Kiel Mutiny in CP Victory

Germaniac

Donor
Lets say the United States does not join the war and instead stays neutral. Russia is out of the war, Spring offensive has direct goals and targets overwhelmingly the French army, French army collapses into mutiny and Paris soon falls with German troops surrounding large groups of The British Army. France capitulates and Britain sues for peace.

Does the German Navy still revolt, if there is no final attack planned and no collapse of oder among the German Ships. Will there still be a mutiny or will it die out, along with the German Revolution.
 
As always, the problem is is that the German home front is going to collapse regardless, and it is impossible for the Germans to advance fast enough to "encircle large parts of the British army"
 
As always, the problem is is that the German home front is going to collapse regardless, and it is impossible for the Germans to advance fast enough to "encircle large parts of the British army"

The German home front collapse is a critcal but not impossible to avoid and the British and French have their own issues.

Michael
 
As always, the problem is is that the German home front is going to collapse regardless, and it is impossible for the Germans to advance fast enough to "encircle large parts of the British army"

Starting with the second. How fast COULD Germans advance on Western Front in 1918?

They had been pretty fast in West in the two weeks before Brest, in winter and with Eastern Front infrastructure. The other routs in First World War include Italian rout after Caporetto, Bulgarian rout on Saloniki front September 1918, Austrian southern front through Serbia in October, Turkish retreat in Syria in October, and Austrian rout by Italians end of October. Only the German western front retreated somewhat slower in October-November.

Assuming that the Germans rout French in IInd Marne, how fast could they march for Brest in August 1918? How fast would British retreat?

As for the first: German home front will be wanting peace. And they are going to be squabbling about division of spoils. The Emperor had officially promised democratic reforms after war in the Easter message of 1917. Germany after a victory in 1918 would be tired, impoverished and unhappy with the military leadership - much like the British of 1945, despite their victory, promptly decided they wanted to get rid of Churchill.

If victorious Germany of 1918 is in trouble like Britain of 1945, are the matters likely to go to revolution/military mutiny?
 
Ignoring any problems with the proposed POD construction to answer the question.

Call me ignorant but didn't the Kiel Mutiny happen essentially because the Navy was to be sent on what can only be considered a suicide mission after the war was more or less over? If in this instance it appears Germany has infact won the war, why would they mutiny? Well, they might still do so if they get similar orders, but presumerably that wouldn't happen.
 

Germaniac

Donor
The POD was just a bs way to try and get a CP victory in spring 1918, It could be any POD for victory in 1918 that gets both France and Britain to capitulate. The Kiel Mutiny was the spark which started the German revolution, arguably. If the German people see a major victory in 1918 they will see their peace in the near future with the military handing out a massive blow to the French and a decent blow to the British
 
I don't really believe there is a PoD by 1918 that can much improve the situation for Germany, unless it leads to a more rapid and comprehensive defeat. By that point they're pretty much doomed, and prolonging the war just makes Germany more likely to become a failed state or destroyed by the Entente.
 
If Germany is able to cause a collapse of the allies on the western front in 1918 then any naval mutiny will collapse as a result. It would be likely that as a result loyal naval forces and the army would crush any mutiny.
 
The first line says it all USA stays neutral.

Once this happens then the likely hood is that France will sue for peace some time in 1917/18.
They were only kept in the war in 1917 by being assured that the USA was going to enter.
If this didn't happen then expect France to sue for peace shortly after Russia does.

GB might try to fight on especially in Belgium but this would probably only be a pro forma action while they make a peace that ensures Belgium independence.
If they get this they can then say that they achieved the goal they went to war with Germany for and proceed to gobble up as many French colonies they can get their hands on.
 
The first line says it all USA stays neutral.

Once this happens then the likely hood is that France will sue for peace some time in 1917/18.
They were only kept in the war in 1917 by being assured that the USA was going to enter.
If this didn't happen then expect France to sue for peace shortly after Russia does.

GB might try to fight on especially in Belgium but this would probably only be a pro forma action while they make a peace that ensures Belgium independence.
If they get this they can then say that they achieved the goal they went to war with Germany for and proceed to gobble up as many French colonies they can get their hands on.

Syphon

Only at all likely if the allies refuse to adopt convoys in which case Germany might force a victory of sorts in the west. Otherwise it might get lucky and fight the allies to a standstill but I think that's unlikely. By this time Germany was in a very rocky state and its political leadership by the military only made it worse. I would expect them to continue going for total victory and fail as in OTL. Fighting would last longer without US troops from mid-late 18 onwards, quite probably into 1919 but little doubt of the outcome. Might see fighting lasting into western Germany before they accept defeat but still the most likely and might have been better if it had gone that way. [Would have been a lot more difficult for the stab in the back myth to have been spread under those circumstances].

Steve
 
Without US troops to shore up the front it is quite likely that the allies would collapse under the hammer blows of the 1918 offensive. Remember the allies had suffer more than the Germans in their offensivs and by 1918 they were nearing the bottom of the barrel regarding forces.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Without US troops to shore up the front it is quite likely that the allies would collapse under the hammer blows of the 1918 offensive. Remember the allies had suffer more than the Germans in their offensivs and by 1918 they were nearing the bottom of the barrel regarding forces.
The French were at the bottom of the barrel a year before and the Irish rioting to stand up against conscription, i dont think the allies had enough reinforcements to reinforce the broken lines after spring 1918.
 
Yes, the Americans saved our asses in WWI, just like they did in WWII, the Crimea, and the Napoleonic wars. :rolleyes:

God god, people. The non-american Allies stopped Ludendorff on their own. The only time the Americans were even slightly involved was Marne II, at the very end of the road for the very last offensive, and that was only because they gave Foch the opportunity to throw some fresh new double-strength divisions into the meatgrinder. Without the Americans the Germans might be able to hold out a little longer - into 1919, probably - but the end is not in doubt.
 
Yes, the Americans saved our asses in WWI, just like they did in WWII, the Crimea, and the Napoleonic wars. :rolleyes:

God god, people. The non-american Allies stopped Ludendorff on their own. The only time the Americans were even slightly involved was Marne II, at the very end of the road for the very last offensive, and that was only because they gave Foch the opportunity to throw some fresh new double-strength divisions into the meatgrinder. Without the Americans the Germans might be able to hold out a little longer - into 1919, probably - but the end is not in doubt.
The assumption, I guess, is that the combination of a more successful Spring Offensive- there should be one or two things that can go wrong for the Entente/right for the Germans- and a lack of Americans to back the Entente up then, when the Entente most needs it, would have, hm, effects.
Something like the thing suggested in this thread, but with No Americans (and less extensive in the Stronger Spring, so even more of a stretch for the Germans):
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=105797
 

Germaniac

Donor
Yes, the Americans saved our asses in WWI, just like they did in WWII, the Crimea, and the Napoleonic wars. :rolleyes:

God god, people. The non-american Allies stopped Ludendorff on their own. The only time the Americans were even slightly involved was Marne II, at the very end of the road for the very last offensive, and that was only because they gave Foch the opportunity to throw some fresh new double-strength divisions into the meatgrinder. Without the Americans the Germans might be able to hold out a little longer - into 1919, probably - but the end is not in doubt.
I am not saying that the Americans came in on their white horse and saved the day, BUT once the NON-Americans stops the offensive without any american reinforcements there will be no summer offensive, which will in turn lead to a final fall offensive by ludendorff and collapse of france. The Americans played a supremely important role in Support and without that support role Germany could have won. German vs allies (w/ Americans) = Loss, Germany vs. Allies (wo/ americans) = likely loss but possible victory
 
The point I was trying to make was that French Morale was at the bottom of the barrel in 1917 and only the sure knowledge that the Americans were joining kept them from making a separate peace.

No American + Russia surrendering = France making best peace possible.

Sure the war could still go on but without the US entry GB and France simply can't afford to continue the war. They are broke.
Germany is in a slightly better position financially as all its war debt is internal.

In any position where the US doesn't enter the war on schedule then the most likely out come is a negotiated peace sometime mid to late 1918.
 
The point I was trying to make was that French Morale was at the bottom of the barrel in 1917 and only the sure knowledge that the Americans were joining kept them from making a separate peace.

No American + Russia surrendering = France making best peace possible.

Sure the war could still go on but without the US entry GB and France simply can't afford to continue the war. They are broke.
Germany is in a slightly better position financially as all its war debt is internal.

In any position where the US doesn't enter the war on schedule then the most likely out come is a negotiated peace sometime mid to late 1918.

Syphon

France might have been tempted by a peace on moderate terms but that wasn't on offer and is a world of difference from a French surrender. Your got a gravely weakened Germany that doesn't have the sense to go for a moderate peace and doesn't have the strength for the overwhelming victory its leadership desire.

Without the US the allies won't have the large number of troops that started finally arriving in mid-late 1918 but they will have higher levels of equipment for their own troops, as that isn't going to equipping so much of the US army. They are running short but no-where near as short as Germany. Also if necessary they could pull in forces from other fronts, especially as the German allies collapse. German gets a one-off boost when Russia finally goes down in 1918 but that will be sacrificed in the last thrust in the west. [Which will still occur without a US entry as the German leadership still desire decisive victory and their basic military philosophy is offensive, as with all powers at the time].

The allies have built up large debts but that at this point still overwhelmingly with Britain. It is only from here onwards that loans from the US become so important and they will still occur because the US is getting such good terms.

Its not going to be easy but the western allies will see the need to fight the war to the end and they have the troops, equipment and tactics by this time. Germany will crack because it still faces the same limitations it faced OTL, especially the failure of L&H to look beyond military production. They might think they can hold out longer, prolonging the war and taking it into Germany proper but its still pretty certain Germany will collapse.

Steve
 
Syphon

France might have been tempted by a peace on moderate terms but that wasn't on offer and is a world of difference from a French surrender. Your got a gravely weakened Germany that doesn't have the sense to go for a moderate peace and doesn't have the strength for the overwhelming victory its leadership desire.

Without the US the allies won't have the large number of troops that started finally arriving in mid-late 1918 but they will have higher levels of equipment for their own troops, as that isn't going to equipping so much of the US army. They are running short but no-where near as short as Germany. Also if necessary they could pull in forces from other fronts, especially as the German allies collapse. German gets a one-off boost when Russia finally goes down in 1918 but that will be sacrificed in the last thrust in the west. [Which will still occur without a US entry as the German leadership still desire decisive victory and their basic military philosophy is offensive, as with all powers at the time].

The allies have built up large debts but that at this point still overwhelmingly with Britain. It is only from here onwards that loans from the US become so important and they will still occur because the US is getting such good terms.

Its not going to be easy but the western allies will see the need to fight the war to the end and they have the troops, equipment and tactics by this time. Germany will crack because it still faces the same limitations it faced OTL, especially the failure of L&H to look beyond military production. They might think they can hold out longer, prolonging the war and taking it into Germany proper but its still pretty certain Germany will collapse.

Steve

I agree. The Allies will win, but it might take another year. The Germans were much closer than the Allies to domestic collapse, and another year of war could end the war on the homefront before the Germans decide to end it on the battlefront.

Against just the Entente, the German High Command may be willing to hold out longer. The Entente is going to want a far harsher peace than was eventually signed at Versailles OTL, and with those terms in mind, the German High Command may hold out against the Entente until domestic collapse forced their hand.
 
A successful German offensive would probably bring about the collapse of the western front. With the allies realling in retreat and with a limit to the manpower that they had it would seem that the prospects for a peace agreement would have improved. Kaiser Karl wanted the war to end and even some of the german general felt that a successful peace agreement would have been better than continuing the war. Thus if after the Hammer blows the Kaiser was to offer a reasonable peace it is more than likely that the French and British would agree to it.
 
A successful German offensive would probably bring about the collapse of the western front. With the allies realling in retreat and with a limit to the manpower that they had it would seem that the prospects for a peace agreement would have improved. Kaiser Karl wanted the war to end and even some of the german general felt that a successful peace agreement would have been better than continuing the war. Thus if after the Hammer blows the Kaiser was to offer a reasonable peace it is more than likely that the French and British would agree to it.

The Germans can't win the war post-1914. Once the Western Front froze, that was it. The Allies were going to win. The question was simply when. The Germans inability to win in the Spring 1918 offensives were the final attempt at German victory, and there was no way that they could go far enough to succeed.

In OTL the Germans negotiated the cease-fire after it became clear they were going to lose, and in the hope that the Americans entrance into the war would lead to less harsh peace terms.
 
Top