What if Germany evacuates France in August 1918

Lets say after the Battle of Amiens in 1918 the Germans decide to evacuate France and Belgium to the German 1914 fontier line. They do this to create reserves some of which are sent to Italy (6 divisions), and Salonika (3 divisions) a divsion to the Dardanelles and a regiment to Palestine to bar the "back doors".

After Amiens Ludendorf realizes the war is lost (as in OTL) but here he figures if Germany can hold out until 1919, the peace dicated will be an American peace which might not be too bad (and maybe, perhaps wishful thinking, Germany can keep some easter gains as compensation).

Ludendorf doesn't want Germany to be drawn into a war of attrition on the western front and also needs to be able to keep ownership of the newly acquired eastern resources to keep the war going.

At the same time the submarine war is shut down as a waste of resources, the Navy's job is to hold the Baltic and Black seas and nothing else.

It is announced through the Dutch that Germany will evacuate Belgium and France as "good will" torward a compromise peace without any demolitions if not molested during the retreat. At the same time the stoppage of the submarine war is announced as a good will measure. Germany was going to do these things anyway in this TL but might as well try to make somthing out of it.

Could Germany hold out in this TL until well into 1919?
 
Assuming that Ludendorfs emotional breakdown is avoided I'm not sure what this would achieve.

Withdrawing the army to the 1914 frontiers but still continuing the war is more risky than OTL strategy IMO.

The biggest problem is German army morale. It was already in steep decline and abandoning all their gains means that everyone has died for nothing and now the Allies are being allowed to reach the German frontier.

I think this would result in a loss of faith in the High Command and would lead to the removal of Ludendorf. No one is going to follow a General who launched a disastrous offensive and is now throwing away EVERYTHING the German army has achieved in the West. Also if the High Command has accepted that the war is lost then why not just end the war?

If France and Belgium get all their territory back they would be stronger in 1919.

The Allies would also have more divisions free for other theatres.

Finally the Americans would be less generous than OTL if they had to fight longer and take more casulaties. In OTL the Americans had only been 'fighting' for about 5 months when the armistice was signed.
 

Cook

Banned
Could Germany hold out in this TL until well into 1919?
No. The German army was smashed by the Allies on the first day of the offensive; Ludendorff’s ‘Black day of the German Army’. After that the German’s could slow the allies, but they simply did not have sufficient forces to stop the Allied offensive.
 
Assuming that Ludendorfs emotional breakdown is avoided I'm not sure what this would achieve.

Withdrawing the army to the 1914 frontiers but still continuing the war is more risky than OTL strategy IMO.

The biggest problem is German army morale. It was already in steep decline and abandoning all their gains means that everyone has died for nothing and now the Allies are being allowed to reach the German frontier.

I think this would result in a loss of faith in the High Command and would lead to the removal of Ludendorf. No one is going to follow a General who launched a disastrous offensive and is now throwing away EVERYTHING the German army has achieved in the West. Also if the High Command has accepted that the war is lost then why not just end the war?

If France and Belgium get all their territory back they would be stronger in 1919.

The Allies would also have more divisions free for other theatres.

Finally the Americans would be less generous than OTL if they had to fight longer and take more casulaties. In OTL the Americans had only been 'fighting' for about 5 months when the armistice was signed.

My thought was that that since the Germans lost France OTL, that a withdrawl to shorter lines, and a temporary reprieve from the daily attrition, as well as proping up her allies might put the Germans in a position to achieve terms better than the Nov 1918 OTL terms (which were almost an unconditional surrender OTL leaving Germany powerless to resist further). Also wondering if the Allies had liberated France and Belgium and if the Germans were willing to negotiate that the average soldier might not be willing to launch costly offensives into the German frontier fortifications like Metz.

However, Your points are valid that the politics of withdrawing from these hard won places might make a withdrawl impossible even if there was some foresight of the ultimate failed result.

I find it interesting the the Germans went from advancing in July 1918 to complete and utter defeat in November 1918, just 4 months, it seems there has to be a TL in there somewhere that the Germans / Central Powers could do better.
 
I find it interesting the the Germans went from advancing in July 1918 to complete and utter defeat in November 1918, just 4 months, it seems there has to be a TL in there somewhere that the Germans / Central Powers could do better.

Not necessarily. The Germans were advancing in the summer of 1942, too, and in six months you get Stalingrad. The Waterloo campaign began with a French advance and French victories, and in a few days you get Waterloo.
 
My thought was that that since the Germans lost France OTL, that a withdrawl to shorter lines, and a temporary reprieve from the daily attrition, as well as proping up her allies might put the Germans in a position to achieve terms better than the Nov 1918 OTL terms (which were almost an unconditional surrender OTL leaving Germany powerless to resist further).

I am not convinced that the german military could successfully disengage across almost the entire western front. They would need to withdraw all their troops and material a significant distance and then dig in again closer to home in preparation for defending against the allies if they followed (which they would).

That kind of operation would require incredible amounts of planning and co-ordination, something I am not convinced they could do. Moving that many men in a very short time period would be next to impossible, how do you get the orders out? How can you be sure that all units received them? How do you move so many men down train tracks and roads all at the same time?
At the first sign of a withdrawal the allies would respond, and if you (the german army) get your timing a little wrong you could find formations of allied troops behind your lines cutting off your withdrawing forces.

I dont think that the logistical support was there for such an operation, and given that supplies were getting thin anyway, this kind of move could actually cause you to run out altogether.

And if they did manage it, what reasons would you have for the allies not moving with all haste to crush you? They would likely see it as a sign of total desperation on the part of germany, a last ditch attempt to hold on, which would spur them on to acheive final victory.

I cant think of any reason why a slightly longer war would encourage the allies to be more generous in the final terms, if anything they would be worse. The germans could not hold on forever, and a longer war, with more casualties would not encourage better feelings than already existed in 1918.
 
Churchill in his world crisis book about WW1 thought the Germans could have disengaged by just sowing mines and booby traps randomly with delayed action fuses so that the allied advance would be so cautious the Germans would have to get away.

OTL the Germans managed to evacuate what they had left of France and Belgium in a short period of time due to the armistace terms.

Certainly you guys are right though, that what might seem a logical retreat can lead to disaster, the Bulgarian September 1918 front is an example.
 
It seems to me that to do this, the Germans would have had to begin their 1918 offensive with a highly detailed plan for strategic retreat all the way to German borders if it failed. Logistically, how could this be done without chaos? Also, wouldn't the detailed retreat plan have to be shared with all command officers who would implement it at the same time they are initiating plans for a great offensive to win the war? Wouldn't this filter down the ranks to the poor sods (or their commanders), making German morale even worse. Talk about mixed messages.

Now, if Germany opted to do this strategic repositioning on its own, without having any offensive to begin it, and without it seeming to be a military retreat, it might be a useful step in obtaining a slightly better armistice deal. The Allies might not be prepared to immediately take military advantage of the sudden German withdrawal, Germany would have scored some PR points with the US (who has not yet done much fighting), and they's have a lot more fresh troops behind defensive lines at the German border. Couple this with an armistice offer that incorporates many of Wilson's 14 points, is it possible they could end up with something better than Versailles?
 
I find it interesting the the Germans went from advancing in July 1918 to complete and utter defeat in November 1918, just 4 months, it seems there has to be a TL in there somewhere that the Germans / Central Powers could do better.

Catspoke

I think the key point was that the German army had been bled white by nearly four years of combat. Then they have their spring offensives, which raise the chimera of victory in the west, before it was dashed with very heavy losses. Also one thing they noticed during their advances had been how massively supplied the allies were compared to them.

Basically I think the German army was fragile materially and moral wise and the failure of the offensive, followed quickly by powerful allied offensives that smashed through powerful defensive lines, broke their will to fight. There were a number of examples of demoralisation coupled with a loss of nerve by the military leadership.

What I have wondered might have worked would have been sticking on the defensive in 1918 and offering peace, including a withdrawal from Belgium and occupied France. This wouldn't have been accepted immediately but if the allies had suffered heavy loses and made limited progress against German defences, coupled with divisions in the allied camp then they might have got some compromise peace. Still probably unlikely but more likely than gambling everything on one last gasp attack which I think had no real chance of success.

Steve
 
You are still at war.

Even if you manage this and shorten your lines you lose all the resources of Belgium and France and bring the Allied armies that much closer to the Rhine. The American Army is already there in force and the British and French are not any more willing to make a soft peace. On the contrary they will likely view this retreat as a sign of weakness and with US troops available they will be as determined as in OTL to inflict a punitive peace.

The German Army is already at the breaking point and revolution is starting to erupt on the homefront. If the Germans actually had the strength to resist it would have made more sense to keep fighting on French soil until the Allies were forced to the negotiating table.

At the absolute best maybe you can hold on the Rhine until Spring assuming you don't have a revolution. After that though it's over; the Germans are literally starving and the army can't keep fighting. The final treaty is likely to be just as harsh or even slightly worse.
 
LOTLOF

Just to clarifying you are replying to Catspoke rather than me?

Steve

You are still at war.

Even if you manage this and shorten your lines you lose all the resources of Belgium and France and bring the Allied armies that much closer to the Rhine. The American Army is already there in force and the British and French are not any more willing to make a soft peace. On the contrary they will likely view this retreat as a sign of weakness and with US troops available they will be as determined as in OTL to inflict a punitive peace.

The German Army is already at the breaking point and revolution is starting to erupt on the homefront. If the Germans actually had the strength to resist it would have made more sense to keep fighting on French soil until the Allies were forced to the negotiating table.

At the absolute best maybe you can hold on the Rhine until Spring assuming you don't have a revolution. After that though it's over; the Germans are literally starving and the army can't keep fighting. The final treaty is likely to be just as harsh or even slightly worse.
 
Churchill in his world crisis book about WW1 thought the Germans could have disengaged by just sowing mines and booby traps randomly with delayed action fuses so that the allied advance would be so cautious the Germans would have to get away.

OTL the Germans managed to evacuate what they had left of France and Belgium in a short period of time due to the armistace terms.

Certainly you guys are right though, that what might seem a logical retreat can lead to disaster, the Bulgarian September 1918 front is an example.

Firstly, I very much doubt that the germans could mount enough booby traps and mines over HUNDREDS of miles of territory to be in anyway effective. Where would you plant them? In the trenches? Well the allies dont need to stop in your trenches as they are going to be following you. The best they could try to do is blow up the roads etc once they have withdrawn, that might slow them a bit (but not enough I think).

Not to mention the amount of time and planning that such an operation would take, as well as making it pretty clear to all your troops what you were planning. Which increases the risk of the allies finding out about it and preparing to stomp you when you try to withdraw.

Because it wouldnt take a big gap to let the allies through, get some fast moving columns through in a number of different places (something that is almost certainly possible no matter what booby traps you leave behind) and you can cause havoc with the german troops as they try to retreat.

Yes, they managed to pull out troops from Belgium, but the key point there was that they were not in combat at the time. They didnt have to worry about securing their rear or being shelled/cut off by allied attacks.

To attempt this kind of wartime operation in 1918 with the limited communications abilities that existed is next to impossible. It would invite massive casualties and confusion.
 
I find it interesting the the Germans went from advancing in July 1918 to complete and utter defeat in November 1918, just 4 months, it seems there has to be a TL in there somewhere that the Germans / Central Powers could do better.

Not really. By then the German army was running on fumes.
 
Wouldn't it crush Germany morale completely and give the allies a huge morale boost? I mean a retreat like this could even turn into a rout especially with the communication being bad at the time. And retreating to their border mean exposing germany proper to an invasion if the allies succeed at taking German land well I think France might finaly get her border on the Rhine.
 
Churchill in his world crisis book about WW1 thought the Germans could have disengaged by just sowing mines and booby traps randomly with delayed action fuses so that the allied advance would be so cautious the Germans would have to get away.
With all due respect to Winnie and his personal courage I'd take the opinion on military matters of the man who masterminded Gallipoli and the Norway Intervention, among others, with a barrel full of salt.
 
Anyway, you'd have a higher chance of getting a peace treaty if the Germans committed their eastern reserves - some sixty divisions, I believe - fully to the great 1918 offensive. Either way by 1918 the Germans are done.
 
Top