1916 when? From a military POV, the situation on the Russian front improves dramatically in 1916 for the Entente:Ace Venom said:The Entente will have trouble wanting to come to the peace table because they're not quite at the breaking point yet. But if you have Russia drop out of the war in 1916, you may get the Entente to the peace table out of fear of all those Germans on the Eastern Front coming west.
Points:
-Russia is a big loser in this case. The Duchy of Warsaw will be carved off and a Kingdom of Poland will be established. The Baltic States may be given independence as well, but probably not Finland. The Germans may demand an independent Ukraine and Finland, but they're not in the position of total victory. Japan may also take the opportunity to demand North Sakhalin Island, but I doubt they'll get it.
-Italy is allowed to retain its pre-1915 borders and colonies. Status quo applies.
-Japan is likely to keep captured German colonies.
-Germany will likely get Luxembourg for its troubles. Togoland and SW Africa will be lost, but they'll be allowed to keep Tanganyika. Maybe they'll be allowed to annex the Belgian Congo as a trade for its other two African colonies?
-France gets Togoland. It doesn't get Alsace-Lorraine back, so the French will likely be pissed. However Russia not wanting to continue the war makes them swallow this bitter pill.
-The United Kingdom gets Southwest Africa from Germany.
-Belgium is restored and Germany agrees to pay reparations to Belgium, though they are nowhere near as steep as the Versailles requirements.
-The Ottoman Empire is not broken up. I'd say they get the Kars-Ardahan area from Russia, but only if they're lucky.
-Serbia remains independent. Macedonia gets ceded to Bulgaria.
-Status quo is retained for Rumania.
The peace looks good on paper, but it's likely to ruffle a few more feathers. The French still want Alsace-Lorraine back. Russia needs to catch up with the West again. The Ottoman Empire gets a breath of fresh air simply because no one could agree on how to partition it. Italy is highly pissed at the status quo peace, but is really in no position to make more demands.
luakel said:Benedict, I think that it's likely that, if needed, Belgium will be the fall man for the Allies. After all, they're going to be telling the Belgians "Hey, you're getting your homeland back, so don't make it harder on yourself and just give the Germans what they want". And at this point, with Russia out, and the other 2/3 of the Big Three wanting a peace, I don't think Belgium's concerns in the matter will worry Britain and France, since they did free the country after all.
LordKalvan said:IMHO, 1916 is not the right year. Unless you postulate a disaster for Brusilov (but the main Austrian and german armies were engaged respectively on the Italian and the Western fronts: the CP do not have unlimited resources).
benedict XVII said:Don't forget what Belgium represented for the Entente during the war. The invasion of Belgium is what made the Entente the "good" side during that war; before that, the world public opinion had more sympathy for the grief of A-H. Finally, a full evacuation of Belgium is in the interest of both France and Britain: they could not compromise on this.
Pretty much what he said. The way I see it, if the Belgians are going to continue a war that's obviously unpopular in Britain and France (if they're suing for peace) for a colony, then they're not going to get much support from the other allies. If Belgium is unwilling to give up it's African holdings, then, well, I can't see the Allies helping them to keep them. And if Belgium is going to order it's troops to attack the Allies in the trenches, or something like that, over this little spat, then I would think that the Allies would just let the Germans occupy Belgium. After all, as the Allies see it, their colonies are a bit more important than Belgium's...Ace Venom said:Britain had plenty of good reasons for going to war with Germany, but the invasion of Belgium provided a causus belli. Germany was a major competitor to the UK in economics and the growth of the German navy (they had every right to build the fleet) made plenty of people in high places feel uneasy. Britain could sacrifice Belgium and still come off quite well. Germany has been effectively cut out of the Chinese market and the Germans lost their Pacific fleet. Germany gained some prestige from forcing Britain to the peace table, but that's about all they've gained.
I also never suggested that Germany would continue to occupy Belgium.
Thw weakness of the German strategic position was always not to have enough troops to maintain the initiative on both fronts. This happened in 1914, when the Germans underestimated the capability of Russians to mobilize and it took the striking but casual enough victory at Tannenberg to stop the russian advance in Prussia. This again happened in 1916: the German army staff had three possible scenarios on their maps: an attack on the Western front, an attack on the Italian front, supporting the Austrians; finally a full offensive against the Russians, to capitalise the gains of 1915, and try to get them to sue for peace. Once again, the Germans were unable (or unwilling) to choose among these objectives: effectively, they gave priority to the Western front (Verdun) and the Italian front (Strafexpedition). Both offensives, after initial gains, petered out and the Entente counteroffensives gained back the lost ground and more. On the Eastern front, the Germans just progressed their limited offensive toward Riga, to threaten St. Petersburg; they were caught by surprise by the Brusilov offensive (it is quite unlikely that this offensive could have resulted in a disaster for the Russians: it took the ineptitude and lack of coordination of the other Russian armies to fail in breaching the Carpathian passes. If the Austrians get expelled from the Carpathians, they are in a mess, and Budapest is threatened). The political situation in Russia was far from bright, but it was not the mess it would have become by mid 1917: it is quite likely that the Russian losses in the 1916 offensives ultimately triggered the collapse (Russian losses are estimated around 2 millions; otoh, the CP lost 600,000 men on the eastern front alone), but Russia was still firmly in the war. It is almost surprising that ultimately the entente was able to coordinate quite effectively the operations on the different fronts: whenever the CP pushed against one of them, counterattacks were staged on the others.Ace Venom said:Which is what I did in my first post in the thread, but I left it open ended. The CP doesn't need unlimited resources to fight a war. It just needs to maintain strength on both fronts to bleed the enemy white. As it was shown a year later, Russia was the weakest link. Have the 1916 offensive go incredibly poorly for the Russians for some reason (which isn't implausible) and you'd likely have a panic on your hands.
This is a Churchillian representation of the facts: in reality, Great Britain was very reluctant to enter the war. Asquith was firmly convinced that the real danger was the unrest in Ireland, and the risk of armed insurrection. Grey was unconvinced that the war would last (if there would be a war: the consensus at the Foreign Office was that the Balkan instability would not have resulted in a war). The financial institutions were firmly against the war (there was a mini-panic in London on the 24th of July), and Lloyd George was the spokeman of these interests in the Cabinet. There was no treaty obligation to enter the war, since France declared war against Germany, and not viceversa. The Cabinet was willing to interdict the Channel to German ships, but that was all. Churchill was the single voice in opposition (and, as First Lord of the admiralty, recalled the ships from the Mediterranean to the Northern sea to carry out joint exercises with the Home Fleet (both Asquith and Grey were quite crossed with this fait-accompli). If Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality, it is quite doubtful that GB would have declared war. Even with the invasion of Belgium, GB waited until the 4th of August to declare war, and the king himself tried to mediate.Ace Venom said:Britain had plenty of good reasons for going to war with Germany, but the invasion of Belgium provided a causus belli. Germany was a major competitor to the UK in economics and the growth of the German navy (they had every right to build the fleet) made plenty of people in high places feel uneasy. Britain could sacrifice Belgium and still come off quite well. Germany has been effectively cut out of the Chinese market and the Germans lost their Pacific fleet. Germany gained some prestige from forcing Britain to the peace table, but that's about all they've gained.
I also never suggested that Germany would continue to occupy Belgium.
LordKalvan said:This is a Churchillian representation of the facts: in reality, Great Britain was very reluctant to enter the war.
What you say is true; however, the German Oberkommando was always a bit too focussed on the West.Ace Venom said:Well, I don't doubt the strategy for 1916 was flawed. Weather played a huge role, delaying the Battle of Verdun and quite possibly robbing the Germans a chance for victory. My original post was open ended out of laziness, but I guess I can try to hammer out a more coherant concept.
- Germany decides to remain on the defensive on the Western Front.
- Germany opts to provide more support for Austria on the Italian and Eastern Fronts, with higher priority going to the Eastern Front.
- Limited objectives for 1916. Push for St. Petersburg and advance wherever else it is possible.
- Keep enough troops on the Western Front to prevent an Anglo-French breakthrough
This may or may not throw a wrench in the Brusilov Offensive. But it does set up a scenario for a greater body count.
Why not? If the Germans continue to guarantee Belgium, the single real reason for entering the war disappears. The FO was not anticipating a world-changing war: they were expecting - at worst - a limited conflict, to be solved later on at a conference table, where GB would be the broker. If they stay out in 1914, and the Irish problem goes on as per OTL or worse, by 1916 they will not enter the war for sure (and maybe the war will be over). A stalemate on the Franco-German border, Serbia out of the war and the Germans taking Warsaw, and the Baltic duchies. Italians and Ottomans stay also out of the war (the cabinet does not endorse the seizing of the Turkish ships under construction in GB). In early 1916 there is a peace conference in Holland, to decide the map of the Balkans, and to create a Congress Poland and the independent Baltic duchies.Ace Venom said:Reluctant, yes. But could the UK have stayed out of the war forever? Russia wouldn't be so quick to give up in 1914, even if the Schlieffen Plan succeeded. After the debacle against Japan, the Czar stands to lose too much face by saying uncle immediately.
luakel said:Pretty much what he said. The way I see it, if the Belgians are going to continue a war that's obviously unpopular in Britain and France (if they're suing for peace) for a colony, then they're not going to get much support from the other allies. If Belgium is unwilling to give up it's African holdings, then, well, I can't see the Allies helping them to keep them. And if Belgium is going to order it's troops to attack the Allies in the trenches, or something like that, over this little spat, then I would think that the Allies would just let the Germans occupy Belgium. After all, as the Allies see it, their colonies are a bit more important than Belgium's...
Ace Venom said:I honestly don't agree with that assessment. One of Britain's war aims was to keep Germany out of Belgium. Germany is saying that Britain and France can keep the colonies and they'll leave Belgium if they give them the Congo. Germany has pretty much occupied the Belgian homeland at this point and they're in an very good negotiating position to get the Congo. France will not want to give Togoland or Kamerun back because that would mean Germany having to give up Alsace-Lorraine for a couple of colonies in Africa.
You are right in the fact that France will not likely want to concede the Congo to Germany because I'm sure they still want to try to get Alsace-Lorraine back. Really and truly, that's all they wanted out of the conflict. But I think Britain might be more willing to back down in this case, especially if Germany decides to make a backroom agreement with Belgium for "reparations."
The British and French stay pretty much neutral as the Germans roll into the Congo. At this point, if Belgium wants to continue the war they're on their own, as the Allies have made their peace and view the Congo as a German territory.benedict XVII said:OK, a deal emerges between France, Britain and Germany to make a deal on Belgium's back with Congo. Belgium refuses. What happens next?
This assumes that the French act rationally and the British don't do an "America" and sell them arms paid for by loans made to them. The chances are that they will remain fighting until the Russians are knocked out. To do that the Germans are going to be well up the Baltic coast if not at the gates of St Petersburg.LordKalvan said:Why not? If the Germans continue to guarantee Belgium, the single real reason for entering the war disappears. The FO was not anticipating a world-changing war: they were expecting - at worst - a limited conflict, to be solved later on at a conference table, where GB would be the broker. If they stay out in 1914, and the Irish problem goes on as per OTL or worse, by 1916 they will not enter the war for sure (and maybe the war will be over). A stalemate on the Franco-German border, Serbia out of the war and the Germans taking Warsaw, and the Baltic duchies. [..] In early 1916 there is a peace conference in Holland, to decide the map of the Balkans, and to create a Congress Poland and the independent Baltic duchies.
Wendell said:So, Germany picks up Belgian Congo, but loses its own colonies?
Michael B said:With much of Europe in their and their allies' hands, the Germans aren't going to invite the British to any meeting in which they shape the future of Europe. Instead they are going to sit themselves round a table in Berlin and do the job. If any one doesn't like that, then they can discuss the issue in the next war.
thesandman said:German forces move into the Belgian Congo anyway, with the tacit support of the British and French. The Belgians throw a fit but, realistically, the only possible way they could successfully stand up to Germany would be with British and French help, non-existent in this scenario. As for Allied justifications for this apparent betrayal, the French explain it as trading the Congo for Alsace-Lorraine and the British focus on the German withdrawal from continental Belgium, along with the situation in Ireland. Meanwhile, America isn't really interested at this point and Russia is presumably too busy disintegrating to notice. And honestly, I don't think either side much cares what Italy thinks.
luakel said:The British and French stay pretty much neutral as the Germans roll into the Congo. At this point, if Belgium wants to continue the war they're on their own, as the Allies have made their peace and view the Congo as a German territory.