Military capability of a victorious Kaiserreich

[CalBear]

Allright. What do you want to know?

With the opening that you asked...

I am sure that this was all addressed in some degree of detail in the other thread, but, as a starter:

Germany WON, but they lose their Pacific colonies?

The U.S. was either not yet in the war or on the Entente side but it GAINS territory from France?

Japan LOSES the war but gets enormously valuable and strategically located real estate?

France LOSES (pretty horribly, based on the remaining conditions) to the Germans but it gives French Indochina, a seriously rich exporting area, to THE DUTCH? (seriously WTF?) And it gives up part of its colonial empire, including a significant Pacific possession, to an ally?

The UK LOSES the war but comes out smelling like a rose with useful increases in some parts of the Empire for the cost of selling a rathole to Italy?

Russia get to keep the biggest prize in Central Europe, the Ukraine, despite LOSING the war?

That is just off the top. It is totally nonsensical.

 

[Susano]

Germany WON, but they lose their Pacific colonies?

Entire possible, as Germany has no way to touch the UK, the USA or Japan. Of course that it retains some colonies and not the rest is a bit odd then.

Japan LOSES the war but gets enormously valuable and strategically located real estate?

Its in Asia, far away from the main theatre. Its entirely possible for it to be on the overall losing side, and yet end up winning in its own corner. A correlation to the first point,

France LOSES (pretty horribly, based on the remaining conditions) to the Germans but it gives French Indochina, a seriously rich exporting area, to THE DUTCH? (seriously WTF?) And it gives up part of its colonial empire, including a significant Pacific possession, to an ally?

Well, if the Dutch were a German ally, its possible. The second... not so much.

The UK LOSES the war but comes out smelling like a rose with useful increases in some parts of the Empire for the cost of selling a rathole to Italy?

Again, point 1.

Russia get to keep the biggest prize in Central Europe, the Ukraine, despite LOSING the war?

Oh come on! There have been some ridiculously narrow definitions of Central Europe, but Ukraine is by no definition Central Europe. Its East Europe. Aside from that, eh, whats the problem? Its as youve said - the Ukraine is incredibly valuable, and very much tied to Russia. Russia would first give up Poland and all baltic lands before the Ukraine, so if it doesnt lose as badly as IOTL its entirely possible.

 

[Riain]

1917 Germany had a good recent history of innovation in military matters, and I think this would continue even without the spur of defeat. By 1916-17 tanks were appearing and armoured cars were relatively commonplace so I think Germany would look into these areas, possibily combining them with the hurricane bombarment techniques that were emerging at the time. In the air I think they'd have a look at their general lack of engine power, and keep abreast of general advances in aircraft technology. At sea again I think they'd keep abreast of technological advances, aircraft carriers and such.

With France and Russia out for the count for a while Germany could focus its resources on the navy like they did between the late 1800s and 1912. This won't buy it parity with the RN but could push it closer than 60%.

 

[machine3589]

The U.S. was either not yet in the war or on the Entente side but it GAINS territory from France?

The member who suggested this said that the USA would claim these territories because it doesn’t want them to be swapped to other European powers (Monroe Doctrine).

France LOSES (pretty horribly, based on the remaining conditions) to the Germans but it gives French Indochina, a seriously rich exporting area, to THE DUTCH? (seriously WTF?)

When talking about this (and French posessions in general), we already had limitations and reparations written down. And since the Peace Treaty was made specifically to kick France in the balls as hard as humanly possibble, the problem came when we realised France could simply not sustain any colonies that far away with the Treaty on its back. And so the obvious choice was to take it from the French. But who to give it to? We concluded that the Dutch were a good choice since: A)They are CP-friendly, and B)They already have significant colonial posessions in the area.

And it gives up part of its colonial empire, including a significant Pacific possession, to an ally?

The thing is, the UK has strategic interests, and a position of power to negotiate from. I think its far from implausible they sell the French down the river when all of the major Entante players are defeated. And the CP-s just want the UK to give back their colonies and to stop blocading them. Since now they can do whatever they want with the French, why not offer some of its colonies to make Britain sign the peace treaty?

Russia get to keep the biggest prize in Central Europe, the Ukraine, despite LOSING the war?

ITTL the Russians accept the first Brest-Litovsk preposal, which basically only aksed for territories they lost post-WW1 anyway, so Russia gets roughly the Interbellum borders.

Of course that it retains some colonies and not the rest is a bit odd then.

That thing about Tsingtao? Yeah, thats a complicated story. But we assumed that the Japanese wouldnt make much of a fuss over it, since this peace deal is already very favorable to them, and the collapse of the Russian Empire makes Outer Manchuria wide open to them. It is possible that the Japanese wont give it back, but we were acting under the assumption is that they are not (yet) that greedy and power-mad in 1917-19. Even OTL, their main focus was Manchuria and the Russian Far East for a pretty big while in the ealry 1920s.

 

[Eurofed]

I wasnt objecting to it per se, merely pointing out it was unlikely that Germany could afford a big fleet after the war. While they will be getting reparations from France, the whole European economy is still going to be in the mess it was in OTL.
Germany is in the opposite situation to Britain - the army is the big spender, the navy is a luxury, so its pretty obvious which service gets the short end when the money starts getting to be a problem.

Well, this may be a reasonable concern, but it is still likely that the CPs negotatiate for themselves some generous naval ratioes, even if they actually use them only partially out of budget concerns. After all, they can expect to fill those ratioes completely sometime in the future, after their economic situation improves, and it is nice to able and do so without having to go back at the negotating table.

IMO after the experience of WWI, the CPs would deem an indispensable national security requirement not to suffer another tight British blockade ever, and be ensured of at least full naval parity, if not close supremacy, in the North Sea and the Mediterranean, with the Kaiserliche Marine and the Regia Marina, respectively, and at least close to if not full naval parity in the Atlantic by their combined power. A-H and Turkish navies would certainly help, but this would remain primarily a German-Italian concern.

So even if they don't fill those naval ratioes completely,100% for Germany and 60% for Italy established in the *Washington Naval Treaty are still quite reasonable. However, perhaps in lean times Germany only achieves as little as 60%, and Italy 35%. Anything less than full naval parity by the combined CPs navies vs. the RN would be seen as an unacceptable national security risk. However, it is true that Germany and Italy, the army would always remain the service with the budget priority. Even if France has been defanged, Soviet Russia remains a big scary unknown.

 

[Eurofed]

The member who suggested this said that the USA would claim these territories because it doesn’t want them to be swapped to other European powers (Monroe Doctrine).

Exactly. An assumption of the WWI scenario was that the USA remains neutral throughout. With Italy in the CPs, Germany sees victory close enough during the war that it stops using Unrestrictred Submarine Warfare
when America first makes unhappy rumors and never does anything so stupid as the Zimmerman telegram. As a matter of fact, America starts to make unhappy rumors about the British blockade after France and Russia collapse. They would also be annoyed to see French New World colonies swapped to other European powers, as this is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The CPs are happy to settle the issue and befriend the US by gifting America itself with such colonies.

When talking about this (and French posessions in general), we already had limitations and reparations written down. And since the Peace Treaty was made specifically to kick France in the balls as hard as humanly possibble, the problem came when we realised France could simply not sustain any colonies that far away with the Treaty on its back. And so the obvious choice was to take it from the French. But who to give it to? We concluded that the Dutch were a good choice since: A)They are CP-friendly, and B)They already have significant colonial posessions in the area.

Exactly. Moreover, Germany is eager to get in the Dutch's good graces as much as possible, since they want to woo them in their economic union and military alliance. So they give them French Indochina and a plebiscite for Flanders in the near future (not immediately, as a face-saving gesture for the British).

 

[Incognitia]

@Eurofed: There is no way that Britain would sign up to any treaty which required it to give up naval superiority to Germany.

You make a sound point that Germany would not wish to risk a return of the blockade that caused such difficulties. However any British government would see a demand of 1:1 naval strength as in essence a threat of being invaded at any time, especially as Britain would still have a lot more overseas commitments than Germany.

It's a demand so uncompromising, so extreme (to British sensibilities at the time) that the UK would return to conflict rather than accept it.

The USA getting a 1:1 with Britain was acceptable - they had to maintain Pacific and Atlantic Fleets, and had generally good relations with Britain. Germany would not be.

 

[Blair152]

Oh, this would be a REALLY nasty bloodbath, probably as bad as OTL WW II, maybe worse thanks to the new front in sub Saharan Africa.

The Kaiser's Germany has every reason to keep an extremely strong military, since right or wrong, a strong military paid off big. France has been turned into OTL post-war Germany, but with a strong likelihood that Alt Germany will not replicate the French missteps toward the German state IOTL.

Russia/USSR will be the same massive problem as IOTL, maybe a bit worse.

The Japanese and U.S. are still in serious friction, with new friction points for the U.S. and Alt Germany. Japan has just as much reason to go after China ITTL as IOTL, so that sore point is there too.

The British and Germany are going to be counting the minutes until they go at each other thanks to the set up with the colonies. The U.S. will likely be slightly more expansionist and somewhat less isolationist.

This would be a real lovefest.


BTW: The Treaty this devolves from makes absolutely no sense at all.

For once, CalBear, I agree with you. The treaty's totally ASB.

 

[Eurofed]

@Eurofed: There is no way that Britain would sign up to any treaty which required it to give up naval superiority to Germany.

You make a sound point that Germany would not wish to risk a return of the blockade that caused such difficulties. However any British government would see a demand of 1:1 naval strength as in essence a threat of being invaded at any time, especially as Britain would still have a lot more overseas commitments than Germany.

It's a demand so uncompromising, so extreme (to British sensibilities at the time) that the UK would return to conflict rather than accept it.

The USA getting a 1:1 with Britain was acceptable - they had to maintain Pacific and Atlantic Fleets, and had generally good relations with Britain. Germany would not be.

What kind of naval ratio would you hence suggest as acceptable, then ? As I said, Germany may probably afford to scale back its own naval build-up by relying on the fleets of its allies (especially Italy) to help counter UK naval power. But IMO the CPs would be adamant at the negotating table that if need be, their combined naval power be able to break any future UK blockade. After WWI, "no more blockades" would be a dearly-felt rallying cry in Berlin, Rome, and Vienna.

 

[Blair152]

What the title says. Im generally interested in the early 1940.`s era, i.e. tanks, airforce, infrantry weapons, millitry doctrine, technology levels and so on and so forth.

Since its impossibble to make an assesment without a scenario, I will use a peace treaty preposed for a "Italy-in-CPs" scenario discussed a couple of months ago. Note that this scenario also features a 1916./1917. end to WWI with a favourable peace for Britain.

The peace treaty goes like this:



*These changes depend heavily on the conditions in which the war starts, i.e. weather an alternate POD is used to start WWI or the Arch-Duke gets killed on schedule.

**These changes have not been agreed upon on the tread dealing with this scenario.

***The USSR has roughly the Interbellum borders. Alternatively, the border is drawn similarly to the Soviet-Polish front in June 1920.

NOTE: This WWI Peace Treaty is the result of a 19-page discussion. Any objections to its content should have been adressed on the tread in question. This tread was started to discuss the millitary capability of the Kaiserreich, not the treaty.

Wouldn't Japan gain Guam and the Philippines in a potential peace treaty?
And don't forget Mexico here. The Zimmermann Telegram, which was sent by the Imperial German foreign minister, promised Mexico the return of the Southwest, if Mexico entered the war on the side of the Central Powers.

 

[Eurofed]

For once, CalBear, I agree with you. The treaty's totally ASB.

Actually, Calbear's objections have been extensively addressed, and the specific post of his you quote instead involve the possible consequences of the treaty. I notice you failed to explain any criticism of yours.

Wouldn't Japan gain Guam and the Philippines in a potential peace treaty?
And don't forget Mexico here. The Zimmermann Telegram, which was sent by the Imperial German foreign minister, promised Mexico the return of the Southwest, if Mexico entered the war on the side of the Central Powers.

Again, the USA remain neutral ITTL, so Germany has no reason to do anything as dumb as the Zimmermann telegram, and Philippines are already a US possession since 1898.

 

[jkay]

Eurofed, I don't think the UK'd be willing to engage in negotiations about their naval strength with the Central Powers atall. The UK needed naval superiority. They might be willing to talk about decreasing fleet sizes without changing ratios; as said above, they'd also likely sell the French up the river on fleet ratios for THEM, but there's no peace with the UK without them keeping their superiority.

Oh, and the German economy was worse under the Kaiserreich than republican democracy; so prolonging that would cause a continued slowing. They'd also likely get the same case of swollen head that the OTL French military did. They'd also be about as unsuccessful as OTL France at collecting reparations because all sides were battered.

 

[Eurofed]

Eurofed, I don't think the UK'd be willing to engage in negotiations about their naval strength with the Central Powers atall. The UK needed naval superiority. They might be willing to talk about decreasing fleet sizes without changing ratios; as said above, they'd also likely sell the French up the river on fleet ratios for THEM, but there's no peace with the UK without them keeping their superiority.

Nonetheless, the Central Powers would want some serious guarantee that the British are not subjecting them to another blockade in the future. So your argument effectively means that a *Washington Naval Treaty is not going to happen ITTL and the naval race between the UK, USA, Germany, Italy, Japan, A-H, and Turkey would continue, only checked by budget restrictions.

 

[jkay]

If the Central Powers were so stupid, the UK would stay at war separately, then, keeping their blockade on - though trade'd surely slowly resume by land. It's not like land, where Germany had superiority ITTL. I mean, what are they going to do to force the UK to the table - send their smaller fleet out to probably get beaten?

Treaties have SOME relation to wins and losses in reality. What real naval win was there was there for Germany to make the UK be willing to hang their naval hat up?

 

[Eurofed]

If the Central Powers were so stupid, the UK would stay at war separately, then, keeping their blockade on - though trade'd surely slowly resume by land. It's not like land, where Germany had superiority ITTL. I mean, what are they going to do to force the UK to the table - send their smaller fleet out to probably get beaten?

Treaties have SOME relation to wins and losses in reality. What real naval win was there was there for Germany to make the UK be willing to hang their naval hat up?

Notice that the naval ratioes are not necessarily part of the peace treaty itself. As a matter of fact, it was assumed that most likely they would be part of TTL *Washington Naval Treaty. As you point out, the CPs know their strengths and weaknesses, and most likely would not ask for naval limitations from Britain in order to sign the peace treaty. They would just ask that Britain stops the blockade, recognizes the new status quo on the continent, returns occupied German and Italian colonies, and does not interfere with the transfers of the other Entente powers' colonies.

If no agreement can be found about naval ratioes, it just means that the naval race would continue unabated as before the war, only checked by budget limitations. There would be such a race, however, as the CPs would refuse to let themselves be vulnerable to another UK blockade.

Don't think that a stubborn Britain would be free to refuse a sensible peace treaty, since the CPs would have means to drag it to the peace table. They still have 1-2 worth of fighting in themselves, and can pool their resources to stage a successful invasion of all the parts of the British Empire they can reach by land. Moreover, America would become more and more aggravated if Britain kept up the blockade, they would fret to resume normal trade with continental Europe.

 

[Nivek]

The Natural British(and anglo-saxon) Naval Arrogance and the natural germanophobia

Eurofed, I don't think the UK'd be willing to engage in negotiations about their naval strength with the Central Powers atall. The UK needed naval superiority. They might be willing to talk about decreasing fleet sizes without changing ratios; as said above, they'd also likely sell the French up the river on fleet ratios for THEM, but there's no peace with the UK without them keeping their superiority.

Oh, and the German economy was worse under the Kaiserreich than republican democracy; so prolonging that would cause a continued slowing. They'd also likely get the same case of swollen head that the OTL French military did. They'd also be about as unsuccessful as OTL France at collecting reparations because all sides were battered.

First of all... the peace treaty was a long discussion in a topic (Atrocities and peace in a CP power victory scenario), and in general that was the consense who can obtain in that moment, for further debate about that... check the proper topic...(in fact, Eurofed like i say to you before, the british are so arrogant, they will be able to keep the war until the bitter end even know they lost in the continent. in that case, they will fight in the ottoman front... who can even cause to a lot of butterflies)


In general we constrain with the naval part of the Armed forces... we now the Britsh and their natural paranoia against any state with a navy in Europe(they Ally with France because they can easily constrain france thanks to the channel, the same for russia via Baltic and Japan), but here, they lost, and have to pay war loans in the inmediate post bellum, if they in their paranoia want to keep their superiority, they gonna wrecked their economy in the short term(and what will happen in Ireland and India , how than their opressor was defeated... but that is another history)

The second statment for me is like i say.. Plain germanophobia. pre-bellum the kaiserreich economy did start to have a bit of constraint... thanks to the economical war(with Britain) but have a very good grown rates... and having less ascess to resource than Britain(the India was their jewel of crown for her resource) but now with being the victor and reciving reparetion from france(and gain that market), here they will enjoy part of the 'roaming twenties' who can make several economical rivalities with the now intact USA but not for nothing before war war competing with the USA in becoming the new #1 world economy...

well that are my comment for now


Att

Nivek von Beldo

 

[Janprimus]

With the opening that you asked...

I am sure that this was all addressed in some degree of detail in the other thread, but, as a starter:

Germany WON, but they lose their Pacific colonies?

The U.S. was either not yet in the war or on the Entente side but it GAINS territory from France?

Japan LOSES the war but gets enormously valuable and strategically located real estate?

France LOSES (pretty horribly, based on the remaining conditions) to the Germans but it gives French Indochina, a seriously rich exporting area, to THE DUTCH? (seriously WTF?) And it gives up part of its colonial empire, including a significant Pacific possession, to an ally?

The UK LOSES the war but comes out smelling like a rose with useful increases in some parts of the Empire for the cost of selling a rathole to Italy?

Russia get to keep the biggest prize in Central Europe, the Ukraine, despite LOSING the war?

That is just off the top. It is totally nonsensical.

I was surprised as well, I would have thought that Germany would have kept Indochina for themselves and the Netherlands would have kept their part of New Guinea, but other minor colonial gains would have been possible if the Netherlands would have joined the victors ITTL....

 

[Faeelin]

Considering the peace treaty, Britain actually benefited from it.

Doesi t? It's still broke, but instead of a weakened Germany stripped of major industrial areas and a strong French ally, Germany is the continental hegemon. That doesn't seem to be worth Katanga.

 

[Eurofed]

Doesi t? It's still broke, but instead of a weakened Germany stripped of major industrial areas and a strong French ally, Germany is the continental hegemon. That doesn't seem to be worth Katanga.

It has lost its bid to prevent the formation of a continental hegemony, but it still got away scot free as it concerns its own empire, with some nice perks.

 

[DuQuense]

1917 Germany had a good recent history of innovation in military matters, and I think this would continue even without the spur of defeat. By 1916-17 tanks were appearing and armoured cars were relatively commonplace so I think Germany would look into these areas, possibily combining them with the hurricane bombarment techniques that were emerging at the time. In the air I think they'd have a look at their general lack of engine power, and keep abreast of general advances in aircraft technology. At sea again I think they'd keep abreast of technological advances, aircraft carriers and such.

With France and Russia out for the count for a while Germany could focus its resources on the navy like they did between the late 1800s and 1912. This won't buy it parity with the RN but could push it closer than 60%.

But the Winner is not the one to make waves, and change the winning Play Book.

Germany wins in 1917.
Tanks are still those giant Rhomboids, without the 1918 Tankettes, They were not a War Winner,, and while Germany will examine then, The War Staff will not have much interest.
Armor will develop more like Italy's Armored Cars, & Trucks of the 20's-30's

Aircraft will still be 1917, with those Giant 4-6 Engine Bombers that got converted to Passenger Carriers never Built,
Nor will the 1918 Fighters, be developed, and 1918 saw some development work that would lead to Mono Wing, & all metal designs.
Without the US entry all those thousands of Surplus Planes and Pilots that Barnstormed around the US and Europe are Gone. So are the Pilots that started PanAm and other companies.
No 1918 Carrier attacks on the Zeppelin Yards, will sightly delay the Carrier development, for Political Reasons. [Battleship Admirals more entrenched]

No US in War, means no US Soldiers in the Trenches with Jammed Guns, So Thompson never designs the Thompson Gun. [not sure if this is a Plus or a Minus.
Less Stormtroopers and less development of the Tactics, and less need to develop new Guns.

I see TTL's Military Tech running about 5~10 Years behind OTL.
TTL will be a little more Conservative than OTL, with Civilian Tech running 2~5 years behind OTL