WI: BEF draws up at Amiens?

BlondieBC

Banned
Italy was militarily irrelevant. In both wars really.

Without Italy in the war, the Entente lose barring something really odd. The CP had a good second half of 1915, and without Italy in the war it gets even better. There is a whole chain of events that come from Italy not joining. Bulgaria likely enters early, which roles up Serbia faster. In mid-1915, A-H has about 10 more divisions to use or divert their supplies. Later in the war it is several extra armies. A-H went up to 55 year old men in the army. Here they will not have to go above 50. Economy works better. It avoid the blunder in 1916 by Conrad. With only one front to fight, he can't pick the least important theater. Romania does not enter the war with no great Russian offensive success. Even with this success they will be less likely since A-H has a lot more divisions hanging around the Romanian border or in reserve. In 1915, Russia will lose more land since there are more A-H divisions attacking them. Russia takes higher losses from mid-1915 to the end of the war. Russia is much more likely to make peace. Romanian grain makes the food situation better in the CP. Blockading in the A-H fleet is harder due to avoiding Italian territorial waters and not being able to use Italian ports. Italy probably sells weapons to the CP.

And a lot of these effects are cumulative. And it may be a bit easier to see if you look at a potential combination of them. Serbia is out of the war a few months earlier either to Bulgaria entering sooner or A-H just using available units not fighting on Italian border. Gallipoli goes worse for the Entente as Germany sends extra reinforcements. By the time Bulgaria enters IOTL, A-H forces excluding occupation forces are in Serbia on Russian front. A-H will attack Russia in the fall. Probably without great gains unless they can take Serbia fast enough to avoid the Germans losing the momentum in August. At the end of the year, A-H has taken equal or fewer casualties than OTL. Russia has taken noticeably more (over 100K + more) Germany will be similar. UK/France will have taken 10's of K more in Gallipoli. We can still have Falkenhayn's Verdun go similar to OTL. Likely better for Germany, but lets skip this one to given them some bad luck. It could go better, but it might be the same. Conrad will attack into the Ukraine. Only basic choice is to attack into the Ukraine. It will be less bloody for A-H than OTL and equal or bloodier than OTL. Romania will not enter the war. Falkenhayn does not get fired. So no USW. But let us assume this happens anyway for another bad break for the Germans. No USW means CP win. Period. End of Story, so this would be horrible luck.

At end of 1916, Russia has at least 1 million more casualties than OTL. A-H is same or lower. Food is much better. Germany will be equal or lower. France and the UK each will have 100's of K more casualties due to various small impacts. More supplies. Harder German attacks. A-H attacking hard in east frees up lots of German resources. Russia will not come close to lasting as long after the fall of the Tsar. So we get the H&L grand offensive in late 1917. USA troops are not there. Worse yet, with a lot more A-H troops around, even more German units can be freed up from other lines (East, quiet sections of Western Front). This will break French Army before USA becomes a factor on land in mid 1918. And this is a fairly negative case for the CP. It is likely that one of the small success I list for CP is big success. The offensive in 1915 goes much better against Russia. Gallipoli turns into a bigger disaster. Verdun works better/right. The A-H 1916 offensive against Russia breaks the Russian lines for a major success. USW does not happen. Falkenhayn stays in Charge which saves economy and gets not USW.
 

Deleted member 1487

Without Italy in the war, the Entente lose barring something really odd. The CP had a good second half of 1915, and without Italy in the war it gets even better. There is a whole chain of events that come from Italy not joining. Bulgaria likely enters early, which roles up Serbia faster. In mid-1915, A-H has about 10 more divisions to use or divert their supplies. Later in the war it is several extra armies. A-H went up to 55 year old men in the army. Here they will not have to go above 50. Economy works better. It avoid the blunder in 1916 by Conrad. With only one front to fight, he can't pick the least important theater. Romania does not enter the war with no great Russian offensive success. Even with this success they will be less likely since A-H has a lot more divisions hanging around the Romanian border or in reserve. In 1915, Russia will lose more land since there are more A-H divisions attacking them. Russia takes higher losses from mid-1915 to the end of the war. Russia is much more likely to make peace. Romanian grain makes the food situation better in the CP. Blockading in the A-H fleet is harder due to avoiding Italian territorial waters and not being able to use Italian ports. Italy probably sells weapons to the CP.

And a lot of these effects are cumulative. And it may be a bit easier to see if you look at a potential combination of them. Serbia is out of the war a few months earlier either to Bulgaria entering sooner or A-H just using available units not fighting on Italian border. Gallipoli goes worse for the Entente as Germany sends extra reinforcements. By the time Bulgaria enters IOTL, A-H forces excluding occupation forces are in Serbia on Russian front. A-H will attack Russia in the fall. Probably without great gains unless they can take Serbia fast enough to avoid the Germans losing the momentum in August. At the end of the year, A-H has taken equal or fewer casualties than OTL. Russia has taken noticeably more (over 100K + more) Germany will be similar. UK/France will have taken 10's of K more in Gallipoli. We can still have Falkenhayn's Verdun go similar to OTL. Likely better for Germany, but lets skip this one to given them some bad luck. It could go better, but it might be the same. Conrad will attack into the Ukraine. Only basic choice is to attack into the Ukraine. It will be less bloody for A-H than OTL and equal or bloodier than OTL. Romania will not enter the war. Falkenhayn does not get fired. So no USW. But let us assume this happens anyway for another bad break for the Germans. No USW means CP win. Period. End of Story, so this would be horrible luck.

At end of 1916, Russia has at least 1 million more casualties than OTL. A-H is same or lower. Food is much better. Germany will be equal or lower. France and the UK each will have 100's of K more casualties due to various small impacts. More supplies. Harder German attacks. A-H attacking hard in east frees up lots of German resources. Russia will not come close to lasting as long after the fall of the Tsar. So we get the H&L grand offensive in late 1917. USA troops are not there. Worse yet, with a lot more A-H troops around, even more German units can be freed up from other lines (East, quiet sections of Western Front). This will break French Army before USA becomes a factor on land in mid 1918. And this is a fairly negative case for the CP. It is likely that one of the small success I list for CP is big success. The offensive in 1915 goes much better against Russia. Gallipoli turns into a bigger disaster. Verdun works better/right. The A-H 1916 offensive against Russia breaks the Russian lines for a major success. USW does not happen. Falkenhayn stays in Charge which saves economy and gets not USW.

Isn't it kind of funny how with a few changes we then have to struggle to make the Central Powers do worse or lose?
 
Hmmm. I think the end of the war in 1915.-scenario would benefit basically everyone, even the losing Entente - even though they might not see it that way (millions of Frenchmen will still be alive, for starters). Though I can`t imagine what peace terms such a short war would entail. Especially considering German war aims in both the East and the West were in a constant state of flux...

I don`t think it is really that nebulous. All war aims in the West that I`ve ever read wanted Briey, Longwy, Beltfort and Luxemburg. This much is certain to be annexed into Germany, though I think that anything beyond - especially in such a short war (to 1915.) is not really going to be annexed, Septemberprogramm or no Septemberprogramm.

So border-wise, not much happens. I suspect the central point of the peace treaty will be the issue of reparations...
 

Deleted member 1487

I don`t think it is really that nebulous. All war aims in the West that I`ve ever read wanted Briey, Longwy, Beltfort and Luxemburg. This much is certain to be annexed into Germany, though I think that anything beyond - especially in such a short war (to 1915.) is not really going to be annexed, Septemberprogramm or no Septemberprogramm.

So border-wise, not much happens. I suspect the central point of the peace treaty will be the issue of reparations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
The modern consensus is that it was more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy.
No matter what the Septemberprogramm is/was there would be at least what you suggest. Belgium would likely be forced to give up something too.
 
I don`t think it is really that nebulous. All war aims in the West that I`ve ever read wanted Briey, Longwy, Beltfort and Luxemburg. This much is certain to be annexed into Germany, though I think that anything beyond - especially in such a short war (to 1915.) is not really going to be annexed, Septemberprogramm or no Septemberprogramm.

So border-wise, not much happens. I suspect the central point of the peace treaty will be the issue of reparations...

What about the East? The Germans probably won`t be entering Kiev (or Minsk for that matter) before the war ends. At the very best they`d be able to get OTL Interbellum borders between Russia and Germany`s new "clients".

No matter what the Septemberprogramm is/was there would be at least what you suggest. Belgium would likely be forced to give up something too.

There is the Arlon area. It`s perfect, actually; a nice way to "round up" the annexations of Briey-Longwy and Luxembourg, it`s close to the border, and it`s population is Luxembourgish.
 
What about the East? The Germans probably won`t be entering Kiev (or Minsk for that matter) before the war ends. At the very best they`d be able to get OTL Interbellum borders between Russia and Germany`s new "clients".

IF the war ends in 1915.

There is the Arlon area. It`s perfect, actually; a nice way to "round up" the annexations of Briey-Longwy and Luxembourg, it`s close to the border, and it`s population is Luxembourgish.

I agree on this point.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Isn't it kind of funny how with a few changes we then have to struggle to make the Central Powers do worse or lose?

Well, I don't see it as funny. It is based on the Entente getting lucky IOTL. If we had some "Star Trek" type device to look at alternative universes where WW1 starts on time, I think the CP wins well over 65% of time with the bulk of the rest being a draw. Probably under 10% Entente wins. If we look at decisions that have a big impact where multiple options were considered, we get a mostly good Entente calls and poor CP calls. This reflects poorly on the two emperor's of the CP.

Besides Gallipoli and not running the previous French War Plan, the Entente did well through the end of 1915. And Germany was still winning at the end of the year. People criticize the French, Russia, and British Leaders. But if any of these leaders are passive and take fewer losses, it loses the war. Most of the other decisions are even understandable. Italy launched the least useful attacks of any of them, but I strongly suspect if Italy attacks half as often as the French, instead of twice as often as OTL, the CP likely win. Not exactly sure, but probably frees up enough ammo, supplies, and men to make big difference to A-H fighting power. In 1916, I understand why they did all the decisions, but the CP ends up in worse shape than the beginning of the year, and they are still winning. Then they go out of their way to get USA in the war.

From my TL research, here is what I think the Entente could do a lot better, but many of these are not huge war winners.

1) Take ports of East Africa, ignore Germans once retreat inland.

2) No Gallipoli. If those divisions are used in France in 1915, Falkenhayn will have a much more challenging year. The Entente did not focus this year. Italy and Russia go A-H first plan. France goes Germany first. UK goes Ottomans first. France and Italy had no real choice, so it is the UK and Russia that should focus. France is easy to UK to supply so makes good sense.

3) UK could have went draft earlier.

4) UK could go much harsher rationing, earlier. But this is risky move that can backfire. It goes with #3. If say the UK drafts 2 million more men in 1915, then there is less stuff made. So more rationing.

I could probably list 15-20 clear CP mistakes. And I am not listing POD more than a few days before the war starts.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, I don't see it as funny.
I meant ironic :p
We have so many people that seem to think the Germans could not win the war because of population statistics and economy size, without realizing how close WW1 was, especially compared to WW2. You are very right that the CPs made ridiculous mistakes and pretty much lost the war by their mistakes by letting the Entente's advantages to come into play. Of course we are saying that with hindsight, but the maddeningly stupid mistakes the Austro-Hungarians made were very obvious even at the time.

From my TL research, here is what I think the Entente could do a lot better, but many of these are not huge war winners.

1) Take ports of East Africa, ignore Germans once retreat inland.
As with very many things in the war Britain was very politics driven; their home front was far less stable than often thought, because the postwar narrative was about calm Britain. In fact the British had serious domestic issues particularly earlier in the war with the Irish question and fears of a German invasion whipped up by the government to get the public in the war. Several divisions that were badly needed in France were held up 'defending' Britain from the 'invasion' the government had used to push the public into war, but also to prevent a revolt from the lower classes 'just in case'. They were also afraid the Germans would start stirring up the colonial peoples in Africa against Britain, so thought they needed to chase down the Germans; that seems to have been a major fear of the British, a colonial revolt that would cost them their empire.

2) No Gallipoli. If those divisions are used in France in 1915, Falkenhayn will have a much more challenging year. The Entente did not focus this year. Italy and Russia go A-H first plan. France goes Germany first. UK goes Ottomans first. France and Italy had no real choice, so it is the UK and Russia that should focus. France is easy to UK to supply so makes good sense.
True, but that was about politics. They were afraid Russia would make a separate peace, as they were now cut off from supply by the closing of the Dardanelles. Coupled with the German offensives on the Eastern Front, one starting in February, the Entente was very rightly afraid that the Germans would try to cut a deal with Russia after attacking them when they were economically vulnerable. Gallipoli and the commitment there IMHO were a political necessity to get the Czar from negotiating. 1915 was the year that the Italians and Russians both focused on A-H and were massacred for it. The Carpathian campaign cost more casualties for the Russians than the A-Hs, though the Russians could afford it better, but still experienced the brutal beating at Gorlice-Tarnow as a result. The Italians were all in on A-H from day one (though very incompetently). 1915 was the CPs year because the Germans sorted out their shell shortage first and most effectively, had the only really trench warfare capable artillery park and were the only power to retain most of their pre-war army from the 1914 losses. You're right about priorities, but 1915 is a German initiative year.

3) UK could have went draft earlier.
Politically impossible. Plus they really couldn't expand their military quicker than they did because their military training apparatus was so small relative to the rest of the population and had the most volunteers of all the great powers relative to their population, so didn't really have a shortage of high quality manpower before 1917.

4) UK could go much harsher rationing, earlier. But this is risky move that can backfire. It goes with #3. If say the UK drafts 2 million more men in 1915, then there is less stuff made. So more rationing.
Again politically impossible. Britain was more vulnerable to public opinion than any other nation because for them it was really a war of choice and they could get out at anytime without losing territory.
Britain was pretty constrained about what it could get away with. They also were still setting up the blockade in 1915, so had a money problem, because to set up the black lists they needed to boost purchasing so much that they were really the only game in town. The French actually were really pissed at the British for not getting more involved in ground combat in 1915, but they were spending their money on the blockade, couldn't build up their ground forces any quicker, and had really shitty quality control when 'solving' the shell crisis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BlondieBC

Banned
We have so many people that seem to think the Germans could not win the war because of population statistics and economy size, without realizing how close WW1 was, especially compared to WW2. You are very right that the CPs made ridiculous mistakes and pretty much lost the war by their mistakes by letting the Entente's advantages to come into play. Of course we are saying that with hindsight, but the maddeningly stupid mistakes the Austro-Hungarians made were very obvious even at the time.

Yes, there are people who add up the full population of the British Empire or even the full population of the settler colonies, but don't adjust for 70 million industrialized Germans is a lot, lot more powerful than 70 million Indian peasants. And then they don't adjust for the Indians being an occupied nation where the UK leaders could have only gotten a few % of the total available power. At the end of the day, India is less important to t he war in Europe than either Bulgaria or Romania. Probably Albania had as much effect on the war as India. i.e. If Albania had remained neutral would have been about as likely to cause a CP win as the UK deciding not to use Indian soldiers in WW1. India going max effort with everyone ethusiastic for war might field an army 10% as powerful as Germany in Europe. I doubt a perfect performance by the UK using India gives you more than a good corp or two of effective troops. Sure you can field more men, but how many Indian regiments using only Indian built weapons would it take to beat a German regiment.

Now lets take Ironic mistakes from an American perspective. In 1915, there are articles in the paper explaining how if Germany was defeated (broken as a great Power), then then someone else would have to hold Russia at bay. And that Russia interests would not align with the UK/France/USA. In many ways, the cold war was predicted. Now I can find numerous memoirs which say it was not knowable. But the analysis was there, and public. I can't imagine that any serious military analyst from the UK would predict that breaking Germany power would improve things in Europe. At least prewar. It was pretty obvious who would dominate without the two German nations in close alliance.

It gets down right sad on the ToV. I know we have threads talking about how a harsher treaty would have worked. And it might well prevent Hitler, but it would have created a world of problems. Without the 1.5 million or so active Germany/A-H troops and more than 5 million reserves holding back Russian influence, then someone else would have to have an army to hold back the Russians. A harsh ToV means the France must keep a larger standing army than prewar and the UK must keep conscription and an army larger than Frances for generations. We know where OTL ToV went. And at least for France, we did not get the worst case. I can easily see the Three Soviet league (Stalin, Hungary, Germany) starting WW2. With a little bit better red performance after WW1 and a successful red revolution in Hungary, there is many a TL where France is permanently a colony of the Russians. And then a soft ToV is impossible due to the massive losses. If one believes in ethnic nations, then we end up with a Greater Germany more powerful than prewar Germany allied with a Hungary and Italy who have unsettle issues from WW1.

And it was all known in advance. At least the huge risks. Everyone who did a serious prewar analysis knew a great war would wreck things. It is largely what drives the huge risk for the German War Plan. A-H had so many issues. A relatively trivial loss in a war of modest proportions 10 time zones away almost broke Russia. France could not afford to maintain its level of military expenditures for decades without crippling its economy. The UK could not afford to build the navy as large as it wanted. Serbian nationalist were simply insane. Early I said I think the CP win 65% of the time given a decision radomizers. The war is won by any party by the end of 1915 is well under 1%. I have trouble drawing up a scenario with a single POD. I can get you there with a series of them, but it takes a quite a few POD's.
 
Top