Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Austrians and the Ottomans were bound to collapse regardless due to the rise of nationalism so Germany is the only CP to come out ahead.
Depends what you mean by "collapse"
If AH splits up, Germany presumably takes the traditionally "German" lands - which in contemporary parlance would include the Czech and Slovene areas.. So (bar the odd border province), the alliance of Germany with Austria-plus-Hungary changes into an alliance of Germany-plus-Austria with Hungary. Afaics, the new combination would be at least as strong as the old - probably stronger.
As for Turkey, it has already sorted out its Armenian minority, and will probably do the same to its Greeks before much longer. So the only ethnic group it has to worry about is the Arabs, many of whom aren't all that rebellious, and whom it can probably hold with German backing. And even if they do secede at some point, they have no particular reason to favour GB over Germany.
The Battle of Amiens, which began on 8 August 1918, was the opening phase of the Allied offensive later known as the Hundred Days Offensive that ultimately led to the end of the First World War. Allied forces advanced over 11 kilometres (7 mi) on the first day, one of the greatest advances of the war, with Henry Rawlinson's British Fourth Army playing the decisive role. The battle is also notable for its effects on both sides' morale and the large number of surrendering German forces. This led Erich Ludendorff to describe the first day of the battle as "the black day of the German Army". Amiens was one of the first major battles involving armoured warfare and marked the end of trench warfare on the Western Front, fighting becoming mobile once again until the armistice was signed on 11 November 1918.
Amiens was a predominantly British Empire operation and was the first use of combined forces of tanks, artillery, aircraft (600), infantry, etc, - Blitzkrieg. It was total surprise. One British tank ran for 9 hours in the German lines causing havoc before the Germans levelled an artillery gun that happen to hit it.
USA involvement in the military aspect was minimal to say the least. The only point of US involvement that might have swayed the Germans was that there was another army to face. OK green and using outdated US Civil War tactics, but they needed to get men and equip them to face this army.
The reason why the British were able to pull off the Amiens attack in the first place was due to American troops manning the lines further south. Had it not been for American troops entering the trenches en masse, the British wouldn't have the manpower to execute such an attack. Had it not been for the anticipated arrival in American troops, Germany never would have launched the Spring Offensive earlier in the year that drained them of manpower. Had it not been for American financial aid, the British would have been wiped out of the war before 1918.
The American troops weren't just cannot fodder. The 3,000 AEF troops that lost their lives you speak of are part of the reason why the Germans were forced into an armistice. The American forces were fighting just as hard as the British forces, and the combined effort of the two militaries pushed the Germans into signing an armistice. The German decision to sign the armistice happened in fairly short order. It wasn't until the final days of the war as Allied troops began breaking through the German lines that Germany felt compelled to quickly sign a cease fire. Without such a breakthrough, Versailles never happens and no restrictions are placed on Germany's military. Within 10 years, they could have rebuilt their military and invaded France again with little to stop them.
Your lack of respect for American involvement is astounding. As a British citizen, you should be on your hands and knees thanking us. You are really ungrateful. America never had to send troops or money overseas. We could have let the British and French rot and Germany would have taken over.
Problem with this is that, absent US intervention, a stalemate is a win for the Central Powers.
They are standing on enemy territory everywhere, save a corner of Upper Alsace, another corner of Eastern Galicia and (from 1917) two corners of the Ottoman Empire. These, plus Germany's worthless scraps of colonial territory, are all the Entente has in the way of bargaining chips. So in any "compromise" settlement it is the Entente who will have to do most of the compromising.
And even that's a bit theoretical. When the Poilus learn that their government is accepting a peace with no Alsace-Lorraine, no reparations, and generally no nothing, morale (shaky already) is liable to collapse, opening the way to an outright CP victory. So the move for a compromise peace actually leads to a dictated peace.
You are correct. Had the war just ended with the status quo, Germany would have won because they received much of Eastern Europe in the Treaty of Brest Livotsk. The Germans also held Alsace Lorraine and much of northern France and Belgium. There was nothing to compel the Germans to give back any territory. The Germans could have incorporated Austria-Hungary into their empire without much of a fuss. Germany would have emerged as a superpower. Within a few years, Germany would have invaded France again with a larger army, and the French wouldn't be able to stop it.
People often blame the Treaty of Versailles for causing WW2. But my argument is that it delayed WW2, not cause it. The military restrictions imposed on Germany were necessary in preventing Germany from waging war again in the near future. Without any restrictions, Germany easily could have invaded France again within a few years. The French would not have been able to stop another German invasion in the 1920's.
Versailles significantly weakened Hitler's efforts to rebuild the German military too. Hitler had to rebuild the German army almost from scratch in the 1930's, and still lagged behind France in men and equipment when WW2 began. Germany never reached its full military potential during WW2 due to the restrictions from Versailles and the long rebuilding process. Think about if Hitler inherited a 10 million man army in 1933 when he took power? He quite possibly could have fielded a 20 million man army in 1940
Last edited by Nolefan34; 08-12-2014 at 07:22 PM..
Think about if Hitler inherited a 10 million man army in 1933 when he took power? He quite possibly could have fielded a 20 million man army in 1940
He [1] wouldn't literally have inherited that. Iirc Germany's normal peacetime strength was about 700,000. Twenty million would be close to half the male population, which sounds a bit high. OTOH, no Versailles means that they get to keep conscription, so they'd have more trained reserves.
As a Brit, though, I think I'd be more worried about the several hundred U-boats they might have built by 1925, as against the fifty or so that Hitler started with in 1939.
[1] And of course it wouldn't be Hitler. If we're talking pre-1941 it would still be Wilhelm II, with some conservative (Lettow-Vorbeck maybe?) as Chancellor.
Last edited by Mikestone8; 08-13-2014 at 12:37 AM..
The reason why the British were able to pull off the Amiens attack in the first place was due to American troops manning the lines further south. Had it not been for American troops entering the trenches en masse, the British wouldn't have the manpower to execute such an attack. Had it not been for the anticipated arrival in American troops, Germany never would have launched the Spring Offensive earlier in the year that drained them of manpower. Had it not been for American financial aid, the British would have been wiped out of the war before 1918.
The American troops weren't just cannot fodder. The 3,000 AEF troops that lost their lives you speak of are part of the reason why the Germans were forced into an armistice. The American forces were fighting just as hard as the British forces, and the combined effort of the two militaries pushed the Germans into signing an armistice. The German decision to sign the armistice happened in fairly short order. It wasn't until the final days of the war as Allied troops began breaking through the German lines that Germany felt compelled to quickly sign a cease fire. Without such a breakthrough, Versailles never happens and no restrictions are placed on Germany's military. Within 10 years, they could have rebuilt their military and invaded France again with little to stop them.
Your lack of respect for American involvement is astounding. As a British citizen, you should be on your hands and knees thanking us. You are really ungrateful. America never had to send troops or money overseas. We could have let the British and French rot and Germany would have taken over.
The bolded are two very good points.
1918 German Offensive: The Germans launched their 1918 Spring Offensive in a rush because they were trying to devastate the Allies before the Americans were ready in mass. Even as a rush job, the Germans still pushed back both the British and the French. In one battle (Operation Michael) the British lost 25,000 killed and 35,000 wounded in the first day. It stands to reason if the USA was not in the war then the Germans could have planned their 1918 offensives more carefully in a timely fashion and thus may have been more successful.
American Army: the very existence of a large and growing American Army caused not only the Germans to a all out throw of the dice 1918 offensive (see above) but caused the Germans to have spread out the rest of their army in a defensive manner. This made it easier for the Allies to break through later in the year.
It wasn't until the final days of the war as Allied troops began breaking through the German lines that Germany felt compelled to quickly sign a cease fire.
I'm not so sure of that.
Imho the main reason was the defection of Bulgaria, which left the whole of Austria-Hungary's southern border open to Allied attack, thus compelling her to man a whole new front - which she could not possibly do. That made her defeat inevitable, and her armistice (Nov 3) put Germany into precisely the same position.
However, I don't think it makes much difference. Germany's allies were dropping out because she could no longer prop them up - due to the pressure she herself as under on the Western Front, and to which the AEF made an important contribution.
Imho the main reason was the defection of Bulgaria, which left the whole of Austria-Hungary's southern border open to Allied attack, thus compelling her to man a whole new front - which she could not possibly do. That made her defeat inevitable, and her armistice (Nov 3) put Germany into precisely the same position.
However, I don't think it makes much difference. Germany's allies were dropping out because she could no longer prop them up - due to the pressure she herself as under on the Western Front, and to which the AEF made an important contribution.
One of the interesting things about WW1 and also WW2 is just how badly outnumbered the Germans and their various allies really were. Its amazing they managed to fight as well and last as long as they did.
You are correct. Had the war just ended with the status quo, Germany would have won because they received much of Eastern Europe in the Treaty of Brest Livotsk. The Germans also held Alsace Lorraine and much of northern France and Belgium. There was nothing to compel the Germans to give back any territory. The Germans could have incorporated Austria-Hungary into their empire without much of a fuss. Germany would have emerged as a superpower. Within a few years, Germany would have invaded France again with a larger army, and the French wouldn't be able to stop it.
People often blame the Treaty of Versailles for causing WW2. But my argument is that it delayed WW2, not cause it. The military restrictions imposed on Germany were necessary in preventing Germany from waging war again in the near future. Without any restrictions, Germany easily could have invaded France again within a few years. The French would not have been able to stop another German invasion in the 1920's.
Versailles significantly weakened Hitler's efforts to rebuild the German military too. Hitler had to rebuild the German army almost from scratch in the 1930's, and still lagged behind France in men and equipment when WW2 began. Germany never reached its full military potential during WW2 due to the restrictions from Versailles and the long rebuilding process. Think about if Hitler inherited a 10 million man army in 1933 when he took power? He quite possibly could have fielded a 20 million man army in 1940
Do you have any historical evidence that the Kaiser or his Prussian generals are interested in starting another war to take over the non-German part of Europe? We have some documents that showed what the Nazis intend to do after they win the war, but was anything comparable found after WW1?
When people say Versailles caused WW2 it's because it is the proximate cause for the Nazi takeover.
Without Versailles there would be no demand for a radical right wing party in Germany in the 20s; even if there is a Great Depression in this timeline the left wing parties would absorb most of the support.
When people say Versailles caused WW2 it's because it is the proximate cause for the Nazi takeover.
Without Versailles there would be no demand for a radical right wing party in Germany in the 20s; even if there is a Great Depression in this timeline the left wing parties would absorb most of the support.
Italy was on the winning side, but that didn't stop Mussolini coming to power.
1918 German Offensive: The Germans launched their 1918 Spring Offensive in a rush because they were trying to devastate the Allies before the Americans were ready in mass. Even as a rush job, the Germans still pushed back both the British and the French. In one battle (Operation Michael) the British lost 25,000 killed and 35,000 wounded in the first day. It stands to reason if the USA was not in the war then the Germans could have planned their 1918 offensives more carefully in a timely fashion and thus may have been more successful.
American Army: the very existence of a large and growing American Army caused not only the Germans to a all out throw of the dice 1918 offensive (see above) but caused the Germans to have spread out the rest of their army in a defensive manner. This made it easier for the Allies to break through later in the year.
The British had amassed tanks and aircraft using Blitzkrieg - combined arms. You are forgetting the British and French big push which ended the war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
