Near-perfect 1914 for the CP. What next ?

Without the Dover Barrage the Channel is going to be open, and I can't see an effective barrage being created at some other crossing point. This means the British are going to have to have not only much increased light forces, available at bases along the coast, but also a modern battle-squadron. OTL the Channel Fleet could get by with being the KE7s and older pre-dreadnoughts, but if the HSF can break into the Channel then there has to be something to counter it. I'd expect the British to get a Japanese battle squadron for the GF, and to move one of their battlesquadrons to the Channel, and to get the French to send one too. Whilst this weakens the French in the Med, the Austrians and Ottomans are not the ones to worry about there - things will only go screwy there if the Italians join the CPs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Not to nitpick, but would Germany want Sweden to gain all of Finland? I would have thought Aland to Sweden and a German monarch on the throne of Finland would be more likely. And more successful in the long run, otherwise the Finns would have spent years trying to work toward independence from the Russian Empire only to be subsumed into Sweden again.
Sweden wouldn't want to gain all of Finland (except for the nutty nationalist fringe - but they weren't the only ones calling for joining the war, so don't expect them to be in the driving seat, especially not in the given circumstances), so honestly I rather doubt Germany would want Sweden to gain all of Finland. Now, they might call for a Swedish prince on the Finnish throne in addition to the annexation of Åland (they *will* claim the Åland Islands), but annexing, or even personal union, with Finland? That ship sailed decades ago.
 
Even without the glamour of battle fleets the Germans holding one side of the narrows will be a serious pain in the arse for the Allies. Things like mining large stretches of the British south coast will be comparatively easy for the Germans. Stray Allied ships will fall prey to coastal artillery and light naval forces. London apparently received a huge amount of food up the Thames, and without that London would have to be partially evacuated so people can be fed. Perhaps even the blockade will be less effective since there are no real chokepoints between Bolougne and the open Atlantic, especially if a naval operation is laid on to cover blockade runners. A less effective blockade will slow US entry into the war.

If Britain was close to fully mobilised in WW1 than the effort to overcome these things will have to come from somewhere that IOTL was used on the Western or other fronts.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Assuming Von Spee's contribution was hitting the Invincibles before they could get out of Stanley, and that the tactical HSF victory brings some British losses, then Britain might get a squadron of Japanese battleships

I doubt that the GF would welcome that, but they'd have to grudgingly accept even if the IJN can only offer some Semi-Dreads, or at best, maybe the Satsumas, Kawachis, and a hurriedly fitted out Fuso.

Jellicoe and Beatty were ungrateful little shits IOTL, and it wouldn't surprise me if they acted the same ITTL, and would probably be wondering why the hell the entire IJN hadn't shown up to help them keep the HSF penned up in Wilhelmshaven and the Baltic.

But said IJN reinforcments either have to go through the Med, around the Cape of Good Hope, or through the Panama Canal, and I don't see the US being fond of the latter action, on top of the time delay represented by anything but the former. But with Sultan Osman I, Reshadiye, and Goeben in Turkey, and the Radetzkys and Tegetthoffs about, along with all the submarines and other hazards, going through the Med is near suicidal, without an Escort in force from Port Said to Malta at least, which the RN and La Royale absolutely can't afford to bring to the table, unless they're also escorting a convoy of troopships from the Commonwealth, which would make that clusterfuck of a fleet a very tempting target for everyone and his uncle. Not to mention the Emden and her sisters are likely still about, and while they wouldn't hit the convoy itself, picking off some stragglers, or taking advantage of that massive concentration of force to hit elsewhere would be right up their alley.

Magnum, the Royal Navy was friggin massive, but it had abandoned the 2 power standard where the RN would be larger than the next 2 navies combined. Thier target was to be at least 60% larger than the German navy, which they were, indeed they were closer to double in some areas. However the RN had a 'general' maritime strategy, ie they were going to do everything at sea that could be done, whereas Germany had a fleet in being strategy where they would hold the main RN fleet at risk. As such the RN needed to have enough ships on hand every day of the war to defeat the Germans, regardless of refits and the like. In contrast the Germans didn't have to do anything if they didn't want to, and when they did they could take great efforts to ensure that they had as many ships in service and not in refit as possible on that day.

Not to mention the HSF showed off better gunnery, while the RN was a bit more unprofessional (and without La Royale, the Belgian navy, and especially the IJN, severely overstretched at this point.) So the loss of a cruiser or two and maybe an Invincible in the Falklands would be a serious blow, especially if twinned to Emden pulling off another stunt like Madras.
 
While this is reasonable, the British won't go for it - not now. Germany would need to score some more victories for that.

The outset presented for 1914 allows for an early peace treaty with limited gains for the CP (Belgian Congo and parts of French central Africa to Germany, free Poland, Finland to Sweden, Bessarabia to Romania, Serbia an Austrian puppet, Macedonia to Bulgaria, some Caucasian territory to the Ottomans). That doesn't make the Germans hegemon of Europe since France and Russia would survive as Great powers hostile to Germany and Britain is unaffected.

The Germans would know that as well, and the losses so far are not enough to start major war weariness in victory. The Germans would want to continue the fight. They are far deeper in France, logistics of France are much more difficult (it's a question to the experts whether France would still be able to hold against the Germans depending on what rail lines and harbours they hold by now) and British support must be expected smaller. Russia is on retreat on all fronts and, as stated before, will break soon. Overall, there's no reason why Italy should join the war on the Allied side (rather the opposite, but neutrality is more likely, providing the Germans even more trade opportunities). Once Russia is out, the Germans will be able to defeat France, my guess is 1916. In that case, Germany will be the hegemon. If the British see that, they'll likely go for negotiations and limited German war gains now.

Well, stubbornness could delay it, i have to accept that.
 
Alt-Versailles and how to get there ?

Ok, I assume to general consensus is that the CP is going to win this one, although, as some have said, it will take a while.

Having thought this a bit out this morning on my way to work, here's a rough scenario on what might happen.

1915

Germany, confident in its position, launches an offensive against Paris, which fails, badly.

During the course of the German attack, Nicholas will do what he did OTL and initiate a general offensive to alleviate pressure off of his allies. With the A-H in much better shape and their multi-lingual pre-war officer corps intact, the Russian offensive gets nowhere. It does however provide some experience to the A-H troops, as well as lots of casualties for both sides.

Next, I think the Germans would try to bleed the French white at Verdun in the hope of breaking them. Again, gruesome losses for both sides in the meatgrinder. Again, a futile Russian offensive. Maybe also a British one, that, with the earlier loss of the BEF, will make the OTL Battle of the Somme look like a superbly handled affair.

With the situation looking so bad, Italy probably decides against joining.


1916

The Kaiser switches tactics and decides to shift focus on the faltering Russians. The subsequent offensives are largely succesfull and lead to the abdication of Nicholas and the provisional government taking control, with Alexei as a figurehead tsar.

In the west, the Germans dig in while the allies switch to the offensive. The subsequent debacles nearly bankrupt France, while morale plummets.

1917

By late February, with famie gripping the major cities, the new Russian government falls to socialist revolutionaries who sue for peace one month later.

With the war going better for them, the Germans do not go the route of unrestricted submarine warfare outside the immediate area of the British Isles.


The Germans switch their attention to France, and, over the next months, continously push against the French defences. With their economy struggling, the French eventually experience a shortage of shells, which, coupled with new German stormtrooper tactics, enable the Germans to encircle Paris.

This also pushes an opportunistic Italy to side with the CP, sensing their imminent victory. With Paris about to fall, the Entente agree to a ceasefire and negotiations. During the course of these, Paris will remain blockaded by the Germans, with only food being allowed through.

Meanwhile, in Russia, Lenin's bolshevics launch a partially succesfull coup against the socialist revolutionaries. Russia descends into a multi-sided civil war that only ends in the 20's.

1. Is the above scenario realistic ?
2. What kind of peace treaty, if any, would the powers agree upon under such circumstances ?
 
One question to ask - what happens to Moltke? Would the fact he has still not won the war in 1914 be enough to see him removed? If he's not removed, would he be the sort of man to envision Verdun? If he is removed, is his natural replacement still going to be Falkenhayn?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
There is a lot going on here... Sweden, Bulgaria and Romania joining are game changers. Romania means Russians have to call off attacks into Galacia, depending on timing of entry, and A-H is in better shape. Over all A-H only has 1 front to worry over here.

Which means that A-H can act in a comparatively relaxed way, keep its agriculture in a better shape and suffer less famine. That would VERY much stabilize the monarchy.

All nations were very stubborn in WW1 so I expect that everyone fights on.

Replace stubborn with stupid. Apart from "decisive victory", no nation had an exit strategy.

Perhaps Germany could force the King to sign a peace with Germany wherein it'd be another port to get supplies from to Germany.

I am fairly certain that, as in OTL, Britain would blockade the Belgian coast just as thoroughly as Germany.

While this is reasonable, the British won't go for it - not now. Germany would need to score some more victories for that.

The outset presented for 1914 allows for an early peace treaty with limited gains for the CP (Belgian Congo and parts of French central Africa to Germany, free Poland, Finland to Sweden, Bessarabia to Romania, Serbia an Austrian puppet, Macedonia to Bulgaria, some Caucasian territory to the Ottomans). That doesn't make the Germans hegemon of Europe since France and Russia would survive as Great powers hostile to Germany and Britain is unaffected.

The Germans would know that as well, and the losses so far are not enough to start major war weariness in victory. The Germans would want to continue the fight. They are far deeper in France, logistics of France are much more difficult (it's a question to the experts whether France would still be able to hold against the Germans depending on what rail lines and harbours they hold by now) and British support must be expected smaller. Russia is on retreat on all fronts and, as stated before, will break soon. Overall, there's no reason why Italy should join the war on the Allied side (rather the opposite, but neutrality is more likely, providing the Germans even more trade opportunities). Once Russia is out, the Germans will be able to defeat France, my guess is 1916. In that case, Germany will be the hegemon. If the British see that, they'll likely go for negotiations and limited German war gains now.

Excellent. Now the only thing necessary is that everybody is actually that smart.

Unrestricted submarine warfare, and the Yanks will be coming.

Some day...

Not to nitpick, but would Germany want Sweden to gain all of Finland? I would have thought Aland to Sweden and a German monarch on the throne of Finland would be more likely. And more successful in the long run, otherwise the Finns would have spent years trying to work toward independence from the Russian Empire only to be subsumed into Sweden again.

I agree, having just let Norway go without a shot, I doubt Sweden would want to annex Finland. Having it independant suits their security-interests, too.
OTOH, how about a double-monarchy modelled on the Danubian example?
 
One question to ask - what happens to Moltke? Would the fact he has still not won the war in 1914 be enough to see him removed? If he's not removed, would he be the sort of man to envision Verdun? If he is removed, is his natural replacement still going to be Falkenhayn?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I have absolutely no idea.

I agree, having just let Norway go without a shot, I doubt Sweden would want to annex Finland. Having it independant suits their security-interests, too.
OTOH, how about a double-monarchy modelled on the Danubian example?


Now that's an interesting idea. What would it be called ? Sweden-Finland ? Finlando-Sweden ? Both sound really strange.
 
One question to ask - what happens to Moltke? Would the fact he has still not won the war in 1914 be enough to see him removed?

That depends rather on how the more positive first phase of the war influences Moltke's attitudes and health. In OTL, after 1st Marne, Moltke assumed that the war couldn't be won any more. Replacing him was a matter of time from then on.
Maybe that would have been the case nevertheless due to his health issues. He died in June 1916 OTL.

If he's not removed, would he be the sort of man to envision Verdun?

Perhaps not. Perhaps he would be more open to H&L and put an earlier emphasis on the Eastern Front. I am not sure if Verdun would be a tempting aim ITTL with Paris relatively closer to the front.
Without the "bleeding white" philosophy of Falkenhayn, the Verdun offensive might rather go after encircling the fortress and shorten the front thereby. And - this might even put the French under more stress.

If he is removed, is his natural replacement still going to be Falkenhayn?

That depends, the earlier Moltke goes the better for him. The window might close early for him (if, as in OTL, he comes out as a dove urging for a negotiated peace in late 1914) and H&L would be the successor prior to 1916.
 
Top