John the OFM | 13 Nov 2013 5:19 p.m. PST |
Suppose Germany had retreated successfully to defensible lines, and no revolutions. Austria-Hungary is holding on, barely. How would the 1919 campaigns of all nations have played out? What were the plans? |
spontoon | 13 Nov 2013 5:40 p.m. PST |
Seems unlikely, but I think Turkey had just about had the biscuit and Russia was out of it, so perhaps
|
skippy0001 | 13 Nov 2013 5:46 p.m. PST |
Mitchell and Fuller get to prove their theories. |
cmdr kevin | 13 Nov 2013 5:48 p.m. PST |
Actually in the real world only a little later they did prove their theories, it was called World War 2. |
Pictors Studio | 13 Nov 2013 5:49 p.m. PST |
Given that the flu wouldn't stop killing people en masse (at twice the rate the war was doing) until 1920 I think there would have been a negotiated settlement. |
Bunkermeister | 13 Nov 2013 5:56 p.m. PST |
The Allies were building massive fleets of aircraft, artillery and tanks with millions of fresh new American soldiers to man them and they would have rolled those Mark VIII Victory tanks all the way to Berlin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919 Mike Bunkermeister Creek Bunker Talk blog |
74EFS Intel | 13 Nov 2013 6:52 p.m. PST |
By the fall of 1918 the British had finally figured out how to make mustard gas in large quantities and America was producing phenomenal quantities of Lewisite. The Germans would have been incapable of producing respirators of sufficient quality/quantity to have countered the Allied poison gas threat. When combined with the Allies overwhelming superiority in tanks, firepower, and operational art, the Germans would have collapsed fairly quickly in the spring of 1918. |
McKinstry | 13 Nov 2013 7:35 p.m. PST |
I'm inclined to agree that given the conditions at the front, 1919 would have been the year the Spanish Influenza brought peace. As bad as the food situation was in Germany, I think the flu would have been the final straw. |
oldnorthstate | 13 Nov 2013 7:37 p.m. PST |
Pershing already had plans to capture Metz and with it a large portion of German natural resources. Foch blackmailed Pershing into cutting short the St. Mihiel offensive and shifting American forces to the Argonne Campaign, which turned out to be a bloodbath with no clear end in sight when the war ended. It is interesting to note that roughly 57,000 doughboys died in 9 months of active combat, between March, 1918 and November, 1918. By comparison it took 9 years, 1964-1972 to incur that many casualties in Vietnam. |
Nashville | 13 Nov 2013 8:57 p.m. PST |
The Germans quit because they were starving. The fleet mutinied. The army was not far behind. Had the allies kept it up they would have been in a position for a real victory but – except for the Americans. – they were at the end of the rope also. |
Ilodic | 13 Nov 2013 10:38 p.m. PST |
1918 was quickly becoming a year of open warfare on the western front. But if one discounts the Russian revolution, I think it would have been possible for the Central Powers to keep Russia at bay. As far as tactics, and even grand tactics, the tank would be the weapon to watch. The idea of large land battleships was talked about, perhaps not entirely seriously 20 years later, but a possibility that has fueled minds of "Pulp Fiction" and Steam Punk fans for decades. Politics, economics, social ideologies coupled with ever changing technologies have historically given rise to some very "creative" weapons and ideas to implement
Jutland did not go quite as expected. ilodic. |
drummer | 14 Nov 2013 4:53 a.m. PST |
The most important factor in 1919 is not technology, or tactics, but loyalty. Famine and millions of battlefield deaths from years of stalemate had convinced the now desperate people of Europe (especially in Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Germany) that their political, religious, and business leaders were grossly incompetent or worse. The search was on for someone and something better. It was easy to assemble a mob to clean the old regime out. After that, the mob leaders turned on each other. |
Royston Papworth | 14 Nov 2013 5:21 a.m. PST |
Spanish Flu was hitting Germany harder than it was hitting GB and the Allies. We had lots of warm American bodies arriving in France Industrially, Germany was being out produced. Tactically, the Allies had found the key to unlocking trench warfare with combined arms Morale-wise, success and the arrival of the Americans had given the British and French a boost and the failure of the 1918 offensives had shattered the Germans. Turkey was now out of the War, which would release troops for Salonika, putting pressure on the Austrians. 1919 would not have gone well for the Central Powers
|
OSchmidt | 14 Nov 2013 5:48 a.m. PST |
Drummer is right. All these hypothesis if this tactical action had been taken or that strategy used ae false. The simple fact is that ALL nations except America were falling apart behind the lines, some less (Britain) than others (the rest). Aside from the military monomaniacs, like Wargamers who do not consider the human and moral cost of war, everyone had had enough. |
Frederick | 14 Nov 2013 7:06 a.m. PST |
Russia was out of it – so the Eastern Front becomes a non-starter However, in addition to the massive amount of tanks, guns, planes and gas that the Allies were building up, Lloyd George was going to replace Haig with Currie – and Currie was going to have Monash as his Chief of Staff, so I have to agree, things would not have gone very well for the Germans |
drummer | 14 Nov 2013 7:45 a.m. PST |
If I were to game 1919, I'd have to rate and test all units of all sides for discipline and loyalty. Units could suffer losses due to desertion, sabotage their own equipment, and refuse to attack before the game even started. Units that did attack might just advance a short distance, take cover, and wait things out. Unit that were attacked would test to not surrender without a fight. Units that passed all this and remained functional would test when they encountered any kind of food supplies, or worse: alcohol, to avoid disintegration into a loot-mob. |
Bobgnar | 14 Nov 2013 12:06 p.m. PST |
If the German army had been pounded and as some suggested, gassed into submission, instead of being stabbed in the back, would there have been less chance for fascist takeover later? |
Patrick R | 14 Nov 2013 12:17 p.m. PST |
1) The Germans clung to northern France because they believed they could use it as a bargaining chip at the negotiation table (you want Lille back ? Give us our rightful share of French and Belgian colonies in Africa) To give that up would mean the Germans are in dire straits. Right up until 1918, the German were technically winning, it was up to the allies to push them out. 2) The allies have a huge advantage in that they have a sizeable truck pool to bring up supplies. They can move more supplies, more quickly than the Germans so their offensives will last longer. The downside is that tanks are probably not going to have the kind of impact we know from WWII games. Track life was on par with a mayfly with the flu, so most offensives would be bite and hold type, short bounds with consolidation, bringing up artillery, wash, rinse repeat. If the Germans have had the time to consolidate their new defensive lines it may take quite an effort to break through, especially if they didn't waste their best men in one last-ditch offensive. 3) If the allied offensive of 1918 becomes another meat-grinder it's quite possible the shaky French morale may suffer and descend into another round of mutinies. There might be huge pressure on the soldiers and politicians to call it a day, even with the influx of US troops. 4) Influenza. |
THEAXECHIPMUNK | 17 Nov 2013 2:22 p.m. PST |
France would probably have fallen apart with socialist mutinies along the lines, letting the Germans push forward a bit. This would not really serve much help for the Germans, as the American reinfocements, arriving by the million, would push them back, but would create an interesting post-war situation, as there could be a civil war there. Also, the German army would probably end up mutiniing, so by the wars end, you could see basically a Europe-wide, all-out war between Rebels and the remenants of legitimate governments from Siberia to Alsace. |
Chouan | 18 Nov 2013 5:35 a.m. PST |
"If the German army had been pounded and as some suggested, gassed into submission, instead of being stabbed in the back, would there have been less chance for fascist takeover later?" When was it "stabbed in the back"? The German army was beaten in the field by Haig's autumn offensive. The soldiers were either surrendering or retreating whenever Allied troops attacked them, which was why Ludendorff and Hindenburg through the towel in. With the defeat of the Imperial Army, the Imperial German state collapsed. The only people who thought that the army had been "stabbed in the back" were the far right, who came up with the theory to explain away their army's defeat. |
Chouan | 18 Nov 2013 5:37 a.m. PST |
"France would probably have fallen apart with socialist mutinies along the lines," Would it? The French attacks in support of the Brits in the autumn of 1918 were largely successful, with no mutinies
. |
Bill N | 18 Nov 2013 1:21 p.m. PST |
The problem I have with most 1919 scenarios is that it would require a significant historical re-write for it to occur. If Germany is willing to abandon enough conquered French and Belgian territory, it might be able to stabilize the western front. How long is questionable. However what are they going to do to deal with defeat in Italy and the collapse in the Balkans? Do these events even happen? If not then Germany can look forward to Austrian, Bulgarian and even Turkish support for the next year. If these events do happen, then Germany is exposed to an invasion from the south once the Entente can resolve supply issues. The natural response is to pull more German and Austrian troops from the east. Can this be done without sacrificing supplies that German is trying to get from the conquered regions of former Czarist Russia? Would this cause Soviet forces to intervene to recover lost Russian territories? And how do you bring troops from the east without also introducing more Bolshevik influences? Then you still have the problem of the effects of the British blockade coupled with the introduction of the Spanish flu. |
THEAXECHIPMUNK | 18 Nov 2013 3:48 p.m. PST |
@Choauan While it is true they managed to hold up, the autumn 1918 offensives were offensives, and the germans were being defeated. If the French were on the retreat, nearing Paris, I could see revolts. However, I probably made it seem like I see France completely collapsing. That is not exactly what I was imagining. |
monk2002uk | 20 Nov 2013 4:42 a.m. PST |
It is problematic to debate 'what ifs'. The original question, however, was about the plans that were put in place for 1919. Both the Allies and Germany had military plans in the event that the war carried over. The last German plan that I know of was to set up a new defensive line to the north and east of the Meuse river. This meant abandoning Belgium and almost all of occupied northern France. The Anglo-French-American plans have been touched on – a continuous series of combined arms offensives with limited objectives. Reliance was on the rolling nature of the offensives hitting different parts of the line in turn. It should be noted that this process in the Last 100 Days was very destructive on German morale and fighting capability. Whereas the Allies could rest divisions, the Germans could not. Robert |
CampyF | 15 Dec 2013 5:28 p.m. PST |
The British were planning a torpedo bomber attack on the German fleet. |
Tgunner | 22 Jan 2014 6:34 a.m. PST |
"If the German army had been pounded and as some suggested, gassed into submission, instead of being stabbed in the back, would there have been less chance for fascist takeover later?"When was it "stabbed in the back"? The German army was beaten in the field by Haig's autumn offensive. The soldiers were either surrendering or retreating whenever Allied troops attacked them, which was why Ludendorff and Hindenburg through the towel in. With the defeat of the Imperial Army, the Imperial German state collapsed. The only people who thought that the army had been "stabbed in the back" were the far right, who came up with the theory to explain away their army's defeat. I think the idea here is a more comprehensive victory could have eliminated this argument that the Nazis clung to in order to explain how Germany lost the war. A total defeat with unconditional terms would have eliminated this argument. But it would have cost both side needless losses. And would it have save us WWII.. doubtful. Stalin would have started it if HItler didn't, and Japan would have still gone after China, so it's pretty much a moot point anyway. |
spontoon | 12 May 2014 4:18 p.m. PST |
Just a bit of trivia to throw into the discussion
It seems the "Spanish Flu" came to Europe with American troops. |
Supercilius Maximus | 13 May 2014 10:06 a.m. PST |
However, in addition to the massive amount of tanks, guns, planes and gas that the Allies were building up, Lloyd George was going to replace Haig with Currie – and Currie was going to have Monash as his Chief of Staff, so I have to agree, things would not have gone very well for the Germans. Er, no. Lloyd George later CLAIMED he would have done in his memoirs (in fact, I think he actually said he had Monash in mind). Given that, at the time (ie 1918), Monash had not long become a corps commander, that either he or Currie would have needed a double-jump in rank to move up to Haig's job, and that LG was still predicting the war would last until late 1920 when Haig was breaching the Hindenburg Line, I think his grip on military affairs can safely be ignored. Throw in his lies to Parliament about giving Haig more troops in early 1918 when he was actually witholding almost half a million trained men, and for my money, DLG is the REAL donkey of WW1. |
monk2002uk | 13 May 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
I totally agree, SM. Well said. LG's holding back of troops caused huge problems for the men who were caught in the German attacks of Spring 1918, not to mention the problems it caused the raw recruits who then had to be shipped over asap to stop the offensives. Robert |