 |
| |
|
|
typhoon
|
 |
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
That's a great timeline Steph, well thought out.  Unfortunately there are a few flaws:
- Although the German Army was unbeaten, conditions on the home front would have led to its eventual collapse anyway. Mass starvation caused by the blockade of Germany was a big factor in Allied victory, and partly due to mismanagement of the German economy.
Germany at this point in time has an acute manpower shortage vs. the Allies (getting worse with each US division arriving in France.) If the Allied armies are exhausted by 1919, the Germans would be in even deeper sh!t. If the Lurendorff Offensive indeed failed in this timeline it would mean that Jerry has run out of his last reserve veteran soldiers and is now filling the trenches with old men and young boys (this was already happening by the end of 1918.) The tired surivivors of the Western Front would already be badly outnumbered by fresh American troops, who would have taken over a greater share of the planned 1919 campaign from the British and French. You don't even need to include Allied superiority in industrial output, logistics, and tanks. Sheer weight of numbers alone would have ensured victory for them.
- Added to the fact that the Germans had only acheived their total moblization figures of 11-12 million for the entire war by completely stripping their economy of manpower, diverting an unsustainable percentage of their industrial capacity, relying on Swedish, Dutch and Swiss imports, looting occupied countries, and by using millions of Russian and Belgian POWs/conscripted laborers, means that the possibility of Germany holding out through 1919 is quite slim.
- It is highly unlikely that the Allies would abandon the war at such a crucial juncture with victory nearly at hand. British and French morale was heavily reinforced by the arrival of the doughboys. The UK and France too would not have asked for a armistice this late in the war, reason being that the general mood of the populace at the time was to 'finish it.' The worse Allied morale ever got was in 1917 (prior to the American intervention) with mutinies in the French Army and the Russian revolution. (This point will be raised again later.)
- By the armistice of November 1918 the AEF had more than 2 million men and was holding 25 per cent of the Western Front. Although initially American forces suffered heavy casualties compared to the more experienced Germans (a 10 to 1 ratio according to some American officers), it would take alot more than that for the United States to reach the level of war-weariness and battle deaths that would compel them to ask for a ceasefire.
That being said, I would advise the point of divergence to be changed to 1917, or more specific, Germany's decision to contiue unresticted submarine warfare that eventually brought the USA into the war.
Check out this link to find out why.
Just some friendly suggestions
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jim panse
|
 |
Anvilvania
Oct 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by typhoon
That's a great timeline Steph, well thought out. |
Well, at least someone read that stuff. Anyway, since I wanted a debate about those issues ... here we go!
quote:
- Although the German Army was unbeaten, conditions on the home front would have led to its eventual collapse anyway. Mass starvation caused by the blockade of Germany was a big factor in Allied victory, and partly due to mismanagement of the German economy. |
I disagree. The allied strategy of using their superior numbers and their superiority - I will call it "war of attrition" - failed. Not only, as Niall Ferguson's book "The Pity of War" shows in the chapters 9 and 11 very explicitely.
In his conclusion on page 444f. Ferguson states that:
"The Entente Powers enjoyed an immense economic superiority over the Central Powers: a combined national income 60 per cent greater, 4.5 times as many people and 28 per cent more men mobilized. In addition, the British economy grew during the war while the German contracted. (...) Yet there is a myth that the Germans mismanaged their war economy. Taking the difference in resources into account, it was the other side - and especially Britain and the United States - which waged war ineffiently. (...) Finally, it is implausible to argue that maldistribution of income and scarce food undermined the German war effort, as the groups worst affected were relatively unimportant: landlords, senior civil servants, women, the insane and illegitimante babies. They did not lose the war, nor make a revolution."
The point Ferguson makes in his book, which I think is quite accurate is that even though the Entente Powers agreed on a "strategy of attrition" in the war against Germany they did not succeed. German soldiers were, save sping 1918 (the Ludendorff offensive) more successful in killing their allied counterparts. Ferguson states there have been roughly about 35% more casualties on the Allied side than on the German.
quote:
Germany at this point in time has an acute manpower shortage vs. the Allies (getting worse with each US division arriving in France.) If the Allied armies are exhausted by 1919, the Germans would be in even deeper sh!t. If the Lurendorff Offensive indeed failed in this timeline it would mean that Jerry has run out of his last reserve veteran soldiers and is now filling the trenches with old men and young boys (this was already happening by the end of 1918.) The tired surivivors of the Western Front would already be badly outnumbered by fresh American troops, who would have taken over a greater share of the planned 1919 campaign from the British and French. You don't even need to include Allied superiority in industrial output, logistics, and tanks. Sheer weight of numbers alone would have ensured victory for them. |
I admit that the ever-growing numbers of the Allied soldiers make it sound rather impossible for Germany to resist. Even though the tide turned in summer 1918, the Allied armies did not achieve a breakthrough. Yet it is true that German soldiers were more willingly to surrender in the August and September days of 1918 but even though, however, the allied casualties were very high. The Germans performed an organized retreat and the Allies, though far superior in numbers, were not able to make that retreat a defeat.
You could, however, check out also this link to a document about the stormtrooper tactics.
quote:
Added to the fact that the Germans had only acheived their total moblization figures of 11-12 million for the entire war by completely stripping their economy of manpower, diverting an unsustainable percentage of their industrial capacity, relying on Swedish, Dutch and Swiss imports, looting occupied countries, and by using millions of Russian and Belgian POWs/conscripted laborers, means that the possibility of Germany holding out through 1919 is quite slim.
It is highly unlikely that the Allies would abandon the war at such a crucial juncture with victory nearly at hand. British and French morale was heavily reinforced by the arrival of the doughboys. The UK and France too would not have asked for a armistice this late in the war, reason being that the general mood of the populace at the time was to 'finish it.' The worse Allied morale ever got was in 1917 (prior to the American intervention) with mutinies in the French Army and the Russian revolution. (This point will be raised again later.) |
I assume the greatest factor for the German "defeat" was, for one part, the panic reaction of Ludendorff after his attacks failed, and, for the other part, that the soldiers in the trenches learnt about it. The German economy, however inefficient is should/could have been, was quite successful in producing shells, guns, ammunition. Given the facts I already pointed out above I do not think it would not have been that impossible for Germany to get over winter 1918/19. I furthermore assume the Germans would have been able to hold their own grounds and the Allies - seeing the would never defeat Germany militarily - try to make a peace leaving German gains in Eastern Europe unchallenged.
quote:
By the armistice of November 1918 the AEF had more than 2 million men and was holding 25 per cent of the Western Front. Although initially American forces suffered heavy casualties compared to the more experienced Germans (a 10 to 1 ratio according to some American officers), it would take alot more than that for the United States to reach the level of war-weariness and battle deaths that would compel them to ask for a ceasefire. |
To reasons I explained above I think that a peace conference in a neutral nation would have been a rather realistic option if nothing would have worked out against Germany.
quote:
That being said, I would advise the point of divergence to be changed to 1917, or more specific, Germany's decision to contiue unresticted submarine warfare that eventually brought the USA into the war. |
I know about those dates and I also know my timeline has some flaws ... but Heck! it´s an alternative timeline and, however, I do think it could have been possible.
I do thank you for your input, I will consider what you´ve posted - and I am sure you will consider my answers as well ... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
|
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jim panse
I think we can work with a timeline starting to diverge in spring 1918 with Foch not ending up as supreme allied commander and the allied armies faltering.
I assume the U.S. would have sought to try to get "their boys home" - maybe as part of a seperate preliminary treaty with Germany.
The war would be over then, Austria-Hungary might have been rescued since significant numbers of German troops could have been also deployed to Italy - though I doubt Italy would have continued the war without the Western Allies ....
I think this could work now. Post your comments, I will elaborate on that timeline |
I plead guilty to being the second banana voter. 
The only problem that I see with this timeline is that the Germans did not have the momentum to carry Operation Michael past the lines of Paris. The speed of the German advance put their supply lines under huge strain. Since the Stoßtruppen traveled light with only their weapons, their supply units simply could not keep up with them, and as a result they short of vital supplies that were stuck well back from their positions.
German manpower would have been all but exhausted by the end of spring. They had poured everything they had into this one, and there was no possible way they could continue. Between March and April they took 230,000 casualties, by the end of July the figure was 1,000,000. The German Army simply could not sustain such losses.
However you are correct in saying that an initial panic early in the Offensive may have forced the Allies to ask for an Armstice. I have found an excellent alternate timeline here which is almost exactly word-for-word the same as yours. Great minds think alike, eh?
In any case I feel that this idea can work, I say go for it. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
|
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
(1) How high would the possibility of the Western Allies have been to accept a German-proposed return to the status quo ante bellum in the West - with the exeption of Belgium? |
Methinks this is quite adequately explained by the author. France unilaterally asks for an armstice (surprise surprise) without first discussing it with their allies. This leaves the British and the USA without a realistic option of continuing the war. If they continued the war in Belgium, they would do so deprived of their logistic lines through the French Channel ports of Calais and Dunkirk (although the Belgian ones would still be open, it would still be harder for them to resupply and reinforce.)
With the French out of the fight morale would certainly take a hit as well. The British public would of course be not amused by the French actions and would start to question the point of dragging the war when the Frogs have thrown in the towel.
This problem is also encountered in your first timeline about the war ending in 1919. In that case, it is the Allies instead who are in a stronger negotiating position. The possibility of the Western Allies have been to accept a German-proposed return to the status quo ante bellum in the West would be even slimmer.
quote:
In spring 1916 Belgium almost agreed on a seperate peace with Belgium - which would have given effective control of Belgium to Germany, in military and economical views. |
With British troops sitting in Flanders and on the Somme this would prove a bit tricky.
Maybe to make things interesting you could make Belgium a divided nation like Korea between Britain and Germany- the eastern portion part of the German-dominated European community and the western half a British military protectorate.
quote:
(2) Would it be possible that Britain would have been in a position to ask for Germany to hand over the High Seas Fleet? |
Highly possible. The High Seas Fleet after Jutland was in no position to go head on with the RN- it spent the last years of the war bottled up by minefields and the blockade. The Brits on the other hand were trouncing the U boats badly in the Atlantic, blasting German-bound shipping out of the water, and generally making life difficult for Jerry on the home front.
The morale of the German navy was in tatters. Remember the revolt at Wilhelmshaven and Kiel in October 1918? It was stimulated by a rumor which said that the German fleet had been readied for a last ditch effort to attack the Home Fleet in the North Sea. Aggravated by the monotony of inactive ship life, larger and better food rations for officers and the harsh discipline, the sailors simply uped and refused to sail.
Also bear in mind that Germany, as a land power and without a large overseas empire to defend, had very little use for navies (the German navy was often refered to as "the Kaiser's Luxury Fleet"). It was more a matter of national prestige than anything else. Faced with a possible continuation of the war and eventual defeat I'm quite certain that Hindenburg and Ludendorff (Army men with an ingrained disdain for the navy) would convince the Kaiser to scuttle or at least reduce his navy to meet British demands.
quote:
I doubt that but I assume, in exchange for a binding treaty securing the relation of these two navies to - say 1:2 in Britain´s favour for example, an agreement about the colonial issues would/could have followed the peace treaty. |
This is a more likely option than the one I proposed. Restriction on Naval size ala the 1922 Washington Naval Conference could work well.
quote:
(3) How great is the chance that Britain would have continued its war against the Ottomans?
I think that - after quasi-loosing the war on the Western Front - the war weariness would have also worn down the war efforts on that secondary front. |
I agree- but it should be pointed out that Ataturk still established the Turkish republic here, and by the POD (early 1918) most of the Hedjaz, Syria (except for Damascus), and Mesopotamia had been liberated. Turkey could be forced by treaty to give up its remaining empire in the Middle East. With the Allies and the Arab Revolt on the ascendant and Germany out of the war the Ottomans would not have much of a choice.
It's alright if you don't follow this timeline completely. In fact there are many areas where your timeline is superior.- Instead use this one as a rough guide and for comparison. You can always change the parts that you don't like with ones that could work. The basic idea is sound, you already have a winner on your hands. With a few more details added here and there, this one will be remembered for years to come.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
|
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
The German offensive in Northern France against the British, which started on 21 March 1918, could have ruptured the Allied lines to a point where the British panicked and gave orders to the British Army to withdraw and evacuate back to England ... |
Taking all of the assumptions given, I doubt it changes the basic resolution of the war. Granted the breaking of the British 5th Army in the St. Quentin sector was a very serious tactical defeat, yielding scores of thousands of prisoners to the Germans, hundreds of guns and more square miles of territory in two weeks than the Allies had been able to capture in their most massive and prolonged offensives in the 1916 Somme fighting, but this alone would not have amounted to the destruction of the Allied armies on the Western Front, nor would it had meant any fundamental change in policy. British governments have historically never been particularly prone to panic attacks (exception being the 1940 Phoney War.)
The Central Powers are still under blockade, and their economies are collapsing. The French will stabilise the front either forward or rearward of Paris, and British units, even if they did panic and evacuate their lines, would simply embark at Dunkirk, debark at Brest and march back to the front.
During this time the armies of Haig would have inflicted unrivalled slaughter on the enemy. OTL, the German lost 239,000 men in the first two weeks during the Operation Michael attacks from March 21st to early April, another 109,000 in the Lys fighting between April 9th and the end of that month, and a total of about 700,000 for the entire front between March and June. This is the most eloquent testimony to the effectiveness of the allied armies, especially the British, who inflicted virtually two thirds of these casualties.
Even taking into account the Eastern Front of WW2, German losses against the British in March and April 1918 were heavier than for any comparable period in the history of the two world wars.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that something happens- the Manchesters at St. Quentin don't put up so much of a fight, the 5th Army falls apart, Foch is not made Supreme Commander, Petain and Haig keep arguing and no French support is provided. Vimy Ridge crumbles, Michael 1 (Arras) succeeds, Albert falls from Michael 2, and Michael 3 pushes on to the Somme and Amiens.
The Government in Britain is panicking. House of Commons calls for a withdrawal of troops to Britain. Haig believes he must fall back, pulls his remaining troops to defend Amiens, exhorts them to fight with "their backs to the wall."
This is where it starts going badly for the Germans.
The French (and now British) strategy of deliberately falling back to strain German supply lines would begin showing its effects. By now the Germans would have outrun their supplies and having to fight all through the advance, they would be exhausted and suffering from borderline starvation. The momentum of the advance slows as discipline breaks down and the looting of French and Belgian towns for food begins in earnest (this is one of the reasons for the failure of the Ludendorff Offensive.)
The Germans would have been halted by the British as they were historically by early April, and counter-attacks would start pushing them back.
The French, meanwhile, would not have sat idle while the Germans pushed to the Channel. A counter attack north into the open ground at the base of the breakthrough cuts supplies and traps the German army between the French and the British. The AEF attacks along the Aisne, Marne, Belleau Wood, St Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne.
The damage to German morale is enormous: a sense of inferiority grows in the troops who find themselves at the mercy of overwhelming Anglo-American-French firepower with little or no respite.
Despite a valiant fight, the Germans in the pocket finally surrender and the now weakened German Army is unable to stabilize the front as the Allies push them back to the Rhine.
My point to all this is that it is impossible for Germany to win decisively against Great Britain by this stage in the war.
Against France, however, is a very different matter.
quote:
* In the meantime, with their flanks open as hell, the French are panicking too and divert all their troops to contain the German breakthrough. Even if that would have taken place, the French an American forces in the front lines would have been far more overstretched than their German counterpart - which would enjoy a morale high too. |
No, it is the Germans who would have been overstretched by now. Each super-sized 28 thousand-man AEF division was equal in numbers to a French army corps.
quote:
I then assume that Germany would have either sought a preliminary peace with Britain to ensure indirect German control over parts of Belgium, limiting the strenght of the High Seas Fleet in comparison to the Royal Navy and start delaing with the colonial issues. I think this is highly possible - the Germans could have always changed the British withdrawal à la Dunkerque into a total desaster ... |
Even if the withdrawal did happen remember that the RN is still blockading the ports of Germany, waiting for the German ships to show themselves. The Hochseeflotte would not have been able to leave the North Sea, yet alone get into the Channel. It would be a second Salamis, with the Germans standing in for the Persians.
I do agree that if any peace is to occur then there must be a compromise between undefeated parties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
typhoon
|
|
of Bollocks
Jan 2003
time: 05:16
|
|
Well, Steph , as I see it, you have several options:
Option 1: An Alternate timeline to the Great War, 1919
POD: 8 August 1918
Germans win the war against Russia in the East and agree to return to the status quo ante bellum in the West in 1919.
Advantages:
- This will allow Germany to absorb the areas ceded to it by Brest-Livtosk and keep its colonial empire (or even gain some French and Belgian colonial possesions). It will enter WW2 without a sub-par navy (although this is debatable). This will put Reichslande on par with the Allied Powers by the beginning of Blood and Steel.
- This also sets the stage for German assitance to the Romanovs- brings it into conflict with the fledging People's Soviet.
- You have the revenge element for the Entente, and the impetus to prepare for another conflict. and a possible rise of facism in the Allied countries (France, Italy)- the victors usually suffer as badly as the conquered, and an almost victory is even worse than a defeat.
- No rise in facism in Germany though- that would just end up puting Hitler in power and creating just another garden variety WW2 scenario, detracting from the uniqueness of the Blood and Steel universe.
Disadvantages:
- It is unclear whether this timeline is entirely feasible. Germany is in no military or economic position to outlast a seige till the end of 1919.
- Allies are in a stronger position, it would be unlikely that they give up now. Allies can continue blockading Germany and simply starve it into submission, resulting in Allied victory and thus a timeline similar to ours.
Option 2: Why America Should have Stayed Out of the War , 1917
POD: 1917
Germany does not put into place the policy of unresticted submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Because of this, America stays out of the war and the tired European belligerents negoitiate peace in 1917.
Advantages:
- All those included in (1) except for benefits of the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk
- A real return to the status quo bellum, since no one has the upper hand, thus no leverage (again except for the blockade.)
Disadvantages:
- No Brest-Livtosk Treaty for Germany obviously
- The post-war attitude in Europe would be stridently anti-war, even more so because since the Great War had no victor, it was ultimately pointless.
Option 3: Successful Ludendorff Offensive, 1918
POD: Late March- Early April 1918
The Allies panic in Spring 1918 when the Germans seem to break through the English lines. They ask for an armistice.
Advantages:
- Sieg! Deutschland uber alles! Germany will live to fight another day, while Britain, America and France seethe but remain quiet... till the next round of course.
- All the benefits of (1) and (2), except no return to the status quo for the French. They lose everything they have- more of Alsace- Lorraine, their empire, navy- possibly their independence as well if forced into the Zollervein. If Steph makes France playable in the next version, perhaps we could see the rise of a strong right-wing (Monarchist or Facist) movement there.
- Britain being a naval power and still a force to be reckoned with gets less harsh terms. Threat of a German super-state keeps it on its toes for the next two decades.
- All in all, this seems to be similar to what Steph used in Blood and Steel V2- French defeat, British giving up on their own accord.
Disadvantages:
- A bit implausible- Alliess were always in stronger military position than the Germans, even during the period when it looked like Operation Michael would suceed.
- It leaves Germany as the complete victor. The Germans, being the really nasty fellows they are, would dictate peace to France and Britain as harshly as they can. It'd be the TOV of our timeline but worse. Could affect balance issues in Blood and Steel. Reichslande would be too powerful.
Option 4: Petain's Panic, 1918
http://www.changingthetimes.co.uk/s.../ww1/petain.htm
POD: April 1918
It is the French instead of the British who chicken out. Germany wins the war by default.
Advantages:
- Same as in (1) and (2), and very similar to (3): the differnce being that Germany's position is weaker, having won by a narrower margin. Britain and USA still in fight, blockade still in place. Allies and Centrals will have to give and take to get peace.
- Just as in (2) this leads to a return to the status quo, with slight loss of face for France. All parties would be almost equal- Germany winning just barely, Britain and USA undefeated. Only loser here is France.
Disadvantages:
- French would undoubtedly suffer in the scenario of course. Still, you could give them some advantages to help them- superior tanks, aircraft and tatics (hint hint) plus an obsessive King/Leader hell bent on revenging itself on Germany. The irony of Britain helping Germany in this war will not go unappreciated.
Option 5: Plan XVII, 1914
POD: August 1914
Germany crushes France (and the BEF) so badly in the autumn days of 1914 - thanks to whatever reasons - which allowed Germany to face the other continental opponent, Russia.
Advantages:
- Pax Germania
- Hence (1), (2), and (3).
Disadvantages:
- Disadvantges of (3) X10
- This goes against the grain of military thinking at the time. Back then, before tasting trench warfare, Germany (and to be fair all European countries) emphasised heavily on offensive tatics. They would have been less experienced and inclined to fight a defensive war. Strategic thinking like the lure was also foreign to the generals of the time. Up until after the First Battle of the Marne, the only direction they knew was forward, for reasons of national pride and anitquated tatics.
Personally I'm divided among (2), (3) and (4), and I'm quite partial to (1) and (5) as well- can't make up my mind. I'd go with a mix of (3) and (4) though- they're both fundamentally similar. Maybe you should have a poll...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sarsstock
|
|
If I were going to select any one of those options of Typhoon's I would have to go with either number one or five as well.
If I had to pick between the two I had just mentioned I would go with the fifth option, as it was the original timeline you went with in the first Blood and Steel was it not Steph?
I have to say I'm also starting to warm up to the notion of a european theatre only version of the game. Now you know which map I would love to see in the game Steph if you did indeed go with the european theatre, that would be the WW1 v3.0 map. Is this the map your leaning towards? I think I heard you mention once the idea of using the Axis and Allies map. The main advantage of course to using the european map is the fact that you'd have room for two more civ's of your choosing.
One could obviously be some sort of Facist or Monoarchist France, the other could be the Ottoman Empire or a smaller Turkey, maybe even a facist Turkey or another newly formed Arab state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Broken_Erika
|
 |
shoving your soul into a jar of mayonaise
Oct 2004
time: 00:16
|
|
The US had just as much of a chance of entering the war on germany's side then the allied, this is mainly beacause of the large german and irish populations in the US,
Another possibility is that they followed president wilsons idea for peace, no reperations paid by anybody, no one will take the blame, all sides will reduce arms and naval stregnth,
Another idea is if the allies rejected the treaty of versailles, which was the main thing that crushed germany,
And whoever wins or loses, if the us was involved mabe they would make all the powers sign the washington naval treaty, that would allow balanced naval warfare in blood and steel,
as for the map i posted, most of the colanies (exept belgian congo) that were given to germany orriginally belonged to france,
Last edited by Broken_Erika on 15-02-2005 at 21:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jim panse
|
|
Anvilvania
Oct 2002
time: 06:16
|
|
Ok, next try to make a decent timeline:
Synopsis: During 1917 the French were hurting badly. They won at Verdun with massive losses and some parts of their army were in mutiny, while the Russian revolution was sapping the troops morale.
POD: April/May 1917.
After General Nivelle's desastrously failed attack on the Chemin des Dames in April 1917 the French government makes secret overtures to the Germans, offering a peace based on the status quo of 1914, at least in the west. Some Germans would take this as a sign of weakness but the Kaiser and his government signalled that they would accept a seperate peace with France - provided that Germany’s conquests in the east were acknowledged.
So, in late 1917, the French announce the peace deal, to general French jubilation - and British anger.
******************************
The questions arising now are:
* Would the British have continued to fight on without the French Army?
My answer: I do not doubt that but lacking the French logistical support I assume the British would have evacuated their armies from French soil and would have sent it abroad to Egypt, Saloniki and Mesopotamia to knock out the Ottomans faster.
* What would the Americans do after having sent only some forward commandos to France yet?
My answer: The American position would be more than wicked. Congress declared war upon Germany on 6 April, only days before the French failed at the Aisne. Now, with a status of war between them and Germany, without the French, there seem to be at least two possibilities: (1) Carry on with England and the other allied nations, or (2) sue for an honourable peace agreement with Germany.
* What about - then still democratic - Russia?
My answer: The Russians would have declared to continue with the British - and the Americans - and would have been as soundly defeated as in the original timeline. This leads to the Communist Revolution in October 1917, the Russian Civil War and to Brest-Litovsk.
* What about the other Allied nations?
My answer: The Italian war would have been over by fall 1917 since more German troops could be spared to launch the final campaign against the Italian front lines at Caporetto in October 1917. After that more decisive miliatry defeat the Italian government has to sue for peace. Serbia and Romania were occupied at that moment but might have retained most of their lands in order to get acceptable terms with France, the Anglo-French Oriental Army was probably withdrawn from Saloniki and Greece asked Germany for an honourable peace.
* What about the other allies of Germany?
My answer: Austria-Hungary would be incorporated into the to-be-formed German-led customs union, the same would have happened to the Balkan states and the lands Germany cut off from the former Russian Empire. The Ottoman Empire would have had to cede the lands then-occupied by the British troops and would have been reduced to the territory that is +/- Turkey today.
******************************
This one better than the last ones?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2005 20:42
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|