WW1: CP decide it's best to give up

[Wendell]

Well, in the scenario I originally outlined, France can pick up Togoland and possibly Kamerun while the UK gets SW Africa. Germany keeps Tanganyika and gains the Congo as compensation.



Even then, I think what Germany could dictate would be limited. It's pretty much established that no one would really care if Germany annexed Luxembourg. You'd have an independent Poland and Baltic States. I don't know if Finland would be able to get its independence. Britain might be interested in an independent Ukraine because it weakens Russia, however it would serve to strengthen Germany's position in Europe as well.

In the Balkans, Serbia becomes the fall man. Austria-Hungary is in no shape to impose much else in the Balkans and Germany isn't exactly willing to weaken its only ally in Europe. Peace in the Balkans isn't going to last forever, but the horrors of war may pacify them for a few years.

I would have a slightly different peace.

 

[LordKalvan]

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.

All this is going to be into the summer of 1916. Give another few months which Paris works out that it is about to be cloppered and the Germans move veterans westward.

In this scenario you have an autumn offensive with the Germans advancing on Paris and Dijon. The French might then surrender/call for an armistice.

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.

In order to knock out Russia, it's necessary to take Moscow (ask Napoleon and Hitler for references): St. Petersburg and the Baltic duchies are plainly not enough. UK stays out of the war if there is not a big risk that the s*** hits the fan (which means that they stay out of the war until the western front is a stalemate). I suppose they are not going to allow Germany to become the undisputed master of Europe. We've assumed that Belgium is not invaded (which means that the franco-german border is shorter, and heavily fortified). I find it difficult to believe that the German can achieve a brakthrough in 1916. On the Eastern front, Turkey stays out (more Russians troops are available, and the best Russian commander is not relegated to fight in the Caucasus). With logistics as they are in 1915, I cannot believe the Germans can go for a blietz. This means that in 1916, there is no big change, except the fact that Serbia is toast.
If the war goes on, both France and Russia can buy arms and industrial goods (not to mention foodstuff) on the market (and Russia can still use the Straits, since Turkey is neutral). Germany is much more in a difficult situation in terms of raw materials, and manpower.

 

[wkwillis]

War in 1913 over the Balkan Alliance against Turkey, Italy and Rumania join up right away because they think the Entente is winning, Russia doesn't stumble into the trap at Masurian Lakes because they aren't hurrying so much to take pressure off an invaded France, Turkey stays neutral because while they can close the straits the Entente can ship stuff by rail through the Balkans, France fights in Belgium instead of France because of Plan Michaek and therefor keeps more industrial power, Russia stays in the war longer, and things just go to hell in general for the Germans.
Since France and Britain and Italy are democracies, peace overtures may be better recieved than the other way around in OTL.