Second Europen War after a 1915 CP win

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Ah, so what you suggest is actually not too horrendous of a territorial loss for France, right?
Given the level of defeat no, but its also coupled with demolishing their forts on the border, limiting their army, giving up colonies, and having to pay an indemnity. But also losing Briey-Longwy will mean giving up an important iron mining area, plus having to accept Lumembourg being annexed into Germany, plus having some German occupation for a period of time. It will be worse than the Franco-Prussian war losses all things considered, as Germany will learn what France can afford to pay and will make sure to put the hurt on them. Overall not as bad as the ToV, but still hurtful.
 
What would the reaction of the British population be?

Yes the Army got more or less trounced. But would that lead to more funding, or the reverse? An even more "colonial" oriented army that is to hold down the Colonies while the RN does the blockading? And will the RN be able to keep the HSF down in this scenario.

Or do we see a major shift away from continental issues towards more stabelizing of the Empire?

Because I do not realy know the mindset of the time. The losses would be "relative" light. Coupled with the apperant moderation of Germany against Belgium what would the British political and popular opinion be?
 

Deleted member 1487

What would the reaction of the British population be?

Yes the Army got more or less trounced. But would that lead to more funding, or the reverse? An even more "colonial" oriented army that is to hold down the Colonies while the RN does the blockading? And will the RN be able to keep the HSF down in this scenario.

Or do we see a major shift away from continental issues towards more stabelizing of the Empire?

Because I do not realy know the mindset of the time. The losses would be "relative" light. Coupled with the apperant moderation of Germany against Belgium what would the British political and popular opinion be?

Personally I think the army would get expanded and better funded out of fear of German invasion, but also a revenge impulse because it would have been a massive embarrassment to be crushed in the first battle of a critical war.
 
How seriously did the people take the Army before WWI? Because mostly I get the pride about the RN and the "stepchild" army.
Embaresed, yes but probably somewhat expacted in a general European War.

I ask because the Empire will have the replace the old professional army and maybe hold down the more restive colonies. Together with a victorious Germany that again can somewhat more concentrate on the fleet.

Because the British already paid more per person then Germany before WWI so how much more could the Purse be squeezed?


So could we see a making nice between Germany and Britain in the try to "smoth over" the "unpleasantnes" of 1914-15?
I ask because mainly the chance of Irish unrest, the Indian question and uncertain French and Russian stability.
 

Deleted member 1487

How seriously did the people take the Army before WWI? Because mostly I get the pride about the RN and the "stepchild" army.
Embaresed, yes but probably somewhat expacted in a general European War.

I ask because the Empire will have the replace the old professional army and maybe hold down the more restive colonies. Together with a victorious Germany that again can somewhat more concentrate on the fleet.

Because the British already paid more per person then Germany before WWI so how much more could the Purse be squeezed?


So could we see a making nice between Germany and Britain in the try to "smoth over" the "unpleasantnes" of 1914-15?
I ask because mainly the chance of Irish unrest, the Indian question and uncertain French and Russian stability.

The British army was pretty good overall and well equipped, but was pretty much the junior service and small. Their staff was atrocious and higher officer training was a joke compared to the continentals. They were not designed for European continental warfare in terms of training and planning, though they were well equipped for it. The issue was one of size and higher officers, who still were largely purchasing their commissions IIRC. So they would need major reforms to modernize their general staff and regimental level and above (if not even battalion command). The colonies were not restive at this point, even with a slew of embarrassments, including the defeat of the BEF (the defeat in German East Africa was pretty bad though). The fleet is going to get a lot of funding out of fear and shock, but the need to replace and enhance the army is going to be massive. Basically whatever the military wants it gets.

Irish unrest and perhaps Indians encouraged by the Germans would be a major thorn after the war. Britain would be on its back foot, but couldn't be nice to the hostile Germans because of their plans about the post war European trade system that was meant to hurt Britain. Plus of course the threatening German expansion of the Berlin-Baghdad rail line. So the Brits are going to be in full panic mode and may even go proto-Fascist themselves out of fear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–German_Conspiracy
http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/Iran-and-the-First-World-War.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_and_World_War_I
 

Deleted member 1487

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo#Investment
Looking at how profitable Congo was to Belgium Germany would get a ton of money out of their new empire and be able to compete economically with Britain as never before, while Belgium will be impoverished compared to OTL and forces to fall into Germany's economic orbit due to sheer gravity of it and the weakness of France economically. The Netherlands too will be very dependent on Germany trade going forward due to the economic expansion that would result, especially as the new Polish and Baltic markets open up and France is forced to work with Germans a bit more economically. Italy too would probably find itself being forced to side with Germany due to its move to gain from France at the end of the war. Plus as the Ottomans expand economically and militarily Germany is going to have a captive market there too.

Austria-Hungary is only going to weaken politically, probably into a triple crown personal union with Poland (including Galicia+Bukowina), Hungary (including Bosnia), and Austria (including Slovenia and Czechlands) each being independent but allied under Kaiser Karl, managing their own economies and armies, but with a free trade zone pact to resist German economic dominance; they will still be far too tied to Germany economically though, as Austria, Hungary, and Poland needed the Germane export market and imports to survive.

Romania too would probably fall into the German economic orbit due to Russia and France being weakened, with Britain being too far away to really matter. Bulgaria would be a military vassal of the CPs once it signed on. Serbia is a Habsburg economic colony basically after the war.

Frankly the British would have to spend a ton on the military and invest heavily in Russia to stay relevant and stave off German economic competition internationally.
 
I get what you are getting at. But the point remains, that the Army was the junior service. So how much embaresmant / resentment would be there. Because it would be the well... junior service.

And again how will the British pay for the bigger and better army together with an even bigger and better navy? Imo something has to give. And again that would be the, you get it, junior service.

Also the question about making nice was for both sides. Yes the CP won, in a matter of speaking, but not totaly. So I see a relative unscathed CP vs well Britain is all that realisticaly has still fighting will.
France is for now neutered and probably suitebly beaten to get the idea that Germany may be a bigger and badder enemy then they can stomach. So resentment and all, yes, but if they are somehow included into the trade block, how will that play out.
Russia is heading for interesting times Imo. They also lost two wars in a row and had a popular uprising the decade before. So how stable would it be afterwards? I see that it could go for a civil war ala England. Pro monarchy vs. pro Duma (?). Add the class tensions already there and it could go bad.

On the other hand, who could be the ally to Britain that it would need. At least for the short term? America? Imo still happily isolationist and had not jet massivly profited from the war. May even be interested to gain entry into the trade block? Maybe :p.
And what other powers were there? I get a little less then one...


So would it not be prudent for a while to burry the hatchet and work with Germany? In some limited way first. To curb some exesses and so on? What will later develop I do not know, but I could see a warming of relations after fife to ten years. So maybe no second war with Britain and Germany on different sides... well one can dream on :)
 
Why would Germany be so obsessed with crippling France? They have just won two major continental wars against them with relative ease, and there is no need to hurt the other as much as France vs Germany IOTL, because Germany already has the advantages it needed.

Berlin was very, very ambitious, but it was so because they were under the impression (and not entirely wrongly) that they only had a certain amount of time before their military dominance of Europe could be defeated. Russia was very much perceived as the threat to Germany, not France. They went West first because they decided that France was the easier foe to disable before turning on the Russian bear with all their might.

Colonially, I think you're spot on. Germany would demand both the French and Belgian Congo, creating a nice, profitable Mittelafrika as it were. If they play nice, they can "sell" their Pacific territories to save face. They would barely touch Britain's Empire at all, as they had little leverage over them.

Also, France might want to cozy up to Germany because they have been consistently shown to fail at defeating the Germans. Revanchinism has failed, and assuming Germany is relatively light on France it's the most likely course of action. Britain, on the other hand, will probably remain uneasy rivals with Germany, worried about Berlin's attempts to usurp British naval dominance.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why would Germany be so obsessed with crippling France? They have just won two major continental wars against them with relative ease, and there is no need to hurt the other as much as France vs Germany IOTL, because Germany already has the advantages it needed.

Berlin was very, very ambitious, but it was so because they were under the impression (and not entirely wrongly) that they only had a certain amount of time before their military dominance of Europe could be defeated. Russia was very much perceived as the threat to Germany, not France. They went West first because they decided that France was the easier foe to disable before turning on the Russian bear with all their might.

Colonially, I think you're spot on. Germany would demand both the French and Belgian Congo, creating a nice, profitable Mittelafrika as it were. If they play nice, they can "sell" their Pacific territories to save face. They would barely touch Britain's Empire at all, as they had little leverage over them.

Also, France might want to cozy up to Germany because they have been consistently shown to fail at defeating the Germans. Revanchinism has failed, and assuming Germany is relatively light on France it's the most likely course of action. Britain, on the other hand, will probably remain uneasy rivals with Germany, worried about Berlin's attempts to usurp British naval dominance.

Why fight France a third time when you can ensure she is broke enough to be neutered? They thought they had done that after the last war, but France recovered far quicker than they thought possible and became a major threat again, using Russia against Germany, so better to ensure she doesn't become and even bigger, angrier threat again. Kind of like how France tried to artificially permanently cripple Germany after WW1.

Also by neutering France they can ensure that they have no western flank to worry about if Russia rises again and no British army can be landed to use against them (given that they control the Baltics and the Ottomans the Black Sea). If France is done as a threat they don't have to worry about her.

The thing is the mindset of the era is that force is all that matters; you can't beat people into liking you or toadying up to you, especially not one as large and relatively powerful as France with a history of dominance in Europe that they cannot seem to let go of, so its better to beat them into submission. Its like the Machiavelli idea its better to be feared then loved; take what you need from France to ensure your ascent and remove their ability to resist. Germany isn't going to occupy them forever, just long enough to take a pound of flesh, ensure the frontier is demilitarized, and the treaty is complied with. Laming France significantly keeps them viable as a market, especially once they have military restrictions and can focus on non-military spending, while it prevents them from becoming a threat again.

Britain and Russia are effectively untouchable, so its best to eliminate the threat from the one enemy that you can get your hands on, especially as they were organizing the Entente against Germany in the first place and financing the Russian threat. Now that's not possible and up to the rivals in St. Petersburg and London to play nice without the Parisian middle men facilitating the alliance.
 
Why fight France a third time when you can ensure she is broke enough to be neutered? They thought they had done that after the last war, but France recovered far quicker than they thought possible and became a major threat again, using Russia against Germany, so better to ensure she doesn't become and even bigger, angrier threat again. Kind of like how France tried to artificially permanently cripple Germany after WW1.

There are two fundamental differences here. One, last time I checked, French troops never captured Berlin. Nor did they win the Franco-Prussian War. There was a perception in France (and not entirely misplaced) that they needed to neuter Germany to have a chance at beating them. This leads into B. Germany is fundamentally a stronger state than France. They have more industry, more population, a better military, etc. The reverse is not true.

wiking said:
Also by neutering France they can ensure that they have no western flank to worry about if Russia rises again and no British army can be landed to use against them (given that they control the Baltics and the Ottomans the Black Sea). If France is done as a threat they don't have to worry about her.

You mean like the War that Germany just finished winning? The root of the problem in German eyes is Russia, which was just viewed as too big and too close.

The whole point of attacking France first was so that Germany could get France out of the way so it could focus on what they figured would be the main threat, Russia. It was a wartime maneuver, not a political one.

wiking said:
The thing is the mindset of the era is that force is all that matters; you can't beat people into liking you or toadying up to you, especially not one as large and relatively powerful as France with a history of dominance in Europe that they cannot seem to let go of, so its better to beat them into submission. Its like the Machiavelli idea its better to be feared then loved; take what you need from France to ensure your ascent and remove their ability to resist. Germany isn't going to occupy them forever, just long enough to take a pound of flesh, ensure the frontier is demilitarized, and the treaty is complied with. Laming France significantly keeps them viable as a market, especially once they have military restrictions and can focus on non-military spending, while it prevents them from becoming a threat again.

Totally agree. It's not going to be a key German strategy to earn French support, but merely because they will impose a relatively lenient peace (I hope I'm not being too confusing with 'relatively'. It's still going to be fairly harsh, with many restrictions and concessions, but not nearly as much as Germany would want against Russia.) might be enough to get French people to decide that they had fought and lost enough wars with Germany.

wiking said:
Britain and Russia are effectively untouchable, so its best to eliminate the threat from the one enemy that you can get your hands on, especially as they were organizing the Entente against Germany in the first place and financing the Russian threat. Now that's not possible and up to the rivals in St. Petersburg and London to play nice without the Parisian middle men facilitating the alliance.

Britain untouchable? Certainly. But Germany would be in a unique position in this 1915. They would finally have Russia isolated, with her allies beaten and half a continent allied with Germany to bring her down. In this scenario, they've already made limited gains against Russia, and there's no reason to assume they wouldn't make more as time goes on.

The logic of 'We need to make sure they can't challenge us again in war' doesn't just apply to France. In fact, it applies much better to Russia, who has been growing in power for years.. The philosophy of the day was that this era of Great Powers would give rise to only a few Superpowers, and every Great Power was desperate to make sure their's would be one of these few. If Germany was to have the continental hegemony they'd like, they'd need to weaken Russia. Otherwise they'll just be back for more in a decade or two, with France and Britain possibly in tow.

It wouldn't be France Germany would be worried about looking for revenge. It would be Russia. This would reflect itself onto peace negotiations.
 

Deleted member 1487

We have to disagree. My read on how Germany viewed France was wildly at odds with what you are suggesting. Germany views at that time were informed by their recent history, which was that France needed to be dealt with. I'm not arguing what should have been done, rather what the Germans themselves at that time thought needed to be done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
France should cede some northern territory, such as steel-producing Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany. A war indemnity of 10 billion Reichsmarks for France, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all Germany's existing national debt, should prevent French rearmament. The French economy would be dependent on Germany and all trade with the British Empire will cease. France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.


  • Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.
  • Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.
  • Creation of a Mitteleuropa economic association dominated by Germany but ostensibly egalitarian. Members would include newly created buffer states carved out of the Russian Empire's west such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".[4]
  • Expansion of the German colonial empire with, most importantly, the creation of a contiguous German colony across central Africa at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies.
This was just an internal working memo from 1914, but it shows what the views of France were at this point. France had been Germany's arch nemesis for generations, while Russia had been Germany's ally as recently as 1887 and Germany had been rooting for Russia in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war. France was seen to be Germany's primary rival on the continent and that Russia would be humbled and dealt with once France was out of the picture. If Russia became an issue it would be a one front problem, but in the meantime they could complement the Russian economy by trading for raw materials and paying in industrial equipment. The French though were a rival economy competing for colonies and raw materials to produce industrial goods. Its better to vassalize them as they were more easily controlled due to their declining population and weaker industry, or so was the thought at the time.
 
Septemberprogramm

This was just an internal working memo from 1914, but it shows what the views of France were at this point. France had been Germany's arch nemesis for generations, while Russia had been Germany's ally as recently as 1887 and Germany had been rooting for Russia in 1905 during the Russo-Japanese war. France was seen to be Germany's primary rival on the continent and that Russia would be humbled and dealt with once France was out of the picture. If Russia became an issue it would be a one front problem, but in the meantime they could complement the RUSSIAN ECONOMY by trading for raw materials and paying in industrial equipment. The French though were a rival economy competing for colonies and raw materials to produce industrial goods. Its better to vassalize them as they were more easily controlled due to their declining population and weaker industry, or so was the thought at the time.

I'm aware of the Septemberprogramm, and German ambitions in the West. And while I have no doubt that some of the desires outlined within would have been acted upon by Germany (Border adjustments, turning Belgium into a vassal state, French disarmament), a peace in the East is going to be harsher.

Honestly, I think under these circumstances, we have a chance of seeing Brest-Litovsk writ large across Europe. However, as I understood from your OP, ITTL Germany sought a lenient-ish peace, and I believed terms in the East would certainly be harsher than you outlined.
 
Bulgaria, Italy, and Romania rode the fence, if one side is going to win they are going to jump in to get their cut. So I imagine Italy jumps in late to get Corsica, Nice, and Savoy with trade concessions in Tunisia. Maybe Malta too. Romania could jump into get Bessarabia. Bulgaria WILL jump in to get Macedonia.

The fleet is not discredited until Jutland, so they probably get more funding because they can play the lack of ships as a card for why they didn't get more action.

China is definitely going to be a German goal, because Japan is with Britain at this point and took German colonies. Japan didn't become a potential German ally in the 1930s until the USSR was an issue and the Japanese were winning the invasion of China, making trade with her impossible. So OTL Sino-German relations definitely play out.
Italy isn't getting Malta, because the CP have no way to force Britain to give anything up. Tunisia's more likely.

Russia loses a bunch of landin Eastern Europe. Austria and the OE survive for a while longer. France probably loses colonies. Germang dominates the continent.
 
I'm aware of the Septemberprogramm, and German ambitions in the West. And while I have no doubt that some of the desires outlined within would have been acted upon by Germany (Border adjustments, turning Belgium into a vassal state, French disarmament), a peace in the East is going to be harsher.

Honestly, I think under these circumstances, we have a chance of seeing Brest-Litovsk writ large across Europe. However, as I understood from your OP, ITTL Germany sought a lenient-ish peace, and I believed terms in the East would certainly be harsher than you outlined.

Do you think they would have went for a vassalized Ukraine?
 
Do you think they would have went for a vassalized Ukraine?

If they could get away with it, certainly. Like I said, I think Poland and the Baltic States is what they'll demand, alongside reparations. But if Russia rejects this, they'll go for a whole lot more.
 

Deleted member 1487

The problems of that are actually conquering and occupying it. Germany could only grab Poland and part of the Baltics IOTL 1915, plus sit on France/Belgium. They just don't have time to conquer Ukraine; then there is the issue of having enough manpower to occupy it and prop up a regime while simultaneously doing the same in Poland and the Baltics, plus occupy France AND set up a new colonial empire in central Africa. They cannot afford to keep millions of men under arms to pull that off, which is why IOTL they only wanted Lithuania and Poland in 1915. It only later expanded under the nut Ludendorff because they needed those resources to fight the US when it entered the war. If the war is ending in 1915 the buffer zone of the Baltics and Poland is plenty, especially with the resources it would take to enforce any serious deal with France and ensure it didn't become a threat in the near future. Better to go small in the East to keep costs and manpower needs down as they established their colonial empire and new order in Poland, the Baltics, and Western Europe. That's far more valuable then the mess in Ukraine (which they failed at BTW IOTL before being defeated in the West).
 
The problems of that are actually conquering and occupying it. Germany could only grab Poland and part of the Baltics IOTL 1915, plus sit on France/Belgium. They just don't have time to conquer Ukraine; then there is the issue of having enough manpower to occupy it and prop up a regime while simultaneously doing the same in Poland and the Baltics, plus occupy France AND set up a new colonial empire in central Africa. They cannot afford to keep millions of men under arms to pull that off, which is why IOTL they only wanted Lithuania and Poland in 1915. It only later expanded under the nut Ludendorff because they needed those resources to fight the US when it entered the war. If the war is ending in 1915 the buffer zone of the Baltics and Poland is plenty, especially with the resources it would take to enforce any serious deal with France and ensure it didn't become a threat in the near future. Better to go small in the East to keep costs and manpower needs down as they established their colonial empire and new order in Poland, the Baltics, and Western Europe. That's far more valuable then the mess in Ukraine (which they failed at BTW IOTL before being defeated in the West).

The idea is they'd only go for Ukraine after securing peace in the West. So, possibly never.
 
We agree then.

More or less. With a bit of time to think about it, I may have been projecting more of a 1916 German attitude on things.

Still, I think you'd find that under a lenient peace, Russia would be punished more than France. The French would lose a few border regions, colonies, and pay some reparations, the Russians would lose their Empire in Eastern Europe.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Why not pressure the Russians into ceding northern Sakhalin to Japan in exchange for the return of at least some of the colonies that Japan had seized during the war (the German concession in China being the most likely request)?
 
Top