Plausibility Check: German Surrender in WW1?

Failure of the initial German offensive in Aug 1914 and a

bit more catastrophic Battle of Marne most probably would have resulted in Western Front collapse and formation of new frontline on Rhine.

Why the Rhine?

If Kluck was cut off and destroyed, they'd certainly have to pull back a lot further than OTL, but they could probably regroup on a line from, say, Antwerp to Namur and Verdun.


Ridiculously, harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty had its roots in the history of booldy stalemate 1914-1918. If Germany lost the war quickly, most probably the peace treaty would be far more regardful and tidy.

No treaty with the Tsar of Russia as one of its authors (an would be the case had the Entente won in 1914) is likely to be fair or generous.
 
No treaty with the Tsar of Russia as one of its authors (an would be the case had the Entente won in 1914) is likely to be fair or generous.

Well, what would be fair and generous treaties (fair and generous are not the same!), in case of German collapse in early 1915? Assume utter failure of Schlieffen due to French counter-attack on exposed German flank, and Russian stunning victory in Tannenberg, both thanks to decoding German communications.
Keep in mind, that both sides would initially offer ridiculous terms, but settle for less at negotiating table. Demanding a lot before peace talks even began costs nothing.
 
Well, what would be fair and generous treaties (fair and generous are not the same!), in case of German collapse in early 1915? Assume utter failure of Schlieffen due to French counter-attack on exposed German flank, and Russian stunning victory in Tannenberg, both thanks to decoding German communications.
Keep in mind, that both sides would initially offer ridiculous terms, but settle for less at negotiating table. Demanding a lot before peace talks even began costs nothing.


Why would there be a "negotiating table"?

Both sides' terms will be such as the other could only accept after total collapse, which means that the war will be fought on until one side or the other does - after which you get a dictated peace, not a negotiated one.
 
Why would there be a "negotiating table"?

Both sides' terms will be such as the other could only accept after total collapse, which means that the war will be fought on until one side or the other does - after which you get a dictated peace, not a negotiated one.

Did you never heard of haggling?
Everyone starts with demands of golden mountains. Why wouldn't he? The more he demands, the more likely that when compromise happens, he'll end up closer to what he actually wanted.
If you started demands with what you want, you'll never get what you want.
Demands of individuals are of no indication what terms would be. Foch wanted to annex everything up to Rhein. Well then, turns out that even at diktats, winners do not get all they wanted.

There was no negotiating table, because two sides were evenly matched. If one side knows very well it's about to lose, and other side is exhausted to want to cut their losses, you'll get negotiating table.
The amount of debt UK and France got by 1916-1917, made it necessary to fight to the death, because modest victory would cause collapse of their government. But in 1915, do you want to go all the way to Berlin, when Germans already offer you what you can sell to your own people as victory? Or would you rather keep borrowing from American banks until you're defacto satellite state. No, you get to the table, posture a bit before initial offer is amended in your favour, and call it a day.

Now, the hard part is to get to the situation where Germans accepted they are gonna lose, but Allies don't know how bad German situation is. If they knew total victory is mere months away, they'd want to throw another million of bodies at Germans to get slightly better terms. Allies have to think that Germans are merely reasonable enough to realise that after 12 or 16 moths they're gonna collapse, while in reality Germans would be suing because they are 3 months away from collapse.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Versailles is harsh because Germany had surrendered unconditionally at the armistice.
It was also because of Brest-Litovsk, which had basically torn the Russian Empire to shreds (a quarter of the industry and population, not to mention a significant amount of farmland and 90% of the coal mines, being in the ceded territories - along with total demobilization). This was considered as justification for a harsh peace at Versailles.

Without that the treaty used as the example is probably the Franco-Prussian War one.
 
It was also because of Brest-LitovUsedsk, which had basically torn the Russian Empire to shreds (a quarter of the industry and population, not to mention a significant amount of farmland and 90% of the coal mines, being in the ceded territories - along with total demobilization). This was considered as justification for a harsh peace at Versailles.

Without that the treaty used as the example is probably the Franco-Prussian War one.

Used as partial justification, yes. But from a practical point: Germany couldn't resist and no one had an interest in going easy on her If Germany had fought to a draw- the Korean War or the Iran-Iraq War, the peace would have been along the lines of status quo. Rapid defeats, like Poland 1939, lead to very harsh terms. Peace is usually as harsh as the victor thinks he can get away with
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Which IIRC was at least as heavy in terms of reparations as Versailles.
The reparations required were extremely harsh, yes (it was believed at the time it would cripple France for roughly forty years), and it also included a multi-year occupation until the debt was paid. The French Indemnity was 23% of prewar French GDP at the time, and the deadline was five years.

If a similar indemnity were to be imposed on Germany post-WW1 then it would have required payment of about $54B in 1960 dollars (via Maddison), or $25B in 1918 dollars, payable by 1923, and with occupation of Germany until the payment of the reparations. In fact the maximum amount Germany was on the hook for OTL was $33B, with only $12.5B actually required to be paid and only $5B paid by 1932.

Funny thing, isn't it... of course, a genuine occupation might have actually reduced the outrage over Versailles as it would have been "obvious" an actual defeat had taken place. But the critical point would probably be someone actually translating the treaty properly (which would have required a butterfly, but it's very plausible that they'd get a different translator on a different day) so the "war guilt" clause would read as it did in the non-German text, a damages guilt clause ("... Germany accepts responsibility of Germany and her allies causing all the loss and damage ..." instead of the text the Germans got which was "Germany admits it, that Germany and her allies, as authors of the war, are responsible for all losses and damages ...").
 
The reparations required were extremely harsh, yes (it was believed at the time it would cripple France for roughly forty years), and it also included a multi-year occupation until the debt was paid. The French Indemnity was 23% of prewar French GDP at the time, and the deadline was five years.

And it was paid by the French.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
And it was paid by the French.
French French French.

(hey, Pokemon Gen VI was set in Basically France.)

Peace is usually as harsh as the victor thinks he can get away with.
This isn't generally the case, there are certainly places where a peace was more lenient - or where the victor declined to continue fighting because they could attain their desired peace.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That's a interesting name for Quebec
...Kalos routes are centered around a fashion-obsessed city with a famous large spire-like tower, the term "chateau" turns up a lot, and the region is a hexagon. That's not Quebec.

The only thing differentiating it from France on a gross scale (apart from, you know, the Pokemon) is that only the northern 2/3 of France is represented.


...anyway. One way you could get a German surrender is... argh, I can't remember the timing but there was a brief crisis in 1916 when for a few weeks the CP armies were fully engaged and they had no real reserves. By the time Romania joined in the situation had stabilized, though, so earlier Romanian joining might work.
 
Did you never heard of haggling?


Sure I've heard of it - I just don't see how it could work in WW1.

Both sides had their populatons "psyched up" into believing that the war was a fight of good against evil. They can't just turn round a say "OK you can go home. Good and evil have made a deal about how to split the loot".

And what would be the terms of such a deal? For GB and France, liberation of Belgium and return of Alsace-Lorraine would be the bare minimum. Anything less would be seen as a confession of defeat. But for Germany, to concede this w/o a really big quid pro quo wd also be seen as defeat. Both sides' governments were riding a tiger and coudl not dismount.
 
Last edited:
...Kalos routes are centered around a fashion-obsessed city with a famous large spire-like tower, the term "chateau" turns up a lot, and the region is a hexagon. That's not Quebec.

The only thing differentiating it from France on a gross scale (apart from, you know, the Pokemon) is that only the northern 2/3 of France is represented.
It's not like french things showing up in Quebec would be unusual, so I don't get your point about chateaus, and the fact that everything is cold and snowy makes me think Quebec. Your other points are suitable arguments against it, though.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
and the fact that everything is cold and snowy makes me think Quebec.
Also, just look at it.

Kalos_XY.png


...dang it, now I'm thinking of ships called USS Bulbasaur and USS Squirtle, with those which win battles getting their names upgraded.
 
August 1918. Germans and Austrians through Dutch channels state their willingness to negotiate. As good faith of that willingness, the Central Powers agree to evacuate occupied France, Belgium and Italy, Alsace Lorraine, unmolested and without demolitions before negotiations begin and to suspend submarine warfare. No particular armistice is in effect but negotiations begin within two weeks in Amsterdam and no one is launching large offensives while negotiations occur.

(some German leadership, people like the Crown Prince, knew the war was lost OTL, the Austrians certainly did, perhaps Ludendorff is sacked after Amiens and different leadership is in place)
 
Sure I've heard of it - I just don't see how it could work in WW1.

I said in my post (in final paragraph) that it'd be very difficult for situation where both sides want to throw the towel to occur. So you can't exactly ignore me saying that, and then counter-argue as if I said its easy peasy to get negotiated peace.
In my scenario for negotiated peace, both sides are at varying level of bad shape, Germans have it worse, but neither side realises that other side has it worse than they look.
So both think they are playing smart by suing for peace, whereas in reality Germans would fall apart after few months if Entente continued war. Entente would have its own stab-in-the-back myth once they realise they could've smashed the Germans if they waited couple months with peace.

Both sides had their populatons "psyched up" into believing that the war was a fight of good against evil. They can't just turn round a say "OK you can go home. Good and evil have made a deal about how to split the loot".
You must be joking. Nobody is gonna claim they made deal with devil. They wouldn't do it even if it was true.
Not even losers are willing to admit they lost the war (that's why stab-in-the-back-myth: we didn't lost. we were betrayed!). German leaders are gonna do their best to say that those evil bastards who attacked them with intention of eating their babies were stopped at the borders, and only annexed impoverished provinces populated only by gypsies. It's a blatant damaging lie (no more blatant than stab-in-the-back-myth), but its still less damaging that truth: that they lost.
Whereas Entente winners are gonna say: "We got Alsace back! Belgium is liberated! Serbia is free! This everything we always wanted and more. And anyone who shows recollection of us promising more gains is probably German spy trying to spoil this glorious moment".
 
August 1918. Germans and Austrians through Dutch channels state their willingness to negotiate. As good faith of that willingness, the Central Powers agree to evacuate occupied France, Belgium and Italy, Alsace Lorraine, unmolested and without demolitions before negotiations begin and to suspend submarine warfare. No particular armistice is in effect but negotiations begin within two weeks in Amsterdam and no one is launching large offensives while negotiations occur.

(some German leadership, people like the Crown Prince, knew the war was lost OTL, the Austrians certainly did, perhaps Ludendorff is sacked after Amiens and different leadership is in place)


Withdrawal from Belgium Fance and Italy maybe, though extremely unlikely without a very big quid pro quo.

Sumarime warfare - they might offer to suspend it in return for lifting of the blockade, but the Entente wd never agree.

Alsace-Lorraine, not a chance. That would be an open confession of defeat. The Entente would realise they had Germany on the run, and put up their terms accordingly.
 
Top