Germany continues fighting after November 1918

Bmao

This thread probably must have been done before at some point, but I'll start it again just for discussion purposes.

What if in November 1918, Germany decided to continue fighting against the allies? The POD can be anytime after the Spring Offensive of 1918. I will admit by that stage, any way that Germany could achieve victory were dashed, but could it now avoid defeat?

Here's some things to consider. In March, Germany had just negotiated the Brest-Litovsk treaty, which took away a third of Russia's population, half of her industry and nine-tenths of her coal mines. Could Germany last long enough so that they could begin getting the benefits from that region?

Also, what about civil unrest within Germany itself? If the entente powers begin to enter German territory, does that galvanize resistance, or does it speed up Germany's internal collapse?

How long could Germany or the Central Powers last under such circumstances?
 

Kabraloth

Most of the Central Powers at this point had already collapsed beyond repair and Germany was in the process to (several thousand Germans were starving to death due to the blockade even in OTL when the peace negotiations were underway).

If Germany keeps fighting, the French will be in Berlin in 1920 at the latest. If Germany as an entity survives at all, it will be seriously crippled for good (far greater loss of manpower, damage to the infrastructure, stronger separatist movements).
 

The Dean

Kabraloth said:
Most of the Central Powers at this point had already collapsed beyond repair and Germany was in the process to (several thousand Germans were starving to death due to the blockade even in OTL when the peace negotiations were underway).

If Germany keeps fighting, the French will be in Berlin in 1920 at the latest. If Germany as an entity survives at all, it will be seriously crippled for good (far greater loss of manpower, damage to the infrastructure, stronger separatist movements).
Click to expand...

The French army was in no condition to advance it would have been the British forces along with the Canadian, ANZAC and American troops that would have continued the 1918 winter assault into Germany.
 

Bmao

I'm not sure about the French benig in Berlin, as they were as strapped for manpower as Germany was at that point. The French GDP had already fallen the same proportional amount as Germany had, and their losses in manpower were greater proportionally than Germany. France had a population of 40 million, losing 1.5 million men, while Germany, with a population of 64 million, had lost 2 million men.

The Americans, by 1914, had lost only a total of 100,000 men, and had virtually an inexhaustible supply of manpower, and as the war progresses from 1918-1919, they would start to take up a larger and larger proportion of the allied forces on the front lines, replacing the depleted French. Most likely it would be the Americans or the British who get to Berlin, not the French.

At the very least, if the war continues to 1920, Hitler would likely be killed at some point, along with other notable future Nazi leaders.
 

Larrikin

Banned
French Army in 1918-19

The Dean said:
The French army was in no condition to advance it would have been the British forces along with the Canadian, ANZAC and American troops that would have continued the 1918 winter assault into Germany.
Click to expand...

The French Army was in quite good condition at the end of the war. The problems of 1917 had been fixed by Petain and Foch, and they had developed very sophisticated tactics and a mean logistics system. Continuing to fight to completely defeat Germany wouldn't have been a problem for them.

As for Germany fighting on after November '18, by that point all their allies had capitulated, thus freeing up the Italian Army, about 500,000 troops in Salonica, a similar number in Syria and Mesopotamia, and they were veteran troops, not the raw levies the Germans would have had to raise to fight them. In addition, there were no German troops available to switch do Germany's south east frontiers to face the forces coming out of Italy and up the Danube.
 

Mark AH

Larrikin said:
As for Germany fighting on after November '18, by that point all their allies had capitulated, thus freeing up the Italian Army, about 500,000 troops in Salonica, a similar number in Syria and Mesopotamia, and they were veteran troops, not the raw levies the Germans would have had to raise to fight them. In addition, there were no German troops available to switch do Germany's south east frontiers to face the forces coming out of Italy and up the Danube.
Click to expand...

The Germans would have been the weak force on the Italian front but the Alps are a good environment for defence.
 

Homer

Kabraloth said:
Granted. The end result would be the same, however.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. It would be a significant difference if the US take the main part in conquering Germany and France just participates as far as necessary. In this case, the US wouldn't be the new guys who just arrived in the last months, but those who conquered Berlin.

It could have a significant influence on who takes what effort in conquering Germany. Of course, the US would also support harsher peace terms than OTL - yet imagine what the French would demand in a peace treaty if they had to continue the fighting until Berlin!
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Germany was done like dinner.

There was no way that she COULD have fought much longer. Her home front was in disarray & the Red Flag of revolution was already being prepared in most major cities. Her militiary logistic were in shambles. Her forces on the Western Front had, by & large, been pushed out of their defensive positions into what promised to become a Front-wide retreat. Morale among deployed German units was at the breaking point & munitity was in the air. American forces continued to pour into the Theater, making the force balance along the battle front worse literally by the day.

In all Germany was ready to implode into revolution. Had her leaders decided to fight it is likely that she would have suffered the same fate as Czarist Russia, assuming that the French & British didn't simply occupy the country & break it back into the "germanic states" Balkanizing the region, and decapitating the Prussian state to ensure the country didn't recoalesce into a threat.

Given what happened after the Weimer Republic failed, perhaps it would have been a good thing if Germany had TRIED to fight on.:eek:
 

Damar1

CalBear said:
Germany was done like dinner.

There was no way that she COULD have fought much longer. Her home front was in disarray & the Red Flag of revolution was already being prepared in most major cities. Her militiary logistic were in shambles. Her forces on the Western Front had, by & large, been pushed out of their defensive positions into what promised to become a Front-wide retreat. Morale among deployed German units was at the breaking point & munitity was in the air. American forces continued to pour into the Theater, making the force balance along the battle front worse literally by the day.

In all Germany was ready to implode into revolution. Had her leaders decided to fight it is likely that she would have suffered the same fate as Czarist Russia, assuming that the French & British didn't simply occupy the country & break it back into the "germanic states" Balkanizing the region, and decapitating the Prussian state to ensure the country didn't recoalesce into a threat.

Given what happened after the Weimer Republic failed, perhaps it would have been a good thing if Germany had TRIED to fight on.:eek:
Click to expand...

In that case...FIGHT on Germany. Maybe there is no WW2 then, or even WW1 for that matter (it's simply referred to as 'the Great War').

At this rate, maybe Rosa Luxembourg survives, and the Communists, if not taking over Germany, do much better there than IOTL early 20th century.
 

Blizrun

WWII could've still happened. Stalin's rise to power might not have been stopped, and we still would've had an eye for Poland (which would probably still been revived). Should the communists taken control of Germany (or, in the case of its dissolution, its successor states), Stalin might have some very willing allies in spreading the revolution.
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

It might be interesting to postulate WI there had been an allied policy of unconditional surrender in WW1, as in WW2? The German's would then presumably have fought on until complete collapse as in WW2. What next?
 

Kabraloth

Shimbo said:
It might be interesting to postulate WI there had been an allied policy of unconditional surrender in WW1, as in WW2? The German's would then presumably have fought on until complete collapse as in WW2. What next?
Click to expand...
Germany ceases to exist. A couple decades later, the Comintern rules Europe and is fighting WW2 against Great Britain and the USA.
 

Othniel

Both France and Germany were exausted by this war. Germany lost the most, while France lost the highest portion of their population. However the German's were in lock down. The blockades had been working. The fresh Americans are able to pick up the slack and the German advantage is worn away after a few more months. Americans have more of a say at the peace table prehaps, or prehaps the French and British feel as they have more reasons to enforce a harsh peace...? I'd take the second as the more likely. The Treaties fail because of their harshness. Dematouges come to fill the hole left by an attempt at unattainable democracy.
 

Sertak

In that case by December 1918 at least, the revolutionary movement against the war would have begun, which would have allowed the Allies an offensive against Germany proper by the spring of 1919.
 

Homer

Othniel said:
Both France and Germany were exausted by this war. Germany lost the most, while France lost the highest portion of their population. However the German's were in lock down. The blockades had been working. The fresh Americans are able to pick up the slack and the German advantage is worn away after a few more months. Americans have more of a say at the peace table prehaps, or prehaps the French and British feel as they have more reasons to enforce a harsh peace...? I'd take the second as the more likely. The Treaties fail because of their harshness. Dematouges come to fill the hole left by an attempt at unattainable democracy.
Click to expand...

I agree that the peace terms would be harsher than OTL, but now, as I said above, it depends on who takes what effort in the last years. The US conquering Germany would dictate harsher peace terms than OTL. Britain and France conquering Germany yet would impose even harsher peace terms!

Anyway, I think the following years would see a development pretty much like OTL 1945. Germany is starving, and the allies somehow find themselves in the role of a helper - after all, a Germany as we talk about would never be able to pay any reparations soon as long as you do not want to impose some Morgenthau-like plans. And then, since Germany would be occupied for a while and the revolutions would spread, the allies would find themselves pretty soon fighting alongside Freikorps against the red menace. IOTL, they were concerned that Germany could become a Soviet State and make a union with the Bolsheviks in Russia, which sounded like pure horror for French and British elites. ITTL, the allies would be in charge to prevent this.

Thus we might see a post-WWII-like scenario only that the cold war is pretty hot.
 

Deleted member 1487

You are all forgetting that the Americans refused to participate in a war of conquest. They would not conquer Berlin. Wilson was fedup with the allies and their desire for revenge, rather than a peace with honor. So, it would be the allies that did the fighting in Germany. But they did not have the manpower to fight a war of conquest. Yes, they could fight up to the Rhine, but good luck getting past it.

However, the German people were starving, so any TL without a revolution is ASB.
 

MerryPrankster

If Germany is broken up, how long until Germany becomes Europe's battleground again?

And how long can the Allies prevent German reunification? I suspect that the people who want a united Germany outnumber the people who still view themselves as Bavarian, Hanoverian, etc. The French can go Holy Alliance every few years, but they'd get tired of it eventually.
 

Grimm Reaper

On the other hand, if the fantasy of being stabbed in the back while the German Army was undefeated in the field never gets hold of the German psyche...
 

Larrikin

Banned
Alps

Mark AH said:
The Germans would have been the weak force on the Italian front but the Alps are a good environment for defence.
Click to expand...

The Germans wouldn't have been defending the Alps. The Italian Army would have marched through the Lubjanka Gap into the Danube Valley, turned left west of Vien, and gone straight into south eastern Germany. They would have been joined by the British and French forces from the Salonika Front and the ME who would have been shipped straight up the river.

On 11 November 1918 there was not a single German Army formation between the Italians and Nurenberg, and it was calculated that it would have taken the Italians all of 12 days to get there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top