What if Interactive History V had happened? - German WWI victory

[Csargo]

Faster, yes. Over and done with in mid-'16, no. France would still have been exerting considerable pressure in the West, even if it was largely futile in terms of strategic success.

As to the East, Russia was a wasteland by comparison to France. Russia had barely 10% of the railways possessed by Germany, all constructed to a different gauge -- and that was THE means of supply for mass armies of the era. The distance from Coblenz to Paris is less than 260 miles. To reach "decisive ground" in Russia involves distances (from Konigsberg) of 770 miles to St. Petersburg, 952 miles to Moscow, or 710 miles to Kiev. In 1914, the Russians could mobilize more than 6 million, over triple Germany's total. Even if 100s of thousands were armed with pointy sticks, they would still represent a formidable obstacle. Even following the collapse of Russia -- garrison duties alone required millions of Central Powers soldiers. So, the German Army of 1914 was facing huge distances over which it would have to completely redo the entirety of the transportation infrastructure to move forward, supply its troops, and consolidate any gains. I just don't see that happening quickly enough to create a 24 month victory scenario. Germany put its best efforts Eastwards in 1915 and made substantial gains, but could not generate the decisive result needed for a quick victory. I don't see an earlier focus in this direction as generating a better result. Germany's incomparable combat advantages over Russia were nothing compared to the strategic/logistic disadvantages of trying to swallow something that size. It takes a lot of effort for the snake to eat the guinea pig.

Yes France would have made gains at a tremendous loss of life with minimal gains.

That would go both ways for them with the railway gauges. Russian would of had the same problem with that. I said 2-3 years if I implied 2 I'm sorry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

3 years, a.k.a. a few months faster than reality -- I'd buy that.

Russia's few significant offensive successes were all at the expense of the AH forces.

Yes the rail gauge thing was a problem going both ways -- but even worse for a Russian attack since they had less of an industrial base for modifying/laying rail.

Had to love the Russian pilots of that war though....attacking kraut obs birds with a grapnel on a line.....cojones!

[Csargo]

3 years, a.k.a. a few months faster than reality -- I'd buy that.

Russia's few significant offensive successes were all at the expense of the AH forces.

Yes the rail gauge thing was a problem going both ways -- but even worse for a Russian attack since they had less of an industrial base for modifying/laying rail.

Had to love the Russian pilots of that war though....attacking kraut obs birds with a grapnel on a line.....cojones!

Yeah 2-3 years would have probably been all Russia could have taken.

Yep A-H was in a weakened state at the beginning of the war and throughout it.

Yep

Yes that had to have cojones or just crazy

[spmetla]

So could we assume then that with a German/Austrian victory over Russia looming in 1916 that Italy would either of remained neutral or joined against France?

[Kralizec]

However, the duo of France and Italy would have been the military equivalent of Laurel and Hardy,

France wasn't a paper tiger on the eve of WW2. In terms of raw military power they were at least the equal of Germany. The Germans actually ran into trouble defeating some of the heavier French tanks. France was defeated because they had no adequate answer to Blitzkrieg.

Putting France down there with Italy is wrong, IMO. Especially considering most of the succeses France did have in fighting the invasion were against Italians.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

France wasn't a paper tiger on the eve of WW2. In terms of raw military power they were at least the equal of Germany. The Germans actually ran into trouble defeating some of the heavier French tanks. France was defeated because they had no adequate answer to Blitzkrieg.

Putting France down there with Italy is wrong, IMO. Especially considering most of the succeses France did have in fighting the invasion were against Italians.

The French Army was, however, surprisingly "hollow." Despite creating quite a lot of German casualties, the French never fought effectively and held/reversed the Germans on only a couple of occasions (morale?). You are, of course, quite correct in that they had no counter for the paralyzing effect of the Blitzkrieg, but, then again, nobody else did at that stage either. Add in single-person turrets ( ) and they were hamstringing themselves.


If we posit a France that lost in 1918, after absorbing as much or more damage than it did historically, with Alsace and Lorraine completely lopped off into the bargain, then France may well have been a "paper" tiger of sorts in a World War beginning in 1940. Alternatively, she might have repeated the resurgence she experienced following Sedan.

If we posit a France losing in 1914 as a result of a successful Schlieffen offensive, then her material position would have actually been better by 1940. Less damage/attrition would have been suffered.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So could we assume then that with a German/Austrian victory over Russia looming in 1916 that Italy would either of remained neutral or joined against France?

Hard to say. Historically, Italy certainly awaited the outcome of Germany's initial offensive before committing itself, but it did not wait that long. With Britain joining the Allies more slowly/tentatively (or not at all?) they may well have decided to sit tight. On the other hand, they did really want a slice of Dalmatia.....