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 August 14th, 2017, 12:37 AM   #1401
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 260

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Hindsight is 20/20. However try to look at this from their 1917 perspective. The goal of the campaign was to starve the UK the same way the Germans were being starved by the surface fleet blockade. The US is a huge nation that was totally capable of feeding the UK all by themselves and if the UK had left the US ships alone, the operation made a whole lot less sense.

I was not suggesting that US ships should have been left alone, only that they should have been dealt with by cruiser rules. Even if it resulted in a few getting away, this would have been balanced by the sinking of other vessels, as the unused torpedoes would have been employed against alternative targets. After all, even at the peak of their success in April 1917, the U-boats were only getting one ship in every four, so there were plenty more fish in the sea.

Iirc the Navy argued for all-out USW in order that neutral ships should be frightened away from British ports. But this, of course, overlooked the glaring fact that an Entente which included the US would be effectively "the only game in town" as far as neutral shipowners were concerned. There wouldn't be enough other neutrals left to keep them in business.

I agree that the Zimmermann Note was folly, but I'm not sure how decisive it was. After all, Wilson received it on Feb 24, but apparently didn't reach a decision for war until March 20, almost a month later. USW alone would probably have brought war even without it.

Last edited by Mikestone8; August 14th, 2017 at 12:41 AM.
Mikestone8 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 14th, 2017, 11:34 AM   #1402

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,102

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
While the fact the genocide continued is sad, once again this happened in our timeline where the Entente won. Same with all the other great genocides of the 20th century you've mentioned. No saying some of them(besides the ones I've previously outlined) wouldn't have happened if the Central Powers had won but it's possible. Holocaust is of course the largest example. You'd have to stretch really hard to say that still happens with an Imperial German victory. The "sooner we win the war or better" sounds horrible but if you're fighting a great power with human rights abuses that's mostly all you can do(I guess Allies could have tried to get the Nazi's to stop by dangling conditional surrender if they did). You also point out the Holocaust didn't deter future genocide which makes the Allied scenario even darker. Again Central Powers victors don't need to improve much to create a better world. Sad though that the world hasn't learned from the lesson though.
But having them happen even if the Central Powers win would be proof that a Central Powers victory is NOT going to address the fundamental issues that have resulted in genocides occurring.

And while the point may be speculative, a Central Powers victory would still leave a paranoid and insecure power in Turkey in a position where any other unrest in their empire could result in further genocides beyond just the Armenian genocide. And the fact that Germany didn't take any action during the war and that other states really haven't taken action to deal with later genocides would give a good indication that Germany ISN'T going to step in and stop any possible future genocide in Ottoman lands.

Genocide is literally a problem from hell, but the fact that it happened because the Allies won WWI is a weak argument, as the problems that caused genocides in history were not caused by the Allies and there is no evidence that any sort of peace the Central Powers would impose would include measures to curtail those issues. I can understand the idea... in that it is assumed that it wouldn't happen because they were the opposing side from history... BUT without evidence of policy from its members, particularly Germany to curtail extreme nationalism and a willingness on Germany's part to use its influence to stop the actions of its allies in their own internal affairs, all the argument is... is wishful thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
The Ottomans were not the Hapsburg's, the problem was the Balkans rather than the Ottomans. Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were Western constructs and if nationalist revolution occurs it would be along actual demographic lines which deters all sorts of conflict even if the Ottomans don't retain control of the area. It was not the same as in the Balkans. Even in our timeline the Russians southern ambitions were dealt with as Russia had to focus on regaining it's territory it had surrendered. Russia in the event of a Central Powers victory would be even less able to threaten the Ottomans or the Balkans.
The Ottomans may not have been the Hapsburgs, but they still ruled over a regime that was very insecure over its territories and with the peoples it ruled over. That insecurity isn't going to go away in a Central Powers victory and any possible rebellion or unrest, regardless of how it establishes borders, is bound to trigger responses on par with what happened with the Armenians during the war...

And if the war goes long, the activities the British pushed to try and weaken the Turks would still occur and raise the issue for any potential problems to be worse...

It may be speculative in nature, but no more so than saying "everything would be better with a Central Powers victory."

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germans wouldn't have the same interest in the Middle East as the Brits most likely because the Brits and French took down the power in the Middle East while the Germans were propping them up. Once again even if the Germans win, UK still would be in Egypt and East Africa and Germany's victory probably doesn't lead them down the same path as the UK. This links back to the previous paragraph were I believe that instead of Western controlled mandates with artificial borders if the Ottomans had collapsed it would have been among actual demographic lines and the Allies would have had a harder time gaining influence.
Why would the Germans not have an interest in resources from the region? Part of their whole reason for promoting the Berlin to Baghdad railway was to grant them access in some way to the middle eastern resources. And with oil being found and developed... the Germans would have interest in getting it. It may not have been as direct as the Allied post war influence, but that doesn't mean they won't have interest or that they wouldn't have advisors trying to help the Turks and thus creating sources of irritation at a "western" presence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
However let's say you're right and German influence does replace Western influence(let's say Ottomans become dependent on Germany) and the same resentment takes hold and there's a major attack. This is going to sound really self centered but for me being an American who grew up in NYC, 9/11 occurring somewhere else rather than the US is a positive especially seeing how the US's reaction to those attacks are still impacting the country today. Call me self centered there.
Such action may occur elsewhere, but it doesn't remove the specter of terrorism, which is the central issue. And it wouldn't change the result of the losses. Just because those killed are German rather than American doesn't mean the issue isn't a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Point taken on Balfour but it took more than that for the crisis to get where it was today.
Perhaps, but with promises made, the conflict will still have the potential to arise in some way shape or form... Similar to the promises for Arab kingdoms. That only raises the potential for trouble...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
In terms of the Roman/Eastern power wars I feel you're cherry picking facts. The Parthians/Sassanians never came close to the Roman capital(with the exception of Constantinople once) while the Persian heartland was invaded several times and Ctesiphon captured. Those Roman emperors were captured deep in Persian territory. Tigris and Euphrates also are no random small region, it is where Seleucus and Ctesiphon the capital(s) of the empire were located. That area had been the center of classical civilization. Hardly worthless territory. Like saying the Persians were only interested on land near the Tiber River.
But the Parthian/Sassanid capitals are CLOSER to the border than Rome is. And often when the Romans took these cities, it was due to the Parthians/Sassanids busy elsewhere. And the Romans only held these cities as part of their empire once... as part of Trajan's campaign. The rest of the time they retreated BACK to the pre-established border.

The Persians may not have been able to conquer the Romans, but then the Romans couldn't conquer the Persians either. As while their capital cities may be closer to the border... the heartland of Parthia and the Sassanids is MUCH further east than the Tigris/Euphrates River valley. And the Romans never made it that far...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
France's main solution though wasn't to prepare to defeat Germany in one on one war but to recruit the Russians as an ally to make a revenge war with Germany viable. We know now from the events of the war, that this wouldn't have been enough and France/Russia v Germany/Austria without the UK, Italy and USA(UK's interference ended up dragging in the latter two) would have almost certainly resulted in Central Powers victory and probably in 1914.
Perhaps, but the point is that Germany's peace terms are NOT going to be the sort of terms that isn't going to leave the powers it defeated resentful and in a sense that opens the possibility of such alliances being forged as needed. Simply being not the Allies doesn't inherently mean that their peace is going to remove the problems that caused trouble later in history... And things like the September Program and the terms made for Brest Litovsk shows that Germany's peace terms would be every bit as humiliating as people perceive the Versailles Treaty was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Your idea that the French could have stopped the Germans with a different defensive plan in WWI has merit but this would still result in an Allied victory and doesn't change which side's victory would be better.
But that point is talk specifically on the capabilities of the French army, not the flaws of either side's peace plans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
The whole "not broke don't fix it" logic does infect victorious powers to a degree. However it is not a military law that this has to happen. Military commanders can keep up with military technology and can make decisions on how that technology is used. Of course defeat is more incentive to undertake more radical changes. Doesn't mean the German military's strategy will be obsolete in WWII.
It's not a law, but more a perception. Countries can update and change things, but it usually takes some outside force to force such changes. As countries that have won generally don't take the risk of changing things in case a change could be a mistake. And if Germany had won WWI, there is no reason to assume that they would see reason institute major tactical/strategic changes because the tactics and strategies used during the war worked and most likely enemies of France and Russia would be perceived to be weaker. There is no reason to make drastic changes, which at least in the short term would change the odds...

And it should be noted that in history the Germans didn't learn the strategic lessons that cost them WWI in history. Germany in WWII committed the EXACT same strategic errors that cost them in WWI. A win in WWI would only further mean that the Germans would be willing to take risks with military action as a means of diplomacy and thus creating the potential for bigger trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Before Boulanger episode the Germans were unprepared for a war against France because France wanting a 1 on 1 with the Germans was seen as laughable. At this point basically every great power would either side with Germany or be neutral. Once France got the Russians as an Ally the dynamic changed and Germany had to plan for a two front war that for the first few decades after the Franco-Prussian War wasn't a top concern.
The Boulanger Crisis occurred BEFORE the alliance with Russia was forged. The change in the German army's training, equipment, and procedure in WWI came as a result of the scare from the Boulanger Crisis and the fact that on the surface it looked as though the French would be able to beat Germany in a one on one matchup.

The alliance with Russia came later, and while it too did force the Germans into looking things differently... that had more to do with their strategy in dealing with a two front war and not with how their army was organized or with the equipment they used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
French plan in 1914 was just as offensive as the German plan calling for the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine. While the German offensive plan almost worked the French did not capture Alscace and Lorraine and were held back.
Plan XVII failed, yes, but the fact that the French were willing to take the offensive demonstrates that in 1914 they were not afraid of a confrontation with Germany...

And while the Schlieffen Plan came close... it largely failed due to the flaws that were in the plan in the first place. Its time tables were rushed, and the German army was JUST as exhausted, if not more so, than the Allies when the First Battle of the Marne began... and even had that worked and the west was won, they'd STILL have to traverse the country and attack the Russians. That's the expectation of a herculean effort that the Germans couldn't achieve. Their rapid rush into France heavily taxed their logistical lines, and without portable radios, front line units could easily find themselves detached from the rest of the army, as seen by Kluck's forces pulling apart from the Germans to his east... creating the gap that the BEF and French troops attacked into. And with the French government at Bordeaux by the time of the Battle of the Marne, there is no guarantee that taking Paris would mean a German victory in the West. In this, the Schlieffen Plan was dependent on the French abiding by the German timetable and had no contingency for the possibility that they wouldn't...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Germany and the Soviet Union were both larger countries than France even though the Soviets had a huge advantage. It also was a failed invasion that in the initial stages couldn't have went better catching the Soviets completely off guard. Germany also had access to non German Axis armies from across Europe. In the end though the Soviets man power did completely overwhelm the Germans. Again France had less people than Germany and having a 2:1 population deficit of (hypothetical not exact)85-170 is much more favorable than having a 2:1 population deficit of 40-80. The more soldiers you have the better the chances of survival are in a death match like that even when outnumbered. It'd be much easier for Nazi Germany to invade the USSR than for Fascist France to invade Germany. Germany also had allies from all over Europe against the lonely Soviet Union while there is no guarantee France wouldn't draw any more enemy's to the fight.
That assumes the Germans would craft a magnanimous peace that wouldn't cause any trouble... which is countered by the September Program and what was imposed at Brest-Litovsk. Germany's peace would have been humiliating and left the defeated powers resentful. That resentment is BOUND to lead to alliances being formed to counter the Germans...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
In the East Austria simply was outperformed by Germany. I am in agreement in the 1880s and 1890s Austria was the worst great power to get into permanent alliance with, alienating the most great powers while providing the least assistance. This is not to say the Austrians were hapless they almost beat the Italians in a war where they were never fighting full strength until near the end due to the Eastern and Balkan front. Russia and Serbia were not doormats and they were simply difficult opponents to defeat. Russia in pure numbers(not technology) severely outnumbered a combined German-Austria Hungary and those numbers were an advantage that made up for industrial shortcomings. You have a fair point about Italy but Austria was not a liability in the war. Were they the worst alliance option? Yes, but that doesn't mean they were an in war liability like the Italians were in WWII.
The fact that the Austrians were heavily dependent on German support for their advances, at Gorlice Tarnow, in Serbia, and the end of the Brusilov Offensive would counter that. They may not have been the "doormat" that Italy was in WW2, but neither were they really that capable of helping out with their end of the war effort.

If your reference to "almost beating Italy" is to Caporetto... keep in mind that the Germans had provided large numbers of German troops for that offensive and that Rommel won his Pour Le Merite in that battle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Hapsburg Empire's decline would not lead to all out collapse without a Central Powers defeat. Croats were fine with being part of the Hapsburg state too. The dual monarchy also proved that adding a third title could bring another area into deeper allegiance towards the Hapsburg crown.
But that decline had already occurred and wouldn't necessarily be stable on its own. Remember that Hungry tried to break away a few times and Franz Joseph had to be pressured into creating the duel monarchy between Austria and Hungary in the first place. His resistance to change helped fuel many of those problems, and in some ways was part of why Franz Ferdinand was trying to push reform efforts that Franz Joseph opposed. And had the Central Powers won, the worst of the potential racial issues that Austria would face would ONLY be solved by actions on the part of the Emperor, I believe Karl is the one succeeded Franz Joseph, supporting measures that would reform the empire...

And I think Karl did TRY that in history, but by the time he got to it... or got his government to agree to it... it was too late. As such, if the war goes long, you could potentially STILL see the dissolution of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire as it was even in victory...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
France, Italy, Belguim and Russia were not in the same situation as the UK. UK could negotiate as part of a coalition who's main job was to prevent a German invasion of Belgium and France that failed. UK does not have to nor could be compelled to accept any consequences. Also look at WWII where the French were defeated and surrendered yet their UK allies retreated across the channel with no actual territorial losses. Unlike in WWII however there are no airplanes to make an invasion of the UK feasible and the war ends there with both sides reaching a settlement.
But what kind of settlement would they reach? It's doubtful that Germany is going to want to let Britain keep its naval supremacy. Not after the British blockade lead to millions starving to death from 1914-1918.

Germany might not have the naval strength to force Britain to surrender outright, but if the British remain inflexible on Germany's most likely terms... that could lead to one of two things...

1) The war officially continues with no peace treaty signed. It may go into a sort of lull, similarly as to what happened between the various wars against Napoleon, as there were only TWO treaties the British signed. The first was Amiens, broken by both signees and the second was at the Congress of Vienna. This might mean that the war is reduced to naval raiding and the continuing blockade... and thus the British wait until a continental power rises up against the Germans, just as what happened in the Napoleonic Wars.

2) Germany backs off the worst of its demands, and leaving the peace less humiliating that the it would impose on the continent. This might work... but one cannot assume that Britain wouldn't feel resentful of the peace, regardless, or that someone wouldn't want to get even. Keep in mind that Britain DID have a Fascist party that did gain some support in history. A lost war would have the potential to raise it... And at the same time, Germany's perceived inferiority to Britain at sea would remain and would serve to irritate German nationalists who felt that Britain's actions were the most damaging to them, and thus the British deserved punishment. In this... one could well see Germany fall to fascism because it didn't gain EVERYTHING in the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Saying the Allies didn't conquer or touch Germany so it'd be the same as Britain not conquering or touching France just isn't true. Germany had an exhausted army defending Germany proper that would not be able to continue the war and a population nearing revolt. The reason Germany signed an armistice is that they had no choice.
The Allies had defeated the German army, but that wasn't entirely the point. By the threats the Allies posed on land, one can understand that the Germans had no choice... but in the peace, Germany also lost pretty much its entire navy, which the Allies hadn't inflicted anywhere NEAR the same level of defeat on... Yes, Jutland could be considered an Allied victory, but only in the sense that the British were able to maintain their fleet for blockade duty after the battle while it took the Germans longer to do the same. In this the German navy was contained, but not outright defeated...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
Wars can end with settlements that benefit parties in some regions and hurt them in others. There is no rule that says there needs to be a total winner across every fight nor is there a rule that everyone on the losing side has to suffer consequences if they can't all be equally compelled to do the wishes of the winner.
There is no outright rule, and perhaps the British do retain Germany's colonies... but I'd find it doubtful that if the war goes on and the Germans win in 1917 or later that they would accept a peace deal that would allow Britain the naval superiority with which they could easily cut off ALL outside trade and literally starve the German population.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old August 14th, 2017, 11:46 AM   #1403
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Durham
Posts: 715

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuga View Post

British soldiers killed unarmed german soldiers who surrendered.
This really wasn't that uncommon on all sides. At times instructions were given: take no prisoners. It's generally deemed to have been counter-productive as it kept men from the other side fighting.
Peaceful is offline  
Old August 14th, 2017, 09:14 PM   #1404
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 673

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
But having them happen even if the Central Powers win would be proof that a Central Powers victory is NOT going to address the fundamental issues that have resulted in genocides occurring.

And while the point may be speculative, a Central Powers victory would still leave a paranoid and insecure power in Turkey in a position where any other unrest in their empire could result in further genocides beyond just the Armenian genocide. And the fact that Germany didn't take any action during the war and that other states really haven't taken action to deal with later genocides would give a good indication that Germany ISN'T going to step in and stop any possible future genocide in Ottoman lands.

Genocide is literally a problem from hell, but the fact that it happened because the Allies won WWI is a weak argument, as the problems that caused genocides in history were not caused by the Allies and there is no evidence that any sort of peace the Central Powers would impose would include measures to curtail those issues. I can understand the idea... in that it is assumed that it wouldn't happen because they were the opposing side from history... BUT without evidence of policy from its members, particularly Germany to curtail extreme nationalism and a willingness on Germany's part to use its influence to stop the actions of its allies in their own internal affairs, all the argument is... is wishful thinking.



The Ottomans may not have been the Hapsburgs, but they still ruled over a regime that was very insecure over its territories and with the peoples it ruled over. That insecurity isn't going to go away in a Central Powers victory and any possible rebellion or unrest, regardless of how it establishes borders, is bound to trigger responses on par with what happened with the Armenians during the war...

And if the war goes long, the activities the British pushed to try and weaken the Turks would still occur and raise the issue for any potential problems to be worse...

It may be speculative in nature, but no more so than saying "everything would be better with a Central Powers victory."



Why would the Germans not have an interest in resources from the region? Part of their whole reason for promoting the Berlin to Baghdad railway was to grant them access in some way to the middle eastern resources. And with oil being found and developed... the Germans would have interest in getting it. It may not have been as direct as the Allied post war influence, but that doesn't mean they won't have interest or that they wouldn't have advisors trying to help the Turks and thus creating sources of irritation at a "western" presence.



Such action may occur elsewhere, but it doesn't remove the specter of terrorism, which is the central issue. And it wouldn't change the result of the losses. Just because those killed are German rather than American doesn't mean the issue isn't a problem.



Perhaps, but with promises made, the conflict will still have the potential to arise in some way shape or form... Similar to the promises for Arab kingdoms. That only raises the potential for trouble...



But the Parthian/Sassanid capitals are CLOSER to the border than Rome is. And often when the Romans took these cities, it was due to the Parthians/Sassanids busy elsewhere. And the Romans only held these cities as part of their empire once... as part of Trajan's campaign. The rest of the time they retreated BACK to the pre-established border.

The Persians may not have been able to conquer the Romans, but then the Romans couldn't conquer the Persians either. As while their capital cities may be closer to the border... the heartland of Parthia and the Sassanids is MUCH further east than the Tigris/Euphrates River valley. And the Romans never made it that far...



Perhaps, but the point is that Germany's peace terms are NOT going to be the sort of terms that isn't going to leave the powers it defeated resentful and in a sense that opens the possibility of such alliances being forged as needed. Simply being not the Allies doesn't inherently mean that their peace is going to remove the problems that caused trouble later in history... And things like the September Program and the terms made for Brest Litovsk shows that Germany's peace terms would be every bit as humiliating as people perceive the Versailles Treaty was.



But that point is talk specifically on the capabilities of the French army, not the flaws of either side's peace plans.



It's not a law, but more a perception. Countries can update and change things, but it usually takes some outside force to force such changes. As countries that have won generally don't take the risk of changing things in case a change could be a mistake. And if Germany had won WWI, there is no reason to assume that they would see reason institute major tactical/strategic changes because the tactics and strategies used during the war worked and most likely enemies of France and Russia would be perceived to be weaker. There is no reason to make drastic changes, which at least in the short term would change the odds...

And it should be noted that in history the Germans didn't learn the strategic lessons that cost them WWI in history. Germany in WWII committed the EXACT same strategic errors that cost them in WWI. A win in WWI would only further mean that the Germans would be willing to take risks with military action as a means of diplomacy and thus creating the potential for bigger trouble.



The Boulanger Crisis occurred BEFORE the alliance with Russia was forged. The change in the German army's training, equipment, and procedure in WWI came as a result of the scare from the Boulanger Crisis and the fact that on the surface it looked as though the French would be able to beat Germany in a one on one matchup.

The alliance with Russia came later, and while it too did force the Germans into looking things differently... that had more to do with their strategy in dealing with a two front war and not with how their army was organized or with the equipment they used.



Plan XVII failed, yes, but the fact that the French were willing to take the offensive demonstrates that in 1914 they were not afraid of a confrontation with Germany...

And while the Schlieffen Plan came close... it largely failed due to the flaws that were in the plan in the first place. Its time tables were rushed, and the German army was JUST as exhausted, if not more so, than the Allies when the First Battle of the Marne began... and even had that worked and the west was won, they'd STILL have to traverse the country and attack the Russians. That's the expectation of a herculean effort that the Germans couldn't achieve. Their rapid rush into France heavily taxed their logistical lines, and without portable radios, front line units could easily find themselves detached from the rest of the army, as seen by Kluck's forces pulling apart from the Germans to his east... creating the gap that the BEF and French troops attacked into. And with the French government at Bordeaux by the time of the Battle of the Marne, there is no guarantee that taking Paris would mean a German victory in the West. In this, the Schlieffen Plan was dependent on the French abiding by the German timetable and had no contingency for the possibility that they wouldn't...



That assumes the Germans would craft a magnanimous peace that wouldn't cause any trouble... which is countered by the September Program and what was imposed at Brest-Litovsk. Germany's peace would have been humiliating and left the defeated powers resentful. That resentment is BOUND to lead to alliances being formed to counter the Germans...



The fact that the Austrians were heavily dependent on German support for their advances, at Gorlice Tarnow, in Serbia, and the end of the Brusilov Offensive would counter that. They may not have been the "doormat" that Italy was in WW2, but neither were they really that capable of helping out with their end of the war effort.

If your reference to "almost beating Italy" is to Caporetto... keep in mind that the Germans had provided large numbers of German troops for that offensive and that Rommel won his Pour Le Merite in that battle.



But that decline had already occurred and wouldn't necessarily be stable on its own. Remember that Hungry tried to break away a few times and Franz Joseph had to be pressured into creating the duel monarchy between Austria and Hungary in the first place. His resistance to change helped fuel many of those problems, and in some ways was part of why Franz Ferdinand was trying to push reform efforts that Franz Joseph opposed. And had the Central Powers won, the worst of the potential racial issues that Austria would face would ONLY be solved by actions on the part of the Emperor, I believe Karl is the one succeeded Franz Joseph, supporting measures that would reform the empire...

And I think Karl did TRY that in history, but by the time he got to it... or got his government to agree to it... it was too late. As such, if the war goes long, you could potentially STILL see the dissolution of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire as it was even in victory...



But what kind of settlement would they reach? It's doubtful that Germany is going to want to let Britain keep its naval supremacy. Not after the British blockade lead to millions starving to death from 1914-1918.

Germany might not have the naval strength to force Britain to surrender outright, but if the British remain inflexible on Germany's most likely terms... that could lead to one of two things...

1) The war officially continues with no peace treaty signed. It may go into a sort of lull, similarly as to what happened between the various wars against Napoleon, as there were only TWO treaties the British signed. The first was Amiens, broken by both signees and the second was at the Congress of Vienna. This might mean that the war is reduced to naval raiding and the continuing blockade... and thus the British wait until a continental power rises up against the Germans, just as what happened in the Napoleonic Wars.

2) Germany backs off the worst of its demands, and leaving the peace less humiliating that the it would impose on the continent. This might work... but one cannot assume that Britain wouldn't feel resentful of the peace, regardless, or that someone wouldn't want to get even. Keep in mind that Britain DID have a Fascist party that did gain some support in history. A lost war would have the potential to raise it... And at the same time, Germany's perceived inferiority to Britain at sea would remain and would serve to irritate German nationalists who felt that Britain's actions were the most damaging to them, and thus the British deserved punishment. In this... one could well see Germany fall to fascism because it didn't gain EVERYTHING in the war.



The Allies had defeated the German army, but that wasn't entirely the point. By the threats the Allies posed on land, one can understand that the Germans had no choice... but in the peace, Germany also lost pretty much its entire navy, which the Allies hadn't inflicted anywhere NEAR the same level of defeat on... Yes, Jutland could be considered an Allied victory, but only in the sense that the British were able to maintain their fleet for blockade duty after the battle while it took the Germans longer to do the same. In this the German navy was contained, but not outright defeated...



There is no outright rule, and perhaps the British do retain Germany's colonies... but I'd find it doubtful that if the war goes on and the Germans win in 1917 or later that they would accept a peace deal that would allow Britain the naval superiority with which they could easily cut off ALL outside trade and literally starve the German population.
To address the genocide point I don't have proof it would guaranteed be better in the event of a Central Powers victory. I do think several specific genocides would be prevented in that scenario but I think I make a compelling argument for many of the ills of this timeline being prevented and that it would have been hard for things to be worse. Saying genocide in general happened because the Allies won WWI might be a weak argument but citing specific cases like the Holocaust etc that would have or wouldn't have happened is almost foolproof IMO. No Nazi's, no Holocaust etc(various other genocides that happened directly due to things from post war settlement). Sure Croats wanted to join Yugoslavia in 1919 but by WWII this was no longer the case at least amongst those in charge and it caused a ton of problems. Same with Slovakia/Czechs etc, Hungarians and all the other mad countries in WWI.

The borders though is the most important factor in the region becoming the hell hole it is today. Putting different groups into a country and declaring them "Syria", "Lebanon" or "Iraq" or "Palestine" is a recipe for disaster that even if the Middle East had rebelled from the Ottomans doesn't happen if the Brits and French don't come in. The Serbs, Bulgars, Bosnians and Greeks had all had centuries and centuries of being autonomous before the Ottomans came in and thus had strong regional identity. The Middle Eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire had no such situation they had been ruled by one master or another since Antiquity. Maybe 20th century nationalism in Europe spreads and changes that but I think there's a very good chance we do not see the nationalism we see in Europe in the Middle East. I believe the Ottomans would have kept their empire together but even if they had not the region would be far better off. I do not believe there would be a 9/11 for the above reasons but a 9/11 outside of the US and the aggressive American foreign policy in the region that followed would be terrible for my country so I would still prefer a Central Powers victory. Germany might have had an interest but I have a hard time seeing it going as far as the countries who actually controlled territory in the region.

Rome couldn't conquer the Parthians/Sassanid's but it's not like the two were equal powers with the exception of the very end of the Sassanid period and to a lesser extent during the Roman Civil Wars. Rome controlled the entire Mediterranean. Saying they both weren't capable of conquering each other doesn't tell the full story. Constantinople was relatively close to the front as well and it was only besieged once and Anatolia/ the Levant coast was rarely touched by Parthian/Sassanid forces. If you take away the regions in question these empires mostly just consist of modern day Iran, parts of Arabia(at times) and maybe parts of Afghanistan. A force but with one brief exception not equals with the Romans.

Okay, challenge if the Germans were going to impose/negotiate terms that would make the Brits feel resentful, what are they and why would the British agree to them in the first place? Being not the Allies does matter in the sense that the defeat of the Central Powers caused a lot of groups to get angry because the Central Powers consisted of 3 empires/2 that collapsed into a bunch of nation states that caused problems. Treaty of Brest Litovsk and Russia(which largely happens no matter what) aside this really isn't possible among the Allies.

Here's what the non Russia(who are defeated no matter what)Allies stand to lose in order of severity.
-Italy-Venice maybe?
-France-probably nothing they've got no desirable territory, probably has to pay reparations. Maybe some of the warzone south of Belgium.
-UK(keep in mind this is a country that gave up Ireland voluntarily even after winning)
-USA-nothing
-Japan- minus nothing(they took a ton of colonies which they sure as hell weren't giving back)

If I grant you that France adjusts their tactics and the Germans don't, it doesn't change that the Germans still have every advantage on levels the French in our timeline do not. It would be much much harder for the French to cause the level of death, instability and destruction the Germans did in our timeline. Finding grey areas that make it theoretically possible as a fringe scenario don't change the overwhelming advantages the Germans had and what those advantages tend to mean in wars. Another question I should ask is, let's say France using revolutionary tactics defeats the complacent Germans, do you think they are capable of A conquering and holding that territory with their smaller population or B taking their conquest crusade further East the way the Germans did? Again I feel that my scenario has all these layers that make it an almost inherently better Europe than it would have been in our timeline whereas yours requires everything to go right for the French to have been a similar threat to the Germans. Sure I might not be proving that the French doing a neo-napoleonic conquering spree is impossible but it seems to me like a very radical stretch that needs all sorts of rationalizing and things to happen just right.

You make a good point that the capture of Paris might not have ended the war with France. This IMO supports the argument more that Central Power victory in WWI was more unlikely not better though. I do still think a capture of Paris would lead to the French surrendering not too far afterwards like in WWII but it's an interesting argument that with British reinforcements arriving and the Germans being militarily exhausted and halted that the French would continue to slug it out. I think it's unlikely though and I don't accept the argument but it's interesting and certainly possible.

Again I can see Central Powers leaving the French, Italian's and Russians resentful with the peace settlement(and a bunch of smaller non GP countries). We have no arguments there(I'm disputing their ability to do something about it). I'm disputing the Americans, British and Japanese settlements who were in a very different position than the first three Allies.

True about the Battle of Caporetto.

I do not think it's possible that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would totally collapse after victory in the war. The fact Hungary had centuries of tension with the Austrian monarchy and adjusted so well with the dual monarchy means that IMO the same could have happened with the Czechs. Croats and Slovaks were also fine and that's most of the empire if you add that all up. Unrest in Bosnia/Transylvania would mean the potential loss of these regions at worst not the collapse of the whole empire. Also if the Central Powers win Serbia and Romania are in no position to take these regions back. The situations couldn't be solved in our timeline because the war was lost not because the empire was totally decaying. Karl did die in our timeline though only a few years after taking the throne and would be replaced by his son Otto who would at the time be just a child(about the same age as Pi in China). Also say what you want about the rest of the Empire but Hungary still wanted a monarchy and if not for World War I wouldn't have seperated from the Hapsburg Empire. Heck they remained a unique "kingdom" without a king until the end of WWII and this was because external forces more than internal ones.

Again as I explained in great detail there is nothing the Germans can do about British naval supremacy. Likewise even if they could, naval supremacy was the most important thing in the world to them and was the whole reason they were threatened by Germany in the first place. Think 1918 when the French would be defeated, the British blockade would still be there and the Germans would have no way in hell of stopping it(which I broke down in tiring detail a few posts back).

Your first scenario could happen but I doubt it. The UK objective was to protect Belgium and France. They failed, lost a million men and got a bunch of shiny new colony's as compensation. The Germans objective had been to defeat the French and Russians never wanted nor were able to invade the UK. My question is here, what's the point of continuing? I don't see any war aims either the UK or Germans could achieve by continuing to fight.

Your second scenario again doesn't specify what conditions the Germans could force on the British. These really don't exist. In terms of the British navy, the British navy had naval supremacy and would have it still in the event of a French win while the German navy was stuck at port. You do realize if the Allies had invaded the German navy the German navy would just get destroyed in port right? The German navy existed and hadn't been destroyed but it was stuck either in port or sailing to the Baltic. You say the navy was "contained not outright defeated" but it being contained was for all intents and purposes it being outright defeated. If you got a bunch of ships which can't go into the North Sea or Channel without being destroyed the navy is as useless as scrap metal. British were also outproducing the Germans at the end of the war and had a greater advantage than they did at Jutland. The reason Germany lost their navy after WWI also was that the Germans having the capacity to threaten the UK's navy was the most significant threat to the UK seeing as the UK is a maritime nation that would be helpless without their navy. Can't see Fascism emerging in Germany under the Imperial system.
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.