Blood & Steel v.2 for TOT?

[jim panse]

I am currently compelling a refined storyline to this one with more post-Great War build-up time since ToT enables me to have tons of events compared to MGE ...

Stay tuned for the first glimpses at that there storyline ...

I intend to let it start in 1919 or so ... to get more build-up done until you finally decide to move out against your foe ...

The synopsis of the tagline would be something along those lines: The Germans win the war against Russia in the East and agree to return to the status quo ante bellum in the West.

This enables the revenge element for the Western Powers France, Britain and England, gives Germany vast resources to deal with the next round of war between its old foes and makes the Red Menace - a.k.a. Soviet Russia - more than a nuisance to worry about ...

Anymore ideas about it?

[jim panse]

Ok fellers ... that´s the ideas I´ve come up with so far.

This time I intend to make the starting date around 1920 ... to make the empire re-building and buildup process more important ... check it out!

[typhoon]

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]

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!

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

[jim panse]

Oh, Typhoon, the aim of this timeline was to make the Germans victors in the East without gaining anything in the West.

Maybe this works better with this plot:

Up until the Ludendorff offensive all is similar to the real timeline. The POD happens when the Allies panic in spring 1918 when the Germans seem to break through the English lines and ask for an armistice.

However, I doubt that would be really reasonable. Well ... maybe it would have been. Imagine some more incompetent in charge of the Allied Supreme Command, not Foch. Or that such a supreme command structure was never created?

I think that could work out then, eh?

[typhoon]

Hmmm... your argument has a lot of valid points (although Ferguson's book is IMHO a lot of bollocks.)

I do understand why the POD must be in 1918- this is to allow Germany time to absorb the gains from the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk.

If we take that into consideration, then the first option is certainly the best one.

[Broken_Erika]

hmm, 2 people have voted "Banana?"
i wonder who?
i voted yes,

mabe the russians took longer to mobilise allowing germany to focous their attention on frrrance before going after russia just like their original plan, one of the reasons some say that the assault on france ground to a halt was beacause they had to transfer troops from the west in order to fight russia,

[jim panse]

@ Erika: Since this is my poll I am allowed to vote "Banana". I am only wondering who the other feller was

@ Typhoon: You mean the one with the Allies panicking in the spring days of 1918?

[Broken_Erika]

No, I'm talking about the start of the war, if russia took longer to mobilize, then the whole war would have gone differently, maily beacause the germans would have probably taken paris before the trench warfare bogged down, just an idea,

[Broken_Erika]

Mabe the U.S. Didn't join the allies, the Ludendorff offensives, were only repelled by massive U.S. counterattacks
then germany could have taken paris, and if trench warfare bogged down again, they could have worked out a peace treaty with various german aims taken into account, I.E. germany keeps Alasche-Lorraine, Most of the western borders go back to the way they were, exept russia, which would be in the process of civil war,

[jim panse]

Originally posted by typhoon
Hmmm... your argument has a lot of valid points (although Ferguson's book is IMHO a lot of bollocks.)

I agree with you - partly for I think the one and only major flaw in his argumentation is that he does not seem to have too much ideas of the actual military conditions.

As a source of statistics, etc the book is fine I´d say - though I agree with you on the whole. While reading his book I had the feeling he was trying to find reasons why the Germans did not win - with a little bit too much effort if you ask me.

But now back to topic.

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

[Broken_Erika]

I take it italy's objective will still be those austrian held provences in northern italy, or will austria cede them?

[jim panse]

Well ... since in real life Germany made Austria to assure Italy some cessions in case the Italians would stick to the Austro-German alliance in early 1915 that would have been an option if Italy would not have entered the war.

Since Italy was badly defeated by Germany at Caporetto in late 1917 this is highly unrealistic I assume

[typhoon]

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.

[jim panse]

I know of these facts, Typhoon and that´s the reason why I gave way to the Brits panicking.

I admit I have no time at the moment to read through that link you posted me but I already added it to my favs ... I never found such a site yet, too.

Well, I will update "my" timeline and post it again later the day!

And thank you, Typhoon, for not only being that helpful with your comments but also for admitting to have voted "Banana" too. We all have a certain legacy to carry on