Printable View
I was curious about this, having a brainstorm about a book setting.
Could WWI Germany, victorious, conquered most of the world, and then crashed under the strain?
I would think it possible that Germany would have annexed France, maybe invaded Britain, struck Civil War Russia, conquered British lands, then taken America?
The fact that Germany of the era could not even conquer Europe seems to me at least to suggest – no.
If Germany had more steadfast allies, the Russians pulled out earlier and the Americans never joined, perhaps. However, once Germany goes on a conquering spree, I doubt even WWI era America would ignore it and stay in isolationist mode.
Also I doubt that the German people would tolerate several years of different wars following each other.
i dont think their military would be strong enough.
No. Next question.
No country, especially one the size of Germany, can conquer the world, or even large parts of it. I don't think even a nation the size of China could conquer much more than Asia. Germany may have become the dominant power in continental Europe, muhc like Napoleon did a century before, but it is doubtful how long this would have lasted.
ehm, i thought the mongols came pretty darn close. not the world but they had more than asia.
ehm, i thought the mongols came pretty darn close. not the world but they had more than asia.
That was then, without the old problems of resistance movements and others.
No, no matter how good your generals, technology, weapons are, you will run out of troops. Crossing the atlantic would also be quite a costly move that, if America was half-aware of, could've swatted the planes like flies. Plus, even if they had, an empire that big would break with all the resistance groups that would form.
they had rebellions 2. and the comunication was very bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Perhaps, if they hadn't invaded Belgium, then Britation likely would have come down on Germany's side. As to resistance movements etc, there have always been gurrillas, even in ancient Rome.
Had they been benevolent rulers, had UK and hence Commonwealth support then yes. They could have done it, at least Europe.
Think on this, there have really been three world wars already and the UK has always been on the winning side. The reasons? Money, Naval Power and being safe on a island.
In WWI Germany was facing Italy, Belgium, France, Russia, the UK and her Commonwealth all at once. They still held out for four years. The UK brought most of the troops, without them the French would have been outflanked and out thought.
3 world wars?
Perhaps the extra one is in reference to the Napoleonic Wars...
Napoleon's was largely a European + Mediterranean. I don't think there has ever been a true world war, to be honest. Even WWII didn't include South America, at least not that I know of.
Umeu: The Mongols didn't conquer Asia, at least not the whole of it. No single state has ever controlled a whole continent, apart from Britain controlling Australasia, and perhaps anyone who first claimed the barren wasteland of Antarctica.
The Battle of the River Plate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Actually, it did include South America; although all of the actions were naval or espionage in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Brazil was an ally of the U.S. at the beginning of the war. Brazil was a major source of supplies for Britain and France during the early years of the war. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, when the U.S. declared war on Japan, Brazil had a problem. They had a very large number of Japanese immigrants living there (as was also the case in Peru, Chile and other countries in the area). They resisted declaring war on Japan in concert with the U.S. at the time. But they agreed to declare war on Italy and Germany following the U.S. response to Germany's declaration of war. I believe Brazil even sent some troops to fight in the Italian campaign on the side of the Allies.
The large Japanese population turned out to be quite a problem for Brazil. Some of the immigrant groups had been infiltrated by the right wing militarist Japanese secret society called the Black Dragon. There were various acts of sabotage at Brazilian ports, and German U-boats had an uncanny knack (probably the result of shared intelligence between Japan and Germany) for finding Brazilian merchant ships ferrying supplies to the UK. There were quite a few Brazilian ships sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic.
So, except for Antarctica (and there is some controversy regarding reports of possible Nazi bases built in Queen Maud Land in the Antarctic too!) every continent either had direct military action in WWII or sent troops.
I'm sorry, how does WWII have any bearing on the FIRST WORLD WAR?
We're talking about WWI, yes my reference was to the Napoleonic Wars, which did include some squabbles over Africa, no reall fighting thoughbut Napoleon was in Egypt, in reality WWI was all about Europe, the rest was a side show.
WWII was different because Japan was trying to carve out an Empire as well.
WW 1 Germany did want to conquer the world! So what is this threat about?:help:
Oh well, back on topic I guess.
A bit of thinking has led me to think this way: if even American fails at Vietnam and the Soviets are defeated at Afghanistan, I can hardly imagine Germany succeeding at both these places, especially with an already very large empire since in this situation Europe is theirs.
That's a very good point, Tiberius. There is, perhaps, some critical mass point also, beyond which empires simply can't function due to size or distance or geography or some other factor finally outweighing the ability of the empire to maintain control.
If UK was taken over, in all likelyhood the Royals, Nobles and Government would have escaped to Canada or another Commonwealth country.
At this point Germany would have had to cross the Atlantic or further to continue the War.
Also it would have to beat China and Japan to conquour the world... at that point an alliance of Commonwealth and US countries would certainly step in.
I don't think Britain controlled the entire land mass of Australasia. After WWI Britain was in possession of Papua while Australia was given the mandate of adminstering German New Guinea. So at no point did Britain control the entirety of Australasia.Quote:
No single state has ever controlled a whole continent, apart from Britain controlling Australasia
Rebellions are very different to a continuous guerilla campaign, sabotaging supply lines, communications and generally pinning down soldiers. Nationalist identity was not as marked during the time of the Mongols as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Conquering most of Europe might have been a possibility had the Kaiser seen the wisdom of avoiding a second front with Russia whilst exploiting, integrating & mastering new military technologies (i.e. tanks) early on in the conflict. Despite the fact that Germany (and to a lesser extent its allies) possessed a modern & effective army throughout the war it still failed to break the stalemate.
Conquering the world? Not a chance. First you have to overcome the Royal Navy which was as large as it was effective. Qualitatively speaking the Kriegsmarine might have been more modern & effective than the Royal Navy but it simply didn't have enough ships to do the job. Even if the Kriegsmarine managed to decisively defeat the Royal Navy the monumental task of projecting power overseas would have been extremely difficult as the US & Japan already had impressive navies of their own and would have certainly stepped up their respective naval programs to fill the vacuum.
Also the military mentality at the time. Germany wasnt trying to make France part of its empire it would just take the juicy bits like alsace and lorraine. They would probably also take the oversaes empire and leave the european countries so weakened they couldnt fight back. I also agree with spino the germans would have had a tough time with the royal navy. "We want eight and we wont wait" Britain was just a much larger naval power.
A single front war was never possible after the Russian-French alliance. Both countries, despite the officially "defensive" nature of the alliance, were committed to an assault on Germany in support of the other beginning on the 15th day of mobilization. Germany's plan, which assumed that Russia could not launch a meaningful offensive until day 41+, was to smash France with a powerful right hook and then turn to face the "Russian Steamroller." Russia did launch their offensive on time as promised and -- though their forces were slaughtered at Tannenberg -- the scare did cause the withdrawal of roughly 3 corps worth of troops from the West. Would the Marne have been different had these forces been present? Possibly, but even with a decisive victory in the West in 1914, Germany would not have had the forces or werewithal to conquer Europe in its entirety, much less the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Integrating and mastering new technologies was done as rapidly by Germany as by any of the powers of the day -- and more so than most. Engine technology was years away from the kind of war-tools you imply, even given the development crucible of the conflict to speed things up.
Agreed. Absatively impossibubble. The central powers may have been able -- with great fortune and a series of successful wars -- to dominate all of continental Europe to the West of the Smolensk land-bridge, but England was flat-out impossible and Scandanavia (aside from Denmark) highly unlikely given the need to operate across the Baltic and the fighting skills of the Finns [Haaka Palle!], Swedes, and Norse in their home terrain/climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Mithradates, Alsace and Lorraine were already German territories, since the Franco-Prussian war the century before. Also, everyone thinks the former navy was a huge advantage. It actually wasn't since the new Dreadnought which the British and the Germans were building in the arms race preceding WWI had been far more effective than any other ships. Destroy the British Dreadnoughts, and there would be a far greater chance of defeating the Navy. The RN wasn't invincible in the war anyway, as you should see. If it was, how did Britain almost get blockaded to starvation and surrender? Twice?
What i didnt make clear was i meant if Germany defeated France then they would prbably get land concessions rather than some kind of German european imperium. As for those blockades i know there was U boat trouble but they were few in number, at least to mount an effective blockade. There were shortages but im pretty sure surrender was never on the cards. Not until the second world war atleast when things had changed. As for dreadnoughts being destroyed it would take something special for the germans to gain a dreadnought majority in the first world war.
how about the spanish. they fought a guerilla war against the romans. in the medieval times they fought a guerilla war against the french and almohads (in charlemagnes time). guerilla wars arent just from after napoleon.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
and yes youre right that it wasnt as sophisticated as now, but what was?
Weren't the English in really big trouble at one point early in the blockade because they only had a few weeks of supplies for the island, at most?
I remember hearing this in my US History class, but I don't really remember the specifics.
My history teacher told us that once, Russia and Germany had a sort of non-aggresion pact, Bismark and his tenure.
Also, on a one-to-one basis, the German navy was superior to a Royal Navy dreadnought. The Sedyilitz (butchered) took multiple hits but managed to limp back to Germany while another British warship took a hit forward turrets and blew apart.
Also, there might have been a possibility that the British could be taken over if the Germans did strangle it, give Irish rebels support (draw troops away) and then invade.
Bizmarck was, indeed, a strong proponent of keeping Russia "de-coupled" from any other European power. Young Wilhelm managed to malf that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I'd argue against your assessment of German Naval superiority. German and English dreadnoughts were largely equivalent in power and defense. Germany may have had a slight edge in optics, but only marginally. German Battlecruisers were better protected by the time of the Battle of Jutland, but the modifications and doctrine changes used to minimize the risk of magazine explosion from a turret hit were enacted after the Seydlitz was nearly sunk (Helgoland Bight?) earlier in the war. Moreover, the British "fast battleships" -- Warspite class -- were state of the art and had better main guns, equal or better armor, and a far better motive plant than anything the Kreigsmarine floated. British superiority was not simply a question of numbers.
Britain could only have lost the naval war by allowing her Home fleet to be beaten in detail -- the High Seas Fleet hammering one or two squadrons at a time -- a fact of which they were well aware. Jellicoe was painfully conscious of being, as Churchill said, the "only man who could lose the war in an afternoon." He worked hard to keep his forces from being out of support of one another.
Invade? Even if we give the KM the benefit of the doubt -- defeating the Home fleet in detail -- where would the troops have come from? It's not like Germany had lots of spare battalions just hanging about the Hamburg docks singing Lilli Marlene.
That was because of the October Revolution in Russia, and the establishment of the Bolshevik/Communist party in Moscow and Petrograd. Lenin realised that he'd have to make arrangements with the Germans, to avoid being crushed. Also, he would lose a huge chunk of Bolshevik support if he continued war, and the Bolsheviks weren't that popular at the stage.
Lenin was actually exiled, and Germany would have kept it that way. The Allies would have sent him to Russia. However, the internal dissent would be low since Russians wouldn't be losing, and their wheat shipments would be secure going through Turkey.
A-what? The Germans arranged for Lenin to take a train back to Russia. They wanted a Russian revolution, to get the Russians out of the war. The allies most definitely did not like Lenin, since they attacked him shortly after the war, siding with the Whites in the RCW against Lenin's Reds.
I agree with Tiberius. In fact, the Germans actually put the nail in their own coffin by allowing Lenin to go to Russia. Lenin didn't instigate the revolution, he and the Bolsheviks merely took control of something that was already inevitable. Had Lenin not returned and used his influence to control the Bolsheviks, who then took control of the revolution despite being the minority (Bolshevik actually derives from the Russian word for majority, and was something of clever propaganda tool to actually take the majority when they didn't really have it). Without Lenin, the moderates under Kerensky and Kropotkin might have consolidated their rule with the help of the independent factory soviets and the anarchist farmer's collectives of the east and southeast and possibly even Makhno in the Ukraine.
Without Lenin, I doubt there would have been an October revolution to follow the February revolution. Without Lenin there wouldn't have been a consolidation of power by the more radical "War communism" Leninist statists, the Bolsheviks, and there wouldn't have been Stalin as a successor to Lenin. World history would be very much different. So Germany's gamble to send Lenin to Russia was ultimately responsible for a great many things, some of which would later come back to bite them in the ass, like Stalinist Russia in WWII. :wink:
Of course, Lenin did end Russian participation in War 1, so their short term goal was achieved. You're on point about the unintended consequences though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Agreed. Although, I think Russia would eventually have been out of the war regardless of Lenin. By the time Lenin ended it, there really wasn't much left of the Russian army. The desertions and mutinies were rampant well before the October revolution. Kerensky was already resigned to ending the war, because of the lack of manpower from the desertions. Ending the war seems to have been more of a propaganda tool than anything else.
I did see an interesting episode of The First World War series, on the History Channel I think, which made the point that Germany initially engaged to the east merely as a way of drawing Britain into the war. I'm not sure how true that was. In the end, I think it turned out to be a huge mistake. Making the same mistake a few decades later just boggles the mind. Perhaps, in the end, it all comes down to a certain amount of anti-Slav arrogance on the part of the German military that got them in trouble in two consecutive wars.
Did Germany actually want to go to war with Britain? Anyway, I doubt that war between Britain and Germany was possible to avoid. I think that Russia was part of the Schlieffen plan simply because Russia was the ally of France and Britain, and declared war on Austria-Hungary.
The mistake of attacking Russia was probably Hitler's fault. He might have been a political genius, but it doesn't seem that he's a military one, seeing that he makes a few ridiculously stupid decisions in the war against Russia, and the simple fact of engaging them in the first place. You'd think that looking at Napoleon's war, Hitler would not engage in a war with Russia, or at least provide his troops with some form of warm clothing when attacking them.
Well, according to this TV show, Germany was confident that it could beat Britain and France together; so they wanted to ensure that Britain did enter WWI, and attacked Russia to draw them in. I'm rather skeptical on that point; but they did make a good case for it.
As far as the attack in WWII, it was almost all Hitler. He just couldn't overcome his rabid hatred for communists and Slavs. None of the general staff thought a 2 front war was a good idea. It also went against the whole idea of a pan-Eurasian alliance as envisioned by Karl Haushofer, who was the source of Hitler's philosophies of lebensraum, an Aryan master race, the occult (he was a major influence on Himmler as well), the idea of an Axis treaty and a lot more. Haushofer was one of the main proponents of geopolitik, and was the one who envisioned an Axis of Germany, Russia and Japan to counter the power of France, Britain and the US. But Hitler's insistence on attacking Russia went against everything Haushofer had taught to students like Hess. The advent of a two front war led to Haushofer's student, Rudolph Hess, flying off to Britain seeking an agreement which would at least make it a one front war again. Haushofer went from being one of Hitler's mentors to a dedicated enemy, even so far as plotting an assasination. His son, Albrecht was chief aid to Hess and was implicated in an assassination plot after Hess flew to Britain and failed. Haushofer later denied ever influencing Nazism, even though it was a matter of record that almost all of the contacts between German and Japanese diplomats prior to the Axis treaty took place in his own home. He was not charged at Nuremburg. He committed suicide with his wife in 1946.
Luckily for the world, Hitler ignored all advice. But that's all rather off-topic.
An interesting thesis they're putting forward, but I just don't see it supplanting the accepted assessments.
In War 1, Germany did not really seek war with England so much as accept it as the price to be paid for manuevering -- they actually thought the Belgians would quit after token resistance rather than fight -- through Belgium. Schleiffen always thought a BEF would be involved, and just figured it would have to be netted in with the rest of the French left wing. They were even pretty close to accurate as to the number of divisions the Brits would land.
All along, Germany never believed that Russia could begin an offensive in the first month, which they believed gave them just enough time to break France before shifting troops to stave off Russia. They were well aware of the long-term dangers of Russia's huge manpower base (however poorly led/trained), a British blockade, the mobilization of British Empire resources and so on -- they just felt that the decisive blow would have been made before such factors became important. Russia's early offensive, though a debacle tactically, really did take away important troops just before the Marne. Had Germany won at the Marne, it is distinctly possible (though maybe not probable) that the BEF would have withdrawn and France would have been broken in the field.
In War 2, Hitler was merely proceding with the primary agenda -- Lebensraum in the East -- an agend he'd laid out at least as early as Lansdorf Prison. At the time of the Assault, he felt that there was no 2nd front, because English efforts to launch one in France would have been laughable and the fight in the Med was one largely staffed by Italians. Now, why he felt the need to bring the USA in actively -- and thereby give the allies the resources needed for a real 2nd front -- has always been beyond me. Perhaps because he was a drug-addled whack job?
Because the Yanks were helping the British, selling them valuable resources such as guns and food. Then, there's the battle of the Atlantic where they are fighting even though techincally not at war, and plenty of American cargo ships get sunk by U-Boots because they've got goods bound for Britain. There's also the factor of supporting Japan against America. The guy was a loon after all, and probably didn't think he would be defeated.
In the end, he was just, as you put it, a drug-addled loon. I like that. Heh. You could add syphilitic. A drug-addled syphilitic loon.
As for Lansdorf, there are some who suggest that most of Mein Kampf was inspired, if not outright written, by Haushofer, who was a frequent visitor of Hitler's while he was imprisoned.
The last sentence you put forward is key. Anybody with real insight would have put up with the undeclared naval war -- Britain lacked the "boots" to do much more without the USA (note: comment on resources, not pluck, the Brits had plenty of that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Well, Rome took centuries to pacify it if that's what you mean. And the oh-so-brave Roman heroes actually were quite scared to serve in Iberia; Rome suffered a continuous manpower shortage there despite many more men serving in other, less active fronts; Africa, for example, drew a massive Roman army for the Third Punic War whereas Iberia in the same timeline was suffering a serious lack of soldiers to fight. The resistance lasted from the Punic Wars to Augustus, to think!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
However, the Mongols never came to meet such conditions as Roman Iberia. If there was ever a chance they would've just genocided their way through anyway.
Did the Germans have centuries to pacify Europe before somebody comes in and "liberate" a large number of now very angry people?
Kaiser Germany had neither the resources nor the will to conquer the world. It wanted to dominate Europe ala Napolean, perhaps, and it came as close as it could to succeed in those early days before the French managed to stabilize the Western Front. Of course, I doubt before the start of the general war that they actually planned to take over Europe step-by-step and act on it like the later Nazi Germany did.
Off course NO.
You need the strongest economy in the world for such, and German Empire didn't have this. And you need strong allies which Germany didn't have, too. Austria-Hungary coudn't even defeat Serbia until German troops arrived.
WW1 Germany would probably have had about enough resources to actually conquer something like Alsace-Lorraine (which they had to begin with, I seem to recall) and similar border areas not entirely adverse to such a change of regime. As the fate of the colonial empires illustrates conquering countries for good has gotten a wee bit tricky (okay, nigh impossible) after the introduction of nationalism in its modern abstract form.
The Great War was not waged as one where the participants tried to actually conquer one another. That wasn't how people thought of Great Power wars at the time. They were out to sort out their pecking order, whose contested claim to somethingorother was stronger under ultima ratio regnum, colonial interests and suchlike. This would have been - and indeed was - done by trouncing the other guy's army (no, they really didn't quite comprehend it was going to be an industrial war; they were still thinking in essentially Napoleonic terms) so soundly he had to sue for peace and you could dictate the terms.
Germany didn't stand a chance against Russia:
for all, let us remember that since that war broke out the population of Russia (due to Soviet regimes, and both World Wars) didn't actually grow much.
I've seen figures telling that a good 200 milion people lived in the Russian empire at that time about 4 times as much as in Germany in those days.
That just tells the whole story of the German Chance for Power: initially their Industrialized nation would have some advantage from a larger an more efficient economy system compared to the largely agricultural Russians.
But just as the Americans eventually couldn't compete with the Chinese 'Volunteers' in the Korean War, the Germans couldn't subdue a four times larger nation. By the time they had finally mangaged to start the October Revolution, by funding Lenin and his comrades, they had been almost broken in this way that the German economy was nearly exhausted.
This can be seen in the larger Germand death rates during the first influenza epidemia: these indicate that the German soldiers were less equiped and fed compared to the other front wich suffererd considerable less from the plague. The two front War had exhausted them completely, and they were forced to pay 4,5 times the world gold reserves, about 132 bilion golden DMark (Versailles).
I was always under the impression that unlike on the second round, in WW One Germany actually did pretty damn well on the East Front. Or at least what one reads of the state the Russians were in by the time the Czar got the boot, and how they'd gotten there, tends to be pretty awe-inspiring in its own way.
In the Great War, the bloody quagmire that bled the Germans dry was the Western Front.
Yeah, if I remember correctly German troops were quite deep in Russia before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Afaik there werent really plans to conquer the world, originally that war was just about assisting the austrians against the russians who were pissed because of how stupid the austrians dealt with serbia (the serbians proposed a treaty of which even the germans said that it should be accepted, but the austrians just refused to do so), of course the french didnt like that, which prompted war against them too, and then the attack on belgium brought the british in. To me that sounds like no side actually wanted such a war, but all sides had no problem with taking the risk of it, if need be.
Actually, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, then Russia on A-H because they were our allies. Then Germany declared war on Russia as A-H ally. After that France declared war on Germany as Russian ally and Germany attacked France via Belgium and UK went in war. Little complicated?!:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I agree almost 100%.
The main problem of Germany was weak Austria-Hungary.
Erm, in World War I it was the Russians who didn't stand a chance against Germany...
A few corrections:
The Germans DID want an Empire, one that could rival Britain's or France's.
Salazar: Pretty unusual if Germany's objective was to help AH against Serbia and Russia, but then chose to attack France, wouldn't you say?
Russia didn't stand a chance in the war. The incompetent fools of Russian officers just mucked the whole thing up. That's what you get if officers are given their positions on the basis of wealth as opposed to merit... I'm not saying militarily they couldn't face Germany, it was just that when you suffer defeat after defeat while your country is messed up, getting worse and you are all the way at the front line, and the people are protesting due to just about everything, something's bound to happen, and make it impossible to defeat Germany while retaining the country. Also, the Russians had to face the Austro-Hungarians as well.
Actually, as DukeofSerbia said, france was allied with russia. And of course they wanted an Empire, but it's not like germany started that war, they were mostly interested in Colonies (of course they came a bit late with that idea, i mean every halfrespectable european state had some kind of colony somewhere on the planet)
On the topic of World War I not being really a big World War (as in WW2) - keep this in mind:
In World War I, there were five major and very old empires (along with other nations that also held colonial power such as France) involved in the fighting in Europe - the British, Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. The war had a huge impact on the world since much of the world was divided either colonially or through spheres of influence by these powers (along with France and then the U.S.). The destruction of four of these empires distrupted world order to this very day.
And end my rant which wasn't really directed at anyone here, more of a rant against U.S. history classes who seem to skim over WW1 as though it were nothing more than the first salvo of WW2.
I disagree with a good bit of this, Tellos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Russia did, indeed, have a greater population than both of the central powers combined. They were, however, so poorly industrialized that they had difficulty providing sufficient rifles for all of their infantry, were chronically short of ammunition to a degree worse than any of the other powers, and had the least effective logistical system of any combatant power in the conflict. Despite their greater numbers and the bravery of the Russian soldier, they were never able to field a force that was anywhere near as effective, on a man-to-man basis, as those opposed to them.
Germany's industrial advantage was never surpassed by the Russian Empire. Germany did run low on some critical resources, and their food production efforts began to fall short toward the end of the war, but this was more a result of the blockade imposed by the Western Allies than anything effected by Russia.
Your Korean War allusion actually points to the inefficiency of a poor logistic support in modern war. The PRC achieved complete strategic surprise (MacArthur's Intelligence Chief virtually ignored the intial attacks of 1/2 November as well as numbering the Chinese at about 30k), attacked units that were all to often out of support range from one another and poorly dug in, and who had been facing weak resistance from the North Korean forces. Despite these advantages, Chinese casualties were often 10 times that of the US and British units they attacked. They may have pushed us out of North Korea, but their victory was Pyrhic at best. Chinese casualties to Frostbite and disease were often twice the total of combat deaths -- little food, little ammo, poor clothing for the weather. A properly equipped and supported force with the same advantages would have conquered Korea and virtually annhilated UN forces. The Chinese defeated us, pushed us back, but never routed UN forces.
In War One, Russia was similarly unable to sustain an offensive, scoring only one major success and fared poorly whenever they opposed German troops. Their successes came mostly at the expense of the AH crew -- who were hardly the most integrated fighting force.
The German troops still in Russia at the time of the pandemic were comparatively poorly equipped and supplied because they were there as occupation troops pursuant to the treaty of B-L. It is hardly surprising that they suffered more. Comparing the two fronts at this time-point is really inequitable, the Eastern Front was a shadow effort by Germany from the Winter of '17/18 through the Armistice.
Germany's economy, hampered by blockade, was ultimately unable to sustain the war effort. Morale collapsed, and Armistice was the only choice. It should be noted, however, that Germany fought the combined forces of the British and French empires to a standstill while providing enough support to Austria Hungary to stave off Russia and promote its collapse, consolidate a hold on the Balkans, and to nearly put Italy out of the war. Only the advent of fresh troops from the USA, along with the full power of the US industrial base, made German defeat inevitable.
It truly is amazing that Germany tackled 2 empires and another major power (France) at the same time and fought nearly all the sides to defeat and/or collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Without the influx of fresh troops from the U.S. (as well as the British blockade), Germany could defenitely have forced favorable terms for peace on the Western front. Keep in mind that in 1918, they launched last gasp offensives along the Western front (with new tactics) that pushed the French and English back more miles than all of the fighting in the years before had done in total.
France was near collapse as well, with troop mutinies having already occured. The new German tactics of firesquads and organization at the squad level, not the company level, nearly brought Germany to victory but it was too little too late when fresh manpower came in from the U.S.
...and which were halted and turned into retreat by UK/French troops before material US forces were in the field.Quote:
Without the influx of fresh troops from the U.S. (as well as the British blockade), Germany could defenitely have forced favorable terms for peace on the Western front. Keep in mind that in 1918, they launched last gasp offensives along the Western front (with new tactics) that pushed the French and English back more miles than all of the fighting in the years before had done in total
US forces made German defeat in 1919 inevitable. With all due respect to them I don't agree they had a material impact on the fighting in 1918. By then both sides had largely solved the tactical problems of assaulting modern infantry in prepared defensive positions. (Although problems of exploitation remained, as the Germans found out.) With that tactical problem solved, strategic factors such as the greater manpower and material resources of France and the UK would inevitably tell.
You are correct in that Britain and France stopped the 1918 offensives with only limited aid (or less) from the USA. Chateau Thierry/Belleau Wood is the only engagement that US forces took any significant role in (USMC -- one of our few "old sweat" formations -- kicked boche tail), and it could be argued that this action was one of the early counter-attacks following the Aisne Offensive more than a part of the stopping of those offensives.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
However, US offensives in the Argonne and the salient of St. Mihiel in 1918 were instrumental in precipitating the armistice. I agree that they accomplished only limited advances and, since we were relatively new at the game we were learning some bloody lessons, but it was this display of increasing offensive power that helped push German sentiment beyond the recovery point. In the USA, we like to style ourselves the "saviors" of France -- cavalry to the rescue sort of thing -- but you are quite correct in dismissing that. Our substantive accomplishments in 1918 were there, but the implicit threat of 1919 was greater.
Exploitation always was the problem in that war. Cavalry could not punch through gaps to exploit, and couldn't face an MG defense -- and it was simply too easy to get a couple of MG's and a platoon of rifles to plug any gaps. The strosstruppen were brilliant, but took high casualties for their successes and couldn't overcome the "friction" of the defense completely. Had an Allied Spring 1919 offensive happened, it would have been interesting to see if tech/training would really have allowed JFC Fuller to inaugurate the Blitzkreig early.
SF: no real argument with the comments on US forces you make. I would never argue the US made no battlefield contribution in 1918.
Its speculation, but IMHO the 1919 campaign would have been a series of bite and hold attacks, much the same as 1918, but on a bigger scale. The limiting factor, I suspect, would always have been that once you outran the range of your supporting artillery, life got much harder, and WW1 artillery was not rapidly mobile. I can't see that the technology would have allowed blitzkreig tactics, since even the light tanks were not that fast, had not that much range, and broke down/got knocked out a lot. In other words, just like better infantry and artillery tactics, they were good at the break in, but not that good at the break out.
(Digressing, I reckon you not only needed more reliable tanks/transport, but also far better tactical air support in the place of artillery, for blitzkreig to be possible. Fuller might/might not have seen the vision but I don't think he could have achieved it)
But break ins would have been enough. The Germans were only going backwards after they were stopped in the second battle of the marne, and that was achieved without ever making a breakthrough.
Allies aren't obligated to help. The Italians were allies with the Austro-Hungarians and Germans at the beginning of WWI, but ended up joining the allied side. No, Germany wanted European domination, not some colonies elsewhere. Germany already had some colonies, unlike what you imply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazar
Germany didn't start the war on her own, no. But Germany did launch the Schlieffen Plan. Also, Germany's dreadnought-building race with Britain didn't help prevent the war either, both wanting naval domination. The war was began by all sides, making secret treaties, having imperial ambitions and building up of armies. Germany wasn't all innocent as you imply.
Also, just to throw this in,
Wasn't the Kaiser an unstable person, not mentally but politically, and had a very mercurial personality?
Darn tootin'! Loved England, felt threatened by England and Edward VII the most. Fired Bizmarck, backed Tirpitz' plan for a navy -- against the advice of Bizmarck and most of his "cabinet." Tried to break up the alliance of France and Russia -- but always treated Nicholas as an idiot (possibly true, but poor politics). Panicked over East Prussia despite being fully aware of the Schlieffen plan's goals and thrust. Threatened ambassadors from neighboring countries for no reason. Bit of an idiot vis-a-vis political skills, even for a regime not exactly renowned for foreign policy finesse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
Yes you're right, the British and French beat back the German offenses after adapting to the new tactics and intial shock. I supose that's a even bigger sign that the German forces had simply ran out of manpower and resources - had they adopted these tactics and strategies even a year earlier, things might have changed significantly.
They could have forced a favorable armistice in the west - and they were trying to. The offensive was done in hopes that they could either force France to capitulate (with the reasoning that it would cause mutiny among the French soldiers, which had increasingly occured after the Nivelle Offensive) or to buy time while the Germans built permanent defensive fortifications along the line to hold the Allies back.
In the end though, it is amazing with what carnage Trench Warfare in World War I did. In 1916, before the Battle of the Somme, the British were engaged in no major battles and still suffered over 100,000+ casualties.