The Kaiser's World: Speculating on a German victory in 1918

History Learner

Well-known member
I definitely agree with you about the political effects and it being nothing like 1940, but my question is more focused on the military side of things: say the Germans take Amiens and push the British back to the channel ports, what then? How do the Germans push their advantage into a victory? The Germans already had a pretty severe manpower deficit by March, 1918. Could they really afford another offensive in the summer to knock France out, say at Paris, Roen, La Havre, or god forbid, Verdun? What if this second offensive fails? What's preventing the BEF from retreating through Abbeville, or being evacuated from Calais to Dover and then La Havre, to reinforce the French again?

If the BEF is retreating, they've destroyed 90% of their equipment in place per that planning which means they are a force that is basically small arms only. Can we really expect them to hold without artillery, among their other equipment? With the BEF out of the picture and the Americans still not arriving in force yet, it's likely France is forced out politically at this point alone, taking 1940 as the standard. If not, the Bethune coal mines which supply Paris-which supplies 70% of the war material of the French (and later, American) Army-has been directly overrun and the railways from it cut anyway. Between being alone with their left flank open and the collapse of their war production, France will need to seek an armistice because it will be incapable of defending what is left.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Abandoning East Prussia without a fight was not really an option in 1914. It was the ancestral home of the Hohenzollern and a core area of Germany.

There is nothing ASB about the Germans beating the French in 1914. There are many errors on the German side that could have been reversed and near-misses. Some that immediately come to mind:

Frontiers (Charleoi)
Mons
Verdun
Marne (Oise)

East Prussia was not home of Hohenzollern,but polish vassal taken by Hohenzollern in 17th century.And not core area,but borderland.
If they lost it for one year,so what ? russian from WW1 were not soviet,they would not rape all girls there.nothing important was made there.And germans would reclaim it anyway in 1915,so why bother ?

Stupid prussian generals lost war becouse they fear about losing prestige before they would lost for 1 year totally unimportant territory.To win you must sacrifise pawns.Prussian refused it - and lost game.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
East Prussia was not home of Hohenzollern,but polish vassal taken by Hohenzollern in 17th century.

Who cares if the Hohenzollerns originially came from Swabia? East Prussia had been their home and powerbase for hundreds of years.

And not core area,but borderland. If they lost it for one year,so what ? russian from WW1 were not soviet,they would not rape all girls there.nothing important was made there.And germans would reclaim it anyway in 1915,so why bother ?
East Prussia was every bit a core area of Germany as the Rhineland was. It was the home of over 2,000,000 Germans in 1914 and many important cultural sites such as the Marienburg Castle. Just because the Soviets destroyed everything and drove out the Germans in 1945, does not mean that it wasn't every bit important in 1914.

As for the Russians, they had their own share of atrocities in WW1, in East Prussia, in fact. Keep in mind that they only occupied a very small area of East Prussia historically:
The Russian army perpetrated grievous acts of violence against noncombatants during its invasions of East Prussia at the opening of the First World War. By the time of the province’s final liberation in March 1915, 1,491 German civilians had been deliberately killed and hundreds more raped by tsarist troops. Over 13,000, almost half of whom were women and children, had been brutally ripped from their homes and deported into the depths of the tsar’s empire. Only two-thirds of these deportees would survive their wartime captivity. The invasions had been accompanied by widespread looting and devastation. More than 100,000 buildings had been damaged or destroyed, most in heavy fighting but some as a result of military reprisals or after being plundered. East Prussia’s few cities had escaped serious harm, but over one-quarter of its farms and villages and three-fifths of its small towns were scarred or ruined.182

Stupid prussian generals lost war becouse they fear about losing prestige before they would lost for 1 year totally unimportant territory.To win you must sacrifise pawns.Prussian refused it - and lost game.
No offense, but giving up East Prussia is paradox game thinking. Not only was abandoning East Prussia impossible for political and morale reasons which I described above, but it was also crucial for German defenses. Southern Masuria was extremely well fortified by the Germans and the hilly, wooded terrain dotted with hundreds of lakes was ideal for the defenders. The northern Vistula area, however, had no such fortifications.
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
The only way you are getting a German victory in World War I is if somebody other than Wilson wins in 1912. If Teddy and Taft reconcile so that Teddy doesn't run against him it's very likely that Taft would win reelection, in which case the US would stay out of the war.

Ironically, I think the Brits taking a kicking on the continent would actually be long-term helpful for them, when the Irish and the communists start making trouble, the British will have a chip on their shoulder and will likely come down on both like a ton of very angry bricks. Although I doubt that the British *will* take a kicking, without the US the German's strategic picture will be much different in 1917/18, they won't need to push the pace like they did historically to 'beat' the US, which will be *very* bad news for the French.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
All the bridge crossings over the lower Vistula were fortified - holding that line was easy.
Thank you for illustrating my point; It is about 100km between Graudenz and Danzig.
Looks like you edited your post:
My understanding is that the only pre-war German fortifications north of Graudenz were on the opposite side of Marienwerder, Marienburg itself, and Danzig itself. I have no doubt that the bridge crossings would have significant entrenchments, however with the confusion and chaos of evacuating hundreds of thousands of civilians and the retreating 8th Army, the Germans would be very vulnerable.
 

Buba

A total creep
Yes, I edited as I was not sure of some of my earlier bombast :)
Just to the north of Graudenz a big swamp, the Vistula delta begins, hence Marienwerder and Marienburg are the only crossings (the RR through Marienburg runs to Danzig).
Would the Germans denude the fortresses of their garrisons? That is possible ... but this is very early in the war, hence these might be still be in place.
I'd expect the Lower Vistula line to hold until at least spring 1915. But this is, of course, my conjecture :)
 

Largo

Well-known member
The only way you are getting a German victory in World War I is if somebody other than Wilson wins in 1912. If Teddy and Taft reconcile so that Teddy doesn't run against him it's very likely that Taft would win reelection, in which case the US would stay out of the war.
I don't actually know what Taft's stance was on the war, but TR was far more enthusiastic about getting the US into the war than even Wilson (though he had very different motivations). It thus to me seems perfectly possible that TR could very well try to pressure Taft into getting into the war, though of course who knows if he succeeds depending on how they reconcile.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Who cares if the Hohenzollerns originially came from Swabia? East Prussia had been their home and powerbase for hundreds of years.


East Prussia was every bit a core area of Germany as the Rhineland was. It was the home of over 2,000,000 Germans in 1914 and many important cultural sites such as the Marienburg Castle. Just because the Soviets destroyed everything and drove out the Germans in 1945, does not mean that it wasn't every bit important in 1914.

As for the Russians, they had their own share of atrocities in WW1, in East Prussia, in fact. Keep in mind that they only occupied a very small area of East Prussia historically:



No offense, but giving up East Prussia is paradox game thinking. Not only was abandoning East Prussia impossible for political and morale reasons which I described above, but it was also crucial for German defenses. Southern Masuria was extremely well fortified by the Germans and the hilly, wooded terrain dotted with hundreds of lakes was ideal for the defenders. The northern Vistula area, however, had no such fortifications.

1.So? they were emperors of Germany,not Prussia.East Prussia do not mattered anymore.

2.russian troops could misbehave just like german in Belgium,but they were no bunch of rapist and genociders.Prussian cyvilians would be mostly safe/like belgian cyvilians/ - and even if russian killed them all,it would be still small price for winning war and making Germany rulers of Europe.
Politicians are famous for making such deals.Kaiser behaved like medieval ruler,not politician.If Hohenzollern even care about honour,they would remain loyal vassals of Polish Crown.Once they lost honour,they should care only about being efficient.

3.Rhineland had coal,East Prussia had old castles.That is why Rhineland must be defended,and East Prussia not.By the way - Malbork was polish castle longer then prussian.

4.Vistula river line would still hold,so Germany would have time to finish off France,and then send all troops to crush russian.
About morale - why bavarian or saxons should lost morale becouse russian take some old ex-polish castles ?
 

stevep

Well-known member
I don't actually know what Taft's stance was on the war, but TR was far more enthusiastic about getting the US into the war than even Wilson (though he had very different motivations). It thus to me seems perfectly possible that TR could very well try to pressure Taft into getting into the war, though of course who knows if he succeeds depending on how they reconcile.

Very true. From what I've read Teddy if he had been President would probably have had the US in the war after the Lusitania sinking. Which would probably have lead to a much better 20thC century for most of the world as its likely to make WWII, in anything like the form we know impossible.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Very true. From what I've read Teddy if he had been President would probably have had the US in the war after the Lusitania sinking. Which would probably have lead to a much better 20thC century for most of the world as its likely to make WWII, in anything like the form we know impossible.
Indeed.WW2 was possible only becouse both germany and soviets wonted it,and were strong enough to made it real.IF TR manage to remove one or them - either by making german states independent after WW1 or crushing Lenin - there would be no WW2.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
1.So? they were emperors of Germany,not Prussia.East Prussia do not mattered anymore.
It did matter, for reasons which I listed which you haven’t addressed. Just because it doesn’t matter to you, a 21st century Pole, doesn’t mean it wasn’t important to Germans a hundred years ago.

2.russian troops could misbehave just like german in Belgium,but they were no bunch of rapist and genociders.Prussian cyvilians would be mostly safe/like belgian cyvilians/ - and even if russian killed them all,it would be still small price for winning war and making Germany rulers of Europe.
Politicians are famous for making such deals.Kaiser behaved like medieval ruler,not politician.If Hohenzollern even care about honour,they would remain loyal vassals of Polish Crown.Once they lost honour,they should care only about being efficient.
Like I said, this is paradox video game thinking. The whole point of a monarch, or even governments in general, is that they protect the people they rule over. The Kaiser nor any of his generals would ever be able to explain away abandoning millions of its citizens and leaving them to be raped, murdered, deported, and robbed by the Russians. It would be something that would collapsed the government.

Please keep in mind that fighting in and losing East Prussia is extremely different than abandoning it without a fight from the outset.

3.Rhineland had coal,East Prussia had old castles.That is why Rhineland must be defended,and East Prussia not.By the way - Malbork was polish castle longer then prussian.
East Prussia has millions of Germans, which is something as valuable as coal to national moral and manpower.

The Ordensburg Marienburg was constructed by, and the seat of power for, the German Teutonic Knights who were enemies of the Poles. Not sure why you think it being Polish longer than German matters at all, it had been German for nearly 150 years in 1914 and was entirely German to the Germans back then.


4.Vistula river line would still hold,so Germany would have time to finish off France,and then send all troops to crush russian.
Maybe, maybe not.

About morale - why bavarian or saxons should lost morale becouse russian take some old ex-polish castles ?
Because they’re all German and care about their country. Don’t mistake German regionalism for nationalism.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
From what I've read Russian troops in 1914 were well behaved, as well behaved as Germans in Belgium and France.
I agree that Ostpreussen and its 2,5M Germans held a symbolic importance exceeding the relevance of the province.
Lusitania - oh, yes, that war contraband carrying ship ...
Hmm - we seem to have digressed from the topic - which is a German victory in 1918, i.e. the 2nd Miracle of the House of Brandenburg :)

As to a peace -
- I do not expect dramatic changes in the west - status quo ante, besides Luksemburg joining the Vaterland. After Caporetto I do not expect Italy to get anything;
- in the east - the Brest Treaty is insanely positive for the Central Powers. I see more Entente support for Whites/any shade of faction which promises to pay Russian debt and/or to be inimical to Germany in the future. There is the mess of the Polish Question - ethnic cleansing of western part and annexation?
- Balkans - Great Bulgaria - with Macedonia and Thracian coast - says hello :)
- the Oriental Question - now this is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
It did matter, for reasons which I listed which you haven’t addressed. Just because it doesn’t matter to you, a 21st century Pole, doesn’t mean it wasn’t important to Germans a hundred years ago.


Like I said, this is paradox video game thinking. The whole point of a monarch, or even governments in general, is that they protect the people they rule over. The Kaiser nor any of his generals would ever be able to explain away abandoning millions of its citizens and leaving them to be raped, murdered, deported, and robbed by the Russians. It would be something that would collapsed the government.

Please keep in mind that fighting in and losing East Prussia is extremely different than abandoning it without a fight from the outset.


East Prussia has millions of Germans, which is something as valuable as coal to national moral and manpower.

The Ordensburg Marienburg was constructed by, and the seat of power for, the German Teutonic Knights who were enemies of the Poles. Not sure why you think it being Polish longer than German matters at all, it had been German for nearly 150 years in 1914 and was entirely German to the Germans back then.



Maybe, maybe not.


Because they’re all German and care about their country. Don’t mistake German regionalism for nationalism.

1.In modern war rulers first duty is win with as small casualties as possible.Kaiser could abadonn Prussia and win war till 1916 ruling Europe after that,or fight for that and lost all.Did it helped those prussian in any way ?
Besides,East Prussia never produced anything worth keeping anyway.

2.They were germans rulers,if they win they would not need explain anything,becouse people would serve them anyway.That is how german people worked from at least 18th century.
Besides,russian during WW1 was not worst then german in Belgium.

3.Yes,german Teutonic order build Marbolk - but we hold it since 1466.And those teutonic knights was catholics,which were persecuted by Hohenzollern,so they have no right there.
And if you thing that german sentiment for some old castle is good reason for loosing war,then you just made germans bunch of idiots.

4.Russian have no capacity of continuing attacking,becouse they made their old mistake - build too small numbers of ammo ammunition.As a result,after first 3 months they practically could not use their excellent artillery.With HMG they could not attack anymore,and quickly lost war.

5.Bavarian and saxonians were conqered by prussian,not joined becouse of their free will.Catholics was persecuted in Rhineland and other places.
If you think that they cared about their conqerors fate,you made them Stokholm syndrome victims.
Of course,When Hohenzollern would win,they would still follow them.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Indeed.WW2 was possible only becouse both germany and soviets wonted it,and were strong enough to made it real.IF TR manage to remove one or them - either by making german states independent after WW1 or crushing Lenin - there would be no WW2.

If a Teddy lead US came into the war in 1915 then its probably over by 1917 in which case one key question would be Leinin who?? as he's very likely to get a successful coup off like OTL. A weakened Russia that's either still autocratic but weaker internally or better still a democratic[ish] one is extremely unlikely to be an ally to any German revanchist, let alone the sufferings in the former Russian empire that would be avoided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

stevep

Well-known member
From what I've read Russian troops in 1914 were well behaved, as well behaved as Germans in Belgium and France.
I agree that Ostpreussen and its 2,5M Germans held a symbolic importance exceeding the relevance of the province.
Lusitania - oh, yes, that war contraband carrying ship ...
Hmm - we seem to have digressed from the topic - which is a German victory in 1918, i.e. the 2nd Miracle of the House of Brandenburg :)

As to a peace -
- I do not expect dramatic changes in the west - status quo ante, besides Luksemburg joining the Vaterland. After Caporetto I do not expect Italy to get anything;
- in the east - the Brest Treaty is insanely positive for the Central Powers. I see more Entente support for Whites/any shade of faction which promises to pay Russian debt and/or to be inimical to Germany in the future. There is the mess of the Polish Question - ethnic cleansing of western part and annexation?
- Balkans - Great Bulgaria - with Macedonia and Thracian coast - says hello :)
- the Oriental Question - now this is beyond me.

Buba

I have read of atrocities in the east by the Russians but that seems to have been largely against the empire's own Jewish subjects on the way to the front, due in large part to the anti-Semitic tendencies of the regime. Those were by most reports worse than what the Germans did in Belgium.

If Germany won they were intending far more than just gaining Luxembourg. Even in proposals for a peace detail in 1917 being put forward in response to Wilson's approaches for a peace without victory they wanted gains from France and also a continued presence in Belgium.

I can't see any Russian faction being able to pay their war debts, even before Lenin caused the civil war that made matters far, far worse.

Also have read that some ethnic cleasing of Polish lands were planned post war by at least some elements in Imperial Germany. Can't remember whether that was in the Polish parts of Germany and/or adjacent areas they wanted to add to their territories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Buba

A total creep
Also have read that some ethnic cleasing of Polish lands were planned post war by at least some elements in Imperial Germany. Can't remember whether that was in the Polish parts of Germany and/or adjacent areas they wanted to add to their territories.
This was to be in the western part of Congress Poland.
Nevertheless, in Prussia from 1914 (or 1913) onwards being Polish was grounds for Eminent Domain dispossession.
Nasty. But broadly in line with contemporary treatment of minorities in France, Britain, USA ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

stevep

Well-known member
This was to be in the western part of Congress Poland.
Nevertheless, in Prussia from 1914 (or 1913) onwards being Polish was grounds for Eminent Domain dispossession.
Nasty. But broadly in line with contemporary treatment of minorities in France, Britain, USA ...

Where in Britain, or do you mean in the colonies, where it was all too common?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top