The Central Powers Win WWI.

Grimm Reaper

Been pondering how to make this work and I've got a few ideas.

One obvious POD would be if Germany never provokes the US into entering the war and I have an idea how to avoid this.

In 1915 Erich von Falkenhayn launched a series of deliberately non-decisive operations aimed only at improving the situation in various theaters of war, crushing Serbia and pushing back Russia and Italy but he didn't even have a plan which could actually win the war. When he did come up with one, the concept of a bloodletting to break the French at Verdun not only failed but somehow missed the point that when facing the combined manpower of the French and British empires, plus various allies, a slugging match aimed at only one of the Allies on the Western Front was unlikely to work.

Now, if he had countered traditional German thought that Russia was too big to be knocked out of the war first...given a change in the military situation it follows that a change in military planning would follow.


The biggest problem remains the diplomatic field. It is hard to find anything positive to say about German diplomacy during the war. The method of negotiating with individual members of the Entente, accepting that if the Entente held together Germany was likely doomed, then making demands which were increasingly undeserved instead of a generous peace which, if accepted by one key player, might permit Germany to actually win the war...less than sensible and this remained the standard throughout the war.

As for German diplomacy towards neutrals, Germany gained the support of Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire effectively forced to join the Central Powers by the Entente, but many neutrals would join with the Entente instead. The Zimmerman Telegram may summarize German diplomacy, whereby Germany diplomats deliberately embarked on a series of actions all but certain to bring the US into the war.

As a result, this scenario presents the problem of requiring a diplomatic sense of wisdom which, in all honesty, runs entirely contrary to the actual record. Still, I'll start trying to find a way for what would have to be a radical shift in German diplomatic thought...
 

usertron2020

Donor
Schlieffen plan works?

Grimm Reaper said:
Been pondering how to make this work and I've got a few ideas.

One obvious POD would be if Germany never provokes the US into entering the war and I have an idea how to avoid this.

In 1915 Erich von Falkenhayn launched a series of deliberately non-decisive operations aimed only at improving the situation in various theaters of war, crushing Serbia and pushing back Russia and Italy but he didn't even have a plan which could actually win the war. When he did come up with one, the concept of a bloodletting to break the French at Verdun not only failed but somehow missed the point that when facing the combined manpower of the French and British empires, plus various allies, a slugging match aimed at only one of the Allies on the Western Front was unlikely to work.

Now, if he had countered traditional German thought that Russia was too big to be knocked out of the war first...given a change in the military situation it follows that a change in military planning would follow.


The biggest problem remains the diplomatic field. It is hard to find anything positive to say about German diplomacy during the war. The method of negotiating with individual members of the Entente, accepting that if the Entente held together Germany was likely doomed, then making demands which were increasingly undeserved instead of a generous peace which, if accepted by one key player, might permit Germany to actually win the war...less than sensible and this remained the standard throughout the war.

As for German diplomacy towards neutrals, Germany gained the support of Bulgaria, the Ottoman Empire effectively forced to join the Central Powers by the Entente, but many neutrals would join with the Entente instead. The Zimmerman Telegram may summarize German diplomacy, whereby Germany diplomats deliberately embarked on a series of actions all but certain to bring the US into the war.

As a result, this scenario presents the problem of requiring a diplomatic sense of wisdom which, in all honesty, runs entirely contrary to the actual record. Still, I'll start trying to find a way for what would have to be a radical shift in German diplomatic thought...
Click to expand...
How about this? In 1914 the Germans let their Allies in the dust and concentrate on the Schlieffen Plan(Keep the right strong!) to knock France out of the war. No Battle of the Marne, German troops at Paris' gates(again), and Russian Army held off temporarily. Holding off the Russians is not as crazy as it seems considering what happened OTL. Use a fraction of the German Army ITTL, and only defensively, and who knows...?:)
 

Riain

Banned
The Schlieffen Plan was logistically unsound. During WW1 it was shown time and again that the practical limit for supply with existing technology was 100 miles. By the time of the Marne the Germans had been beyond 100 miles of the nearest (leapfrogging forward) railheads for close to a month. They got away with it because much of the French Army was attacking the left wing, so the right wing could live off the land and didn't use huge amounts of ammo.

My personal favourite idea for CP victory is the Germans winning the Race to the Sea and holding the Pas de Calais/Cap Griz Nez from 1914. This is achievable with German forces in the west in 1914, it would probably be the unintended outcome of reinforcing the right wing instead of the OTL failed left wing offensives. The result would be the British would have to spend the first could of years gaining supremecy over the Germans in the Dover strait and French channel coast instead of building up a 65 division BEF. This would allow the Germans to focus on Russia in 1915 and 16 instead of Verdun and the Somme.
 

rast

At the time of the Marne battle, the most forward German supply railhead was at St. Quentin in France, far less than 100 km from the fighting area - and about to re-locate to a position even closer to the Marne.
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
How about the US stays neutral and Germany uses the troops freed by Russian withdrawal in a decisive offensive on the Western front.
 

Grimm Reaper

My idea involves Germany going on the defensive in the West, allowing the British and French to enjoy all the joys of charging trenches, while making a supreme effort which forces Russia out of the war by the middle of 1916.

This in turn causes a triumphant Germany, with victory in sight, to become more reasonable with the other Entente members, seeing the gains they want in the east in place of the colonies overseas which were all(bar Nauru) a fiscal loss and which they probably can't get back. It especially convinces Germany to not attempt unrestricted submarine warfare.

Perhaps I'll have a brief scene where Admiral Tirpitz demands to be allowed to release the u-boats, after which he is forced into retirement for being so crazed as to demand the one move(bringing the US in) which might save the war for the Entente?;)

Chain reaction follows and after Italy loses Venice and effectively withdraws from the war(Greece and Romania never entering) the remaining Entente see no choice but to yield to a sensible, even generous, peace offer.

One problem is convincing even myself that Germany's government was remotely capable of effectively forfeiting any gains in the west...


Or perhaps I should just present the CP triumph as a done deal and move on to the peace settlement of 1917?



Of course there will be clouds on the horizon, especially the crisis in post-war Russia which gives Great Britain the unhappy choice of which alliances to be break.:(
 

Susano

Banned
I dont think you can solve the American conundrum from the German side. Even if Germany does away etirely with the sub war, the USA under Wilson would so heavily support the Entente and might find another reason to enter the war... I would say you simply need a sufficiently neutral/pro-German and anti-interventionist Government, one which will even look past the sub war. After all, if people enter war zones that are clearly delineated and advertised as that then its their own da,n fault if they torpedoed.

However, another problem I see is that I dont think Falkenhayn will be given a free hand for non-decisive actions. The Emperor was a far too dramatic/theatralic man to go without them.

/E: If you want a CP Victory without caring for how, the best bet is Italy on CP side. Thats a deal clencher already. Additionally, Romania and Sweden could end up on CP side, too.
 
Last edited:

wormyguy

Banned
Susano said:
I dont think you can solve the American conundrum from the German side. Even if Germany does away etirely with the sub war, the USA under Wilson would so heavily support the Entente and might find another reason to enter the war... I would say you simply need a sufficiently neutral/pro-German and anti-interventionist Government, one which will even look past the sub war.
Click to expand...
A Taft victory in 1912 would probably be good here - in 1914 he founded the "League to Enforce Peace," whose aim it was to prevent the US from joining the war.
 

TNF

wormyguy said:
A Taft victory in 1912 would probably be good here - in 1914 he founded the "League to Enforce Peace," whose aim it was to prevent the US from joining the war.
Click to expand...

Which probably means that you need an earlier POD that keeps Roosevelt from running in 1912. This means that you probably have Taft keep with the Progressive wing of the Republican Party, which virtually assures no schism in 1912 and a probable re-election for WHT.
 

Riain

Banned
If the aim is to have the war end in 1917 the only way for the US to be important is if they enter the war in 1916, otherwise they are a minor player who traded with Germany in 1916 when the opportunity arose.

As for France charging German trenches, better to have that occur on French territory while denying them their best industrial region then have it occur in Germany and threaten the Rhur. The strategic offensive/tactical defensive is the strongest form of warfare, which is why Germany was so hard to beat in the west.
 

Grimm Reaper

If unrestricted submarine warfare never begins because Germany is confident of victory to the point of offering a peace among equals in the West then Wilson probably isn't going to be able to get the US involved.
 

Cornelius

Now, if he had countered traditional German thought that Russia was too big to be knocked out of the war first...given a change in the military situation it follows that a change in military planning would follow.


The biggest problem remains the diplomatic field. It is hard to find anything positive to say about German diplomacy during the war.
Click to expand...

If you want a CP victory with a Germany able to diplomacy to her own advantage, why not redraw the 1914 situation?

Let's say that the german high command realize that the Schlieffen plan cannot work due the logistical constraint. The logical step is abandoning the idea of a quick victory in the West and prepare for a long war in the East. This means concentrating on the defense of Alsace-Lorena and going on the offensive against the russian working stesso tempo with the austrians.
The logical consequence will be that UK will stay neutral, since it was the invasion of Belgium to trigger the english intervention.
Someone will surely object that the english would find a way to get involved into the war. This may be true, but since UK was a democracy a suitable casus belli will be needed, something that a competent diplomacy could stave off for a lot of time. In the worst of cases it will buy you a couple of years without Great Britain as a direct enemy.

Without UK I don't think that the entente will be able to convince Italy to join the war against the CP. You could have the german diplomacy buy the italian neutrality with some territorial concession or having the italians decide that this isn't their war.

The CP forces combined against ahould be able to push Russia to the near breaking point in a couple of years, after which a reasonable peace could be accepted by the Tsar.

The question is if Germany can hold back France in A-L for two/three years...
 

Deleted member 1487

Probably the best bet is to have the Bulgarians come in earlier, with the Austro-Hungarians doing better in Serbia, hopefully knocking the out in 1914. If that happens then the Italians are very unlikely to come in thanks to butterflies (not thinking the Austro-Hungarians are easy to beat, the Serbian front draining resources, Galipoli probably not happening thanks to the CP's having open supply lines to Istanbul, etc.), Greece staying out, Romania staying out (butterflies, but also Bulgaria being unengaged anywhere else and open to attacking their neighbor, plus the freed up Austrian troops being available for use against Russia, making the Brusilov offensive nowhere near as successful if it happens at all), and lots of AH (and some German) resources being freed up for use on the Eastern front (probably near 1 million men and thousands of artillery pieces and ammunition not used on other fronts).

Throw all that in against Russia and the odds indicate that Russia would be out by 1917 thanks to more resources being available. In fact, the Germans would have more resources for the Western Front, as they would need fewer to prop up the Austrians. In fact, starting Winter 1914 onward the entire course of the war would be radically changed to the benefit of the Central Powers. Of course the Entente would also save resources by not invading at Galipoli and Greece. In the West, it might be a wash, but it does give the Entente resources to use against the Ottomans. They might actually try to invade Antioch, a second option if Galipoli did not work out (Kitchener's idea). Though this idea might falter just as easy if not worse.
 

Douglas

I'm not sure Taft in 1912 is a good idea. Hughes (IIRC?), the "conservative Republican" choice for the US, wanted war immediately after his inauguration which, thanks to Wilson's hysterics, would have been in November 1916.

What you want is WJB: a President who will resign before he declares war on Germany.
 

Grimm Reaper

Getting some good ideas here, thanks!:)

Right now I'm considering the change being 1915, too late to stop Italy from selling itself to the highest bidder but early enough to keep the US and many smaller powers from joining the Entente, especially with Russia visibly failing before countries like Greece and Romania would have entered the war.

My idea does not involve a clean sweep for Germany but rather the defeat of Russia and subsequent near-collapse of Italy with inevitable casualties even in victory convinces Germany to offer peace terms without any concessions from the remaining Entente which not only ensures the US will remain out of the war but which gives Germany the moral high ground as it is clear to all that the British and French can't expect to win while Germany might but Germany is not only offering to let them off but even give up on all the German colonies save East Africa.

Further, with plans for the future Germany even goes so far as to make a few small territorial concessions to certain neutrals, not at the expense of German territory naturally.:D
 

Guerrilla Republik

Taken from the Bulgarian thread, why not take it further back, with Austria-Hungary gaining an early victory against Serbia, capturing and holding Belgrade. This prompts Bulgaria into attacking Serbai, collapsing it way earlier. This victory without any German assistance places faith in the AH citizens, and also allows more troops to be allowed in Galicia, as well as large numbers of Bulgarian troops in that theater.

Supply lines to the Ottomans are opened earlier, butterflying away Galipolli, and also butterflying away Italian betrayal of the alliance, since the defeats in Serbia made Italy believe they could easily defeat AH. This leaves an Ottoman Army in the Balkans, and maybe earlier focus on the Suez, and the Caucasus.
 

Riain

Banned
In my opinion, despite not bringing about an early victory, the Schlieffen Plan was the premier strategic move of the war. Even in failure it set the tone of the war and gave Germany the intitiative. Not conducting it at all concedes the intitiative to the Entente and Germany will never win if that is the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top