Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 106

Thread: Central Powers winning WW1

  1. #1
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Central Powers winning WW1

    I know this is an open question, but could the Central Powers have won World War 1? If so, how? Secondly, if they had won, what effect would it have had in the world? The topic came up in a conversation on the TWC Chat, so I thought i'd post here and get in people's opinions while offering my own.

  2. #2
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    The Central Powers could never have won to the same extent that the Entente did.

    Quite simply, the High Seas Fleet could not hope to engage and decisively defeat the Royal Navy and, as such, the British Isles could not be invaded. The same situation was observed in the Second World War.

    The German home front was steadily collapsing throughout the entire war as a result of the RNs blockade. Had France fallen the Central Powers would likely have not had such a crippling supply shortage and as a result the war would have entered into stalemate again.

  3. #3
    Jingles's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    6,761

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    I'd have thought it's all down to whether or not the US mucked in. If they'd decided not to, then the Central Powers might've come out alright. It's worth remembering that the UK was slowly starting to starve as a result of German U-boat raids by the final years of the war.

  4. #4
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Here is a far more detailed post I made on the same subject in a previous thread:

    The only way the Central Powers could win would be to remove the British (as opposed to the tactic of removing the French so that the British had no powerful continental ally to give money and arms to that they did historically) and the only way to do that would be to decisively defeat the Royal Navy in the North Sea. Without British and Empire money, industry and armies the French military and government would have buckled fairly quickly under a German offensive.

    As Jutland is the only major battle we have to form a basis on such an attempt, the following must be considered:

    The High Seas Fleet (HSF) was superior at night fighting, this advantage must be capitalised on and used to the fullest effect before the Royal Navy (RN) gains experience in the field and can fight equally as effectively in the dark.

    The HSF is numerically inferior to the RN, which has far greater reserves of ships to call upon from the Empire (infact, one month after Jutland was fought the Grand Fleet of the RN reported a total strength superior to the strength they had sailed to Jutland with) and has greater experience in fleet manoeuvers(as shown by the HSF having to withdraw from Jutland despite inflicting higher losses to avoid encirclement).

    Taking these into consideration, the only way the HSF can even hope to decisively defeat the RN at sea is to cause the RN such heavy losses, whilst losing few enough of their own warships, to mean that gathering a fleet capable of going toe to toe against the HSF in the wake of this devastating defeat would take the RN months, giving the HSF control of the seas around the Isles for long enough that serious food shortages occur in Britain.

    The only way to do that is to play by their strengths, which is night fighting. The RN must be tricked into fighting a pitched fleet battle in the dead of night and the Grand Fleet must be so badly mauled by sunrise that it must be forced to withdraw as the HSF is now numerically superior and that superiority must be so great that the RN does not dare risk going to sea until numbers have been greatly increased.

    I, to begin with, don't think the RN at the time would have been stupid enough to sail to battle at night. The HSF can't do much damage floating around the North Sea on their own for a night, and certainly can't escape far enough into the Atlantic as to be unfollowable by morning.

    I also think that, had the HSF managed to force the RN to battle at night, they would have withdrawn before losses became too great as the HSF had done at Jutland. A decisive defeat of the Grand Fleet would have require a truly gifted admiral whose tactical and strategic sense and ability was unrivalled, and whilst the German Admiralty was certainly a competant body by all acounts, they were not a visionary group at the head of the greatest Fleet ever to sail.

    In conclusion, I do not believe the Central Powers could win the war as completely as the OP has suggested. They could, perhaps, force the French out of the war if they'd concentrated on Verdun rather than redirecting reserves to deal with the Somme, as a single British breakthrough (would've been shallow breakthrough anyway with the casualties suffered on day 1) would've been nothing to worry about compared to knocking the French out of the war.

    The resulting peace would have seen minor changes. The French may have had to give up some colonies but the British would have likely been fine, having to give nothing. They certainly couldn't be forced top accept a War Guilt clause whilst the RN was still battle capable. The Central Powers were simply unable, by virtue of the Royal Navy, to win as complete a victory as the Allies did historically without some major miracale in the North Sea.

    Edit: HSF is in red because it was the keyword I used to find the post itself.

  5. #5
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Quite simply, the High Seas Fleet could not hope to engage and decisively defeat the Royal Navy and, as such, the British Isles could not be invaded. The same situation was observed in the Second World War.

    The German home front was steadily collapsing throughout the entire war as a result of the RNs blockade. Had France fallen the Central Powers would likely have not had such a crippling supply shortage and as a result the war would have entered into stalemate again.
    What if both France and Russia fell? The war wouldn't be profitable for Britain and therefore they might have to tap out. It would be pretty much a stalemate, and while the Royal Navy could blockade Germany, with the additional ports, Germany could attempt to strangle the British more so than they actually did. If I recall correctly, Britain at some point only had enough food for six weeks. With the defeat of France and Russia, the blockade could have been tightened.

    I'd have thought it's all down to whether or not the US mucked in. If they'd decided not to, then the Central Powers might've come out alright. It's worth remembering that the UK was slowly starting to starve as a result of German U-boat raids by the final years of the war.
    Operation Michael and Operation Gneisenau in 1918 both attempted to bring the war to a conclusion, but the Germans failed due to their inability to sustain their advance and that having been subjected to blockade, started exploiting the British and French supply stores that they captured, which meant that there were less soldiers available to press the advance. Without the U.S presence, I think that the Allies could have won at this point, it would have just been a steadier process. They would have to break through the German trenches with an armoured thrust, hopefully throwing them out of their positions in to the open and forcing them to take rearguard actions rather than bogging them down in the trenches again.

  6. #6
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Certainly Lys, with both the French and the Russians gone the war wouldn't be of much use to the British. U-Boat warfare wasn't ad advanced in the First war as it was in the Second, even with the French ports I think the Royal Navy would be capable of maintaining British supply lines.

    As I argued in the post I quoted, the resulting peace may have seen minor French losses but nothing on the level of a Versailles-style settlement.

  7. #7
    Trax's Avatar It's a conspiracy!
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,044

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    The Versailles was a result of a long and bitter war.
    Quick German victory in 1914 might have been the best solution for Europe in the long term.

  8. #8
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Or a quick Allied victory. A German victory would have created a German Empire that actively competed with the British Empire (as in the naval race), which would have become another war eventually.

    A quick Allied victory may not have had the French as vindictive and, as such, Germany may have only had to cede Alsace-Lorraine.

  9. #9
    Trax's Avatar It's a conspiracy!
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,044

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Or a quick Allied victory.
    Can't see it happening, at least not a quick one.
    Well, perhaps if the Russians had performed much better than they did IRL.
    A German victory would have created a German Empire that actively competed with the British Empire (as in the naval race), which would have become another war eventually.
    Possibly, but it would have more likely been just an typical 19th century war on steroids.
    A war between two civilized enemies. Not a WW II style madhouse.

  10. #10
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    I can't see a quick German victory happening either, unless the Germans had performed far better than they did IRL.

    A quick, relatively painless Allied victory would have seen Germany cede, most likely, Alsace-Lorraine as the French wanted it back, and maybe pay some small reparations.

    Neither side would be especially bitter and, while you do make a good point that the Second World War after a German victory would have been much more civil than the real Second World War, a quick Allied victory may have avoided a second war entirely.

  11. #11
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Had the US not arrived it would probably ended up a near status quo ante bellum on the Western Front. The French morale was too low to launch any attacks on German positions, and the British were exhausted during the war. The Germans who would have had no reason to launch a summer offensive would have large reserves. With farmland opened in the Ukraine Germany could feed itself. However it was in no nations interest for a forever war so all sides would probably go to the table. However German gains in the East may have been more solidified especially as the West was concerned with the Bolshevist state.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  12. #12
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Certainly Lys, with both the French and the Russians gone the war wouldn't be of much use to the British. U-Boat warfare wasn't ad advanced in the First war as it was in the Second, even with the French ports I think the Royal Navy would be capable of maintaining British supply lines.

    As I argued in the post I quoted, the resulting peace may have seen minor French losses but nothing on the level of a Versailles-style settlement.
    I'd beg to differ, Germany was able to suffocate Britain's shipping even while at a disadvantage. Being able to secure France (and potentially the French navy à la Vichy France) would give them more areas from which to stage their U-boat campaign.

    Can't see it happening, at least not a quick one.
    Well, perhaps if the Russians had performed much better than they did IRL.
    Considering the long front the Russians had to defend, I doubt they could have done much better. Tactical handling of their forces needed room for improvement though.

    Possibly, but it would have more likely been just an typical 19th century war on steroids.
    A war between two civilized enemies. Not a WW II style madhouse.
    So you're saying Germany would ask for concessions similar to that of the Franco-Prussian War if they were able to score a quick victory?

    The Germans who would have had no reason to launch a summer offensive would have large reserves.
    You're saying they would just lay idle?

  13. #13
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Quote Originally Posted by Lysimachus View Post


    You're saying they would just lay idle?
    They would hold the front and let the British pound themselves against the German lines till they gave up (French troops already mutinied and stated a refusal to launch any offensives (till the US arrived boosting French morale)). The only reason they launched the Summer Offensive was to try to win the war before the US arrived in force.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  14. #14
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Quote Originally Posted by Future Redleg Officer View Post
    With farmland opened in the Ukraine Germany could feed itself.
    Debatable, the German's declared unrestrictied submarine warfare in early 1917 as a result of severe shortages: they hoped to starve Britain out of the war. The Ukranian farmland may have helped take the edge off the food problems, but the German war machine was running out of all sorts of material, not just food.

    However it was in no nations interest for a forever war so all sides would probably go to the table. However German gains in the East may have been more solidified especially as the West was concerned with the Bolshevist state.
    That is entirely true. Both the Central Powers and Entente were startled by the Russian Revolution and feared that their own countries may fall victim to such massive social upheaval. With no US entry to push the war to a conclusion I think both sides would have stopped the fighting before 1920 anyway.

  15. #15
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Quote Originally Posted by Poach View Post
    Debatable, the German's declared unrestrictied submarine warfare in early 1917 as a result of severe shortages: they hoped to starve Britain out of the war. The Ukranian farmland may have helped take the edge off the food problems, but the German war machine was running out of all sorts of material, not just food.
    That is before the Russian surrender of all that territory...



    That is entirely true. Both the Central Powers and Entente were startled by the Russian Revolution and feared that their own countries may fall victim to such massive social upheaval. With no US entry to push the war to a conclusion I think both sides would have stopped the fighting before 1920 anyway.
    Yep. It won't be a "the whole world speaking German" but it wouldn't have been an Allied victory. More of a stalemate with Germany with France and Britain maybe giving some minor colonies over.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  16. #16
    empr guy's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,330

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    I wonder, if the Germans had been able to march through belgium without a fight they might have been able to knock France out(or at least capture paris) and if that happened then the RN blockade might not have worked. Also, if they had sent Lenin into russia like in late 1915 and he had done the same thing then Germany would have lasted alot longer, and possibly could have knocked France out. If 2/3 of the Entente were knocked out i think Britain would have gone for peace, rather then be starved out with endless stalmate, Germans not being able to invade britain, britain launching a few failed invasions of france.

    Although in reality mabe the key to winning was to have AH or the Ottoman empire realy do stuff, as AH never did anything decisive over Russia or italy and besides gallipoli i dont recal the Ottomans doing much. (or at least few offensives)
    odi et amo quare id faciam fortasse requiris / nescio sed fieri sentio et excrucior


  17. #17
    Poach's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    26,766

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    I don't see the British government agreeing to any territorial concessions as long as the Royal Navy was still seaworthy, I'm unsure of the French position on the matter. Depending on how bad their mutiny problem had become by then they may have agreed to some concessions but if they still had a field army capable of holding the line I doubt they'd be up for ceding much either.

  18. #18
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    They would hold the front and let the British pound themselves against the German lines till they gave up (French troops already mutinied and stated a refusal to launch any offensives (till the US arrived boosting French morale)). The only reason they launched the Summer Offensive was to try to win the war before the US arrived in force.
    Under naval blockade, I don't think holding the front would be a viable choice. Regardless of a U.S presence or not, by 1918 Germany needed to end the war quickly. Most food was going to the military, and the population suffered as a consequence of that. Even then, the military was starting to starve, and continuing the war of attrition was not an option.

    That is before the Russian surrender of all that territory...
    Germany received food shipments from Austria-Hungary. I'm not sure occupying the Ukraine would tip the food situation hugely in their favour either, since they'll need to construct the required infrastructure to bring all of that back home.

    Yep. It won't be a "the whole world speaking German" but it wouldn't have been an Allied victory. More of a stalemate with Germany with France and Britain maybe giving some minor colonies over.
    I'm pretty sure Plan 1919 revolved around the war being continued - the Allies simply would have initiated that.

  19. #19
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Quote Originally Posted by Poach View Post
    I don't see the British government agreeing to any territorial concessions as long as the Royal Navy was still seaworthy, I'm unsure of the French position on the matter. Depending on how bad their mutiny problem had become by then they may have agreed to some concessions but if they still had a field army capable of holding the line I doubt they'd be up for ceding much either.
    As I said maybe some minor concessions but no like India.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  20. #20
    Trax's Avatar It's a conspiracy!
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    6,044

    Default Re: Central Powers winning WW1

    Considering the long front the Russians had to defend, I doubt they could have done much better. Tactical handling of their forces needed room for improvement though.
    Had Rennenkampf and Samsonov not been mortal enemies Russians may have threatened Berlin instead of getting massacred at Tannenberg.
    Not very likely though and also not likely to demoralise the Germans enough.

    So you're saying Germany would ask for concessions similar to that of the Franco-Prussian War if they were able to score a quick victory?
    Some border fortresses, parts of Belgium, some colonies probably.
    Who knows what it may have meant for France though.
    French fascism? At least their resources would have been inferior to Germans,
    so they would be likely cause less trouble than the nazis did IRL.

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •