If we are having prewar maneauvres, can we have prewar command shakeups? I'd suggest the after the Dec 1912 'War Council' in Germany efforts are made to repair some of the command problems in the German armed forces. The Kaiser creates an OKW over and above the OHL and Navy, which brings the navy into the larger army plan. The navy contributes to the plan by agreeing to attempt to interdict the movement of the Brit army to France upon mobilisation. The OKW also sees the requirement for a higher command level on the right wing, and places Falkenhayen in command of the 3 armies of the right wing. This could allow the disruption of the deployment of the BEF in a scenario where every day is important, as well a providing the command level needed to encircle Lanzerac's 5th army.
The Collaborative Central Powers TL?
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
OKW in the Great War
I have a Great War OKW in Operation Unicorn. However it is not a result of prewar German wisdom but rather results from an attempt by Falkenhayn to promote a moderately successful Moltke into an largely ceremonial role. Tirpitz twists the idea to his own purposes after something happens Dec 16.
I have a Great War OKW in Operation Unicorn. However it is not a result of prewar German wisdom but rather results from an attempt by Falkenhayn to promote a moderately successful Moltke into an largely ceremonial role. Tirpitz twists the idea to his own purposes after something happens Dec 16.
For a pre-war POD, consider these thingies: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=50111
while i am not sure we can all agree on this it certainly sounds like something that is plausable enough to happen and it is also something witch in my idea wouldn't create to many butterfly's prewar.
i mean what would the entente members care if germany reorganizes its command structure?
Y'know, if we have this many defeats for the Brits in 1915 they'll probably give up by the end of the year. They might even end up selling out France & Russia in order to keep all of their prewar possessions...
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
That would be pretty tough. The best you could really expect was an attack that damaged the canal and shut it down for a time.
True. But I'm looking for anything that will absolutely smash Britain, since it seems to be the power that needs to get hammered.
How badly could a land force damage the Suez Canal?
Or, if we wanted to, we could have a nice, sizeable force cross the Canal when the end appeared near...with Italy (?) invading from Egypt, and the Ottomans from the east...just a thought.
Where do a majority of people say that? I know a few have, but there are others who agree with me that Britain would likely get out of the war relatively (at least compared to its allies) unharmed. That's why we need to set up some way of figuring out the basic points of this TL, like a few polls or something, before outlining the events...Of course, but that's what most people seem to want: Britain crushed.
i agree with you britain should be suffering some defeats but not to many, i mean come one there have been verry few if any wars with everything going right for one side and everything going wrong for the other i think that if we implement all or most things discussed earlyer adding this to would be realy pushing it.
also i would like britain to suffer more a los of prestige than of actuall power.
something like makeing jutland a clear german victory not big enough for it to change anything majorly but big enough to hurt britains presitge in the eyes of the world.
oh and the jutland thingy was just an example not nessasaraly a pod we should take.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think Britain will be hurtin'. The empire is largely held together with bluff and bravado. Losing will be a horrendous blow to prestige and cause problems all over the place.
Also, I stand by my point that the British aren't coming out of a peace settlement unscathed.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think that might be the most seriously bad thing that could possibly happend to Britain. Not only would it threaten Britain with invasion, it would remove the only thing that keeps the Empire in line.
not nessesaraly the HSF could be made to win a pyric victory, basicaly they win but pay such a high prize that they couldn't afford a nother battle pretty much like OTL only a bit more in the HSF favor so as that its not that both sides can claim victory.
and as i said its not a pod we need or maybe even should take but a nice example of how you could cripple britains prestige without cutting away to much of her power after all a couple of more cappitalships sunk (like 3 or 4) wouldn't nessesaraly dammage there powerbase that much in the over all sceam of things.
but ofcourse your right about it being the one thing that keeps the empire in line and thats why i took it as an example rather than a pod.
mmmmhhh.... how about the brits basicaly selling out there allies for better peace terms either with a ceperate peace or at the negotioation table, what ya think would that do it?
Can't deny this. But in the end this might actually be beneficial to the Empire, as they adopt better policies to keep some of the more rowdy colonies in the fold. More dominions, perhaps?
And I stand by my view that they will.
That definitely seems more likely to me, though I doubt the Britain gets hurt bad group will like it. I just don't see Britain staying in till the end and then giving up, say, Egypt so that France can keep a bit more of Alsace.
Well...that would be what the rest of the TL would deal with, correct?
Why should they? They're on the losing side, and this doesn't need to be a repeat of the XX Century Timeline...
Oh no, it won't be like that. It will be England losing Egypt, and being glad to get away with just that, while France gets Versailles-ed.
Not if most of the Empire is either lost or in revolt, as some seem to want. In such a case Britain itself may not be immune to revolution.
It won't be. This Britain, whether it loses parts of the Empire or not, isn't going to be joining Germany in a war against Russia and France. Assuming those countries are even strong enough to start another war.
And why would England stay in long enough to have its back to the wall in such a way? After a Gallipoli worse than OTL, a lost naval battle in the North Sea, and with Suez possibly blocked off, many in her majesty's govt. will be realizing that perhaps Russia and France (having had no victories either) aren't worth staying in the war for. Better to let Germany have its way with them, and get out of the war quick and without losing anything.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
This is just not realistic. If Britain is on the losing side, Britain is going to lose stuff. F@#$ing over your allies after losing a war is the best way to remain isolated and sidelined. You seem to be taking the view that losing the war could be a great thing for the empire. I suggest maybe you should write your own TL instead of collaborating in one, since the point of this is to avoid Britwank for once.