|
Crowsbeak posted:And then Wrengel taking power in a coup. Admittedly I don't think Wrangel was going to keep the country together at that point either, the country would be littered with Bolshevik/SR/non-Russian nationalist rebellions even if they gave up the Caucasus and everything west of Moscow. The Whites had no clue about how to keep the country functioning.
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly I don't think Wrangel was going to keep the country together at that point either, the country would be littered with Bolshevik/SR/non-Russian nationalist rebellions even if they gave up the Caucasus and everything west of Moscow. The Whites had no clue about how to keep the country functioning. Well thats what going to war with the german empire already distracted by the collapsing AH, and attacking french commune is for, to unite the country.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:a russia without the bolsheviks is a russia in complete dissolution two generations earlier I would say as long as a single power wins the Russian civil war it has a pretty good chance of keeping it together. In the interbellum era outside of Russia/Ukraine aren't valuable or populated or important enough to be too much trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well thats what going to war with the german empire already distracted by the collapsing AH, and attacking french commune is for, to unite the country. Yeah, and it would unite it like it did in 1905 and 1917. The most likely result of Germany winning would it being slowly sapped by having to keep the lid on nationalism pretty much everywhere along its borders. The Ottomans and A-H would need to be heavily militarily and financially supported while Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states would have continued to demand more autonomy and likely pressed against the chains that bounded them to Germany. Eventually there would have been a 1929 style financial crisis (you can't beat the cyclical nature of unregulated economics) and it would have been a complete mess. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 07:59 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Typo posted:I would say as long as a single power wins the Russian civil war it has a pretty good chance of keeping it together. that just means there's less motivation for the republican regime (or whichever White group you'd prefer) to keep them under its thumb once they start revolting against a group based either on orthodox christianity or russian ethnic nationalism trying to tell them, a bunch of decidedly non-russians and very often non-christians, what to do seriously, look what happened the instant the unifying project of the soviet union collapsed - you'd get that, only more violent and more desparate
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
One thing is that Russia was rapidly trending toward a radical left-wing mindset regardless of the Bolsheviks. The Whites would have to spent all of their effort to put the lid back on and I kind of doubt they could. Anyway Russia would be pretty hosed without Ukraine and Baku, it would lost a big chunk of its coal production, its grain basket and literally all of its oil production. Industrialization probably would have also been almost completely stalled. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:04 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Typo posted:Is this the part about Wilson wanted to enter the war, and by 1917 the US was too worried about what would happen if the western democracies collapsed to let that occur.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, you're an idiot. Even in 1916 Wilson won largely on the peace platform. Wilson himself might have wanted to get involved in the war, but without blatant provocation from Germany there's a pretty good chance war is not politically viable.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:that just means there's less motivation for the republican regime (or whichever White group you'd prefer) to keep them under its thumb once they start revolting against a group based either on orthodox christianity or russian ethnic nationalism trying to tell them, a bunch of decidedly non-russians and very often non-christians, what to do Both Stalin and any white regime is likely to have the same goal in this regard: which is the reunification of former tsarist territories under their rule. This isn't the era where -not- retaining territory because of their national character was a thing yet. quote:seriously, look what happened the instant the unifying project of the soviet union collapsed - you'd get that, only more violent and more desparate The same set of logic and ideology doesn't apply in the 1920s because the assumption was still more territory+people = more power.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
The anti-German propaganda campaign spun up in 1914 with the rape of Belgium stuff. The US was already shipping arms to the entente in 1915 and we did all that arsenal of democracy stuff, and a lot happened between 1916 and 1918 (like the collapse of Russia) that made the US really nervous that Britain and France would go the same way, and the US did not want that to happen. We would still have been able to make effective propaganda without the resumption of submarine warfare.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
1) I think it's possible that with broader pan-European support the Whites are able to secure victory and that Europe's first fascist movement is Kolchak's Russia, but not necessarily likely since the Whites were morons. 2) It's very unlikely that Germany annexes much territory if it wins WW1 since under any realistic win condition the monarchy is still toast and social democrats are still taking over. The monarchy had ceased to function by 17 and everyone knew that the generals were running the country until the war was out and the reichs/bundestag was taking over. 3) I think it's unlikely that the aforementioned social democrats will wage war to save Austria-Hungary which will probably disintegrate somehow regardless of the war's outcome. 4) Ibid for Ottomans. 5) What you do get is democratic Germany at the negotiating table as to how to deal with the breakup of these places. 6) You probably get continental economic integration of some variety since the Germans loving loved that poo poo. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 00:48 on May 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The same movements that gave rise to the Nazis were already at work before WWI and during it. I see the best case scenario as something very similar to Nazisim developing only a little later, and doing so under a leader less prone to taking ridiculous risks, thus allowing them to remain in power far longer. National Socialism was a radical movement that required radical times to be so fully embraced by the German masses. Losing WW1, and the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles' unfair terms, resulted in disillusionment with current leadership and a great sense of injustice among the German people. Thus making them ripe for a radical, ultranationalist movement to swoop in and fool everyone with their propaganda. If Germany and her allies had won WW1, Hitler and his ilk wouldn't have had the political appeal they needed to take power. One can argue that some degree of popular Nazi ideals would have eventually colored the government, but as we know, there's a great deal of practical policy difference between an extremist and a moderate. ninotoreS fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:6) You probably get continental economic integration of some variety since the Germans loving loved that poo poo. Given that Germany lost two World Wars and still managed to end the 20th century as the economic hegemon of Europe it would seem that some form of German dominated economic system in continental Europe was basically an inevitability by 1914.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
ninotoreS posted:National Socialism was a radical movement that required radical times to be so fully embraced by the German masses. Ah yes because the more moderate fascism of Italy and Spain was so good. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Even if the Ottoman Empire was destined to disintegrate, a Central Powers victory would likely have resulted in the middle east fragmenting along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than the Brits and French carving it up. Also, no Balfour Declaration.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:38
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Ah yes because the more moderate fascism of Italy and Spain was so good. Comparatively they are substantially milder and much less predicated on the racial element, and confined to weak statesm so there would be much less to worry about than with Nazism. They are still awful but probably not existentially threatening. Also Germany helped Franco a lot so there's that to consider.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:43
|
|
Family Values posted:Even if the Ottoman Empire was destined to disintegrate, a Central Powers victory would likely have resulted in the middle east fragmenting along ethnic and sectarian lines rather than the Brits and French carving it up. Also, no Balfour Declaration. You still get a Balfour declaration probably unless your alt history is that Britain doesn't enter the war and everyone gets steamrolled without them. And even then it's not a given you don't get it.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Comparatively they are substantially milder and much less predicated on the racial element, and confined to weak statesm so there would be much less to worry about than with Nazism. They are still awful but probably not existentially threatening. Also Germany helped Franco a lot so there's that to consider. Yeah but the same thing in a Germany that doesn't lose the war, doesn't lose extra millions of men, doesn't have any sort of reparations issues et cetera (nor a German Revolution), well, that's not a weak state.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
To me, there are two critical elements that led to Germany's defeat in WWI: Wilhelm II being incompetent with regard to diplomacy, and the Schlieffen Plan being overly optmistic yet still not followed correctly. To the first point, Wilhelm I (more like Bismark) left Germany in a decent position. Sure, Britain was a little leery of Germany's growing presence, but I think relations truly started souring when Wilhelm II decided that he wanted the biggest naval dick in Europe and to challenge Britain in its specialty. He also did jack all about trying to maintain diplomatic isolation of France and Russia. Keep in mind that at this point (pre 1910) Britain and France still hated each other's guts. Their rapprochement was primarily to counter Germany and was led by King Edward VII "the Uncle of Europe." Had Wilhelm II, rather than being a dick to his uncle and to Britain in general, tried to get the world charmer in his corner, you would likely have had a German-British alliance, rather than the Franco-British one. Even beyond that, Germany could have knocked France out in the first Battle of the Marne. Schlieffen was overly optimistic and somewhat simple-minded when it came to formulating his plan, and his successor, Moltke was a wishy-washy retard who couldn't even follow the plan. Schlieffen's main problem was that he never took into account the "friction of war" that his predecessor, Clausewitz, understood - in war, poo poo happens, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. So Schlieffen never took into account the liability of Belgian resistance, delays in the rail networks to ferry troops, etc. So for those first few weeks, the German army was always behind schedule. Even with all the plans faults though, it almost worked, due in large part to the ineptitude of the French. I would place the blame for it failing on German high command, von Moltke, who watered down the plan and couldn't stick to it. Schlieffen's main point was sound - hit France with everything in one go. To do that, anchor the southern flank in the Alsace-Lorraine region. Look like you're invading from there, but its just a holding action to keep the French army pinned down. Then come in north with everyone in the kitchen sink and flank the entire French army at Paris. Problem was, Moltke didn't bring enough troops into the campaign in the first place, then had to task some divisions to pacifying and securing Belgium, and then foolishly gave into peer pressure from Crown Prince Ruprecht and the other southern generals and diverted some troops south to launch an advance there. That last part wasn't needed and only drained the strength of the northern flanking motion. Then the Russians show up early and Moltke panics, pulling troops back from France to send them to Prussia. Honestly, he should have been willing to accept losses in the east in return for eliminating France and pushing Britain back across the channel. In the end, the extra troops weren't even needed against the first Russian invasion anyway. So the result is the German right flank is undersized and unable to seal the deal, and boom, stalemate for four more years. If you're going to invade, you go all in and get it done the first time, no half measures. Funny how that kind of history keeps repeating itself. Iraq anyone?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The anti-German propaganda campaign spun up in 1914 with the rape of Belgium stuff. The US was already shipping arms to the entente in 1915 and we did all that arsenal of democracy stuff, and a lot happened between 1916 and 1918 (like the collapse of Russia) that made the US really nervous that Britain and France would go the same way, and the US did not want that to happen. We would still have been able to make effective propaganda without the resumption of submarine warfare. Yeah that is true but there's also a huge difference between being pro-entente neutral and actually sending troops to die in the trenches. The US was firmly supporting the entente but an actual war required a lot of quite unnecessary and stupid provocation on the part of the Germans to realize.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Given that Germany lost two World Wars and still managed to end the 20th century as the economic hegemon of Europe it would seem that some form of German dominated economic system in continental Europe was basically an inevitability by 1914. Unless a German dominated union collapses and poisons the entire idea of European economic integration. Kind of like how the ex-Warsaw pact countries all really hate Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
If Germany won the first world war somehow and got its wish of forcing the low countries into their trade zone along with northern France, and leaving the disabled rump French economically dependent on Germany while carving out new German duchies and principalities from the Baltics and Russian Poland, they wouldn't need to start another war. They'd already have economic hegemony and would be invested in preserving the status quo. What made the Treaty of Versailles such a ridiculous clusterfuck recipe for war was that it left Germany's massive economy mostly intact and united while trying to hold it down for decades with a bunch of provisions that weren't going to be practical to enforce in the long term. That's one of the reasons the Congress of Vienna did such a good job preventing another world war for 100 years. They recognized France was a dominant power and weakened it a little while strengthening the states around it while not going too far and taking the screws to France and giving them a reason to think they could get a better deal with another war.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If Germany won the first world war somehow and got its wish of forcing the low countries into their trade zone along with northern France, and leaving the disabled rump French economically dependent on Germany while carving out new German duchies and principalities from the Baltics and Russian Poland, they wouldn't need to start another war. They'd already have economic hegemony and would be invested in preserving the status quo. To be fair though a 1815 style settlement isn't really possible for Germany because 1815 France didn't have the equivalent of Volksdeutsche (Germans outside the borders of Germany) wanting to join Germany post-1918. Austria is the most obvious example of this, any independent Germany is going to want to absorb Austria and if it does, it instantly becomes more powerful than it did in 1914. Which kind of defeats the whole point of the war.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Absorbing the shattered remnants of Austria-Hungary barely helped the Nazis all that much, in anything but a very short term, and mostly in ways reliant on the terms of pre-existing actual war settlement issues (eg temporarily fixing foreign exchange problems by being able to raid Austrian reserves). Absorbing the relatively worse off German speaking areas of Austria-Hungary around 1918 would be even less help.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Absorbing the shattered remnants of Austria-Hungary barely helped the Nazis all that much, in anything but a very short term, and mostly in ways reliant on the terms of pre-existing actual war settlement issues (eg temporarily fixing foreign exchange problems by being able to raid Austrian reserves). Not every government is destined to be as incompetent as the Nazis economically.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yeah that is true but there's also a huge difference between being pro-entente neutral and actually sending troops to die in the trenches. The US was firmly supporting the entente but an actual war required a lot of quite unnecessary and stupid provocation on the part of the Germans to realize. I'm not saying that the Germans' disastrous diplomacy didn't make it easier to sell the war, but Wilson started preparing for war before the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. He started expanding the Army and Navy in 1916 and we were putting out a ton of propaganda about "making the world safe for democracy" (and when Russia pulled out of the war that even became sorta true), and his Republican opponent in 1916 ran on a platform of an even bigger military buildup and almost won. It's a pretty big departure to assume that if only Germany hadn't started sinking our arms shipments to the entente that by 1918 America would have stood by and risked France and Britain falling apart like Russia did. American interests benefited from maintaining the status quo internationally. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:19 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Typo posted:Not every government is destined to be as incompetent as the Nazis economically. The Nazis inherited a hosed up economic situation. Even the Nazis would have been able to manage a German economy that hadn't had to spend a good number of years hosed over by reparations bullshit and uncertainty.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not saying that the German's disastrous diplomacy didn't make it easier to sell the war, but Wilson started preparing for war before the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare. He started expanding the Army and Navy in 1916 and we were putting out a ton of propaganda about "making the world safe for democracy" (and when Russia pulled out of the war that even became sorta true), and his Republican opponent in 1916 ran on a platform of an even bigger military buildup and almost won. It's a pretty big departure to assume that if only Germany hadn't started sinking our arms shipments to the entente that by 1918 America would have stood by and risk France and Britain falling apart like Russia did. American interests benefited from maintaining the status quo internationally. But Wilson won on "He kept us out of war" and there was no real precedent for American intervention in Europe. Not to mention that if the French collapse in 1918, they collapse within a matter of weeks or months tops. In real history in Germany the time between Kiel mutiny and the armstice was 8 days, and the Kaiser was out before the end of the month, the Spartacus revolution occurred 5 weeks afterwards. Not enough time for American troops to intervene and make a difference (historically it took a year for US troops to arrive in large enough numbers to make a difference) Typo fucked around with this message at 03:27 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Typo posted:But Wilson won on "He kept us out of war" and there was no real precedent for American intervention in Europe. Yeah but in one of the closest electoral votes ever. Public opinion was already swinging towards war, that's why Hughes did so well. And Wilson immediately renegged and started a military buildup anyway. The declaration of war passed the Congress with ridiculous overwhelming majorities in 1917. Maybe it would have come a bit later or with a slimmer majority but it almost certainly would have come. The US was not fighting to "keep the seas safe for arms shipments". The propaganda was about keeping the world safe for democracy and in 1917 the position of the democracies looked perilous: Germany dominated the Balkans, Russia was falling apart, and the French Army was refusing to attack after the disastrous casualties of the failed offensives in the spring. The submarines attacks were probably not Germany's one weird trick to keeping America neutral and winning the war.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but in one of the closest electoral votes ever. Public opinion was already swinging towards war, that's why Hughes did so well. And Wilson immediately renegged and started a military buildup anyway. quote:The declaration of war passed the Congress with ridiculous overwhelming majorities in 1917. Maybe it would have come a bit later or with a slimmer majority but it almost certainly would have come. quote:The submarines attacks were probably not Germany's one weird trick to keeping America neutral and winning the war.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
You're ignoring the massive public opinion swing that was already taking place, which had taken an extremely anti-military country and in two years almost elected a pro-military president. And the private shift in Wilson's opinions that made him decide to do the buildup anyway after the campaign was over. And the fact that the Lusitania was still being used as pro-war propaganda. The reasons the US went to war were a lot more far-reaching than wanting to protect our shipping. The reason we even had our ships sunk was because we had already chosen sides and were shipping armaments to belligerents without even getting cash in return for them. The US didn't want Britain and France to collapse and by 1917 this was looking very likely and there was no way the US government was going to permit that to happen. Shipping unlimited arms on credit to someone's enemy is a serious provocation, it's not like the Germans just woke up one day and said "hey let's be dicks to the USA" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You still get a Balfour declaration probably unless your alt history is that Britain doesn't enter the war and everyone gets steamrolled without them. I'm assuming that the Central Powers have won by November 1917 because I can't imagine the war dragging on that long and them somehow still pulling out a win. If the war is over and Britain lost, there's no declaration because the Brits aren't trying to entice Wilson into the war and don't control Palestine anyway. Also, it might not be a foregone conclusion that the Ottoman Empire collapses, or perhaps it takes much longer than we might imagine since they would've been right on the cusp of vast oil wealth to prop themselves up with.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Typo posted:To be fair though a 1815 style settlement isn't really possible for Germany because 1815 France didn't have the equivalent of Volksdeutsche (Germans outside the borders of Germany) wanting to join Germany post-1918. Austria is the most obvious example of this, any independent Germany is going to want to absorb Austria and if it does, it instantly becomes more powerful than it did in 1914. Which kind of defeats the whole point of the war. Yeah sure but that was the whole problem with that war aim in the first place. Germany's demographics, industry, resources, and economy were not going to be kept down by those restrictions: all Versailles did was give Germany a reason to expect they could win a better deal on the battlefield. Now maybe there's an argument there that if the Entente had been willing to undo unification and partition up Germany into pieces that would not want to be reunited under a rump Prussian state, then maybe they could have accomplished that aim. But that would have meant supporting anti-Prussian and anti-capitalist entities like the Bavarian Council Republic and welp no it's just not worth that what if the common people at home start to get ideas?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Pardon but I have a tangentially related question. Why did America support Britain and France? As already noted, they picked their side when they started sending weapons to them. But I thought the US of this time ha an Isolationist policy was nowhere near the world policing power that it would become in a couple decades. Why did America of the time give a poo poo who ruled Europe as long as that power wasn't hostile to them? I have heard there was a fair bit of racism beyond the decision. Germans were a bunch of beer-swilling barbarians and England was "more like us."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Pardon but I have a tangentially related question. Among other things, extended trade and straight up alliance with Germany would quickly become quite inconvenient with British and French naval blockades over direct access, and the Americans would also only really be able to help by planning transoceanic amphibious invasions in the 1910s with a completely unsuited Navy. Selling war goods was great business, and if you're going to sell a lot of war goods eventually you need to pick a side by default, even if you ain't gonna do any fighting.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
A loss in WW1 would provoked reasonable concerns of renewed colonial contest in the wider British sphere; if Canada or Australia or South Africa felt threatened by German defiance of the Royal Navy in the North Atlantic or in the Mediterranean, support for imperial federation would not have collapsed so readily. A quick French surrender would have weakened the metropole less, demanded less exorbitant periphery contributions to the war effort, and created fresh threats to shipping lines. Stronger imperial preference would isolate the world economy into blocs, restricting recessionary contagion from France or the US. The lesson learnt from the Depression would be "form into secure imperial blocs", instead of "form international institutions to coordinate monetary policy". And yet many extant blocs are not secure. Africa is a patchwork, but India and China and Indochina are even worse, with insupportable exclaves cut out here and there. A Netherlands incapable of defending itself in Europe dangles the prize of the Dutch East Indies in front of a triumphant Germany, which still has no other access to natural rubber. In such a situation, renewed world war seems quite likely. ronya fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Seems like Wilson really screwed up, then. If the Central Powers had won, the US could probably have annexed Canada pretty easily. Would have been a good opportunity. Ah well, maybe next time there's a world realignment.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Would Democrats have endorsed annexing Canada in the early 1900s? Seems a population likely to vote Republican on the issues of the day
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
One thing is even if a Second World War of some type was inevitable, it may have been less bloody simply for the fact there probably wouldn't have been a holocaust and the eastern front either wouldn't have happened or would have been of far lower intensity. No matter who won the Russian Civil War, Russia wouldn't have been much of a threat without much of resources and industry from its "near abroad" and Imperial Germany simply wouldn't have been interested in racial reshaping the world. That said, the war in the pacific would have probably still happened since Japan would be emboldened by the relative weakness of UK, France and the US. Ultimately it is possible less people might have died (especially in Poland and Eastern Europe) but it would have still been a pretty bloody world. That said if the civil wars and revolutions really had gotten it might had been worse, especially with mass ethnic cleansing that might had happened across Europe and the Middle East. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:33 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're ignoring the massive public opinion swing that was already taking place, which had taken an extremely anti-military country and in two years almost elected a pro-military president. And the private shift in Wilson's opinions that made him decide to do the buildup anyway after the campaign was over. And the fact that the Lusitania was still being used as pro-war propaganda. And like I said, said candidate lost because the other said merely -accused him- of wanting a war, showing the public had no appetite for it. And I wouldn't exactly call pre-1916 America "anti-military" either. The US after all fought the blatantly imperialist and wildly popular war against Spain just 15 years before that. There's also a huge difference between favoring one side and not wanting them to collapse and actively sending men to die in a war.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 13:04
|
|