No Kaiserschlacht

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Lets say that for whatever reason (enough grain from the ukraine, something else) that the Germans don't go on the offensive in March 1918 and prepare themselves for the allied offensives and hopefully respond with a few good counterattacks Cambrai style. This means that they are able to hold out for the rest of the year and are hoping for enough allied blood to be spilled so that they can negotiate a reasonable peace. It is not a perfect plan, but all that they can hope for, as it is realized that their offensive would not end the war and the allies won't agree to a peace just yet.

So what are their chances? My thoughts are not good. The main reason for the large allie advances later that year were the loss of moral, the loss of the last remaining quality troops, and the overextended nature of their troops. Frankly, I don't know what they could say to get their troops to continue fighting, but without the Stormtrooper units being formed on the large scale, much of the quality of the regular army units is retained and perserved. Hopefully (for the Germans) the extra time will enable them to get extra lines ready in depth with enough strong points to bleed the French and Brits to death, while forcing the Americans to realize how much it would take to force the issue to the end.

This would make the OTL giant leap and Black day of the German army disappear. Without the massive losses French and Brits could not afford the casualties that would be coming, but the Americans would. The question is, what would be too many casualties? I would think that the American public would have a limit to how many sons it would sacrifice for that European war.

So what do you gentlemen think? Could the Germans hold out long enough to force a 'fair' peace?
 
This would make the OTL giant leap and Black day of the German army disappear. Without the massive losses French and Brits could not afford the casualties that would be coming, but the Americans would. The question is, what would be too many casualties? I would think that the American public would have a limit to how many sons it would sacrifice for that European war.

So what do you gentlemen think? Could the Germans hold out long enough to force a 'fair' peace?

Nah. The simple fact of the matter is that the nation starves, and riots. The blockade would, and did, do Germany in.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Nah. The simple fact of the matter is that the nation starves, and riots. The blockade would, and did, do Germany in.

Would that still be the case here, given the opportunity to start more thoroughly utilizing (read: looting) the territory the Germans took from Russia in Brest-Litovsk?

The Germans don't have to hold on forever. All they need is to last one more year and then they can probably come out of it with a stalemate or slight tactical defeat in the West but a massive strategic victory in the East.
 
The Germans were not on the verge of collapse. The blockade did cause trouble, but the Germans could indeed use up the resources in the East to make up for the lack of food and material.
The French on the other hand may have indeed called for peace if the 1918 campaign did not achieve a breakthrough.
The question is whether or not the British and the Americans would agree to letting the French sue for peace and end the war as well.
Or would there be massive American reinforcements and recommencing hostilities?
 

Neroon

Banned
I think Germany's got a chance of pulling this off it you give them a 2nd attack of brains and have them do this: After the 1st entente offensive ends again in failiure and rivers of blood and some sharp counterattacks they offer peace amongst the lines of:
Status Quo Ante Bellum PLUS return of A-L to France. Dangling the opportunity of getting A-L without one more death in front of the French, might then be very well lead to enough political pressure in France to accept. The others would be forced to go along or couldn't do much without France as a base. Loosing A-L while keeping their gains in the East would still be a net victory for Germany.
 
The Germans were not on the verge of collapse. The blockade did cause trouble, but the Germans could indeed use up the resources in the East to make up for the lack of food and material.?

Then why didn't they?
 
No.
No chance.
In what world is France going to trade A+L for the huge gains Germany has made in the east? The idea of a status quo ante bellum is just incomprehensible, that is effectively to accept German victory. The war was fought to prevent Germany becoming the continental hegemon and such wouldn't be forgotten after such a large sacrifice in blood and treasure.

The German home front was in tatters. Another winter or two would see it shatter entirely. The promise of the Eastern resources was largely empty. Oh sure if they had been acquired in 1913 they would have solved most of the problems. They had not been. They had seen three years of bloody war. They were not going to suddenly provide a flood of resources to Germany and it is doubtful Germany could have provided the resources to build the required infrastructure while in the middle of a war.

France was not going to collapse now that American gold and men were flowing into the country. The British didn't crack at the loss of an army, they are hardly going to do so because of bloodshed in their own attacks. The idea that the allies 'bleed themselves to death' is just an empirical nonsense. For a start even if the Germans are defending they are likely to suffer 60-100% of the losses that the Allies shall make in their attack and that assumes the Allied attack fails. These are losses that Germany can ill afford. Secondly why would the Allies bleed themselves to death? Unlike Germany they do not need to win the war before the winter of 1918. The British in OTL after all believed they would have to campaign in both 1919 and 1920. They can press as hard or as softly as they like. Its quite possible 1918 shall be a quiet year as the Americans continue to arrive in the continent in their thousands, the French Armies recover their morale and the British mop up their own colonial affairs while experimenting with armour, aircraft and gas. Fuller's Plan 1919 for example could be very interesting, although there were certainly others.
 
I think its fairly unlikely to work for the Germans but its a much better bet than the OTL desperate offensives. They cost the allies a lot of troops but the Germans very many as well and they couldn't afford the losses.

If the Germans stay on the defensive and demobilise some men and horses to help get their own agriculture sorted out they would still be short of food but in a markedly better position. Also, if their telling everybody their willing to make peace on generous terms in the west then they will removed a serious cause of weakness in their own camp. The war now becomes one to defend the fatherland against continued western determination to attack it rather than one to win final overwhelming victory for their leaders. You are likely to see a lot less unrest in the ranks.

The allies have a lot more troops than the Germans but they have their flaws. After four very costly years of war France is exhausted and the chance to end the bloodshed and regain the lands occupied since 1914 without further loss will tempt many. The politicians may notice the danger of allowing a Germany reaching effectively to the Don but it won't be as clear to a private at the front hoping to see his family again and not die in another futile attack. The British have the best doctrine and equipment by now but they are also showing signs of strain. They can probably crack even heavily defended German positions but with defence in depth the Germans are likely to make it slow progress and very costly. The Americans have plenty of troops when they are finally committed in mid-1918 onwards but they are very enthusiastic and lack experience. Going up against well dug in veteran German forces fighting in favourable positions they are likely to suffer very, very heavy losses.

Especially if the French are unwilling to make major attacks and they never had the same drive after the 1917 strike, you could see division in the allied ranks. How many millions would the US be willing to sacrifice to break Germany if it looks like France, the power who is chiefly going to benefit, looks unwilling to shoulder what they might see as its share.

I still think Germany would crack, although it would be very bloody and might well go into 1919. Might be a better solution as with a clear defeat the German army can't deny and allied forces on German territory you are likely to see less willingness to refight the war by Germany later on, despite the fact the treaty will almost certainly be markedly harsher.

However it would require an almost ASB chance to overthrow L&H and have a replacement German leadership be sensible enough to take this approach.

Steve
 
Top