To the Victor, Go the Spoils (Redux): A Plausible Central Powers Victory
- Thread starter TheReformer
- Start date
kham_coc
Banned
Well there is negative value in doing so, as doing so means the Germans have an excuse to go there and kick the Brits out.
What they should presumably do is say that they will leave when relived by French troops, that way Germany can't just backtrack on armistice (not that they would).
Germany wouldn't benefit by attacking the BEF given that their forces in front of the BEF would both be narrowly outnumbered and also withdrawing.
No value to an assault, nor any value to Britain remaining which therefore undermines the value of attacking them further. If Britain refused to evacuate, which they wouldn't, Germany would attack - but Britain doesn't even need the ports.
The actual value of the channel ports is vastly overblown, particularly as British forces would make them unusable for U-Boats prior to their exit.
I wonder if the British are going to sink the French fleet like when they pulled out at Dunkirk in WW2, or if are they not quite that dedicated to the cause of a continued war.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, it is my understanding that in this period, before decent bombers, attacking a Fleet in port was plain suicide.
Too risky. They'd have to raise steam, launch their fleet down to French ports, smash into them, sink the French fleet, and escape. All while the German fleet doesn't intervene in any way.
Even for Churchill, too high risk low reward.
That's (1) very risky logistics-wise and (2) politically unwise, they would be shutting themselves out of the continent with this.
Last edited:
I think it's worth noting that there are lots of different forms of war.
For example in the 19th century people would walk around taking each others capitals in a war and that would be kind of it - provided you also destroyed the enemy's capability to resist by beating their army in a decisive battle.
By WW2 that had changed significantly, countries fought totally and to the end because if they did not they would be completely occupied and subjected to total war terms. This is reflected in Britain, the Soviet Union etc. This was also partly because it was a more ideological conflict.
WW1 meanwhile was a bit of a weird war. It was fought using conventional 19th century norms, but 20th century weapons. As such while there were not those rapid armoured breakthroughs, fighting was on a mass, national scale, but the norms and principles of war remained the same. If an enemy took or threatened your capital/national integrity, you'd surrender. Everyone would sign a nice treaty and everyone would respect it. This can be seen in the real armistice, the Romanian armistice, Russian armistice etc.
Thus, in this scenario there would be no need to blow up the French fleet. Britain plans on fighting a longer war, but only against Germany. The French fleet could never be compelled into entering the conflict, and if Germany demanded that the ships be handed over in a peace settlement they'd have to include that in the text of the treaty - which would almost certainly lead to that fleet being scuttled or sunk long before delivery.
Tis the same for why Germany wouldn't just snake their armies into Normandy now, or attack the BEF during withdrawal. That's just not the "appropriate" way to fight a war right now.
Anyway, little bit of strategic studies for ya.
By August 1918 the Bolsheviks and Germany still have a cooperative relationship (working together on Unternehmen Schlußstein, for example) and even the German military was divided on whether to work against or with the Bolsheviks, not to mention the govt. Ludendorff was for an intervention since June but, iirc, Paul von Hintze was for working with the Soviets against the Whites. Now that an armistice is in the West though the factor is heavily against any pro-soviet intervention (German aversion to supporting the Whites was because they wanted to rejoin the war), but in Aug 1918 the Reds appear like a dying force, hammered from every side, while Germany itself is still on the verge on massive postwar resentment (the Spartacists have yet to rise up after all). It might take time for Germany to choose to focus on the east.
Wonder how German and Allied interventions would interact though, the Entente has already landed in Murmansk, Vladivostok and Baku at this point.
To be honest, I think that USSR in a long term is beneficial to Germany purely from geopolitical approach.
A) USSR will not be getting into any alliances with either UK, Italy or France, due to perception of communist ideology as radical and dangerous, and henceforth will remain isolated on world stage, the only way spreading influence would be forced one.
B) USSR can forget about investments from any of the big economics of '20s. Say so to technological assistance. OTL USSR cooperated with Germany throughout 20s in those areas.
What we are getting? USSR that is significantly weaker economically and population-wise, is politically isolated from the rest of the world, and is a technological backwater.
If Whites win, they won't be isolated, they will be internationally recognized, and their path to economic cooperation, recovery and technology exchange will be much easier thn Soviet one.
I am willing to bet, Germans wouldn't intervene, they will supply White movement with whatever resources, while consolidating their hold on MittleEuropa. Ideal outcome for Germany would be protracted Civil War, bloodier than OTL, from which Reds emerge victorious. Such Russia will be in no shape to go against Germany even in 20 years.
A) USSR will not be getting into any alliances with either UK, Italy or France, due to perception of communist ideology as radical and dangerous, and henceforth will remain isolated on world stage, the only way spreading influence would be forced one.
B) USSR can forget about investments from any of the big economics of '20s. Say so to technological assistance. OTL USSR cooperated with Germany throughout 20s in those areas.
What we are getting? USSR that is significantly weaker economically and population-wise, is politically isolated from the rest of the world, and is a technological backwater.
If Whites win, they won't be isolated, they will be internationally recognized, and their path to economic cooperation, recovery and technology exchange will be much easier thn Soviet one.
I am willing to bet, Germans wouldn't intervene, they will supply White movement with whatever resources, while consolidating their hold on MittleEuropa. Ideal outcome for Germany would be protracted Civil War, bloodier than OTL, from which Reds emerge victorious. Such Russia will be in no shape to go against Germany even in 20 years.
A good analysis. Tho one I doubt the Germans would make.
I agree they will try and make the civil war protracted, but their end goal will be White victory. Communists made everyone freak out, and Germany would be no exception.
The problem is that if they help the USSR, sooner or later, they'll turn on Germany. Communism is fundamentally incompatible with the German Empire, after all.
Soviets had plenty of foreign investment. They had foreign concessions since 1920s. Some of their newly built industrial cities were literally designed by American industrialists.
Having purged local capitalists, they had to invite foreign ones to actually be able to continue their industrialization.
And any "Red" disturbances taking place in Germany will be seen as inspired by events in Russia. Everything else aside, Bolsheviks cannot succeed because by doing so they'll give German radicals some ideas.
Last edited:
This was IOTL due to Soviet Union controlling large swathes of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Caucasus. In TTVGTS, Soviets would probably hold only Central Asia, and so US will more likely invest in Ukraine, Baltics, Belarus, and Caucasus statelets. Soviet Union will be basically confined to OTL Russian Federation + parts of Central Asia. Americans invested heavily into the area of Ukrainian SSR OTL. I've been born in Donbas. Half of the industrial cities here were founded either in 1880-1910 timeframe, either 1926-1940. They will do so too here... except it will be Ukrainian State.
Only such area liable for investitions that is potentially under control of USSR, is Kuzbass/Western Siberia.
I didn't write any word on Germany helping Soviets. They ideally for them will be supporting weaker side to prolong RCW. And if Russia tries to invade MittleEuropa sometime in 40s-50s, this won't matter to current German leadership. After all they'd be dead at this point, and by the 40s Germany would completely consolidate it's hold onto Eastern Europe, and will be likely to win this "rematch"
German Freikorps crushed Spartakist Revolution on their own in November 1918-January 1919. To suppose any kind of communist revolution in Germany that has triumphed in Great War, will be... quite an assumption, lest I say so.
They weren't saying Red efforts in Germany would succeed, but that Germany wouldn't want to give them ideas.
And as for your reply to my comment, when you say things like "OTL USSR cooperated with Germany throughout 20s in those areas." it sounds a lot like you're suggesting TTL Germany should do the same since everyone else is locked out of the USSR.
The White regime was even more anti-German than the Reds in some ways. I don’t think they’d be boneheaded enough to refuse any German aid that’s offered, but that wouldn’t buy their cooperation with the Mitteleuropa project. The next generation of German elites is gonna be pretty hacked off whether the enemy is waving the hammer and sickle or the tricolor.
Protest and Rebellion Observing the Peace (July - September 1918)
Protest and Rebellion
Observing the Peace
July - September 1918
With the allies having thrown in the towel by early August and France having sought terms by the start of July, the shock of the war coming to an end came as bittersweet news throughout the warring empires.
In Germany, the news of France’s surrender was naturally met with elation and joy, with crowds of celebrating citizens being seen throughout the major German, Austrian and even Turkish cities. Yet the surrender of France did little in reality to actually end the war for your everyday German. While letters no longer came home from the western front speaking of the horrors of the conflict, the German and Austrian people were left with a strange sense of being adrift between their victory and the seemingly endless consequences that followed.
In Austria the logistics systems of the economy had largely already begun to collapse, while in both Austria and Germany the British blockade of the coast and the lack of a firm peace treaty compelling the French or any other defeated party to feed Germany meant that the country continued to starve. Demobilised troops from both empires soon found themselves wandering home into a land devoid of jobs and lacking any platform to voice their concerns, while Austria couldnt even demobilize due to the Italian advance.
While in Germany promises of political reform had already been made, offering universal or ‘staggered’ suffrage giving soldiers and other groups additional votes, Austria had made few clear commitments to reform and was a state so constitutionally chaotic that many of those with influence were far from being able to compel the Austro-Hungarian Government into reform.
In the allied states meanwhile, ironically the most adversely affected state would be Britain who had seen a gradual rise of annual striking workers rise from 10% in 1914 to 25% by 1918 - but continued to fight on. Having initially called for the war to continue in the Balkans, Italy and the Levant, British Prime Minister Lloyd George had resigned long before on May 10th and now Conservative Party leader Bonar Law had been tasked with picking up the pieces.
With the Italian and Balkan fronts out of the window, a debate in Parliament and Britain as a whole quickly ensued over what precisely to do now the war on the continent was essentially over. For the Conservatives the answer was clear; continue to prosecute the war until the Turks collapsed and the Germans agreed to a conditional and favourable peace - lest they starve. For the Labour Party meanwhile, who had long withdrawn from the coalition in April, voices demanding not just immediate end to the war, universal suffrage and elections, but also revolution, were rapidly growing.
The French Haze
Far from revolution though, Britain was peaceful compared to the likes of France and Italy. She continued to chug along, unclear of the nation’s destination but determined to see through to the finish whatever that destination would be. Parliament, aligned firmly behind Bonar Law who everyone knew needed to win something, anything, to defeat Labour in the surely upcoming elections, firmly backed whatever the Prime Minister wished, and with a firm Government majority the country had no sense of backsliding yet. Britain's former allies though met the news of the armistice with different but similar responses.
In France, a public utterly exhausted from the war reeled in shock at the defeat, but did not immediately react. Protests did rise, and marches by veterans organisations and small paramilitary bands of reservists did erupt throughout July and August in major French cities, but by and large the country waited with baited breath for the result of peace negotiations. This was in part because many Frenchmen did not believe Germany had agreed to peace, and because despite their shaken faith in the US commitment to the war, some political groupings naively just assumed the Government was just buying time to strengthen other fronts.
While the August general armistice shattered this illusion, by then the French people had largely reconciled themselves to the defeat. Now defeated in the last two major wars with Germany, the Reich felt unassailable and for many Frenchmen the Boulangerist irredentism that sprung up after the Franco-Prussian war now felt more hopeless than emotionally uplifting. Instead, many Frenchmen simply abandoned faith in their country’s might - and looked to uplift their own personal circumstances. Trade Union membership in France boomed with the highest ever recorded number of sign-ups through July and August 1918, while strikes began to grow across the country - particularly in the war-battered north.
Despite this, France too was far from revolution. A well industrialised state with a large but not dominating trade union movement and industrial centres that largely sat in the occupied north, the country was paralyzed behind a wall of German boots and unable to lash out at their political leaders while German forces remained in French territory.
This was further limited by the ongoing German occupation of the north, which would continue until ink was on a Treaty. Prime Minister Callieaux meanwhile ran a cabinet deeply distrusted by the country, and seen as merely the men walking the country to the gallows with smiles on their faces. Callieaux, respected among the radicals, survived in power solely because nobody wanted his job - not under current conditions.
Some in the military did pine for the opportunity to overturn what was increaisngly viewed as a weak and divisive republican system and return the Monarchy, but in practice this would merely aggrevate the country further and thus figures silently pushing for a coup found themselves sidelined. This was not to say that monarchism was not supported among the military - in fact the Military was dominated by conservative former veterans of Napoleon III's wars of conquest. It merely meant that any return of the monarchy would have to be well executed and coordinated, particularly as monarchism had little to no constituency left in the country besides among the fringe right. Thus, to introduce a monarchy once more during a time of enormous political upheaval and during negotiations with Germany would be foolish.
France, it seemed, simply felt defeated in all senses. It's people had lost the will to resist, it's economy was obliterated, it's soul was lost - what more could Germany take?