There's a pretty healthy market for works on alternate history regarding WWII or a Nazi Victory and I've read a lot of it, but there seems to be something of a dearth speculating on what might have happened if the Axis had never risen at all. What if, instead, Germany stood ascendant in Europe, the Entente were humbled, and the Central Powers had stood triumphant in the Great War?
So there's two options for a Central Powers victory, the 'quick' victory of knocking out France in 1914 and then turning around and bruising Russia until it asks for an armistice in 1915-16 or the long painful drawn out peace of exhaustion circa 1918. I'll cover both in these coming articles.
Option 1) The Short War
The Imperial German Military, prior to 1914, had won a series of stunning victories over it's European opponents from 1864-1870, whether the Danes, the Austrians, or the French, they had shown an incredible ability to take the fight to the enemy and overwhelm them forcing peace on them. With how wars had gone afterwards, the Russo-Turkish War, the Second Boer War, and even the Russo-Japanese War, European military planners had every expectation that any war they fought would be relatively swift and decisive. A multi-year slugging match was not envisioned by almost anyone at the time.
That was the basis around which the Schlieffen Plan was made. The quick knockout blow to France, and then turning around to bring the fight to Russia. In brief summation, a quick knockout blow to invade France through Belgium, swing around and sucker punch the French, and occupy Paris and force the French nation to the negotiating table.
Was this a feasible plan in real life? Would the French have simply surrendered? Eh, very hard to say, but probably not. It was a flawed plan with many holes, and was absolutely dependent on the French doing as the Germans wanted, which as we saw in our own timeline, wasn't going to happen. It was inflexible, inaccurate, and didn't allocate nearly enough men before it began getting messed around with during the historic Battle of the Frontiers. Then the logistics are another story of flawed improvisation. The Great War channel does an excellent video on the plan and why it failed historically.
For the purposes of this discussion, we're going to assume that the Germans do manage to swing around the French and occupy Paris, forcing the British and French armies towards the Channel and the south of France. The French, demoralized and looking for an easy peace, decide that they will accept negotiations with the German Empire, but no armistice is signed right away, and the BEF is allowed to slip away.
Now, important to note here is that until a peace treaty is signed, the Germans cannot send all of their strength to the Eastern front with Russia. They have to keep enough troops to occupy the portions of France they have, and occupy Belgium to prevent the British from trying to sneak their way back into the Continent. Instead, negotiations probably muddle through to the beginning of 1915, and the Germans take some land, annexing a strip of the coast at Dunkirk to vassal state Belgium, and then the regions around Briey which control much of French iron production.
However, it should be noted that the Germans will want to negotiate a quick treaty, so they probably will not be able to be as harsh as they like. The French will not have been decisively defeated, French armies are still in the field, they still have British money and ships backing their own not inconsiderable armed forces and economy. They may forgo most land claims entirely save Briey, and the Dunkirk strip in exchange for a larger indemnity to keep the French out.
Assuming then, that the French fold for a quick armistice for a large indemnity, a minor loss of territory, and no change in their colonial empire (something which the Germans would have been pretty powerless to effect) then it could be speculated this would be a success for the Germans. Now they can afford to turn more men to the East and go beat up Russia.
This doesn't mean they're done fighting though. The British will be rearing to go fighting on the seas, they will most likely send troops to fight in Russia instead of France, while diverting more effort to messing up the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. However, there would be fewer neutral powers, like Italy and Romania, willing to join this war on the side of the Entente with the Central Powers so clearly triumphant.
How much of a difference British forces in Russia makes is hard to quantify. Their ships will certainly still help strangle the German economy, even though they'll be stretched thinner. British troops in the Baltics would probably prevent the Germans from so completely overrunning them and act as an important shield to St. Petersburg. However, with the Russians themselves not having much more luck than OTL against getting battered, and possible strains between British and Russian commanders, it is unlikely they can really hold off the Germans into 1917 without both sides deciding to sue for peace. The Germans would have the worry of French deciding to break their treaty, as they are merely humbled but not broken, and the British and Russians would be bearing the brunt of the fighting.
Peace in this scenario will probably mean similar annexations from the Russians (an independent Poland, Ukraine and Belarus) but probably the Baltics will stay in Russian hands. The Russians too will be forced to pay an indemnity. Something similar enough to Brest-Litovsk, but not exactly it, changing with the face of the war.
Now, with Britain probably having been forced to withdraw from the Continent with both of her allies bowing out of the war, she could choose to fight on. However, with only her navy and smaller army, there are few places they could actually menace the Germans. They can keep beating up the Ottoman's, but what would that serve? They could keep the blockade going, but that is a costly and long term solution which may not bear fruit with the recent German conquests. The Germans themselves, facing the problem of Napoleon, would probably try more indirect attacks on Britain, as they couldn't hope to invade the little island.
Instead, the two sides will probably find themselves each making an unhappy peace with one another, the Germans settling in to an uneasy control over much of the Continent, and the British, unbowed, unbent, unbroken, looking to the future when they can unseat Germany. The Great War ends, late 1916.
It's important to note that despite the Germans laying out their strategic hopes in the historic Septemberprogramm, there is practically no way they will get everything they want from their victories. Changing circumstances in the war, the need to garrison new conquests, and the simple need to keep certain players out will mean that the Germans can't just take what they want. Even the Entente Powers in 1918/19 at Versailles simply couldn't dictate terms to the defeated Central Powers as they fell apart. They had to make many sacrifices, and they had overwhelming military power. The Germans here, will not. I think there is far too much speculation around a Central Powers victory giving them everything they desire, when the historic Entente victory came with so many pitfalls of its own.
So what happens to the other Central Powers in this scenario?
Though Germany took the blame for starting the war at Versailles the country which arguably bore the guilt for feeding the conflict into a larger war was that doddering institution known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Though a Serb assassinating Franz-Ferdinand started the conflict, Austria-Hungary's increasingly strident and almost insane demands forced Russia's hand which triggered an avalanche of military mobilizations and interlocking alliances that would leave millions dead. Historically, the empire was battered into submission and the death of Emperor Franz Joseph and the succession of his great-nephew Karl, meant that there was no truly stable force to keep the empire alive and the Fourteen Points of Wilson, coupled with increasing nationalistic unrest and defeat, splintered the Empire permanently.
Here though, if the treaties can be concluded in 1916, you have an Emperor who has lived through a successful war and when he dies it may well be in a nation at peace. The new Emperor Karl, who appeared to support a more federated empire, may be able to bring stability to the various realms which comprise this great chunk of Europe. With some minor concessions from Serbia and Russia in territory, the Empire may very well thrive and be able to rebuild. A victorious Germany next door will be a very good way to keep a lid on things, and the need to mind Germany's new vassal states in Eastern Europe will probably cinch cooperation between the two. The empire will probably be stable, for a time at least.
The Ottoman Empire on the other hand, the one power which Britain would probably concentrated a lot of its energy on, would still be badly beaten up. The British would have done their best to kick off regional revolts like they did in our timeline, the Armenian genocide would still have taken place, and the Ottoman's would most likely still have suffered at the hands of Russia in the Caucuses. It would be the now very sick man of Europe, and even with help from its other Central Powers benefactors would probably not be long for the world.
Nationalistic revolts, angry Arabs, Kurds, and Armenians, all probably see the Ottomans descending into nasty civil wars and revolts in the 1930s perhaps as the army will eventually get fed up and overthrow the Sultan. Expect it to break up before too long I think.
The last member of the Central Powers, mighty little Bulgaria, will also be quite pleased with what it accomplishes. Having been badly beaten in the Second Balkan War, the Bulgarians nursed hearty grudges against all their neighbors, and historically the ascendancy of the Central Powers in 1915 brought them in on their side. Here, that obviously still happens, and so they help crush Serbia, and then go on to menace Greece and Romania into neutrality while sending men to help bludgeon the Russians. Historically the were promised the portions of Serbia in Vardar and east of the Morava River. They may even be able to use the victory to level concessions from Romania for the portion of Dobruja they had so wanted historically. Either way, Bulgaria will be the big winner from this war.
In the rest of the world, a white peace with Britain may see the Germans take control of the Belgian Congo, as a stepping stone for a greater German empire in Africa as they can't force Britain's hand in Africa, nor that of France. They may be forced to relinquish their Pacific holdings, but with the Congo in their hands, no great loss. The British Empire remains untouched, the Japanese Empire has made some minor gains at the Germans expense, and so are probably on Germany's hit list for the future.
What about the neutrals though? Those who didn't join the war?
The obvious elephant in the room is the United States. Having sat the war out they haven't yet had to build up their military strength, and having only partially fallen menace to Germany's submarine warfare campaign, they will maybe only see naval expansion as a necessity. Without having mobilized a large wartime army, no Zimmerman Telegram to make them feel threatened at home, it is unlikely they will truly develop the military muscle and nationalistic pride they had in our timeline. Instead, I think it likely that the ethnic nationalism (first language newspapers, purely German speaking communities among others) persists to a great degree in the 20th Century, possibly until well past the midpoint. The US is more concerned about the chaos in Mexico on it's southern border and collecting the debts the Entente owes them.
Italy meanwhile, is sulky because Austria still controls territory it considers Italian, they have competing ambitions in the Adriatic, and Italy still wants to expand its African empire. They are probably side eyeing the Central Powers whom they screwed over by staying neutral, and the Germans and Austrians are doing the same to them. Romania, for her part, is simply feeling lucky it sat out the war. There's an uneasy peace in Europe.
By 1920 the world is in an uneasy new status quo. France, Britain, and Russia will all be hopping mad, and looking for revanche, while Germany is busy policing a new colonial empire in Africa and Eastern Europe, neither of which may take kindly to being occupied. How long this can last is open to debate, but with a well armed and still wealthy Britain to back Germany's enemies, I think it's only reasonable to conclude both sides would be looking for Round 2, and with a short decisive war being the norm, why not?
Since if I continue this piece to cover the war of exhaustion we're going to run over four to six thousand words, I'm going to split this into two for a part two, Peace of Exhaustion! Stay Tuned!
No comments:
Post a Comment