led military officers to feel themselves capable of effectively ignoring diplomatic considerations, a culture arguably dating back to the clashes between Moltke and Bismarck (whose beginning can be almost certainly blamed on the much-venerated Bismarck). Take away this culture and you quite possibly take away WW1; you almost certainly take away the invasion of Belgium. I doubt you could undo unrestricted submarine warfare with something so simple as a change of German foreign ministers; gross missteps like the Zimmerman Telegram are of course another matter.

With France asking for peace, the rest of the Entente also start asking for cease fires with the CP.

France asks for peace? Sure. But the other Entente powers, most notably the United Kingdom, are not under any obligation to throw in the towel at the time when France does, and since Germany has absolutely no way of halting British power far outside Europe I think it unlikely that the UK would agree to a peace with Germany favouring Germany at the time when France does.

France and Italy is hammered with reps that are just as bad as Germany was OTL with Versailles.

Judging by Imperial Germany's OTL conduct, I think it highly unlikely that the terms to France and Italy would be as benevolent as OTL's Treaty of Versailes. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, to name the obvious example, was much, much harsher than the Treaty of Versailles under any remotely considerable analysis, and in 1917-1918 Germany hated France far, far more than it hated Russia. I would imagine that the terms Germany inflicted on France would be even nastier than the ones that France wanted to inflict on Germany IOTL (Versailles was considerably milder than France wanted, mostly due to US influence).

In Africa German East Africa is returned to Germany as is German West Africa(Minus Togoland).

This is a flaw that often irritates me about almost all CP victory timelines: the unspoken assumption that since Germany wins in Europe Germany also wins elsewhere. It's completely baseless. Germany had absolutely no mechanism of getting any of its colonies back, and the UK, which (if French resistance collapsed) would control these colonies, has absolutely no incentive to play nice and give Germany its colonies back when instead it can just take them at no risk to itself. What's Imperial Germany going to do? It can't threaten the British Empire very much; the most it can plausibly do is reach into the Great Game regions in South and Central Asia, and practically speaking it doesn't have the logistics to accomplish very much there.

IOTL the United Kingdom chose an opponent that was incapable, at the moment, of doing any serious harm to the British Empire. Judging by the statements of several prominent British politicians and officers at the time, this was not just a fortunate coincidence.

Russian Civil War 1917-1923
Fought for the same reasons as OTL. The ending is different through. The Japanese dig in and fight like hell and the Soviets decided they had enough and sign a treaty giving up said territory, covered under the Japanese-Soviet War in more detail.

I suppose that if the Japanese get extra support from an aggrieved UK they might do better, but I can't imagine that this scenario's *WW1 will have left the UK with a very positive impression of giving support to its allies. It does depend on your impression of butterfly theory; personally I find that unless a major war is far after the PoD I don't consider generic "butterflies" to be sufficient to change its course dramatically unless I'm given a workable mechanism whereby this could have happened, but that of course is arbitrary since AH doesn't exist so no-one can know.

I'll speak of the rest tomorrow.

 

[Jim Smitty]

Let me look at this first post bit by bit. I won't respond to anything that I think is entirely plausible; I have no interest in quoting a section of text and then writing "OK" or some equivalent lots of times over. So this will probably come across as quite negative in tone, but please don't take it as an insult.

Also, I know little of the history of the world outside Europe, so I'll simply not comment on such things as the proposed Second Mexican-American War.



The US was incredibly tight-fisted IOTL; it only ever gave the Entente loans which were secured, mostly by British property in the US. The US wasn't weary of loaning money; it was only lending money which it was sure it could get back, and refusing to lend a penny that it wasn't sure it would get back. This isn't a criticism of US actions, it's simply a statement of fact; the US federal government actively tried to prevent unsecured loans from being made to the Entente powers.

As I recall the Entente was running out of stuff to put up for the loans.

Difficult. Germany went to unrestricted submarine warfare because the British blockade was really, really nasty for its economy and because of a major culture in German politics which led military officers to feel themselves capable of effectively ignoring diplomatic considerations, a culture arguably dating back to the clashes between Moltke and Bismarck (whose beginning can be almost certainly blamed on the much-venerated Bismarck). Take away this culture and you quite possibly take away WW1; you almost certainly take away the invasion of Belgium. I doubt you could undo unrestricted submarine warfare with something so simple as a change of German foreign ministers; gross missteps like the Zimmerman Telegram are of course another matter.

True taking away unrestricted submarine warfare is tricky and could have gone either way. But removing Zimmerman would keep America calmer than it otherwise would have been.

France asks for peace? Sure. But the other Entente powers, most notably the United Kingdom, are not under any obligation to throw in the towel at the time when France does, and since Germany has absolutely no way of halting British power far outside Europe I think it unlikely that the UK would agree to a peace with Germany favouring Germany at the time when France does.

What is there left for the UK to fight for with the lost of two major allies in under a year's time. They might be able to hold on to the channel ports but if the French Army stands down they can cover everything with the BEF. Not against the whole German Army. With the lost of France I think public pressure would be on getting a peace with the Germans.

Judging by Imperial Germany's OTL conduct, I think it highly unlikely that the terms to France and Italy would be as benevolent as OTL's Treaty of Versailes. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, to name the obvious example, was much, much harsher than the Treaty of Versailles under any remotely considerable analysis, and in 1917-1918 Germany hated France far, far more than it hated Russia. I would imagine that the terms Germany inflicted on France would be even nastier than the ones that France wanted to inflict on Germany IOTL (Versailles was considerably milder than France wanted, mostly due to US influence).

Germany would want something worse than Brest-Litovsk. But To get a peace deal that gets the British to sign off on it you can't do that. Versailles is as worse as it would get.

This is a flaw that often irritates me about almost all CP victory timelines: the unspoken assumption that since Germany wins in Europe Germany also wins elsewhere. It's completely baseless. Germany had absolutely no mechanism of getting any of its colonies back, and the UK, which (if French resistance collapsed) would control these colonies, has absolutely no incentive to play nice and give Germany its colonies back when instead it can just take them at no risk to itself. What's Imperial Germany going to do? It can't threaten the British Empire very much; the most it can plausibly do is reach into the Great Game regions in South and Central Asia, and practically speaking it doesn't have the logistics to accomplish very much there.

Germany still had an active flying column in Africa. I figure some horse trading would happen Germany still wanted to keep her colonies and France will be in no position to say no. The British could but pressure from home would be such that they can't restart the war. I have a feeling there would be bad back last if the British decided to restart the war over colonies that weren't even their's before the war started.

 

[lukedalton]

As I recall the Entente was running out of stuff to put up for the loans.

Yes and the moment things running out the money stop...and this mean that the UK (nor the rest of the allies) will be not indebted with the US and this is a big up for the UK at least in the future

What is there left for the UK to fight for with the lost of two major allies in under a year's time. They might be able to hold on to the channel ports but if the French Army stands down they can cover everything with the BEF. Not against the whole German Army. With the lost of France I think public pressure would be on getting a peace with the Germans.

Peace? Yes but in the term ok we let you Europe and we keep all what we get in Africa and some piece of the Ottoman. It will be a great defeat for the UK but still the goverment must show that at least something has been gained and frankly keeping the colonies and some other gain is the quickest and cheapest way as frankly the other parties is not in condition to take it back (or even want it back really).

Germany would want something worse than Brest-Litovsk. But To get a peace deal that gets the British to sign off on it you can't do that. Versailles is as worse as it would get.

This mean that the German diplomatic service had some brain activity and frankly their record seem to demonstrate the contrary. In all honestly they can't exorte nothing from the British as Germany don't have any mean to enforce his will on them

Germany still had an active flying column in Africa. I figure some horse trading would happen Germany still wanted to keep her colonies and France will be in no position to say no. The British could but pressure from home would be such that they can't restart the war. I have a feeling there would be bad back last if the British decided to restart the war over colonies that weren't even their's before the war started.

The thing cut both way, the moment the war stop in Europe mean that no side had the capacity to restart unless he want a revolution start.
Germany will want their colonies back but had no mean to enforce his will to the British except in asking please very very nicely.
Sure they can be used as horse trading so to get lenient terms (lenient on what you have posted) towards her allies and leaving Belgium (so that at least UK can save face) but frankly even if the Kaiser want his colonial empire back many others (included the one who really run the show) prefer keep the European gain in both west and east, even because the war demonstrated that is impossible to supply them due to the Royal Navy.
Sure there is still some force in Africa and the French will bow out to Germany but i doubt that they will fight if the British begin to move in the part of the German colonies occupied by them and the Congo is a too big trophy to be left to Berlin, expecially if they decide to puppetize Belgium.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

As I recall the Entente was running out of stuff to put up for the loans.

Yes, but what you suggested was that the Americans were paying for the Entente's war effort. This is factually incorrect. As long as the Entente could keep paying up (i.e. in securities) the Americans were perfectly happy to lend as much money as the Entente wanted.

{edit} Which is to say: American and German political decisions (except the initial decision to not pay unsecured loans to a belligerent power which might lose its war, which is so obvious a decision that it's difficult to imagine the US government not making it) weren't the cause of the main cause of the Entente's money problems. The lack of securities to pay for the loans for the Entente's war effort was a ticking time-bomb on a set schedule; the only way Germany could affect that schedule was to somehow make the Entente spend money at a higher rate.

True taking away unrestricted submarine warfare is tricky and could have gone either way. But removing Zimmerman would keep America calmer than it otherwise would have been.

You say 'true' and then say something that was not my contention. My contention isn't that unrestricted submarine warfare could have gone either way, it's that unrestricted submarine warfare was virtually inevitable. With unrestricted submarine warfare I find it difficult to imagine that the United States would not go to war; not only is the USA making lots of profit from its trade with France and the UK which the Germans are interrupting, American lives are being lost.

What is there left for the UK to fight for with the lost of two major allies in under a year's time. They might be able to hold on to the channel ports but if the French Army stands down they can cover everything with the BEF. Not against the whole German Army.

Undoubtedly true… in Europe. The UK can still keep all the colonies it has taken from Germany, the Germans don't stand a chance of seriously hurting the British Isles, the Royal Navy's blockade is still hurting Germany and the British government has little incentive to give any concessions to Germany.

With the lost of France I think public pressure would be on getting a peace with the Germans.

Why? By that stage lots of hatred had been mustered up for the Germans. More importantly, the loss of the Western Front is also the loss of the major drain on British money. The UK can maintain the naval blockade that's strangling Germany's economy for as long as it chooses; that's not very much of a drain on British money. The UK can keep occupying Germany's colonies for as long as it chooses; that's not very much of a drain on British money. Lettow-Vorbeck is much spoken of but even the most ingenious commander can't hold out forever with no supply against an enemy that has plenty of supply.

Indeed, the longer the Anglo-German war goes on, the worse it is for Germany, because the Germans are utterly unable to undo the British naval blockade by military force unless they're calling on the aid of Fritz the German-loving Alien Space Bat.

This is the problem that Germany faced in WW1; it went to war against such a set of opponents that total victory was impossible; not just improbable but actually impossible.

I would contend that if Germany wants to make peace with the UK it must do so while the Western Front is still going on and still draining British money and lives. That was unpopular in the UK, and seemed unsustainable. If it gets to the point where British forces flee France and the blood and toil of the Western Front is over, the British authorities have no incentive to surrender. If anything, they have a strong incentive to keep going; any surrender would be seen as a betrayal by the authorities to all the brave, heroic British soldiers who died on the Western Front, and might well lead to a revolution.

You seem so sure that the UK would make peace on Germany's terms. I think I've demonstrated adequately that the UK doesn't have to do so, so I would like to ask: what is the incentive for the British government…

• to openly admit defeat (and thus wound national pride and admit the failure of the government, to its own political disadvantage), when it doesn't have to?
• to give the German colonies back to Germany, when it can keep them for itself at minimal cost to itself and when Germany doesn't stand a chance at getting them back unless it's kind enough to give them to Germany?
• to release the naval blockade that is inflicting grievous harm on the German enemy at minimal cost to the United Kingdom?

Germany would want something worse than Brest-Litovsk. But To get a peace deal that gets the British to sign off on it you can't do that. Versailles is as worse as it would get.

The Treaty of Versailles only happened because, Nazi revisionism notwithstanding, Germany was in such a state of collapse that it couldn't realistically threaten to fight on. Anything equivalent could only happen if France was in a similar state.

There is nothing that forces Germany to make peace with France and the UK at the same time. If Germany wins on the Western Front, France will have to make peace (whether it's the actual French Third Republic, a government of French socialist rebels or a German-imposed government making peace with Germany will depend on the circumstances). The UK is not in that position, because Germany can invade France but cannot invade Great Britain.

Germany still had an active flying column in Africa.

Which would be incapable of significant resistance once it ran out of supplies.

I figure some horse trading would happen Germany still wanted to keep her colonies and France will be in no position to say no.

True, if the French Third Republic surrenders. If it's a government of French socialist rebels or a German-imposed government that surrenders, the Third Republic can hold on in its colonies with British support, and Germany is incapable of preventing this.

Even if the Third Republic does surrender, with the naval blockade (I'm sorry for keeping on mentioning this, but it is a very important thing to notice) Germany can't actually reach its colonies with any significant forces. The UK is capable of saying "You want German Southwest Africa [Namibia] back? Come and get it."

The British could but pressure from home would be such that they can't restart the war. I have a feeling there would be bad back last if the British decided to restart the war over colonies that weren't even their's before the war started.

As we can deduce because there was a huge public reaction in the UK that favoured peace after the Fall of France IOTL… or not.

I reject the idea that it would be a matter of "restarting" the war; it would, rather, be a matter of continuing a war between the German Empire and the United Kingdom that had been going on since 1914.

I also think you overestimate the morality of the British public in regard to what was theirs and what wasn't, especially in Africa. Just look at the British Ultimatum. That was to their eldest ally; how do you think they'd treat a great enemy that had killed over a million British men (no matter that the UK had killed German soldiers too) and which the British, by that time, saw as an empire of evil barbarians that had caused the war by its aggression?

It's popular to believe, judging by the anti-war sentiment that prevailed in the inter-war period, that in the late First World War lots of Britons were anti-war. In fact, the opposite was true. In the time of the war, even socialist radicals who were normally bitterly opposed to the government put aside their differences with the government in order to prevent the hated German enemy from winning the war.

_______________________________________

In conclusion: any victory of the Central Powers in WW1 could only ever be very limited, whereas a victory of the Entente powers would render those powers able to dictate whichever terms they chose (as we saw IOTL). Also in conclusion: avoiding the US entry to the First World War is far more difficult than is commonly supposed.