WI best case for Central Powers 1914

[AustrianFanboy]

Assume the best (reasonable) case for central Powers in 1914, assuming the necessary PODs
-in the west the Germans still fall short of capturing Paris, but by the time the moving phase of the war ends, they are entrenched on a line stretching along the Somme, Oise, Aisne rivers; Verdun is encircled and at risk of falling (several changes to the planning and execution of the Schlieffen Plan may be needed)
-In the East the Germans perform as OTL, but the Austrians perform better, avoiding the massive losses of OTL and blunting Russian offensives in Galicia.
-At Sea, the Scarborough raid turns into a massive defeat for the Royal Navy, which loses the whole 2nd Battle squadron and the 1st batlecruiser division (7 BB + 4 BC) without inflicting Capital ship losses to the Germans (though many German ships are in need of repairs).
-all other fronts are as OTL.
How do you envision the continuation of the war?

PS what I wrote Is based on several TLs which are generally deemed plausibile (Marne wIthout Moltke by Wiking, Operation Unicorn by @Tom_B and so on)

 

[UnaiB]

@Fehérvári

 

[BELFAST]

The critical part of the Germans is the blockade of Germany and the food shortage.
if the Germans do enough damage to the RN to be able to get food and other vital material in larger amounts than otl this could make a big change.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

The critical part of the Germans is the blockade of Germany and the food shortage.
if the Germans do enough damage to the RN to be able to get food and other vital material in larger amounts than otl this could make a big change.

A scenario like this doesn't break the blockade, but It does several other things; for one it cripples France; more industries lost, more manpower lost, their main ciao fields, which in turno means mese steel and mounting difficulties during the winter.
Also holding the Channel ports allows the Germans to wage "guerrilla" naval warfare against Entente shopping through it, meaning that most traffic will need to be rerouted further west, with all the delay and shortcomings of the case.
Finally, most of British domestic traffic sailed through the Channel and along the East coast; German control of the Channel ports would have meant the practical shutdown of Sais traffic

 

[Catspoke]

The long war is in Germany's favor with French industry under their control, and without OTLs Austrian military and economic losses in Galacia, one would think the Germans would trend to a 1916 or 1917 victory.

Does Italy come in the war in such a time line?

Do the Germans still feel the need to trigger Ottoman entry?

Do the Germans try actual escorted blockade running?

Could the Germans actually offer reasonable peace terms from such a position of strength?

 

[AustrianFanboy]

The long war is in Germany's favor with French industry under their control, and without OTLs Austrian military and economic losses in Galacia, one would think the Germans would trend to a 1916 it 1917 victory.

Does Italy come in the war in such a time line?

Do the Germans still feel the need to trigger Ottoman entry?

Do the Germans try actual escorted blockade running?

Could the Germans actually offer reasonable peace terms from such a position of strength?

To answer your questions:
1) Maybe: the factors indicing them to join are still there, but with better Austrian performance they will likely be hesitant: most likely they sit out of It and join whoever looks like in the processo of winning
2) Why should they not?
3) Maybe, but the biggest piece of news on the Sea Is that Entente logistics Is now screwed up; also the Royal Navy, in search of a rematch may become reckless and suffer another crushing defeat.
4) not after Russian position starts ti disintegrate in early-mid 1915.
By TTL 1915 It will be clear that:
1) Russia Is no match for the central Powers
2) France has been mauled (by 1915 Verdun Is going to fall, despite massive and bloody offensives on the party of the french ro relieve it: by 1915 the tactics ti overcome massive concentrations of entrenched infantry and achieve the kind of table-turning breakthrough such an endeavor would require ar simply not there: the biggest the french try, the more massive will be their losses.
3) the UK Is not unbeatable; their logistics can be chewed up by strategically placed naval forces in the channel, and holding the latter gives the Germans some leverage against them.
So why quit when you can clearly squeeze more?
There is also a geoeconomic background to all of this: Germany must be assured that her enemies ti the East and west are cut down ti a size where they can't threaten them anymore. This requires ripping eastern Europe out of Russian grasp á la Brest-Litowsk and as a bare minimum cinquer the Briey-Longwy triangle from the french, along with gaining an easily defensible position on the slopes of the Vosges: this would cripple French war mailing potential once and for all

 

[Catspoke]

I can see the British trying to win a big sea battle again before some peace, with the queen Elizabeth class coming on, the British likely win still. Still a German overall military victory, but Britain might be able then to restrict some of the German ambitions, but the British would deal with the French getting Briery and such as long as the Germans are off the channel.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

I can see the British trying to win a big sea battle again before some peace, with the queen Elizabeth class coming on, the British likely win still. Still a German overall military victory, but Britain might be able then to restrict some of the German ambitions, but the British would deal with the French getting Briery and such as long as the Germans are off the channel.

If the British try to smash the Germans at Sea, things may go both ways; It took all of 1915 to put the whole QE classe in service, and while powerful, they alone are no automatic battle-winner.
Concerning the channel ports, they are not for the Germans to hold, but just a chip to exchange at the peace table, in order to force British hand into handing back German colonies in Africa and accepting the most important conditions the Germans are going to extract from the french and Belgians, mamely Briey-Longwy etc, the Congo Basin, Morocco and little else

 

[marathag]

If the British try to smash the Germans at Sea, things may go both ways; It took all of 1915 to put the whole QE classe in service, and while powerful, they alone are no automatic battle-winner.
Concerning the channel ports, they are not for the Germans to hold, but just a chip to exchange at the peace table, in order to force British hand into handing back German colonies in Africa and accepting the most important conditions the Germans are going to extract from the french and Belgians, mamely Briey-Longwy etc, the Congo Basin, Morocco and little else

WWII showed that the UK would not fold to German demands, even with coastal France occupied by Germany, a hostile remainder of Vichy, and a standoff in Russia with Italy partnered up.
Only way to get the Colonies back is to occupy the UK


And that's even more ASB in WWI

So UK alone could keep up the hunger blockade, that would eventually succeed even with France under German Control, and ends CP collapse by revolution in 1919.
France out of the Fight doesn't save the Ottomans, even if Germany and A-H manage to get Italy to sue for Peace in 1918

 

[Swedish luck]

WWII showed that the UK would not fold to German demands, even with coastal France occupied by Germany, a hostile remainder of Vichy, and a standoff in Russia with Italy partnered up.
Only way to get the Colonies back is to occupy the UK


And that's even more ASB in WWI

So UK alone could keep up the hunger blockade, that would eventually succeed even with France under German Control, and ends CP collapse by revolution in 1919.
France out of the Fight doesn't save the Ottomans, even if Germany and A-H manage to get Italy to sue for Peace in 1918

If German controls France then it won't starve as the UK would need to blockade everything from Spain in the south to Norway in the north which would stretch the Royal Navy thin and Germany would control the breadbaskets of France and Ukraine which makes starvation quite hard.

 

[Catspoke]

WWII showed that the UK would not fold to German demands, even with coastal France occupied by Germany, a hostile remainder of Vichy, and a standoff in Russia with Italy partnered up.
Only way to get the Colonies back is to occupy the UK


And that's even more ASB in WWI

So UK alone could keep up the hunger blockade, that would eventually succeed even with France under German Control, and ends CP collapse by revolution in 1919.
France out of the Fight doesn't save the Ottomans, even if Germany and A-H manage to get Italy to sue for Peace in 1918

I think that's true for later CP victory time lines, this one is really 14 15 ish, so things like continued Italian and USA neutrality, less ravaged Galacia etc, could change the trajectory of the blockade.

I do think the Germans need to be reasonable in any peace negotiations,

 

[RamscoopRaider]

WWII showed that the UK would not fold to German demands, even with coastal France occupied by Germany, a hostile remainder of Vichy, and a standoff in Russia with Italy partnered up.
Only way to get the Colonies back is to occupy the UK


And that's even more ASB in WWI

So UK alone could keep up the hunger blockade, that would eventually succeed even with France under German Control, and ends CP collapse by revolution in 1919.
France out of the Fight doesn't save the Ottomans, even if Germany and A-H manage to get Italy to sue for Peace in 1918

The UK would not fold under the conditions of WWII, WWI is a different story, because if nothing else WWI has not happened yet to change attitudes. Not to mention the completely different governments on both sides and prewar situations

The problem with a hunger blockade if France falls is that they know have to start blockading both the French Atlantic coast and Spain. Notably in OTL the blockade was not really airtight until the latter half of 1917, and that mostly do to the US stopping most running aty the source, and they only had to close the Channel and the gap between Scotland and Norway. Now without needing to support the western front they can do it, but not before 1917 do to ship availability, and doing so is really going to piss off the US, well Spain too, but the US is what matters. In 1921 Britain would give up one of their major alliances to remove the possibility of angering the US, so this is a real concern

Depending on how 1914 works out there is a very good chance Italy does not join the war, even in OTL a majority of parliament in early may 1915 voted for neutrality, war only occurred because of internal disorder that Giolitti felt could lead to civil war, and he preferred external war to that. If Giolitti decides Italy can't win, and no Austrian Disaster in Galicia would probably do that, then it's likely he agrees to become PM and Italy stays nuetral...at least until Germany takes Paris

Even if Italy is stupid enough to join the Entente with Germany having done better in the race to the sea and no disaster in Galicia and the Carpathians, well once France falls Italy is screwed, they could barely break even against what A-H could spare from Russia, notably the Strafexpedition made gains in under a month equivalent to all 11 Isonszo battles before the Brusilov Offensive caused it to stop, add a German field army in the east, and another two in Nice/Savoy through France, good chance Italy does not last into 1917, much less 1918 depending on when France falls

 

[marathag]

If German controls France then it won't starve as the UK would need to blockade everything from Spain in the south to Norway in the north which would stretch the Royal Navy thin and Germany would control the breadbaskets of France and Ukraine which makes starvation quite hard.

Germans could hardly get the Breadbasket of Ukraine to put out a fraction of pre-war yield. Look at the 2nd War, with French Food production falling by half once the German were around.
2nd, the RN could do that distant blockade in the 2nd War, they can do it at this point in time as well

 

[marathag]

I do think the Germans need to be reasonable in any peace negotiations,

🤔




think I know how that turns out.

 

[oberdada]

Russia delays mobilization for a few days, just enough so that the German Kaiser lets his Austrian counterpart know that he considers the Serbian response to the Austrian ultimatum as absolutely sufficient and that he considers the entire affair closed.
And they all live happily ever after.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

Germans could hardly get the Breadbasket of Ukraine to put out a fraction of pre-war yield. Look at the 2nd War, with French Food production falling by half once the German were around.
2nd, the RN could do that distant blockade in the 2nd War, they can do it at this point in time as well

There are several differences between ww1 and ww2
1) different politics: the German empire Is no nazi Germany, the attitude is different and the war is not one which may be sold domestically as an existential fight.
2) in a scenario where Germany has beaten both France and Russia, they are masters of the continent; sognificantly they have already vanquished Russia, which makes for a substantial differences compared to ww2; the British here have no significant possibility of coming back to the continent and no third power to rely upon
3) THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: in OTL the UK was on the brink of bankruptcy: they were only kept afloat because US loans continued arriving, and later on because with the US entry into the war they received a limitless credit line from the americans. In TTL US loans are going to stop being granted as soon as the British run out of collaterals to back them up, as they appear to be losing and the americans have no guarantees of ever seeing their money back.
4) if the british do not fold, the Germans can simply prop up the Ottomans in the middle East and threaten the Suez Canal and Egypt
5) German colonies were nice for flag waving, but what the British truly needed is independent belgium, and they are sure to trade the latter for the former.

Long story short: stop applying ww2 logics to ww1: they are different timeframes, with different background, players and rules

 

[Riain]

IOTL in August 1915 the RN formed the Channel Fleet with the 5th Battle Sqn (9 pre dreads) 8th BS (amalgamated 7th & 8th BS 14 Pre dreads) and the 12th Cruiser sqn (4 protected cruisers. You could probably consider the Dover Patrol part of this with its destroyer flotilla and 2 submarine flotillas although it was under the command of the GF, One the lines had settled and it became clear that the KM was not going to break out into the Channel the Channel fleet dispersed in Feb-May 1915 and went to the Med to conduct the Dardanelles campaign.

ITTL the Germans have control of the Channel coast down past Boulogne, and presumably the command shakeup needed to make use of this position. This would mean permanently placed coastal uboat, tboat and coast defence battleships (the oldest pre dreads that IOTL were stationed in the Baltic) and visiting patrol uboats, destroyer flotillas and cruiser sqns when the HSF was quiet in the North Sea. In such a situation the Channel Fleet would not be able to disperse, indeed a single cruiser raid on say Hastings from Boulogne, an hour and a half steaming, could tie down RN heavy units for weeks and even months. Once the RN had made the Channel too hot the fleet cruisers and destroyers could sneak back to Germany and do something in the North Sea.

Such a klienkreig could be very taxing for the RN and force it to reinforce the Channel fleet with modern ships at the expense of other things.

 

[AustrianFanboy]

IOTL in August 1915 the RN formed the Channel Fleet with the 5th Battle Sqn (9 pre dreads) 8th BS (amalgamated 7th & 8th BS 14 Pre dreads) and the 12th Cruiser sqn (4 protected cruisers. You could probably consider the Dover Patrol part of this with its destroyer flotilla and 2 submarine flotillas although it was under the command of the GF, One the lines had settled and it became clear that the KM was not going to break out into the Channel the Channel fleet dispersed in Feb-May 1915 and went to the Med to conduct the Dardanelles campaign.

ITTL the Germans have control of the Channel coast down past Boulogne, and presumably the command shakeup needed to make use of this position. This would mean permanently placed coastal uboat, tboat and coast defence battleships (the oldest pre dreads that IOTL were stationed in the Baltic) and visiting patrol uboats, destroyer flotillas and cruiser sqns when the HSF was quiet in the North Sea. In such a situation the Channel Fleet would not be able to disperse, indeed a single cruiser raid on say Hastings from Boulogne, an hour and a half steaming, could tie down RN heavy units for weeks and even months. Once the RN had made the Channel too hot the fleet cruisers and destroyers could sneak back to Germany and do something in the North Sea.

Such a klienkreig could be very taxing for the RN and force it to reinforce the Channel fleet with modern ships at the expense of other things.

Plus It turns the eastern Channel into a permanent battlefield unsuitable for sending supplies and reinforcements

 

[AustrianFanboy]

IOTL in August 1915 the RN formed the Channel Fleet with the 5th Battle Sqn (9 pre dreads) 8th BS (amalgamated 7th & 8th BS 14 Pre dreads) and the 12th Cruiser sqn (4 protected cruisers. You could probably consider the Dover Patrol part of this with its destroyer flotilla and 2 submarine flotillas although it was under the command of the GF, One the lines had settled and it became clear that the KM was not going to break out into the Channel the Channel fleet dispersed in Feb-May 1915 and went to the Med to conduct the Dardanelles campaign.

ITTL the Germans have control of the Channel coast down past Boulogne, and presumably the command shakeup needed to make use of this position. This would mean permanently placed coastal uboat, tboat and coast defence battleships (the oldest pre dreads that IOTL were stationed in the Baltic) and visiting patrol uboats, destroyer flotillas and cruiser sqns when the HSF was quiet in the North Sea. In such a situation the Channel Fleet would not be able to disperse, indeed a single cruiser raid on say Hastings from Boulogne, an hour and a half steaming, could tie down RN heavy units for weeks and even months. Once the RN had made the Channel too hot the fleet cruisers and destroyers could sneak back to Germany and do something in the North Sea.

Such a klienkreig could be very taxing for the RN and force it to reinforce the Channel fleet with modern ships at the expense of other things.

Was it you to write "A dagger held at the throat of England"?
I Ioved that TL

 

[Catspoke]

🤔




think I know how that turns out.

Agree it's not likely.