Worst Case Scenario For the Central Powers - 1914

So, basically, how can we get the Worst Case Scenario for the Central Powers in 1914? i.e., a decisive and quick victory by all of the Entente against the CP.
How can we get a total failure of the Germans in France? How can Russia defeat AH and Germany decisively?
What would be the ramifications? Especially on a victorious Russia?
 
I don't think Russia CAN hold off both Germany and A-H but if, say, they were successful in stalling for time defensively against the Germans and pushed exclusively in the Caucasus and the Carpathians? They could perhaps get somewhere. And chances are Bulgaria would switch sides almost immediately upon the Russian army reaching its borders, like in WW2.

Anway, worst-case that I can see:

As per OTL, additionally:

1. Russian control of the Straits, international status for Constantinople?
2. Russian puppet states for the Assyrians and the Kurds/new Gubernii?
3. Turkey loses Thrace
4. Serbia could gain substantially

5. Poland may or may not be reconstituted. If it is, it may include the parts of Germany with Polish minorities. If it isn't (depends on how exhausted the Russians are and how the independence movement behaved during the war), then maybe no changes and no Danzig.

The world is really very interesting following that.
 

MrP

Banned
Replace one or both of the commanders of First and Second Russian Armies, and improve their knowledge of communications. Remove the German staff officer (name escapes me) whose intimate knowledge of Russian military procedures (and the Samsonov-Rennenkampf feud) helped 8th Army to take advantage of Russian failings. Make the Germans less lucky at first, leading to a proper retreat even if Prittwitz is replaced. Austria and Russia stay the same as OTL. It's hard to do better than that! ;)

Before the war France and the Ottomans conclude a secret agreement, which keeps the latter content and secure. So they don't ally with the CP. The war begins slightly later, as well, so the battleships are already in Turkish hands, preventing Churchill from nabbing them for the RN. The Brits are later than OTL in dealing with Ireland, and swifter at responding to the German invasion of Belgium, leading to two more BEF divisions than IOTL, and the whole force arriving days earlier.

The French have a different plan, recognising the possibility of German offensives through Belgium, and focusing on defeating these, then counter-attacking. They've also replaced their uniforms with a more modern version (several OTL proposals collapsed for various reasons. Just have one succeed). French heavy artillery has been under pressure since the efficacy of long-range fire was noted during the Boer War, and so by 1914 there's a lot more of it, and fewer 75s. Belgium is also a bit faster in re-equipping her forces ITTL, so has more of them (and better armed, trained and equipped) with which to face the invasion.

So Germany follows her OTL plan, runs into more stubborn Belgian defences, costing her more time and men than IOTL. By the time she penetrates it, she's facing a stronger BEF (pretty negligible, really, but it'd probably be ASB to have Haldane's planned million-man Territorial Force ready for the start of the war), French tactical doctrine is also sounder and equipment better. German casualties are greater than IOTL by several hundred thousand, and French lower by a similar amount - no constant counter-attacks to bleed them. German gains amount to Luxembourg and part of Belgium, while East Prussia has been abandoned to the Russians, and A-H has lost what it did IOTL. Serbia and so on is much the same. One could throw in Romania as immediately supporting the Russians, which could make the A-H losses even worse.

One could throw in naval affairs - say one of the HSF's coastal raids on the UK goes awry, leading to the loss of several valuable warships. But while that sounds promising, and would have a negative impact on CP morale, there's potential for the German response to be to throw everything into submarine warfare, mucking up the British supply situation.

This amounts to a comprehensive failure of the CPs' plans, but still isn't as bad as things could get. I've concentrated here on the CPs' opponents doing better, but there's a great deal one can do to make the CP themselves (well, Germany mainly) worse.
 
Mr P

Would agree with most of what you say. Don't think the 5th & 6th divisions were kept in Britain - for a little while anyway - because of the situation in Ireland. I think Kitchener wanted to keep a reserve in Britain against any attack. They did move to France pretty damned quickly but agree it would have been better to have all 6 in the initial BEF as initially planned.

A bigger advantage might be to have French rather than Grierson die of a sudden heart attack. Not sure about Grierson but French seems to have been a very bad choice for the role even without his personal vendetta against Smith-Dorrien, which lost us probably our best general. [Reading Robin Neilland's "The Great War Generals of the Western Front" and he is not a fan of French, although generally trying to rescue British generals from the 'donkeys' label. Although could possibly be worse if Wilson gained overall control itself!:eek:].

Not sure about the French getting heavier artillery at this point. If the French are fighting a German army desperately trying to advance over open ground against the bulk of the French army then the 75's with their accuracy and rate of fire would be very good weapons. You only really need heavier stuff if attacking a fortress or the war gets bogged down into trench warfare, which the TL is trying to avoid.

A couple of points occur about Belgium. The fighting around the fortress of Liege I think it was, was very close and bloody and Luddendorf I think effectively bluffed a couple of the forts into surrendering. If he had got shot instead then they might have held out a bit longer.

If things were going generally better for the allies and the Germans don't have the resources to seize Antwerp before the allies counter attack drives them back then they don't capture the nitrate stocks there which were important in helping them continue munitions productions until the Haber Process was on-line. With a desperate shortage of production at the same time as disaster on both fronts and you could see the Germans seeking terms.

If people want a single POD that brings things to an end quickly how about something delaying the industrialisation of the Haber process? Without that the central powers very quickly run out of munitions. That definitely means a quick end to the war.

Steve
 

MrP

Banned
Yes, I think you're right - I'm getting confused by Curragh! I completely agree about with everything else you say, too, with the qualifier that I just like France having heavier artillery in case things do get a bit static . . . but as you rightly say, no ammo for the Germans means no more war anyway!
 
Can whe have the Belguims bo a little better at holding up the Germans. Meanwhile Britain talks Holland into the war,and the BEF lands in Amsterdam, and moves south to attack the Germans in the rear.
 
The Germans hold nothing back against Russia but when Russia throws her peace-time armies while mobilization is still going on, a detail the 'brilliant' Prussian junkers never considered over several decades, it becomes clear that not only will Prussia fall but Berlin itself is at serious risk.

Even as German soldiers are massing within 30 or so miles of Paris Berlin frantically pulls dozens of divisions back just as the Anglo-French counter-offensive starts. Germany finally forms a line in the west nearly driven from France and along the Oder in the east. The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria refuse to even consider allying with an obviously beaten power while Italy dives into the Entente to get spoils before the war is over.

In 1915 it is all Germany can do hold its own and prevent the final collapse of Austria-Hungary...
 
Top