RETAC21 Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 11 hours ago, Murph said: Thank you. Now here is something interesting to think about: Would Great Britain have gotten involved if Germany HAD NOT invaded Belgium, and if they did not, what would have been the outcome of the war? Would Kaiser Willy II have kept at the UK with his ship building program, until the RN HAD to swat him down? Or would he have crushed France like a grape, and then demanded French colonies as forfeit? That's a substantial change in German strategy, essentially it throws the Schlieffen plan out of the window and in the larger picture, it would mean the German Amry going head to head with the French around the French fortifications (ie Verdun 1914) which is unlikely, or the Germans holding in the West and making their main effort in the East, which means the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in 1914, but with the Austrians... 😕
Murph Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 I have said before, the Kaiser had the uncanny ability to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
R011 Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: There was supposedly an argument in Cabinet in the lead up to war, about whether Britain would abide by its treaty with France (which France after all had made itself all but indefensible along its north coast in the expectation Britain would pick up the slack), or just let them get on with it as they had in 1870. Im not sure exactly what they discussed in detail, but I suspect the thought of a German naval base on the Northern coast of France was a concern. It was certainly a concern that jumped into mind when Belgium was invaded. I suspect even if we didnt have a treaty with Belgium, that thought would have driven our requirement to intervene. Everyone Im sure had 'Riddle of the Sands' at the back of their mind. I think at the very least if he hadnt invaded Belgium we would have thrown arms at France as if it was going out of style. And as already said, it seems likely the Kaiser would ahve done something to piss off the British, just as he latterly pissed off the Americans. It was an unerring knack of his. Tempting as it is to blame Willy Hohenzollern for everything, it very much seems that in the lead up to war and during the war he let his ministers and generals set policy and became more and more a figurehead - like his cousin George Windsor only dumber. His cousin Nicky Romanov kept trying to run the war but he was even less competent than Willy.
R011 Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 8 hours ago, RETAC21 said: That's a substantial change in German strategy, essentially it throws the Schlieffen plan out of the window and in the larger picture, it would mean the German Amry going head to head with the French around the French fortifications (ie Verdun 1914) which is unlikely, or the Germans holding in the West and making their main effort in the East, which means the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in 1914, but with the Austrians... 😕 That might have worked. With most of the Army in the West, unlike the next war, they might have beaten the Russians earlier, avoiding a Bolshevik takeover, and negotiating a peace with a less injured France. Germany would be politically stable but France and Russia might want a do over in a couple of decades. There quite possibly might be a regime change in Russia, hopefully a democratic one, but as we saw in the nineties, Russian regime change doesn't always go the way we'd like it to. perhaps instead of an Austrian fascist taking over Germany we'd get a Russian fascist taking over Russia. Maybe porn 'staches would become unpopular instead of toothbbrush ones.
Murph Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 12 minutes ago, R011 said: Tempting as it is to blame Willy Hohenzollern for everything, it very much seems that in the lead up to war and during the war he let his ministers and generals set policy and became more and more a figurehead - like his cousin George Windsor only dumber. His cousin Nicky Romanov kept trying to run the war but he was even less competent than Willy. Once more proof that inbreeding is a terrible thing. But he picked generals, admirals and ministers who kissed his...posterior and flattered his ego. One of the issues with Royal rule.
R011 Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 27 minutes ago, Murph said: Once more proof that inbreeding is a terrible thing. But he picked generals, admirals and ministers who kissed his...posterior and flattered his ego. One of the issues with Royal rule. Well the Romanovs and Hohenzollerns turned out badly. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas have mostly turned out pretty good. As for choosing ministers and senior generals f0or their flattery skills, things were a great deal more complex than that. Hindenburg and Ludendorf got their jobs by being successful on the battlefield and becoming national heroes.
Murph Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 True enough since all honors came from the King/Queen/Prince/Emperor and most people wanted to hang a gong and call themselves "Baron/Sir/Graf whatever" Now here is another issue, if Germany had respected Belgian neutrality, and the UK did not go in (at least initially), what would Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India have done? Would they have supported the "motherland" or sat it out?
R011 Posted December 7, 2022 Posted December 7, 2022 8 minutes ago, Murph said: True enough since all honors came from the King/Queen/Prince/Emperor and most people wanted to hang a gong and call themselves "Baron/Sir/Graf whatever" Now here is another issue, if Germany had respected Belgian neutrality, and the UK did not go in (at least initially), what would Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India have done? Would they have supported the "motherland" or sat it out? No question at that time that if the UK was at war, all the Dominions were at war. In Canada, at least, there would be a great up swelling of patriotic fervour amongst the British descended majority and volunteers on a scale much like in real life. There would be less keenness amongst the francophone population, as in real life, as most of them couldn't give a rat's ass about the British Empire or Europe. Nor did they see themselves as French. They were canadiens. Rural Quebec especially was very insular.
Argus Posted December 8, 2022 Posted December 8, 2022 16 hours ago, RETAC21 said: <snip> or the Germans holding in the West and making their main effort in the East, which means the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive in 1914, but with the Austrians... 😕 That would be my pick. Not so sure about Gorlice-Tarnow, such a change in fundamental strategy shifts so many other things.
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 8, 2022 Posted December 8, 2022 15 hours ago, R011 said: Tempting as it is to blame Willy Hohenzollern for everything, it very much seems that in the lead up to war and during the war he let his ministers and generals set policy and became more and more a figurehead - like his cousin George Windsor only dumber. His cousin Nicky Romanov kept trying to run the war but he was even less competent than Willy. Well he certainly wasnt fully to blame, but he was probably the only one who could have turned the whole thing off, and ultimately did not. And we know he could have done, because he stalled the invasion of Belgium for some 24 hours, expecting he could do a deal with the British.
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 8, 2022 Posted December 8, 2022 14 hours ago, R011 said: Well the Romanovs and Hohenzollerns turned out badly. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas have mostly turned out pretty good. As for choosing ministers and senior generals f0or their flattery skills, things were a great deal more complex than that. Hindenburg and Ludendorf got their jobs by being successful on the battlefield and becoming national heroes. I was going to say that may have something to do with the political system, but thinking about it, even Albert was one very smart cookie. You only have to look at the Great Exhibition, and the resulting Albert Hall and the Natural History museum built on the ticket sales, he really left Britain a better place than he found it. Maybe Willy would have done better patronizing the Arts, rather than trying to be the next Napoleon. Well, horses for courses and all that.
R011 Posted December 8, 2022 Posted December 8, 2022 9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: I was going to say that may have something to do with the political system, but thinking about it, even Albert was one very smart cookie. You only have to look at the Great Exhibition, and the resulting Albert Hall and the Natural History museum built on the ticket sales, he really left Britain a better place than he found it. Maybe Willy would have done better patronizing the Arts, rather than trying to be the next Napoleon. Well, horses for courses and all that. Wilhelm II's father was much different - liberal and sensible, much influenced by his English wife, one of Victoria's daughter. So liberal, the Army chief of staff wanted to oust him in a coup. Pity that he died of cancer so soon. His grandfather was quite reactionary, but a realist who let Bismarck run things. His son might have been a bit smarter, but was another pig-headed Junker at heart. He had a flirtation with the Nazis until it became clear they wouldn't put him or his father back on the throne, and their crudity and brutality offended both of them. His grandson was killed in action in France and the following sympathy for the Royals caused Hitler to forbid any royalty from serving in the Wehrmacht.
Murph Posted December 9, 2022 Posted December 9, 2022 On 12/8/2022 at 2:53 AM, Stuart Galbraith said: I was going to say that may have something to do with the political system, but thinking about it, even Albert was one very smart cookie. You only have to look at the Great Exhibition, and the resulting Albert Hall and the Natural History museum built on the ticket sales, he really left Britain a better place than he found it. Maybe Willy would have done better patronizing the Arts, rather than trying to be the next Napoleon. Well, horses for courses and all that. That is most likely the best job for Royals, being patrons of the Arts. Leave the real work to professionals. Most Royals do not have it in them to be Napoleon, the inbreeding tells...... What was the comment about Prussia/Germany? Instead of a State that had an army, it was an army that had a state or something like that?
glenn239 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 On 12/5/2022 at 1:04 PM, RETAC21 said: The moral of whom? the frontline troops? War is a trial of moral and physical forces by means of the latter. . . In the last analysis it is at moral, not physical strength that all military action is directed … Moral factors, then, are the ultimate determinants in war. Carl von Clausewitz So, yes, the troops. Wilson's 14 Points had an outsized effect on German morale. Without the Americans in the Allied coalition, the Germans can't convince themselves that the peace treaty is going to be the 14 Points. Quote It was Ludendorff that broke down and it was Hindenburg and Ludendorff the ones that asked the Kaiser for an armistice. Yes, and it was also Ludendorff that, after his panic attack, realized in October that if the Kaiser was deposed, Germany would collapse. He was correct.
glenn239 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 On 12/5/2022 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Galbraith said: As the saying goes, there is an Ap for that... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_1919 Good alternative history novel fodder I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardennes
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 On 12/9/2022 at 3:41 PM, Murph said: That is most likely the best job for Royals, being patrons of the Arts. Leave the real work to professionals. Most Royals do not have it in them to be Napoleon, the inbreeding tells...... What was the comment about Prussia/Germany? Instead of a State that had an army, it was an army that had a state or something like that? They said it about the USSR, it was less a State with an Army, than an Army with a State. Though to an extent that seems to have been true of the Prussians also. I dont think the rest of the German states necessarily felt the same way, but that less and less seemed to matter in the lead up to WW1.
Murph Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 Thank you. I am also surprised at say the Bavarians, you would think that they would want to spend more time clinking beer steins, than doing Wacht Am Rhein.
Sardaukar Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 34 minutes ago, Murph said: Thank you. I am also surprised at say the Bavarians, you would think that they would want to spend more time clinking beer steins, than doing Wacht Am Rhein. Bavarians are bit of "deep south Republicans" of Germany. Thus there are 2 main conservative parties in Germany, CDU and CSU.
RETAC21 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 3 hours ago, glenn239 said: War is a trial of moral and physical forces by means of the latter. . . In the last analysis it is at moral, not physical strength that all military action is directed … Moral factors, then, are the ultimate determinants in war. Carl von Clausewitz So, yes, the troops. Wilson's 14 Points had an outsized effect on German morale. Without the Americans in the Allied coalition, the Germans can't convince themselves that the peace treaty is going to be the 14 Points. Yes, and it was also Ludendorff that, after his panic attack, realized in October that if the Kaiser was deposed, Germany would collapse. He was correct. Allied firepower and the embargo will convince them come 1919, just like they "convinced" them at Amiens in 1918. The 14 points was a hope, not a promise, as the Germans soon found out.
glenn239 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 3 hours ago, RETAC21 said: Allied firepower and the embargo will convince them come 1919, just like they "convinced" them at Amiens in 1918. The 14 points was a hope, not a promise, as the Germans soon found out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive Total casualties between August 1918 and November 1918 were 1,172,075 German vs 1,070,000 Allied. Of the German casualties, 386,342 were POW's. So the number of German battle casualties were 785,733. Take away the Americans, the conclusion seems to be more that the 100 Days was unsustainable for the Anglo-French, does it not?
glenn239 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 (edited) On 12/4/2022 at 6:11 AM, Rick said: Allies win without U.S. military support? Tough to say. The Entente advantage is economic; the Central Powers' economies were in serious trouble by 1917. It's easy to picture the decay being terminal into 1919 or 1920, leading to collapse. The CP advantage was on the battlefield; in each year of the war, they had picked off one Entente satellite power from the war, (Belgium in 1914, Serbia in 1915, Romania in 1916, Russia in 1917). It's easy to picture Italy and Greece being picked off in 1918 as the next on the list, instead of a major German offensive in France. In Russia, if the war is still going on when the Russian revolution breaks out, the Germans will ally with the Whites and the Reds will lose. Edited December 10, 2022 by glenn239
glenn239 Posted December 10, 2022 Posted December 10, 2022 On 12/5/2022 at 11:35 AM, JWB said: The BEF would have repeated that in 1919 to even greater effect and win the war. UK invented blitzkrieg and Germany knew it did not have enough time or resources to develop counters measures. Entry of the AEF merely gave the German government a good excuse to negotiate a quasi surrender. The Germans did not necessarily have to develop countermeasures to the 1918 Allied tactics, they simply had to fall back into the Ardennes where Allied artillery, armor, and airpower tactics could not be as effectively employed due to difficulty of the terrain. Note also that as the front moves east, the frontage shrinks. Whereas the Western From was about 400 miles in 1917, the distance from Aachen to Basel, Switzerland by train is about 230 miles. And it's worse for the Entente than those basic numbers suggest, because much of the most suitable terrain for offensive operations was north of Verdun.
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 11, 2022 Posted December 11, 2022 10 hours ago, glenn239 said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive Total casualties between August 1918 and November 1918 were 1,172,075 German vs 1,070,000 Allied. Of the German casualties, 386,342 were POW's. So the number of German battle casualties were 785,733. Take away the Americans, the conclusion seems to be more that the 100 Days was unsustainable for the Anglo-French, does it not? No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now