I wonder if Germany had skipped the spring offensive in WW1 and held long enough to prepare a new defensive line at/behind the Rhine (Tanks would have a hard time crossing a river at that point) whether or not defeat was actually inevitable. Of course a lot of German industry and ore deposits are in the Rhineland so they would have to move some industrial equipment and essential people further inland. I'm thinking if they could hold this line instead of being overrun like historically the food situation would've resolved itself with the eastern gains and much of Germany's urban population being in entente hands. If defending a river takes less men which I think it would they could afford to send men to the Balkans and the Italian front which wouldn't easily be overrun either due to the terrain/inability to use tanks effectively. I haven't seen a "Wacht am Rhein" scenario covered in alternative history discussions all that much

@Mr. Nessel I think the best chance Germany had for victory was defending against France, not invading France, and going on the offensive against Russia.

Yeah but that would be in the very beginning. I was mostly thinking of very late into the war

The point where Germany losing was supposedly inevitable

Around the spring time offensive

My point is mostly that the spring time offensive exhausted Germany's ability to defend which allowed for the Hindenburg line to be overrun more easily which makes any sort of organized retreat impossible (Germany actually was lost when the line broke imo)

Being able to hold for a while longer might've allowed for Germany to prepare another defensive line behind the Rhine river, which would make tanks completely useless and offensives from either side completely futile

The Hindenburg line even as it existed on land was formidable so I have little doubt Germany could have held on much longer than it did historically if a similiar defensive line existed but behind the Rhine

I definitely agree with your point about initially defending against France though

If Germany didn't make use of the Schlieffen plan it would have to only defend Alsace Lorraine which is pretty good terrain for defence or fall back to the Rhine for the most part which again would make it very easiy to defend

Whereas Germany managed to not only beat Russia historically, but with less troops than would be available under this scenario

Nvm all the implications of not violating Belgian neutrality which is the main reason for Britain to join the war

Which is the main reason Germany did resort to unrestricted submarine warfare which brought in the Americans

If Britain stayed out of it Germany even would have naval superiority and could feasably blockade the French rather than being blockaded by Britain

i really doubt the britbongs would allow Germs to be hegemons of europe. they would join france and russia regardless of belgium

Not without a casus belli and even if they did they would join in delayed

germs could never win a prolonged war against Entete.

Says who

they didbt have the resources

Germany had the ressources to continue fighting. The issue that killed Germany was tanks allowing for the Hindenburg line to be overrun

their navy was confined to the ports after jutland and tactics were developed against u boat attacks

Yes which is why the German navy would only be relevant if Britain stayed out of the war

how many tanks did germs produce? LMOA 50?100? and why do you think they failed to produce more

Germany mostly made use of stormtroopsers/infiltration tactics

They would've built tanks eventually but weren't the first to do so

At the Rhine tanks wouldn't matter either way

Nobody had amphibious tanks at that point

as if pontoon bridges could not be developed

So you think pontoon bridges would be enough if Germany had built static dfences on its side of the Rhine?

Even with tanks and mass assaults they had a hard time breaking the Hindenburg line

Nvm Germany would concentrate artillery on the river if pontoon bridges would be deployed

they would pound them with artillery. static defences were getting obsolete by 1918 and era of moblie warfare

Static defences became less effective because they made trenches wider because of tanks

Had the German navy tried to go through the Channel, Britain would have definitely joined. I'd recommend just using the navy in the Baltic.

Since tanks are a minimal factor when crossing a river like the Rhine the defences would be even more formidable

Since trenches would be less wide and therefore less susceptible to artillery

i think even if lusitania never occured USA would join the war because of submarine warfare and zimer tellegram

As faras America is concerned I don't think they would be invested enough to tolerate heavy casualties

If the Rhine were to hold, which it definitely would for years imo they would need to either go through the Alps, Greece or the Zagros mountains

I don't think Americans would take suicide charges into mountains as well as Italians did

also never forget that entete had bottomless suplies of Guano for gunpowder production. germs had to use expensive sythetic gunpowder they made it at a loss and it was crippling their battered economy