Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: Who's side are you on?
The Central Powers 138 29.18%
The Triple Entente 186 39.32%
Neither one of them 149 31.50%
Voters: 473. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 28th, 2017, 09:32 AM   #1241
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Durham
Posts: 705

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotromanic View Post
We are fast approaching the 99th anniversary of The Black Day of the German Army. (Ludendorff's phrase for a rash of surrenders on, if I recall, the eighth of August '18.)
It was his phrase applied to the defeat at Amiens courtesy of the British Army.

It was over by then anyway, just knocking another inevitable nail in the coffin.
Peaceful is online now  
Remove Ads
Old July 28th, 2017, 12:39 PM   #1242

Kotromanic's Avatar
McCartneynite-Lennonist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Iowa USA
Posts: 3,655
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful View Post
It was his phrase applied to the defeat at Amiens courtesy of the British Army.

It was over by then anyway, just knocking another inevitable nail in the coffin.
While the Germans were going to have to surrender in '19, by no means was defeat in the autumn inevitable.
Kotromanic is online now  
Old July 28th, 2017, 09:32 PM   #1243
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotromanic View Post
We are fast approaching the 99th anniversary of The Black Day of the German Army. (Ludendorff's phrase for a rash of surrenders on, if I recall, the eighth of August '18.)

More accurately the beginning of such a rash.

In the last "hundred days", the Germans lost 386,000 men as PoWs - an average of nearly 4000 per day. This compares with 326,000 taken in the previous four years of war, ie averaging a little over 200 per day.

It was all a bit like the Nivelle Offensive in reverse. The German soldier had been told that this great offensive would bring him victory and peace. With the defeats of July-August 1918, it was clear that it had not, whereafter the soldiers sensibly concluded that the war was now unwinnable and that their first priority now should be just to survive it.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Old July 29th, 2017, 04:41 PM   #1244

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,158
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
Quite agree that Wilson's obduracy prevented US membership of thee League, but what of it?

The mere presence of an American delegate at Geneva would not have stopped the dictators. Only a credible threat of force could do that, which even GB and France, in far more immediate danger, were not prepared to make until 1939; The Americans who passed the Neutrality Act would have been even less willing to do so, whether in or out of the League. It would still have needed Pearl Harbour to change that.
For what it's worth, Senate Majority Leader Lodge was also willing to agree to a U.S. alliance with France (and presumably with Britain as well):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_..._Republicanism

"if there had been no proposition such as is included in Article 10, but a simple proposition that it would be our intention to aid France, which is our barrier and outpost, when attacked without provocation by Germany, I should have strongly favored it for I feel very keenly the sacrifices of France and the immense value her gallant defense was to the whole world. But they have made the French treaty subject to the authority of the League, which is not to be tolerated. If we ever are called upon to go to the assistance of France as we were two years ago, we will go without asking anybody's leave. It is humiliating to be put in such an attitude and not the least of the mischief done by the League is that Article 10 will probably make it impossible to do anything for France as Root recommends and as many of our Senators desire."
Futurist is offline  
Old July 30th, 2017, 10:40 AM   #1245

dreuxeng's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 998

All the people, the 30%, that voted for the central powers are simply ignorant traitors to human civilisation. You can blame our leaders when they do good, and when they do bad, and also when they are the worst examples of leadership ever to walk this earth.

Click the image to open in full size.

Passchendaele remembered!

Last edited by dreuxeng; July 30th, 2017 at 11:05 AM.
dreuxeng is offline  
Old July 30th, 2017, 12:19 PM   #1246
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 659

Nope, simply think the world would have been much better off with a Central Powers victory and that the story told that WWI was a tale between good and evil like WWII is very misleading.

Don't know how this makes us traitors to civilization.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; July 30th, 2017 at 12:27 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old July 30th, 2017, 05:08 PM   #1247

Kotromanic's Avatar
McCartneynite-Lennonist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Iowa USA
Posts: 3,655
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
All the people, the 30%, that voted for the central powers are simply ignorant traitors to human civilisation. You can blame our leaders when they do good, and when they do bad, and also when they are the worst examples of leadership ever to walk this earth.

Click the image to open in full size.

Passchendaele remembered!
Remember the Entente had Tsarist Russia as a charter member, but America was merely an Associated Power to the Entente.

Your post really reads like bait!
Kotromanic is online now  
Old July 30th, 2017, 06:18 PM   #1248
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 659

Pro Central Powers case

1)The Middle East would have been better off under Ottoman control than what happened in our timeline after the British and French dominated the region.

2)No resentment in Germany and Hungary therefore no need for Fascist movements based on avenging a national embarrassment(Italy won but felt ripped off by the Peace Conference and did not see the war as a victor usually would so they might have the same rise of Fascism cause the settlement probably would have been worse).

3)No genocide in Yugoslavia as Austria-Hungary would stay together.

4)The argument that the UK would have treated their colonies better than Germany is irrelevant because the UK would have kept not only their colonies but perhaps all of the non Pacific German colonies because they'd conquered them during the war and a victorious Germany would still have no means of getting them back by force. Japan would have still kept the German colonies in the Pacific for the same reason, what could the Germans do about it?

6) A defeated France was incapable of acting upon any need for revenge the way the Germans were due to their smaller population. Not much Germany would have taken from a defeated France, maybe their colonies? The war prize for Germany would have been Luxembourg(one of the few German states outside of the Reich), Belgium maybe and the territory from Brest Litovsk. I can see France losing Algeria and Indochina as compensation for the colonies in Africa and Asia that the Germans lost to the Brits and Japs.

5)Treaty of Brest-Ltovsk settlement becomes permanent, Soviet Union is greatly weakened and might not last until WWII. What happens to Russia next is pretty hard to guess.

Meanwhile here's what we got.

1)Germany/Hungary and Italy mad over the outcome of the war and the rise of Fascist movements.

2)The dissolution of Austria-Hungary and Russian Empire's with a bunch of weaker independent states being formed in their place. Soviet Union survives. Minority groups in these regions are also angry with the settlement(Slovaks, Croats etc)and are given puppet states during the brief period of Axis dominance.

3)Britain and France rule the Middle East as mandates and do a fantastic job steering it towards peace and harmony. Create absolutely no problems here whatsoever.

4) Some things do stay the same. Japan and the US and their march to conflict probably happens largely the same way regardless of who wins because they really weren't effected all that much by the outcome of the war in Europe. Tsarist regime collapses and the Soviet Union at least initially forms. Again UK gets most of the German stuff in Africa and this would have still happened with a German victory because British troops were in these regions/had ruled for several years and the Germans had no means to get them out.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old July 30th, 2017, 06:32 PM   #1249
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,273

I Dont think the multinational empires would have survived regardless of the outcome. Nothing could save Austria-Hungarian or Ottoman empires.they were coming apart and the result was likely to pretty messy regardless.

The German Empire had really bad organisational structures, governance was a problem. The german empire was hamfisted and brutal in its administration, and it's diplomacy was woeful, bad bullying and just always on the wrong note. Even in 1914 Germany was looking to virtually annex belgium, The Netherlands, the Channel ports and the border of northern France. It was unrealistic.

Whatever settlement a victorious German imposed would not last. They were incapable of realistic diplomacy, working with others, actually finding allies, governing occupied territories without Brutally and stupidity.

A German imposed settlement in world war 1 would be unrealistic , would be enforced by brutal repression and fall apart.
pugsville is offline  
Old July 30th, 2017, 06:46 PM   #1250
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 659

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
I Dont think the multinational empires would have survived regardless of the outcome. Nothing could save Austria-Hungarian or Ottoman empires.they were coming apart and the result was likely to pretty messy regardless.

The German Empire had really bad organisational structures, governance was a problem. The german empire was hamfisted and brutal in its administration, and it's diplomacy was woeful, bad bullying and just always on the wrong note. Even in 1914 Germany was looking to virtually annex belgium, The Netherlands, the Channel ports and the border of northern France. It was unrealistic.

Whatever settlement a victorious German imposed would not last. They were incapable of realistic diplomacy, working with others, actually finding allies, governing occupied territories without Brutally and stupidity.

A German imposed settlement in world war 1 would be unrealistic , would be enforced by brutal repression and fall apart.
"Whatever settlement a victorious German imposed would not last". Neither did the Allied one. The Allied one created too many losers who's grievances started/fed another conflict. Who among the Allies would be upset enough to start a second world war over the bad outcome?

1)Japan-gains territory, probably continues on path to war in the Pacific
2)USA-nothing changes
3)Italy-maybe loses Venice, they were mad in our timeline also though and they actually WON!
4)France-their countryside was ravaged and might lose their colonies. They would be far less dangerous in Germany's role with their smaller population.
5)UK-loses no colonies and probably keeps German colonies in Africa. Sure they'd still be broke but they also were broke in our timeline.
6)Russia-Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

"Even in 1914 Germany was looking to virtually annex belgium, The Netherlands, the Channel ports and the border of northern France. It was unrealistic". I think this happened in 1940 if I recall.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; July 30th, 2017 at 06:49 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 08:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 08:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.