Napoleonic situation after WW1

Friedrich der Große

Friedrich der Große

Today, I read that a German victory in WW1 by a succesfull Westfeldzug in 1914 or a East First strategy could result in a situation like the Napoleonic Wars, where Britain every time built new coalitions against France (ITTL Germany).

Is this plausible?
 

Riain

Banned
No, because the world wars were fought to decide how many superpowers there were going to be and who they were going to be. Obviously the US was going to be one, the only other candidates were Russia and Germany.

Britain lacks the domestic territory and resources to be more than a a middle power in age of superpowers, although with VERY close cooperation with France a quasi superpower could be created.
 

The Tai-Pan

Riain said:
No, because the world wars were fought to decide how many superpowers there were going to be and who they were going to be. Obviously the US was going to be one, the only other candidates were Russia and Germany.

Britain lacks the domestic territory and resources to be more than a a middle power in age of superpowers, although with VERY close cooperation with France a quasi superpower could be created.
Click to expand...
I think this is only clear in retrospect. Granted, there were people even in 1900 saying the future would be ruled by 'the American dollar and the Russian knout', but the British Empire seemed like it would be a potent contender. One of the Big Three, after all.
 
Friedrich der Große

Friedrich der Große

Riain said:
No, because the world wars were fought to decide how many superpowers there were going to be and who they were going to be. Obviously the US was going to be one, the only other candidates were Russia and Germany.

Britain lacks the domestic territory and resources to be more than a a middle power in age of superpowers, although with VERY close cooperation with France a quasi superpower could be created.
Click to expand...
If a second war breaks out I think Germany will crush that quasi superpower.

I would also add Japan and China on the list of potential superpowers, although on the long-term.

In this world, I suggest it will be crucial to have as much as middle-great powers on your side, like Germany with Austria and the Ottomans and USA with France and Britain?
 

Riain

Banned
The Tai-Pan said:
I think this is only clear in retrospect. Granted, there were people even in 1900 saying the future would be ruled by 'the American dollar and the Russian knout', but the British Empire seemed like it would be a potent contender. One of the Big Three, after all.
Click to expand...

Depending on the nature of the victory it might become very clear, or it might be hidden dor many years even decades. Even IOTL Britian was head and shoulders above other medium powers until the 60s and even then threw the advantage away by bad procurement decisions rather than any innate lack of capacity. Indeed Britain had the industry and financial resources to remain a far greater hard power well into the 70s than she did.
 

Riain

Banned
Friedrich der Große said:
second war breaks out I think Germany will crush that quasi superpower.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is the difference between quasi and real superpower. An Anglo-French alliance could be powerful in peace and regional and colonial wars. However a blitzkrieg campaign, or bomber blitz or naval blockade from greater Germany backed by Mitteleuropa would break it apart within a couple of months.
 
Friedrich der Große

Friedrich der Große

Riain said:
Yes, which is the difference between quasi and real superpower. An Anglo-French alliance could be powerful in peace and regional and colonial wars. However a blitzkrieg campaign, or bomber blitz or naval blockade from greater Germany backed by Mitteleuropa would break it apart within a couple of months.
Click to expand...
Exactly. However, more interesting is how Germany will build it in in the European order after the war, which they will win in Europe I think even if there is a second round against Russia too.
 

Catspoke

Napoleon got into unwinnable wars against Spain and Russia which allowed a final coalition powerful enough to beat France.

France might have not invaded Spain or Russia then there is no possible coalition. So the coalition strategy isn't always workable.

In this world war 1 case Germany has beaten Russia, this Britain like Britain in the Napoleonic wars, it could blockade and take colonies but that would have taken a long time to have effect on both cases.

Germany could also reach accommodation with Britain easier than Napoleonic France if her gains were in the east and not in strategic colonial places, having Napoleon in Holland wasn't going to work. Germany in Minsk not so much worry.
 

1962strat

Unlike Napoleon, Germany would've defeated all the land powers in Europe. The Germans would make sure the French don't have a third round (and even then I doubt the mood in France would favor such a course of action) and a Brest-Litovsk style treaty cripples Russia and leaves it in no position to fight Germany. A victory in 1914 also means America doesn't even think about favoring the Brits too much.

This leavea Britain in a position where it can sustain a blockade of the North Sea (and even the Med at the risk of pissing off Italy and the Ottomans) for a while, but with nothing to look forward to.

They also can't keep this up forever. Spain and occupied France would serve as points to break the blockade, and America would mount pressure to lift the blockade to be able to trade freely with Europe. The Germans also have all a shit ton of industrial power and resources at their disposal, and they'll find some way to hurt the Brits. Securing Ottoman entry and a push towards Suez comes to mind, for example.

The British have no good prospects if they keep the war going. In all likelihood they would leverage their untouchable position to secure a peace treaty that deals with immediate security concerns, namely keeping France as well as possible and denying Germany channel ports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top