No Kaiserschlacht

Deleted member 1487

Well, Mackensen is unlikely as he is essentially Falkenhayn's man. He was a very good general and in combination with Falkenhayn smashed Romania up but good. Having him in command would be just like having Falkenhayn back. Maybe Groener? He took over the slot after H-L left and was of a similar school of though as the Duo. Though he as much (MUCH) more thoughtful and skilled than the his predecessors and might very well come to quickly realize that the Hindenburg program was nonsense. As the rail chief he already has intimate knowledge of how OHL works and is well acquainted with the capabilities of the German army having been in place since the beginning of the war.

There is also the possibility that the OberOst command team could take over. Leopold and Hoffmann would be a terrific team. Hoffmann at least was the brains behind H-L in the East, and in his memoirs he mentioned how much respect he had for Prince Leopold of Bavaria as a soldier, so they might work very well together. Hoffmann was pretty damn close to one of the best officers that the Germans produced during the war and having him in the slot of high command, you might get much better results that with either Falkenhayn or H-L. Though he was an outspoken supporter of the Duo while they were in charge in the East, namely because they let him run the show, he quickly turned against them when their incompetence began to show. He might very well change his views when he takes over command of OHL, as he never served in the west and was unfamiliar with the difficulties of that theater. But he is NOT going to treat it as Ludendorff did, essentially the same as the East. I have to check his book on how he felt about the U-boot campaign, which would be a crucial factor for anyone taking over.

You might want to talk to Tom B, he is pretty well versed on WW1 and is probably the only other person on the board that has an interest in these PODs.
 

MrP

Banned
Well, Mackensen is unlikely as he is essentially Falkenhayn's man. He was a very good general and in combination with Falkenhayn smashed Romania up but good. Having him in command would be just like having Falkenhayn back. Maybe Groener? He took over the slot after H-L left and was of a similar school of though as the Duo. Though he as much (MUCH) more thoughtful and skilled than the his predecessors and might very well come to quickly realize that the Hindenburg program was nonsense. As the rail chief he already has intimate knowledge of how OHL works and is well acquainted with the capabilities of the German army having been in place since the beginning of the war.

There is also the possibility that the OberOst command team could take over. Leopold and Hoffmann would be a terrific team. Hoffmann at least was the brains behind H-L in the East, and in his memoirs he mentioned how much respect he had for Prince Leopold of Bavaria as a soldier, so they might work very well together. Hoffmann was pretty damn close to one of the best officers that the Germans produced during the war and having him in the slot of high command, you might get much better results that with either Falkenhayn or H-L. Though he was an outspoken supporter of the Duo while they were in charge in the East, namely because they let him run the show, he quickly turned against them when their incompetence began to show. He might very well change his views when he takes over command of OHL, as he never served in the west and was unfamiliar with the difficulties of that theater. But he is NOT going to treat it as Ludendorff did, essentially the same as the East. I have to check his book on how he felt about the U-boot campaign, which would be a crucial factor for anyone taking over.

You might want to talk to Tom B, he is pretty well versed on WW1 and is probably the only other person on the board that has an interest in these PODs.

What the heck, I shall post on something serious while inebriated. Forgive me the inevitable errors! I like Groener, but the reason I suggested M was because he has popular appeal as a result of his victories. Is there not likely to be an aristocratic distaste for the man, too, on the ground of his low (by early 20th C standards) birth? For these reasons, I would say I am more partial to Leopold and Hoffmann. I shall PM Tom B about this thread.
 
Mackensen is possible but I would see Kronprinz Rupprecht as the most likely though he would be somewhat controversial. My understanding is that by 1917 Rupprecht saw any hope of a total victory as unrealistic and the best Germany can hope for was a mildy favorable negotiated settlement.

Another possibility is von Below who was definitely very capable at the tactical/operational level but is something of a ? as a strategist.

However the whole premise of this thread is too binary to my taste. With Russia out but America coming in, I don't think the Heer would be completely passive. Instead of the large strategic offensives of H+L there would not be total passivity but a series of spoiling attacks which would also have the advantage of undermining Entente morale and possibly improving their negotiating position in the fall.

My usual snarky comment for any Great War TL that goes well into 1919 is "Luxembourg conquers Europe"
 
Mackensen is possible but I would see Kronprinz Rupprecht as the most likely though he would be somewhat controversial. My understanding is that by 1917 Rupprecht saw any hope of a total victory as unrealistic and the best Germany can hope for was a mildy favorable negotiated settlement.

Another possibility is von Below who was definitely very capable at the tactical/operational level but is something of a ? as a strategist.

However the whole premise of this thread is too binary to my taste. With Russia out but America coming in, I don't think the Heer would be completely passive. Instead of the large strategic offensives of H+L there would not be total passivity but a series of spoiling attacks which would also have the advantage of undermining Entente morale and possibly improving their negotiating position in the fall.

My usual snarky comment for any Great War TL that goes well into 1919 is "Luxembourg conquers Europe"

I think you mean the Netherlands. Luxembourg was plowed under in August.
 
I think that the Germans could have extended the war and basically have forced the Entente into negotiations. From what I have read on the subject, Haig was worried about the ability of the British to continue offensive operations in 1918 and even into 1919 following Germany's strategic retreat into the Hindenburg Line. He was also disturbed by several successive lines the Germans were constructing behind the HL. Perhaps this leads to the Entente pushing for negotiations or maybe even a white peace.

If the Germans are able to hold in the West for a year, then they can begin to reap some of the benefits of their Eastern conquests, like the Ukraine's wheat crop, which they were planning to take.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
I think that the Germans could have extended the war and basically have forced the Entente into negotiations. From what I have read on the subject, Haig was worried about the ability of the British to continue offensive operations in 1918 and even into 1919 following Germany's strategic retreat into the Hindenburg Line. He was also disturbed by several successive lines the Germans were constructing behind the HL. Perhaps this leads to the Entente pushing for negotiations or maybe even a white peace.

If the Germans are able to hold in the West for a year, then they can begin to reap some of the benefits of their Eastern conquests, like the Ukraine's wheat crop, which they were planning to take.

Can the front possibly hold long enough for that to occur, though? Germany at this point is in a dead heat race against time and revolution. I don't doubt that the resources of their conquests could sustain them, there's no question of that. The problem is, can Germany last long enough to get them there?

What's funny though, is that the war going on into 1919 might mean that France collapses before her. But, what's the soonest-possible time for Germany to get ahold of the food, metal, ect in the east?
 

Deleted member 1487

Can the front possibly hold long enough for that to occur, though? Germany at this point is in a dead heat race against time and revolution. I don't doubt that the resources of their conquests could sustain them, there's no question of that. The problem is, can Germany last long enough to get them there?

What's funny though, is that the war going on into 1919 might mean that France collapses before her. But, what's the soonest-possible time for Germany to get ahold of the food, metal, ect in the east?


That is the rub; technically Germany can hold out without the Hindenburg program. Even with the food situation being tight, the transportation crisis is what actually did them in. Without it, the food situation is enough to hold out until 1919 and the Ukrainian harvest. However, it might not matter if the Americans are battering down the door. The French might drop out of the offensive fighting, holding quiet sectors while the Americans and the increasingly exhausted Brits do the fighting.

If the Germans do not launch the Kaiserschlacht offensives and there has been no Hindenburg program, then they might be able to hold out and maintain their positions in Belgium and the Hindenburg line while negotiations are on. Of course, any scenario that doesn't include the Hindenburg program probably doesn't include the Uboot offensive, meaning no Americans, which completely changes the game.
 
I think that the Germans could have held until their Eastern treasure trove became available. The English were wanting no part of any offensives, especially after Paschendaele. They were beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower resources. The French were also adverse to large scale offensive operations having born the brunt of the Allies heaviest casualties up to that point. The America's greatest resource, its manpower, still wasn't a issue yet due to limited shipping space. They could ship men or supplies but not both in the quantities needed to sustain the large scale offensives needed to push the Germans back far enough like they did during the Hundred Days.

The Americans also were lacking in the weapons needed to take ground at this stage of the war: tanks, planes, and heavy artillery.

Plus, they had not experienced the type of warfare that the French and English had on the Western Front. There were several examples of green American units that broke on contact with German defenses or Germany trench raids.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think that the Germans could have held until their Eastern treasure trove became available. The English were wanting no part of any offensives, especially after Paschendaele. They were beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of manpower resources. The French were also adverse to large scale offensive operations having born the brunt of the Allies heaviest casualties up to that point. The America's greatest resource, its manpower, still wasn't a issue yet due to limited shipping space. They could ship men or supplies but not both in the quantities needed to sustain the large scale offensives needed to push the Germans back far enough like they did during the Hundred Days.

The Americans also were lacking in the weapons needed to take ground at this stage of the war: tanks, planes, and heavy artillery.

Plus, they had not experienced the type of warfare that the French and English had on the Western Front. There were several examples of green American units that broke on contact with German defenses or Germany trench raids.

The british had plenty of manpower, replacements were being held back by Llyod George is his fight with Haig. Plus there is the manpower in the Middle East that becomes available by the end of 1918, which equaled at least several hundreds of thousands. The US had much of the weapons they needed as French production was in high gear and was producing all the necessary equipment for themselves AND their allies.

Another major delta is whether or not Austria can get properly fed, which is unlikely, which means they are going to break apart and seek peace. The resulting chaos means the Allies are not going to be able to exploit the vulnerable underbelly of Germany for a little, as any forces sent in are going to have to deal with the massive ethnic strife and prevent the Italians from annexing just about everything on their list. Plus there are the hundreds of thousands of new prisoners from the Habsburg empire to take care of. And the communist revolution in Hungary. And Serbia annexing the Balkans. And Romania fighting Hungary. And Austria undergoing its own civil war. And the Russian Revolution. The allies are going to have their fingers in a lot of pies. The question is if they have enough.

For the moment, the front in France is likely to hold through 1918, as the allies learn that the tank is not the panecea of technology. But by 1919 negotiations are going to have to be in full swing, because the manpower advantage is going to be with the Americans. Though the Germans are going to have enough material to equip themselves (Note I am stating this as the Hindenburg program never happened), the allies have much more with more men. The Germans have terrain and hopefully the manpower not depleted in Kaiserschlacht with mulitple defense lines, but have no doubt, the Germans will be the ones retreating, trading space for lives and time.
 
Top