Which is more likely? CP victory or Nazi victory?

Well, which is more likely?

  • Central Powers victory

    Votes: 87 83.7%
  • Nazi victory

    Votes: 12 11.5%
  • Thande, BBUH

    Votes: 5 4.8%

  • Total voters
    104
BTW I had a WW1 game from Avalon Hill in which I kept the German right wing strong.I rolled up the French in 2 months.
 
CP victory. They started peace talks at a bad point for them, but when the war got better for them, they really didn't feel like fighting anymore anyway. It could easily have been the French to start peace talks at a low point, then keep going anyway once it improved.
 

General Zod

Banned
In WWI both sides had their miracles initially, the Germans at Tannenberg and the French on the Marne, POD one of these out, and the war will probably end on that front very soon after. As a large part of the miracle at Tanneberg stemmed from incredibly incompetent Russian leadership I guess we all other things being equal need more and larger PoDs to let the Russians exploit a more favourable situation than the Germans need to exploit an absent mriacle on the Marne. Not that I think of German armies sweeping over northern France Blitzkrieg style, but I think the French government and the alliance with GB will have a fair chance of collapsing if the Front waver any more than in OTL.

Next question is how close the French came to collapse at Verdun, not far IMHO, and having Petain choke in a fois gras sandwich might do the trick.

In Italy the Italians until mid 1918 were closer to quitting than the Austrians - imagine the Italian government panicking in October 1917 (perhaps sans a brutal Cadorno to stop the rout) and quitting alongside the Russians. On top of some added pessimism on Entente side, that might give the 1918 spring offensive the extra ompfh to roll up the Entente in France. Although the Austro-Hungarians had their trouble with some unit's loyalty and enthusiasm, it would not be difficult to find say 30 high quality Divisions and add them to the 1918 spring offensive in France.

The biggest Entente chance IMO lies in Russia. Either a more competent Russian leadership in 1914 or a better planned and executed Gallipoli offensive in 1915. If the Bosporus is opened to Entente traffic, the Russian army from then on will be quite another matter than in OTL, and I doubt if the CPs can hold on.

But all in all, and IMHO, where the CP in WWI had close to 50-50 chance of winning, the Axis in WWII hardly approach a 20% chance.

I agree with your points, I would just point out that another very good PoD for CP victory is the German government successfully bullying and/or persuading A-H to give Trento (not Bozen), Trieste (with customs extemption for Germany and A-H), and Gorizia-Gradisca to Italy in 1914-1915. At that point, the Italian government can be easily swept in taking the side of the CPs with promises of other irredentist booty from France (Savoy, Nice, Corsica, and Tunisia). Italy declares war on France in 1914-15, and the French-British have a good chance of crumbling under the perspective of suddenly having to redeploy 25-30% of their effectives on the Alps, especially if the Germans and Italians coordinate their attacks on both fronts for maximum exaustion of French and British reserves, and/or part of the Italian Army is moved on the German front, as per Triple Alliance old military protocols.

Even in the case that France miracolously succeeds in stabilizing both fronts, likely with massive British help (which means no Gallipoli and no Somme), the whole bulk of A-H army can be redeployed on the Russian front, which means the Russians will be on their knees by 1915-1916. If the British still go for Gallipoli, they will have far less manpower to help the French withstand the German-Italian onslaught in 1915.

Once Russia is out of the picture in 1916, combined pressure of the near-complete German, A-H, and Italian armies, minus whatever may be necessary to occupy the ex-Russian territories ceded by the Brest-Litovsk deal, on the Franco-British will surely break them. Well before the Germans feel the need to use unrestricted submarine warfare and give USA an excuse to enter the war.
 
Well, the title says it all - which would you think more plausible, a Central Powers victory in World War One, or a Nazi victory in WWII?

CP. The Central Powers' goals were a lot more reasonable and short-ranged. Thus, they were easier to achieve and implement- the crucial component of a victory.

Whereas the Nazi's and their petty allies had more far-reaching and stressful goals, and hadn't the economy to sustain operations to achieve them. World conquest is damn near impossible, and Nazi Germany's defeat in a sustained conflict was inevitable.
 
I voted CP though I was going to vote Axis at first. In my opinion the Axis started from a better base, counting on more allies, better tactics, divided opponents and obviously, modern weapons. Imperial Germany, on the other hand, spent the previous years of the war pissing off all possible allies at some point (Russia, Britain, Japan, Italy, the USA...) and courting countries that weren't going to be of any real help in case of total war (AH, Turkey, Republican China, Mexico...) and went straight to get bogged down on a trench war in France.

So, as a resume, I could say that the CP achieved an astonishing level of efficiency from a poor base, while the Axis threw all her initial advantages through the window chasing impossible objectives. The CP had rotten feet but the Axis had rotten brains. That is why the CP, despite starting from a worse position, ended having more chances of victory in the end.
 
Top