WI: Central Powers and/or Axis had a "Unified Grand Strategy

I realize there are many factors that contributed to the Central Powers and the Axis losing their respective wars. The one I would like to focus on in this thread is the total lack of what I will call a "Unified Grand Strategy". Again I realize that the obstacles in the way to a "Unified Grand Strategy", either for the Central Powers and the Axis, are many and in some case maybe insurmountable but what the heck, this is "ALTERNATE" history. Some ground rules: POD no later than January 1940 but the sooner the better; ALL OBTACLES HAVE BEEN OVERCOME! . With a "Unified Grand Strategy" in place how might the outcome of the First and or Second World War be different.
 

ben0628

Banned
During WW1, the Central Powers had a unified strategy, it was called"DO WHAT GERMANY TELLS YOU TO DO!"

By late 1916 the Austrian military was pretty under the control of the Germans while Germany had a lot of control over the Ottomans since the war began. Bulgaria was the only one that Germany didn't control, but Bulgaria was arguably Germany's most competent ally (least powerful though) and it's interests tended to be the same as Germany's so that wasn't a problem. Had Austria been under German influence/control since the beginning of the war, there probably would have been a more coordinated Eastern front early on (instead of Austria focusing on Serbia). This would probably result in a better CP handling of Brusilov's two Galicia Offensives.

To be honest the main problem is that Germany couldn't rely on the Ottomans and Austrians (Bulgaria was too small to make a big difference although it did conscript 20% of its population). I believe I could sum this up by a quote where one of the German commanders (I believe Ludendorff) referred to the situation as "Being shackled to a corpse".
 
Top