The Collaborative Central Powers TL?

[Othniel]

I kind of feel that that has also been done, but I do like the idea - and it's good for my peeps!

It might have, but I've yet to see it. It probably should have been done before also, but in the case of the timeline its the ends rather than the means we should be focusing on imho.

 

[maverick]

No Schlieffen plan.

Instead a "Moltke plan" or something aimed at Russia.
Germany gets the nitrates from Belgium diplomatically instead of militarily.
Britain is neutral.
So is Japan.
France bleeds itself dry by attacking the fortified provinces of Alsace-Lorraine.

Would seem to be the more popular choice.

 

[LordKalvan]

There's very little hard information on it. Fisher wasn't a man for writing things down. There's a reconstruction of the probable nature in several old editions of Wargames Illustrated. that's where I heard of it. In brief, the plan was to capture Borkum (an island near Wilhelmshaven, well, nearer than the GF's home base), occupy it, enforce a close blockade, then use the GF to smash its way down past Denmark, landing the BEF in Pomerania at about the time of Tannenburg. There's considerable debate over whether it'd've worked or whether it'd've messed up the GF beyond repair. The HSF would have had to try to oppose it, though, since all substantial bodies of troops are either in Belgium/France or opposing the Russians.

The Baltic Plan is certainly fascinating, but I cannot convince myself that any British government might have accepted the risk of crippling the GF for the chance of finishing early the war. Betting everything on a roll of dice?

Gallipoli was another madness, but at least the risk was limited to loosing men, not crippling the fleet.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It might have, but I've yet to see it. It probably should have been done before also, but in the case of the timeline its the ends rather than the means we should be focusing on imho.

The only thing that gives me pause about doing this is that it could mean no British entry as it wouldn't entail the invasion of Belgium. I'm not sure Britain would be terribly bothered by Germany and Russia battering each other.

 

[Othniel]

The only thing that gives me pause about doing this is that it could mean no British entry as it wouldn't entail the invasion of Belgium. I'm not sure Britain would be terribly bothered by Germany and Russia battering each other.

The thing is, that they can reverse gears right through Beligium right after Russias been dealt with....that or some other event could set the Brits off.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The thing is, that they can reverse gears right through Beligium right after Russias been dealt with....that or some other event could set the Brits off.

Maybe - but Russia isn't going to be an easy target, and the French army is still a serious threat - especially to a Germany that has sent the bulk of its forces elsewhere...

 

[Othniel]

They will most certainly lose due to lack of nitrates, French pressure and better Russian defensive tactics.

They can get their nitrates from elsewhere if not blockaded by the British. They should only have to deal with Russia on the level they did on OTL. Germany in this era though was a bit crazy...

 

[Faeelin]

What about a neutral Italy, rather than an allied?

I presume it jumps in on the winning side in 1916, 1917....

 

[Othniel]

Maybe - but Russia isn't going to be an easy target, and the French army is still a serious threat - especially to a Germany that has sent the bulk of its forces elsewhere...

Germany just has to have enough to keep France off its soil. France's terrain is better situated for defense tactics anyways, even if their mindset is for the attack. In OTL Not enough was sent to Russia to start out with, and it ended up destoring the strengths of their offense on France to start with. Also without Great Britian reinforcing the French that leads to a weaker Front. Remeber in OTL that only 9% of the German army orginally went against Russia and that was a particular disaster in East Prussia. Say you left 45% (about half of what was at the western front in OTL) against France, and deployed 55% against Russia. It stands to reason that Russia would be more aptly dealt with, while the other front could be reenfoced from the Eastern Front if they had trouble without screwing up the over all plan.

 

[Nicole]

What about a neutral Italy, rather than an allied?

I presume it jumps in on the winning side in 1916, 1917....

That would be interesting as well... it would still free up more Austrian troops to fight Russia, which could help to prevent collapse on that front... (and the Austrian Navy, though one wonders what that would really do), but also allow France to keep its attention focused on Germany...

 

[Aussey]

Why don't they march through Luxembourg, or the Netherlands? Or by Sea? (To France, that is...)

 

[Glen]

Okay, we want:

A Britain that is still a great power, although humbled

Humbled? That's a hard one.

and weakened;

Much more doable, likely even.

the loss of Cyprus, its influence in Egypt, Kuwait.

There's a fantasy. Sorry, but I really don't believe you're going to find a way to beat the British in the Mediterranean, and without that I don't see them losing or leaving Egypt, not immediately.

However, you can force them to restore the relation ante-bellum for Egypt, and several years down the road, who knows?

Doubt you'll budge them from Kuwait in particular, but I'd be open to hearing ideas.

France that has thoroughly been defeated.

Not a problem.

Russia with a peace analgous to Brest-Litovsk.

Certainly doable. Happened OTL, after all.

Surviving Ottomans.

Nothing succeeds like success. Doable. Though what form it will take in a decade or two after is anyone's guess.

Can we do this? What else?

Mitteleurope?

Just a bit of advice; it'd be a more plausible timeline if the US stay out of the Entente side. No, the USA is not the Superpower of the time, but their entry will give a much needed morale boost, and they are a pretty big industry (if not economy until this war) to put at the disposal of the Entente.

 

[Nicole]

I agree with you about Britain... but I'd like to see the RN suffer at least one important defeat, even if it doesn't lead to anything. The myth of British invulnerability at sea needs to at least take a hit.

I think Kuwait will probably remain British... though I suppose if the Ottomans have some leverage over something else the British want more... (Not sure how they'd get it, though)

 

[Aussey]

I agree with you about Britain... but I'd like to see the RN suffer at least one important defeat, even if it doesn't lead to anything. The myth of British invulnerability at sea needs to at least take a hit.

I think Kuwait will probably remain British... though I suppose if the Ottomans have some leverage over something else the British want more... (Not sure how they'd get it, though)

I still think keep Britain neutral. Maybe if the war gets good (and long) enough...have them JOIN the Central Powers...afterall, France might have some colonies Britain would be interested in...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't know, Glen. If the war is over, Britain can either try to defend Egypt and Kuwait against the German and Ottoman armies, or it can come to some sort of accommodation. If the war ends before the British introduce conscription, they would have a very difficult time of it. It wouldn't take long to complete the Baghdad RR, and at that point large-scale operations against Egypt and/or Kuwait are possible.

If I were the British I'd give back Cyprus, which is of little value to Britain and was legally Ottoman in 1914, and maybe give Egypt independence. Kuwait was also legally Ottoman in 1914, so that's an easy give too - especially since there is no knowledge of oil yet.

Egypt is tougher, especially with the complicated codominion over the Sudan - maybe some sort of grant of independence? Sudan is split between Egypt and Uganda?

Humbled? That's a hard one.



Much more doable, likely even.



There's a fantasy. Sorry, but I really don't believe you're going to find a way to beat the British in the Mediterranean, and without that I don't see them losing or leaving Egypt, not immediately.

However, you can force them to restore the relation ante-bellum for Egypt, and several years down the road, who knows?

Doubt you'll budge them from Kuwait in particular, but I'd be open to hearing ideas.



Not a problem.



Certainly doable. Happened OTL, after all.



Nothing succeeds like success. Doable. Though what form it will take in a decade or two after is anyone's guess.



Mitteleurope?

Just a bit of advice; it'd be a more plausible timeline if the US stay out of the Entente side. No, the USA is not the Superpower of the time, but their entry will give a much needed morale boost, and they are a pretty big industry (if not economy until this war) to put at the disposal of the Entente.

 

[luakel]

I still think keep Britain neutral. Maybe if the war gets good (and long) enough...have them JOIN the Central Powers...afterall, France might have some colonies Britain would be interested in...

That won't happen unless France is incredibly stupid and treats Britain like the Entente never took place. Britain might declare "protection" over some French colonies but I doubt anything else...

I don't know, Glen. If the war is over, Britain can either try to defend Egypt and Kuwait against the German and Ottoman armies, or it can come to some sort of accommodation. If the war ends before the British introduce conscription, they would have a very difficult time of it. It wouldn't take long to complete the Baghdad RR, and at that point large-scale operations against Egypt and/or Kuwait are possible.

If I were the British I'd give back Cyprus, which is of little value to Britain and was legally Ottoman in 1914, and maybe give Egypt independence. Kuwait was also legally Ottoman in 1914, so that's an easy give too - especially since there is no knowledge of oil yet.

Egypt is tougher, especially with the complicated codominion over the Sudan - maybe some sort of grant of independence? Sudan is split between Egypt and Uganda?

Why should Britain lose anything? I could see the situation in the ME not really changing much at all. Britain establishes Kuwait and Cyprus as parts of the Empire (Egypt probably does get some semi-independence, as an excuse to seperate them from the Ottomans). In return, Britain stops support of any Arab Revolt and lets Turkey take Russia's place in northern Persia.

 

[Riain]

IOTL Germany consistently bought Russia to battle and won, as well as capturing half of France's industry and bleeding its army white. Why do the broad details of these successes need to be changed when small and realistic improvements to these broad sweeps can bring victory for the CP?

 

[Susano]

I'd like to see an early "win" for Germany in France, but have the war keep going until 1916 or 1917. After all, there will still be a rump France even with Paris gone, and as long as Britain's in Russia will be as well. I wonder where Britain would attack though, if the Russians are their main ally left some sort of Gallipoli seems likely (though an Ottoman defeat might go against a CP win). Probably they eventually come to the table after some sort of Jutland battle where Germany slightly wins and threatens sub warfare. Whether or not Germany still uses Lenin and co. to knock Russia out is debatable but probably unlikely.

I agree with this general frame.

There's very little hard information on it. Fisher wasn't a man for writing things down. There's a reconstruction of the probable nature in several old editions of Wargames Illustrated. that's where I heard of it. In brief, the plan was to capture Borkum (an island near Wilhelmshaven, well, nearer than the GF's home base), occupy it, enforce a close blockade, then use the GF to smash its way down past Denmark, landing the BEF in Pomerania at about the time of Tannenburg. There's considerable debate over whether it'd've worked or whether it'd've messed up the GF beyond repair. The HSF would have had to try to oppose it, though, since all substantial bodies of troops are either in Belgium/France or opposing the Russians.

WTF? Has that Fisher guy looked at a MAP even? Borkum is the westernmost of the GErman Frisisan Islands. Wilhelmshaven would be south of the eastern end of them. Wangerooge would be better thus. "Smash its way down Denmark", landing the BEF at the Baltic Sea, instead of the North Sea? Is there even any logic to it?
Well, yeah, I can certainly see how this spectacularily fails

They can refit the BEF and send it to attack somewhere around the Mediterranean. I'd say there's a good chance Turkey still joins in, just to secure Germany as an ally and maybe get some land in the Caucasus, and Italy might as well to get Tunisia. There'll be a few soft underbellies for the Brits to focus on even with France out.

Of course, if France is out entirely, the question is if its still worth fighting at all, or if then peace negotiations begin. Or if its just Paris taken, then the BEF can operate in West or South France.
Though, a horrendeous defeat for the BEF, something like Dunkerque without sucessful retreat, could be fun.

They will most certainly lose due to lack of nitrates, French pressure and better Russian defensive tactics.

Russian defensive tactcis? That is teh question: If they just charge, charge, charge as IOTL, then that wont be the problem. Thats what teh Scheiffen planners feared, that Russia coudl draw German troops in the interior, but IOTL they showed no indication for it.
And in the west front, the French senselessly charged Alsace-Lorraine without much sucess. I doubt they could sucessfuly get behind the double nartual barriere of Vosges and Rhine.

I wonder... what if we have Italy being convinced to join the CP, enticed by maybe Austrian concessions in the Tyrol (I doubt they'd give on Trieste or Dalmatia, though) and possible gains in France... This could result in keeping the war of a decent length but also giving the CP that extra edge...

Italy is the joker anyways. It could join the CP as well as the Entente anywas,, so theres no need to promise it Austrian lands (especially not such ur-austrian lands as Tyrol). Its enough to promise it Savoy, Ncie and maybe Corsica, and to have Italy see the CP winning. Italy is opportunistic, itll just join the winning side anyways.

As for GB, it is... well, not defeated but subdued if we assume a strictly neutral or even diplomatcially pro-CP USA. The unrestricted submarien warfare had Britain nearly starved (well, at leats as much a sthe British high sea blockade had Germany). With an USA just staying out of the submarine warfare Great Britain can be subdued, at least. It probably wouldnt give up any important colonies, butc ertainly enough to hand all German colonies back and accept all transfers of colonies from France and Belgoum to Germany, and maybe some unimportant colonies (those near the brink of independance, say).

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

That won't happen unless France is incredibly stupid and treats Britain like the Entente never took place. Britain might declare "protection" over some French colonies but I doubt anything else...

Why should Britain lose anything? I could see the situation in the ME not really changing much at all. Britain establishes Kuwait and Cyprus as parts of the Empire (Egypt probably does get some semi-independence, as an excuse to seperate them from the Ottomans). In return, Britain stops support of any Arab Revolt and lets Turkey take Russia's place in northern Persia.

If you look at a map, Kuwait is not the easiest place on earth to defend - with the war won, the Ottomans and Germans can reach all the way to Basra by rail with very little work. Likewise, the Ottomans extended the rail network deep into the Sinai for offensives against Egypt. Once the direct line to Berlin is complete, Egypt is going to be a strategic liability. Cyprus has little value, and in a victorious CP world, the surrender of all of Britain and France's significant investments in the OE, especially the Debt, are worth a little gesture or two. Having a friendly empire around bordering on also important investments in Egypt and Persia, not to mention a possible ally against Red Russia...

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

As for GB, it is... well, not defeated but subdued if we assume a strictly neutral or even diplomatcially pro-CP USA. The unrestricted submarien warfare had Britain nearly starved (well, at leats as much a sthe British high sea blockade had Germany). With an USA just staying out of the submarine warfare Great Britain can be subdued, at least. It probably wouldnt give up any important colonies, butc ertainly enough to hand all German colonies back and accept all transfers of colonies from France and Belgoum to Germany, and maybe some unimportant colonies (those near the brink of independance, say).

Keep in mind, though, that a loss is a huge blow to British prestige, and perhaps its ability to hold onto its empire.