WI: Germans capture Amiens in 1918

[ATL Czar]

What if, during Operation Michael, the Germans manage to defeat the Allies at Amiens and capture the city, and by doing this capturing the main British logistics centre? The Germans were within a hair's width of Amiens, so victory could've been achieved.

How would the Allies, particularly the British, react at the main British logistics hub captured?

Would the Germans be able to win victory with the rest of the Spring Offensive, and end up the (indecisive) victors of WW1?

 

[Tank Cdr]

The war may have lasted a short while longer, but the United States would more than make up for any shortages as well as keep providing hundreds of thousands of fresh troops. Once the United States entered the war, only a Tannenburg type victory in the west, before the US could contribute significant numbers of troops, would give Germany the victory.

 

[rast]

Between Amiens (end of March/early April) and a possible US show of force (September - rather October 1918) there would have been four to five long summer months. - If the Germans get Amiens, they can separate the British from the French, and they have just cut the main supply rail line of the BEF. - This doesn't necessarily mean a German victory, but things would become much more difficult for the Allies. One interesting question is French morale - with the British encircled, perhaps evacuating - and the Americans not yet ready - would they keep up?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The British and French are separated, Foch pulls back to defend Paris and the Germans can focus on taking Hazebrouck and Georgette to complete their victory. Bad news for the Allies and the only chance the Germans had of getting a potential decent peace deal. If Hazebrouck falls, then the British have to withdraw back to the port areas and abandon most of France north of the Somme; this probably means the French government falls and the French start talking peace, but knowing Ludendorff all that means will just be more talk and he blows the golden chance to get a favorable deal by demanding everything.

If there is no peace then the war definitely lasts into 1919 and costs the Allies much more; I think the French will get to a point that they fall apart before they can get an OTL peace deal, so Versailles is much more British-American-centric.

 

[Tank Cdr]

If the British and French start to waver and talk about a negotiated peace, I wonder is President Wilson would step in and remind them that help is on the way. I believe that Wilson really wanted the war and he may launch a big diplomatic push to keep it going until the US can really get involved. A lot of course will depend on US public opinion.

 

[rast]

To the French and British generals and politicians the Americans just meant more cannon fodder for the style of battle they had introduced in 1916 and 1917. - If pushing the AEF ahead, Wilson would just grant them this wish, sending the troops in peacemeal. Unexperienced soldiers in mass attacks à la Somme or Chemin des Dames will become mass casualties. No nice story, and possibly not very decisive.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If the British and French start to waver and talk about a negotiated peace, I wonder is President Wilson would step in and remind them that help is on the way. I believe that Wilson really wanted the war and he may launch a big diplomatic push to keep it going until the US can really get involved. A lot of course will depend on US public opinion.

He really wanted to finish it, but I don't think he really wanted war, given how hard he fought to stay out of it. He can only make promises though, so more really depends on the French public opinion than US.

To the French and British generals and politicians the Americans just meant more cannon fodder for the style of battle they had introduced in 1916 and 1917. - If pushing the AEF ahead, Wilson would just grant them this wish, sending the troops in peacemeal. Unexperienced soldiers in mass attacks à la Somme or Chemin des Dames will become mass casualties. No nice story, and possibly not very decisive.

IIRC it as only the British that wanted to break up US units and incorporate them into their divisions; the AEF wasn't ready to fight on its own; it was already being pushed ahead as fast as possible. If anything it might end up in US divisions, but under French command. The British would be cut off from US ground forces, so couldn't take them on. If anything the French would gather more US troops to counter attack and take back Amiens once they realized that the Germans had shot their bolt taking the city, which might be weeks or at least long enough for the Germans to launch Georgette.

 

[Maniakes]

If the British and French start to waver and talk about a negotiated peace, I wonder is President Wilson would step in and remind them that help is on the way. I believe that Wilson really wanted the war and he may launch a big diplomatic push to keep it going until the US can really get involved. A lot of course will depend on US public opinion.

It'd also depend on how reasonable Germany would be prepared to be. If their proposed terms were something outrageous like the Septemberprogramm, Wilson would probably be inclined to tough it out. But if they actually understood how screwed they'd be once America fully mobilized and offered something close to status quo ante bellum, Wilson might actively support a negotiated peace and even if he didn't, he'd be very unlikely to push hard to oppose it.

I think the former is more likely than the latter, given that Wilson has tried to broker a negotiated peace in Dec 1916-Jan 1917 (at one point telling the Germans that if they made a reasonable opening offer, he'd force Britain and France to the table by threatening to cut off the flow of American credit and supplies to the allies), but had been stonewalled by the Germans who were convinced that they could win a full victory on the battlefield long before Wilson could do anything about it.

 

[bm79]

He really wanted to finish it, but I don't think he really wanted war, given how hard he fought to stay out of it. He can only make promises though, so more really depends on the French public opinion than US.


IIRC it as only the British that wanted to break up US units and incorporate them into their divisions; the AEF wasn't ready to fight on its own; it was already being pushed ahead as fast as possible. If anything it might end up in US divisions, but under French command. The British would be cut off from US ground forces, so couldn't take them on. If anything the French would gather more US troops to counter attack and take back Amiens once they realized that the Germans had shot their bolt taking the city, which might be weeks or at least long enough for the Germans to launch Georgette.

While Pershing was adamant about keeping American troops together as an independent fighting force and not seconding units to the British and French, within the first few days of Michael Foch prevailed upon him the urgent need for troops to fill the growing gap in the lines. The equivalent of three or four divisions were released by Pershing to the British and French armies and stationed on the left flank of the Michael salient, allowing the British to concentrate in front of Amiens.

Thus, the POD that allows Amiens to fall would be if Pershing remains intransigent and refuses to release those soldiers, thinning out British lines as they try to hold their ever lengthening lines. But, as Wiking says, Wilson would most likely sack Pershing, order his replacement to release all combat ready units to the French and the Allies would immediately begin preparations to retake Amiens.

 

[rast]

It'd also depend on how reasonable Germany would be prepared to be.

Whatever Germany proposes is irrelevant; the Entente was not going to enter peace talks. Their war aims could only be achieved by a dictate (à la Versailles). With the USA in the war now, why should they consider German proposals? Or negotiating at all?
What can happen here is a French collapse. Poincaré la Guerre is chased away, the army falls into strike again, and - instead of Clemenceau Caillaux is called as prime minister. Petain certainly was fearing the worst, and in a situation where the British have to fight for their survival in Flanders - or evacuate - Foch, the old happy butcher, will not become as preponderant as he did IOTL.
If the French don't brake, the war will well last into 1919 - and Germany will still lose it.

 

[BlondieBC]

If Amiens falls, we get a split between British and French Forces. The French will focus on defending Paris, the UK Calais. Both likely have the resources to accomplish these tasks, barring a huge blunder or a morale break. The how and why do matter in this POD, like most POD's. The Germans will eventually burn out their ability to attack due to losses and logistics. I would generally assume it would delay the Entente ability to counter attack by a few months. So we have to look at some question.

- Do we get a major Entente offensive in 1918? If we delay the attack until say November 1, it is probably too late for a grand offensive. You have to go check the weather that year. So we get a huge Allied offensive lasting all of 1919.

- Germany brings up another class of men over the winter. So does other side.

- Does A-H still fall apart? I lean towards yes, but then the how and why of POD matter. I don't quite see how the food situation is fixed, but with better morale of winning, maybe it is ok. I just haven't done the work on this scenario.

- Are Italy and France up to major attacks in 1919? I would tend to say no, for morale reasons. UK is probably too weak to go alone on Grand offensive, so Wilson calls the shots. He can be a bit erratic in his decision making. So, if I had to bet.

No reasonable peace offers by either side. Italy and France will not be major offensive players in 1919. A-H will still sort of exist, but not be near able to attack. Only saved by Italy and France being weak. Civil war in Russia goes a lot different, but I can't tell you the details. Attack will be in flanders (near coast) since UK is making half the major call. USA will proudly be in front of attacks, and have a Somme like losses against positions the Germans have built over the winter. Germany still collapse, call it August 1919. Treaty does not look like our ToV since USA will have heavy losses (higher than WW2) and civilians will have had another year of sacrifices. If we assume it takes until early 1920 to work out details, we are in Presidential election year where democrats will lose badly. UK will also have much higher losses than OTL, so it will have interesting political effects. Not sure what. I would lean towards a white win in Russia, which will profoundly change the post WW1 TL.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It ultimately depends on how the British and French react to the loss of Amiens; do they immediately counter attack and get back the city, or do they panic and pull back in fear of a German advance on their supply centers? If they pull back then German forces can consolidate, knowing that they can't advance further and have just cut a major artery that will back attacked as some point; they of course will have to deal with building up the infrastructure to hold it, which they had lots of trouble with IOTL.

If the Allies focus their attention to the south, which IMHO they would, either for preparing a counter attack within a matter of weeks, then the Germans can launch Georgette with a better chance of success than IOTL. If they can get that moving before the Allies counter attack Amiens or launch it simultaneously, which is doable IMHO, then the Germans can breakthrough there. I don't know how the Allies would react at that point; it would make sense for them to follow through at Amiens, but I think the British would panic and pull out of the Amiens counter offensive to reinforce Flanders.

I assume that Amiens falls if the Allies opt for a quick counter attack, but they might not for a variety of reasons, especially if Hazebrouck falls.
If the Allies lose both cities and fail to recapture either, then they are in for a very serious political mess, as British forces have to pull back to the Channel port areas and pull out much of their forces north of the Somme. This will cause a very serious crisis in France, especially if the Germans follow up with further attacks toward Paris.

But we are in a very tricky situation politically; Clemenceau has already thrown Caillaux in jail and charged him with treason, effectively eliminating him from politics, so unless there is a major movement to get him cleared and reinstated in the French government, he is not a factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Caillaux

I'm not sure if Clemenceau could be replaced at this point barring revolution or assassination, as he had found a way to make himself virtual dictator of France for the duration of the war. Revolution is not out of the question though, which might spell the end of France; the question is whether the French army holds together with Germany virtually eliminating the British from the fighting for most of the rest of the year; it also doesn't help that Germany has just captured enough supplies to carry their army through winter if need be.

If the French buckle under a Chemin-des-Dames offensive like IOTL, then there is the possibility we could see the French army start to disintegrate, especially if more riots break out in favor of peace in French cities, which had started in late 1917-early 1918 and was IOTL put down by the French cavalry. There are just to many variables to say for sure, but morale of the French is going to be the primary factor in determining if the war goes into 1919.

 

[Tank Cdr]

A big key is the morale of the French Army which is suspect. Any big German victory, especially one that effectively splits the Entente in two, could cause the French Army to mutiny. If that happens can it be hid from the Germans? A big German victory in the spring of 1918 could lead to a German victory, if the Germans ask for reasonable terms.

 

[Mikestone8]

A big key is the morale of the French Army which is suspect. Any big German victory, especially one that effectively splits the Entente in two, could cause the French Army to mutiny. If that happens can it be hid from the Germans? A big German victory in the spring of 1918 could lead to a German victory, if the Germans ask for reasonable terms.

And French logistics as well.

If Hazebrouck goes, then so probably does Bruay, whose coal mines are the main source of supply for the French munitions factories around Paris. So the French see their British allies in full retreat, while they themselves are simultaneously running short of ammunition.

 

[Mikestone8]

If Amiens falls, we get a split between British and French Forces. The French will focus on defending Paris, the UK Calais.

THe latter might present problems if Hazebrouck goes, since in that event the Germans would be nearer to Calais than would the British units around Ypres.

 

[unprincipled peter]

Yikes! folks are awful cavalier about counter attacking and retaking the city. It's a defensive war, where the offense gets the crap beat out of it. Yeah, the Germans get the crap beat out of it taking the city, but then get to sit, regroup, and let the English/French beat their brains out trying to retake it. The advantage now belongs to the Germans, the same way it belonged to the English/French when they defended it. Sure, just gather up enough troops and throw them at the machine guns. Worked wonders so far in the war, why wouldn't it work now?

The French were in near revolt with holding the city. Ya think they're going to be in better spirits with a major loss? Nope. They crumble. With the French collapsing, and a key city lost, the English aren't doing anything but holding on for dear life. The Entente doesn't have time to wait for the US.

the latter stages of WW1 was a perilous stalemate. Neither side ever really gained military victory. It was won because of economics/logistics. Give one side a military victory, and I'm thinking that side wins. It's that close.

 

[BlondieBC]

THe latter might present problems if Hazebrouck goes, since in that event the Germans would be nearer to Calais than would the British units around Ypres.

It does present problems, especially if one looks at the ranges of various German artillery, but this is in my opinion one of the areas the UK can shine in a ATL of WW1. The UK has enough navy to bring lots of ships down for fire support. Calais will be seen as critical, and they can resupply, even if the port is damaged. I don't see a WW2 style Dunkirk, but a constantly stiffening UK resistance. So the battle lines are secure, and now we are into the political and morale aspects, which are much harder to call. We can look at logistics and numbers and get a good feel for who wins any ATL WW1 battle. But the minds of the leaders is much harder to see into.

And I think Wiking is right that the French will concentrate on Paris. So we have a weak spot between Amiens and the British main lines, basically west towards the Somme. But this is not really a decisive area to break out. So H&L have a problem. Even if the can send the UK into a full Calais retreat, they will not capture forces. At least it is what will be seen after the UK successfully left Gallipoli. UK has skill for amphibious retreat. To the west is indecisive, and the clock is running. To the south is the main French forces. Digging in. But does H&L have the wisdom to offer peace. Rationally, status quo in west, loss of colonies, and B/L affirmed in east is very good deal for Germany. And hard for allies to turn down. But would they be wise enough? Hard call.

 

[Vnix]

It does present problems, especially if one looks at the ranges of various German artillery, but this is in my opinion one of the areas the UK can shine in a ATL of WW1. The UK has enough navy to bring lots of ships down for fire support. Calais will be seen as critical, and they can resupply, even if the port is damaged. I don't see a WW2 style Dunkirk, but a constantly stiffening UK resistance. So the battle lines are secure, and now we are into the political and morale aspects, which are much harder to call. We can look at logistics and numbers and get a good feel for who wins any ATL WW1 battle. But the minds of the leaders is much harder to see into.

And I think Wiking is right that the French will concentrate on Paris. So we have a weak spot between Amiens and the British main lines, basically west towards the Somme. But this is not really a decisive area to break out. So H&L have a problem. Even if the can send the UK into a full Calais retreat, they will not capture forces. At least it is what will be seen after the UK successfully left Gallipoli. UK has skill for amphibious retreat. To the west is indecisive, and the clock is running. To the south is the main French forces. Digging in. But does H&L have the wisdom to offer peace. Rationally, status quo in west, loss of colonies, and B/L affirmed in east is very good deal for Germany. And hard for allies to turn down. But would they be wise enough? Hard call.

More like would the Allies be wise enough to accept such terms if offered anf are the Central Powers wise enough to offer those terms.

 

[ATL Czar]

Whatever Germany proposes is irrelevant; the Entente was not going to enter peace talks. Their war aims could only be achieved by a dictate (à la Versailles). With the USA in the war now, why should they consider German proposals? Or negotiating at all?

Why wouldn't they negotiate? If the Germans manage to defeat the Australian and British forces at Villers-Bretonneux, then advance, take and hold Amiens and starve the BEF of their supplies, it would be a major blow to Allied morale. The Allied forces would find things far more difficult, with the BEF now nearly starving, and both forces now split and retreating. Why would they not try to negotiate at most a draw?

 

[pedmore1202]

My guess is that if the German's can take Amien's, they would be in a very good position to negotiate a peace treaty. They aren't likely to get much, but potentially something along the lines of: Brest-Litvosk recognised in the East; no colonies returned to Germany (because they have no hope of reclaiming them); no reparations or war guilt acknowledgement by either side.

The American's would be most willing to negotiate, with Britain being the second most likely, and France highly unlikely being willing to negotiate unless forced to by the other members of the Entente