What peace could Germany hope to get if it gave up in the Spring of 1918

If Germany assessed that a Spring Offensive is unlikely to bring the Entente down and decided to sit on the defensive, what terms could they get?

Alsace-Lorraine and it’s colonies would almost certainly be gone and it would have to withdraw from France/Belgium/Luxembourg. The Ottoman Empire isn’t something I see Germany fighting for.

What could Germany hope to keep here that it lost originally?

Avoid its territorial loses to Poland and Denmark?

Avoid reparations and demilitarization?

Hold Austria-Hungary together, and be allowed to annex Austria and Bohemia if AH does collapse?


Or would they get hit nearly as hard as the OTL?
 

Deleted member 1487

We have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty, as it would require negotiating, as Germany won't be surrendering unconditionally.
I don't know how it would be possible given the leadership at the time, but at a minimum they'd give up all the territories held in the West, plus A-L and their colonies. Perhaps they could negotiate for retention of some territories in the East, avoid a break up of the Ottomans and A-Hs, perhaps even get a true plebiscite based border layout in more places outside of the aforementioned, and probably get much reduced reparations payments without the damage inflicted during the Spring offensives and retreat from France that happened IOTL 1918.

They'd also have to give up a large portion of the fleet too.

Honestly I'd think the terms above are best case scenario, which is already grossly unacceptable to any German government, OTL or not, or the public.

Appealing to Wilson's 14 Points would be the best way to go and approaching Wilson directly would probably yield the best terms, especially before the American public was less willing to be charitable given combat losses in 1918, but Wilson's terms would mean giving up ALL war gains, effectively breaking up A-H and the Ottomans, losing A-L and the colonies, and giving up Poland, giving them access to the sea, and giving up all Polish majority areas. Plus anyone with half a brain would also know that they'd have to throw in things for the British and French, which means reparations and losing the fleet, plus per Wilson losing most of the army. So of course any government would rather fight it out than face certain death at the hands of the public to give up all that without a fight.
 
This scenario would require the German public who still thought they could win the war, to just stop and accept losing territory in the west which they had had before the war. The large sentiment after the war was that the Germans were on the brink of victory in 1918, and that they had been 'stabbed in the back'. A large scale revolution or coup would occur even if the Kaiser was dumb enough to go through on the deal Perhaps if the allies had conducted a large scale offensive that pushed the Germans back would a make a treaty acceptable. And as wiking said above, Woodrow Wilson's 14 points basically dashed any hopes of a decent deal for the Germans.
 

Deleted member 1487

This scenario would require the German public who still thought they could win the war, to just stop and accept losing territory in the west which they had had before the war. The large sentiment after the war was that the Germans were on the brink of victory in 1918, and that they had been 'stabbed in the back'. A large scale revolution or coup would occur even if the Kaiser was dumb enough to go through on the deal Perhaps if the allies had conducted a large scale offensive that pushed the Germans back would a make a treaty acceptable. And as wiking said above, Woodrow Wilson's 14 points basically dashed any hopes of a decent deal for the Germans.
Kind of hard to reverse years of propaganda in the media saying they were winning and if they just unleashed the Uboats they would win the war.
The 'Stabbed in the Back' myth came about a year after the war due to the specific efforts of Ludendorff to save his reputation. People at the time understood that the German army was defeated in the field and the German Civil War only happened after the war was long since lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth#Origins
The official birth of the term "stab-in-the-back" itself possibly can be dated to the autumn of 1919, when Ludendorff was dining with the head of the British Military Mission in Berlin, British general Sir Neill Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses, including that the home front failed the army.

Malcolm asked him: "Do you mean, General, that you were stabbed in the back?" Ludendorff's eyes lit up and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone. "Stabbed in the back?" he repeated. "Yes, that's it, exactly, we were stabbed in the back". And thus was born a legend which has never entirely perished.[6]

The phrase was to Ludendorff's liking, and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the "official" version, which led to it being disseminated throughout German society. It was picked up by right-wing political factions, and was even used by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the memoirs he wrote in the 1920s.[7]

Far right nutters rewrote history and as time went on the lie repeated over and over became the 'truth'.
 
Top