The Best Case for Germany in 1918

luakel

Germany decides not to restart unrestricted sub warfare, leading to no US entry into WWI. Wilson remains sympathetic to Britain/France, but cannot convince his countrymen to join the war.

In 1918, with no need to end the war in the west before the Americans arrive, Germany tries a different strategy. Some of the troops from Russia will bolster the front in the West and help build defences, the rest will go to Italy. On March 21, supported by a huge artillery bombardment and with stormtroopers infiltrating the Italian lines, a massive German-led attack crosses the Piave River. The Italian troops, already demoralized by last year's loss at Caporetto, rout and this time don't regroup. The British and French troops sent to help fight bravely but are overwhelmed. Within a week the German and Austrian troops have reached Venice and within another week they have taken it. The morale of Italy is shattered, the country is torn by civil strife, and the government sues for peace at the end of April. The treaty gives Venetia to Austria and Libya to Turkey.

So what happens now? Austria can concentrate on the worsening front in the Balkans and might be able to slow the Allied offensive there. And Germany can stay on the defensive in the West while preparing for a big offensive in 1919. The British offensive against the Hindenburg Line will probably still be successful but it will be much bloodier than OTL and Germany will likely have prepared positions in the rear. Is a German victory, or even compromise peace, still possible?
 

Alratan

The German problem is the risk that another year of war may end with a revolution, as the blockade causes complete economic collapse.

Another year of war, coupled with American non-entry, could see a much less pleasant peace imposed on Germany.
 

luakel

I guess the question is how much longer can Germany hold out under the blockade... if it wasn't for that their victory would be likely at this point.
 

Smaug

If Russia crumbles, ala OTL, Germany could run amok, especially if they throw battle hardened veterans from Italy in there.

With Italy knoocked out, I wonder if the Central Powers might not gain another member or two.
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
I'll have a think and get back to you. My instinct is to say that the Italians had dealt with many of the problems that had allowed Caporetto to occur - troops all in the front line trench, insufficient and ineffective gas masks. But I'll get back to you on that when I can confirm it.
 

1940LaSalle

Wait a minute on that blockade issue: if the Central Powers control Venice and environs, that gives them a back door for shipping (OK, it means some long railroad trips after goods reach the port, but still...): I question whether the Grand Fleet could blockade the North Sea ports and the Adriatic at the same time. It might--conceivably--ease the pressure enough to buy time for a negotiated peace while the politicians are able to somehow force the adoption of a constitution of sorts.
 

Steffen

Supplies through the Adriatic?
First, as Max stated, the Adriatic is narrow and can be blockaded easily,
Second, convoys would be vulnerable to attacks from small crafts darting out of Italian ports,
and thirdly, Where should the supplies come from? The med coasts are in the hand of the Entente with the exception of the Turkish and the Spanish coasts. I suppose the Ottoman Empire doesn´t have much to offer the other powers in terms of ressources, and if ships leaving Barcelona are shadowed, this supply route is easily surpressed. And with the two bottlenecks of Gribraltar and Suez, the Allies are in a good position to cordon the Med off.

But I think a decisive victory over Italy, knocking them out, could blow the Allies a devasting blow in terms of Morale.

A US intervention is, in hindsight, a guarantee for a defeat, but this isn´t clear to the contemporaries. If Germany now seems to regularly push an Entente power out of the war while the French and British Efforts on the Western Front don´t amount to anything, maybe a true armistice is sought.
 

MerryPrankster

Steffen said:
Supplies through the Adriatic?
First, as Max stated, the Adriatic is narrow and can be blockaded easily,
Second, convoys would be vulnerable to attacks from small crafts darting out of Italian ports.
Click to expand...

I think part of the POD is that the Italians make peace as a result of the St. Michael offensive going into Italy and not France.
 

1940LaSalle

MerryPrankster said:
Yes, but there will be a window of opportunity where the Germans can import through the Adriatic before the Brits can close it.

They could also loot Italy to feed Germany.
Click to expand...

Make that "…before the Brits try to close it." That would stretch the Grand Fleet thinner than it already was, and potentially open up holes / windows of opportunity in the North Sea blockade. I also agree that the Germans would use Italy as a source of foodstuffs (pasta and sauerkraut, anyone?) and raw materials. It could conceivably extend the war well into 1919 if not 1920.
 

trajen777

Banned
I think one of the issues was that the resources from the Russia were just starting to pour into Germany at this time. These would have lessened the starvation that was becoming prevalent in the homeland. The German 1918 offence resulted in the high hopes for victory to be devestated, much as the defeats of France in 1916 had lead its army to mutiny. In addition the German troops were amazed at the resources captured in the trenches from the allies in 1918 which lead to a collapse of morale also. So morale, in the home front and the front line were based upon high hopes for the “promised victory in the West”, starvation, the entry of the USA, and the requirement of the fleet to make a Suicide attack.

Replace this with victory in Italy, No USA, no defeat in the West, and growing food and supplies coming in from captured Russia.

So 1918
  • Victory in Russia
  • Victory in Italy
  • Victory in Rumania
  • Defeat in Palestine
  • Deadlock in Balkans
  • Britain & France have gains based upon Tanks in West – but at large losses

1919
  • Germany gains significant resources in East from Russia
  • Sends troops which fight in Italy to Turkey / Balkans stop Turk / Austrian collapse
  • Western Powers, using tanks drive Germany from France. Allied losses are very large from German use of storm troopers and ability to use defense in depth.
  • With the advent of increasingly good quality anti tank guns towards the end of the year, in addition to land mines (used between the layers of the trenches), took an increasing toll on the Allied tanks.

1920
  • Major Allied attack is a disaster in Feb. New anti-tank weapons and mines devastate the slow moving tanks. Revised German tactics with troops on reverse slope, low troop levels in the front line, and three or more redundant trenches, minimizes German losses from Artillery. With the tanks neutralized and the Allied infantry devastated by machine guns the Allied losses were catastrophic.
  • The allies were focused on the new strategy of Tank penetration. Once this strategy was realized to have been proved false the Allies were bankrupt in there new ideas. Without any new strategy the desire to continue the struggle began to wane. Just like the Germans in real time 1918 where disillusion swept in after the failures the same happened to the Allies.
  • Peace talks begin in May.

Peace
  • German Brest – Litovk treaty left in place
  • Italians give Austria land in N Italy.
  • Serbia disbanded
  • Germany and France agree to disarm Alsace – Lorraine and a general vote was to be held in 1922 to determine their future.
  • Germany disbands there fleet (1/4 of the ships to remain)
  • Germany gives up her colonies.
  • Turkey gives up Palestine and other mid east areas.
 

Fellatio Nelson

Re. the Adriatic.

You are forgetting the French Navy. It's key assets were in the Mediterranean throughout WW1.

The blockade would only need sufficient heavy units to counter those few in the arsenals of AH and Ottoman Empire (including the German Goeben), the remainder being drawn from cruisers, destroyers, submarines and lesser units.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
This is all well-reasoned, but I think you are leaving out political considerations. The only one of the CP that wasn't dissolving into revolution was the Ottoman Empire, which was not doing so well militarily in 1918 and was reduced to a completely defensive posture.

On the Entente side, only Russia was going down by late in the war.

Austria-Hungary was basically shattered as a Power by the Brusilov Offensive, and Germany was running on fumes, not just due to the blockade.

The problem for the CP is that the economic and human resources of the Entente dwarved those of the CP, even without the United States. Even given a Russian collapse, German resources are spread too thin, and with Bulgaria fallen the Ottomans must withraw from the war (no strategic reserves left to mount defense of Istanbul from the direction of Bulgaria) and the Hapsburg underbelly is exposed.

I'm not sure that no US entry would even have delayed the end much, and delay is likely to increase Entente war aims, not diminish them.

trajen777 said:
I think one of the issues was that the resources from the Russia were just starting to pour into Germany at this time. These would have lessened the starvation that was becoming prevalent in the homeland. The German 1918 offence resulted in the high hopes for victory to be devestated, much as the defeats of France in 1916 had lead its army to mutiny. In addition the German troops were amazed at the resources captured in the trenches from the allies in 1918 which lead to a collapse of morale also. So morale, in the home front and the front line were based upon high hopes for the “promised victory in the West”, starvation, the entry of the USA, and the requirement of the fleet to make a Suicide attack.

Replace this with victory in Italy, No USA, no defeat in the West, and growing food and supplies coming in from captured Russia.

So 1918
  • Victory in Russia
  • Victory in Italy
  • Victory in Rumania
  • Defeat in Palestine
  • Deadlock in Balkans
  • Britain & France have gains based upon Tanks in West – but at large losses

1919
  • Germany gains significant resources in East from Russia
  • Sends troops which fight in Italy to Turkey / Balkans stop Turk / Austrian collapse
  • Western Powers, using tanks drive Germany from France. Allied losses are very large from German use of storm troopers and ability to use defense in depth.
  • With the advent of increasingly good quality anti tank guns towards the end of the year, in addition to land mines (used between the layers of the trenches), took an increasing toll on the Allied tanks.

1920
  • Major Allied attack is a disaster in Feb. New anti-tank weapons and mines devastate the slow moving tanks. Revised German tactics with troops on reverse slope, low troop levels in the front line, and three or more redundant trenches, minimizes German losses from Artillery. With the tanks neutralized and the Allied infantry devastated by machine guns the Allied losses were catastrophic.
  • The allies were focused on the new strategy of Tank penetration. Once this strategy was realized to have been proved false the Allies were bankrupt in there new ideas. Without any new strategy the desire to continue the struggle began to wane. Just like the Germans in real time 1918 where disillusion swept in after the failures the same happened to the Allies.
  • Peace talks begin in May.

Peace
  • German Brest – Litovk treaty left in place
  • Italians give Austria land in N Italy.
  • Serbia disbanded
  • Germany and France agree to disarm Alsace – Lorraine and a general vote was to be held in 1922 to determine their future.
  • Germany disbands there fleet (1/4 of the ships to remain)
  • Germany gives up her colonies.
  • Turkey gives up Palestine and other mid east areas.
Click to expand...
 

luakel

Abdul, with Italy out of the war Austria will be able to focus on the front in the Balkans... this will surely have an effect on the massive Allied attack there at the end of 1918?
 

Max Sinister

Banned
IOTL the Allies blocked the Adria too AFAIK. And the CPs had one or two million men left in the East when they attacked in France (which might've been used otherwhere).
 

trajen777

Banned
Abdul you might be very right however it seems as the war dragged on you say the High command build huge expectations on a breakthrough. As the offensives staggered towards nothing the troops looked at the incredible sacrifices they endured for a few 100 yards of dirt.

This happened in 1916 with France and Germany in 1918. Under this scenario France / GB are the crushed with incredible losses. The Germans had implemented very good defensive measures in 1917 and this would dramatically reduce there losses. In this circumstance they would have been above to shore up Austrian field forces until the Allies agree to a peace which gives GB and France most of what they want.

The political pressure you speak of spins on whether the loss of the Ottoman’s and Bulgaria has a huge impact on German ability to continue the war. The real question is if the loss of Italy balances this and whether the German army with the Austrian can check the Fr / Brit move up the Balkans. To me it came down to a war or will power. The loss of the 1919 battles by the German defense might tip the balance.
 

Chengar Qordath

As I recall, the gains Germany made during the 1918 offensive were enough cause quite a bit of worry among the Entente powers, and that was with the US in the Entente. Germany is in rather bad shape, but by 1918 pretty much all of the belligerant nations have suffered a heavy toll from the war. IMO, trying to continue the war for another two years would probably lead to the collapse of every belligerant except perhaps Britain which has not suffered as heavily as the Continental Powers.

Considering that the original post asks for a best-case scenario for Germany, I would suggest having the early panic caused by Germany's 1918 offensive magnified, thus prompting the Entente to open negotiations out of fear that continuing the war would allow Germany to make greater gains and worsen the Entente position at the eventual peace. The Germans offer generous terms to conclude negotiations and end the blockade as quickly as possible, largely contenting themselves with the vast territorial gains on the Eastern Front. Luxemburg remains a part of the Reich and is supplemented by the restoration of the Belgian lands part of traditional Duchy of Luxemburg, but the remainder of Belgium is restored to full independence. Germany's colonies remain in Entente hands, but a nominal payment is made to assuage German pride. Serbia and Romania cede disputed territories to Bulgaria and renounce their claims against Austria-Hungary. No reparations are paid by either side.

Another possibility is a simple Statuse quo Ante peace by mutual exhaustion, probably with a few minor concessions on each side to salve the belligerant powers' pride and allow them to claim victory for the domestic audience.
 

Max Sinister

Banned
The CPs might offer them Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunis and maybe a bit more, but if they crushed the Italian defenses, it's the question whether the Italian army would be useful for a new attack against France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top