WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5418
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Sidewinder » 2012-12-28 04:16pm

Alt history.

1904: Russia wins the Russo-Japanese War, but at heavy cost. The Russian government focuses its attention on interests in the Far East, and minimal interest in Serbia's welfare during the Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909.

1914: World War I starts as scheduled, but the Kaiser convinces his cousin to keep Russia neutral in this conflict, despite the Russian nobility clamoring to intervene in support of Serbia (the public, stunned by Russian casualties in the Russo-Japanese War, is reluctant towards more war). The Kaiser also vetoes the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, due to concerns of widening the conflict.

1915-1918: Woodrow Wilson continues to wait for conditions to be "just right" for US intervention in support of the Twin/Triple Entente's, i.e., the moment he can convince Congress to declare war, with public support. This "moment" doesn't come before 1918.

How realistic is this scenario? Would the Tsar's decision to remain neutral, lead to a military coup against him? Would the German government restrain from activity that would widen the conflict, e.g., declaring unrestricted submarine warfare or violating other nations' neutrality, throughout the conflict? Would the Twin/Triple Entente show equal restraint, or will a naval blockade of Germany, make the US intervene in support of the Central Powers?

How would the 20th century develop from this? I'm assuming the Communists don't gain the power they did in our timeline, but would they "peacefully rise" to power in a neutral Russia, as part of a coalition government?

What of Japan? Would losing the Russo-Japanese War, make the militarists reconsider their goals? Or would a loss embolden them, e.g., to expand in another direction, maybe with Hawaii as a target of the militarists' aggression? Would the Anglo Japanese Alliance survive past 1914, in such a world?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

Grandmaster Jogurt
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1725
Joined: 2004-12-16 04:01am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Grandmaster Jogurt » 2012-12-28 04:30pm

From what I remember reading, a significant portion of the pro-war segments of the German government wanted war with Russia to come around the time it did due to the fact that Russia was increasing in power more rapidly than Germany and threatened to eclipse it as the dominant continental power. I also can't see Russia standing by while the Balkans fall under German hegemony and France gets hit with the full brunt of the German army. This doesn't seem plausible at all to me. There's too much of a gap between "wants to annex all the way down to Thrace and keep the rest in its sphere of power" and "fuck the Balkans we don't care what happens".

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2012-12-28 04:53pm

What the fuck? This is literally impossible. The only reason WW1 happened is because Russia mobilized to defend Serbia.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9963
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2012-12-28 05:27pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:What the fuck? This is literally impossible. The only reason WW1 happened is because Russia mobilized to defend Serbia.
Very much this. If Russia truly did not care enough to mobilize it's army to support Serbia, then Germany will not mobilize to fight Russia and carry out the Schlieffen (sp?) Plan.

WW1 would probably still happen, but it would look different and would start very differently, and several years later most likely.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5418
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Sidewinder » 2012-12-28 05:54pm

I recall reading one of John Keegan's books, which had a comment regarding this incident:
Wiki (I know, I know) wrote:Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities and the Marne Campaign of 1914 Moltke was called to the Kaiser who had been told by Prince Carl Max Lichowsky that the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey had offered British neutrality if France was not attacked. At this news, the Kaiser, seeing that a two front war could be avoided, told Moltke to reverse the western front forces to the eastern one against Russia. At this, Moltke refused arguing that such a drastic alteration of a long planned major mobilization could not be done without throwing the forces into organizational chaos and the original plan now in motion must be followed through. Years later, General Hermann von Staab, head of the German railway division, would dispute this opinion with a book detailing a contingency plan that the German army had for such a situation.
IIRC, Keegan claimed the Kaiser wanted to "send the entire Army to France," and if Moltke had obeyed and not mobilized troops along the Russian border, the Kaiser's attempt to keep Russia out of the war- he was frantically exchanging letters with his cousing, the Czar, towards this effect- would've succeeded.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Captain Seafort » 2012-12-28 06:11pm

Sidewinder wrote:IIRC, Keegan claimed the Kaiser wanted to "send the entire Army to France," and if Moltke had obeyed and not mobilized troops along the Russian border, the Kaiser's attempt to keep Russia out of the war- he was frantically exchanging letters with his cousing, the Czar, towards this effect- would've succeeded.
You haven't read what's been written. WW1 (very roughly) started like this:

1 - Archduke of Austria-Hungary gets shot (or some bloke shot an ostrich because he was hungry, depending on who you hear it from).
2 - As a result of 1, Austria-Hungary blames Serbia and declares war.
3 - As a result of 2, Russia declares war on Austria-Hungary in support of Serbia.
4 - As a result of 3, Germany declares war on Russia in support of Austria-Hungary, and because they've only got one set of mobilisation plans initiates the Schlieffen Plan and declares war on France.
5 - As result of 4 going through Belgium, the UK declares war on Germany.

As you can see, your change that Russia has "minimal interest in Serbia's welfare" means that step 3 does not happen, ergo the war stays a local matter between Serbia and Austria-Hungary.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

User avatar
thejester
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by thejester » 2012-12-29 03:37am

Sidewinder wrote:I recall reading one of John Keegan's books
That's almost certainly where you've gone wrong.
Image
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding.
- Ron Wilson

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Thanas » 2012-12-29 09:06am

^ :lol:

jester wins this thread.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2012-12-29 01:25pm

It should be noted that Serbia was basically a terrorist state, run by a group of terrorists who had cruelly and savagely murdered the legitimate King and installed a rival claimant, and were committing massive acts of terrorism in territory which was legitimately Austro-Hungarian after an arrangement which saw the Sanjak of Novi-Pazar returned to the Ottoman Empire while the Principality of Bosnia and the Duke's land (Herzegovina) were annexed into the Donaumonarchie after about thirty years of being under Austro-Hungarian civil administration. Serbia then participated in a war that included acts of genocide against the Muslim population of the Balkans on a large scale before starting, a year after that war ended, this final terrorist campaign. The Habsburg government had plenty of reason to want to deal decisively with Serbia and restore the legitimate dynasts to the Serb throne whiel eliminating terrorism, arguably as much or more justification than the US had for invading Afghanistan. The Russian Empire rather shamefully ignored this, and instead of following the legitimist tradition of Alexander and Nicholas I, went down a route of supporting a terrorist state because of the Pan-Slavist ideology and shared Orthodoxy.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
That NOS Guy
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1867
Joined: 2004-12-30 03:14am
Location: Back in Chinatown, hung over
Contact:

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by That NOS Guy » 2012-12-29 05:10pm

I never thought I'd have to defend Serbia of all things, but that's a tad extreme don't you think Duchess?

Serbia, the state, did not attempt to aid Ujedinjenje ili smrt in any fashion. Pasic actively tried to prevent the act but by the time word had passed to him little could be done on the Serbian side and to alert Vienna would ignite the same response since the Dual Monarchy was actively looking for a fight due to Conrad von Hoetzendorff's seeming fetish for a preventative war against somebody.

If one must blame one party for the entire affair it'd be Austria Hungary for driving things to that point of July 01, 1914. Especially by following it with a response that would assure conflict and then issuing instruction to not accept any Serbian answer as satisfactory even if the Serbs accepted.

I would note however, the Serbs seem to have the market cornered on being assholes and Tsarist Russia was lead by someone who deserved his fate for his incompetence.

EDIT: Minor grammatical quibble
Image

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2012-12-30 01:04am

The Habsburg government had plenty of reason to want to deal decisively with Serbia and restore the legitimate dynasts to the Serb throne whiel eliminating terrorism
The Habsburgs had no interest in restoring any theoretically "legitimate" monarchs to the throne of Serbia, their only real goal was curtailing Russian influence in the Balkans. And, in fact, Balkan policy in the empire was rather split between the Austrian and Hungarian factions of the government. Most of the government had no interest in responding to the assassination at all (it's not as if Franz Ferdinand was terribly popular).

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2012-12-30 11:23am

If you think Franz-Jozef wasn't a legitimist, you simply have no idea at all about the politics of the Donaumonarchie. Now, the main reason his government supported the policy was that the legitimate ruling dynasty had generally always been aligned with the Donaumonarchie for a variety of excellent reasons.

As for NOS' other comments, I can say he's pseudo technically correct in the sense that the Serbian government was not formally supporting the Black Hand. Nikoli Pasic and King Peter I were threatened by its existence too, and set up their own "White Hand" organisation in opposition--but strictly domestically, it still ran propaganda about reclaiming Bosnia--but the issue with this interpretation, of course, is that the head of the Black Hand was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrjevic, who happened to be the head of Military Intelligence for Serbia... And also a major organiser and participant in the 1903 coup that brought King Petr to power in the first place. He most certainly did use his government assets to support the Black Hand; Franz Ferdinand was killed with a pistol from a Serbian arsenal one of his aides had handed out to the assassin band.

Not just that, but Dimitrijevic remained head of Military Intelligence despite the government knowing this, because the King and his Prime Minister were terrified of him and assumed he would mount another coup if they took direct action against him. Pasic did pass on a warning through the ambassador to Vienna, but only to the Finance Minister of Austria-Hungary, who misinterpreted it as a threat, considering it was phrased "if the Archduke goes to Sarajevo on the anniversary of Kosovo Polje he will be taking his life into his hands", which is hardly at all any kind of coherent assistance or warning. This, of course, should put the Austrian demand to run their own investigation and to try Serbian government officials themselves in a different light to any reasonable person.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
thejester
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by thejester » 2013-01-01 03:10am

It's hard to take your argument seriously when you frame it so explicitly in terms of modern fears.
Image
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding.
- Ron Wilson

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2013-01-02 11:23am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:If you think Franz-Jozef wasn't a legitimist, you simply have no idea at all about the politics of the Donaumonarchie. Now, the main reason his government supported the policy was that the legitimate ruling dynasty had generally always been aligned with the Donaumonarchie for a variety of excellent reasons.
What policy are you referring to exactly, here?

Also, I am curious as to what method you have of determining that Obrenovic family were any more legitimate as a ruling dynasty than the Karadordevic. How did the 1903 coup change the events that had happened in the near century prior? After all, the House of Obrenovic only gained power through their initial assassination of "Black George," who had been recognized as the legitimate ruler with right of succession as of 1811. And besides, the constant fluctuation of Austrian policy with regards to Serbia throughout the 19th century (even before 1903) already rules out any claims that they were interested in anything but their own self-interest in the region.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: As for NOS' other comments, I can say he's pseudo technically correct in the sense that the Serbian government was not formally supporting the Black Hand. Nikoli Pasic and King Peter I were threatened by its existence too, and set up their own "White Hand" organisation in opposition--but strictly domestically, it still ran propaganda about reclaiming Bosnia--but the issue with this interpretation, of course, is that the head of the Black Hand was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrjevic, who happened to be the head of Military Intelligence for Serbia... And also a major organiser and participant in the 1903 coup that brought King Petr to power in the first place. He most certainly did use his government assets to support the Black Hand; Franz Ferdinand was killed with a pistol from a Serbian arsenal one of his aides had handed out to the assassin band.


Yes, but Dimitrjevic also CALLED OFF the assassination before it happened. Gavrilo Princip even admitted as much to police interviewers during his imprisonment; the and his fellow operators had been specifically told not to follow through with the orders, but he decided on his own that it needed to be done.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Not just that, but Dimitrijevic remained head of Military Intelligence despite the government knowing this, because the King and his Prime Minister were terrified of him and assumed he would mount another coup if they took direct action against him. Pasic did pass on a warning through the ambassador to Vienna, but only to the Finance Minister of Austria-Hungary, who misinterpreted it as a threat, considering it was phrased "if the Archduke goes to Sarajevo on the anniversary of Kosovo Polje he will be taking his life into his hands", which is hardly at all any kind of coherent assistance or warning.


What is your source for this? From what I recall in my reading, the finance minister didn't misinterpret it, but rather Pasic did not impress on him the immediacy of the threat, and so he passed on to Vienna only vague warnings that the archduke should be careful, or something along those lines.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:This, of course, should put the Austrian demand to run their own investigation and to try Serbian government officials themselves in a different light to any reasonable person.


The major issue wasn't that the Austrians wanted to run their own investigation, it is that they wanted full control of the Serbian judiciary to run said investigation. In fact, the Serbian government was fully prepared to cooperate, but the Austrians were obstinate with their absurd ultimatum (because, in fact, they WANTED a war with Serbia, as opposed to a peaceful solution; Conrad von Hotzendorf essentially bullied the other ministers into going along with his aggression, and Franz Joseph, though opposed to war, was too much of a pushover to do anything about it).

User avatar
Dominarch's Hope
Village Idiot
Posts: 395
Joined: 2013-01-25 01:02am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Dominarch's Hope » 2013-01-25 03:08pm

The only way American Neutrality is any different than OTL is if they beleive that the blockade or any blockade is illegitimate and respond with an embargo to all powers involved with the blockade and refuse to sell Britain or France anything as long as the blockade is up.

But Russian Neutrality? France is crushed. Austria-Hungary survives the war more intact and Germany might decidw to take on Russia afterall. Especially if the Pan-Slavism ends up blowing up in Nicky's face. If so, then Germany could march as far as it pleased and take the entire Ukraine and plop down German Farmers and soldiers to 'encourage' m food prpduction out of the Ukrainians.

Which results in Germany dominating the continent without contest, becoming immune/highly resistant to blockade, and the German population exploding post war compared to OTL.
Because, Murrica, thats why.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Thanas » 2013-01-25 05:48pm

Dominarch's Hope wrote:The only way American Neutrality is any different than OTL is if they beleive that the blockade or any blockade is illegitimate
A large faction did, there even was a plan by some to have a vote called to go to war on Britain over it.
If so, then Germany could march as far as it pleased and take the entire Ukraine and plop down German Farmers and soldiers to 'encourage' m food prpduction out of the Ukrainians.
What now? That plan is pretty stupid.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Dominarch's Hope
Village Idiot
Posts: 395
Joined: 2013-01-25 01:02am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Dominarch's Hope » 2013-01-25 06:45pm

In OTlL, they actually did capture a hefty chunk of the Ukraine, there was simply no time to demobilize men to make use of it. With Austria-Hungary not taking such a brutal mawling in the opening months, they can demobilize sooner and begin recovering and supporting the German War Effort.


Mind you, Im going with the mindset that the negotiated neutrality is just an excuse of the Kaiser to concentrate of France first and knock out Britain's major ally. And that the Kaiser and his staff still view Russia to be an intolerable threat to German security. If so, then France bows out in 1915, and then Germany is free to deal with Russia. A fight that Germany can win this time.


No idea how much territory they would want to take though.


Oh and if the US does enforce an embargo, its gameover for the Entente. Even better if war is declared, IIRC, America had a sub force of its own, one that by 1917 would be choking the life blood out of Britain and doing aerious damage to Chilean imports.
Because, Murrica, thats why.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Thanas » 2013-01-25 07:40pm

The idea that you can somehow magically increase production out of the Ukraine while the war is going on, or even immediately thereafter is what I find ludicrous.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Dominarch's Hope
Village Idiot
Posts: 395
Joined: 2013-01-25 01:02am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Dominarch's Hope » 2013-01-25 08:05pm

Thanas wrote:The idea that you can somehow magically increase production out of the Ukraine while the war is going on, or even immediately thereafter is what I find ludicrous.
Oh. I was under the impression that only most of it was used but not all of it. And Austria-Hungary might just decide to let Germany go about the Russian Adventure by themselves.


I was thinking of demobilizing men from the Army after France is smashed to put back into the fields. Then I realozed it was also a nitrate problem, but given that the more artillery intensive front would be over with, that might not be terribly bad. And that Ukraine had much more fertile soil. The sooner Germany can grab a chunk of it, the sooner they can eat some of its harvest.


The other factor of demobilizing men for the Ukraine is putting down more loyal farmers and putting some of thebpersonnel as enforcement to ensure maximum exports to Germany.


It wont matter for the war though. Just Russia guaranteeing neutrality allows Germany and Austria to smash up France pretty good and get much further than OTL, possibly far enough for a second push to end it by the end of 1915. After that, its up to Germany whether or not to prosecute a war against Russia. A war that it can win.


My guess is that when France capitulates, it is forced to surrender armaments, ammunition, and to dismantle and trench system. And Britain simply cant blockade France as well, politically atleast. So the blockade may very well end or France keeps getting its food shipped to Germany.


Either way, Germany is in a position to last till late 1919, and if it acquires a chunk of the Ukraine, a third maybe, by mid 1917, then it could make it.


Of course, by 1919, Nicholas II may not be around. If so, that means a revolution has occured. Hell, by early 1918, Germany may have more than half the Ukraine and soldiers in the Baltics. If so, they have made it.



So, France is crushed fairly early on, and if the Kaiser decides it, he rolls Russia up as far as he pleases. Either the Russians run away into the Motherland, which decreases German casualties and makes it a walk to a stopping point, or they do what they did in OTL and slowly but surely get rolled up to Brest-Litovsk or further. If Germany has the majority of the Ukraine by OTLs Armistice, they can potentially make it to Moscow in 1920.



I really fucking doubt Wilhelm would WANT to go that far. I think the war last, at most, to June 1918 with Brest-Litovsk or something similar. At which point, Germany lords over the continent and laughs at Britain.



What about the possibility of the French Fleet going against the British? Either as the British attempt to deny the enemy that fleet or something else, like linking up eith the Austrian Navy and possibly Italian Navy?
Because, Murrica, thats why.

User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5418
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Sidewinder » 2013-01-25 09:24pm

If Wilhelm manages to keep Russia neutral in WWI, I doubt he'd be stupid enough to start another war, not when the need to secure and garrison its new territories in the west (French territories conquered during the war, which will likely be crawling with partisans) will keep the German Army mobilized for DECADES.
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

User avatar
Dominarch's Hope
Village Idiot
Posts: 395
Joined: 2013-01-25 01:02am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Dominarch's Hope » 2013-01-25 09:28pm

I dont think he ever wanted French territories outside of maybe some colonies. Italy did but thats different.
Because, Murrica, thats why.

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Stark » 2013-01-25 10:25pm

Is this one of those things where you follow some retarded alt history until and arbitrary endpoint, declare victory, and just assume nothing ever happens again?

Is this the alt history style of 'and they lived happily ever after'?

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Thanas » 2013-01-26 03:27am

Dominarch's Hope wrote:
Thanas wrote:The idea that you can somehow magically increase production out of the Ukraine while the war is going on, or even immediately thereafter is what I find ludicrous.
Oh. I was under the impression that only most of it was used but not all of it. And Austria-Hungary might just decide to let Germany go about the Russian Adventure by themselves.


I was thinking of demobilizing men from the Army after France is smashed to put back into the fields. Then I realozed it was also a nitrate problem, but given that the more artillery intensive front would be over with, that might not be terribly bad. And that Ukraine had much more fertile soil. The sooner Germany can grab a chunk of it, the sooner they can eat some of its harvest.
Do you think soldiers just grow on trees, y/n?
Do you realize that the very vast, almost nearly total majority of German soldiers already had lives which did not include moving to the east, y/n?
Do you realize that it is not just a matter of "win war. win war make soldier obsolete. soldier now go and be colonist in Ukraine", y/n?
Do you realize the logistic, cultural part of the problem, y/n?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
Dominarch's Hope
Village Idiot
Posts: 395
Joined: 2013-01-25 01:02am

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Dominarch's Hope » 2013-01-26 02:58pm

Thanas wrote:
Dominarch's Hope wrote:
Thanas wrote:The idea that you can somehow magically increase production out of the Ukraine while the war is going on, or even immediately thereafter is what I find ludicrous.
Oh. I was under the impression that only most of it was used but not all of it. And Austria-Hungary might just decide to let Germany go about the Russian Adventure by themselves.


I was thinking of demobilizing men from the Army after France is smashed to put back into the fields. Then I realozed it was also a nitrate problem, but given that the more artillery intensive front would be over with, that might not be terribly bad. And that Ukraine had much more fertile soil. The sooner Germany can grab a chunk of it, the sooner they can eat some of its harvest.
Do you think soldiers just grow on trees, y/n?
Do you realize that the very vast, almost nearly total majority of German soldiers already had lives which did not include moving to the east, y/n?
Do you realize that it is not just a matter of "win war. win war make soldier obsolete. soldier now go and be colonist in Ukraine", y/n?
Do you realize the logistic, cultural part of the problem, y/n?
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

However, keeping some of the soldiers there to ensure Ukrainian grain is sent to Germany is one thing. Sending German Farmers who have been enlisted back home is the other. The Colonist idea was a bad one for a few reasons.
Stark wrote:Is this one of those things where you follow some retarded alt history until and arbitrary endpoint, declare victory, and just assume nothing ever happens again?

Is this the alt history style of 'and they lived happily ever after'?
Russia folded while the majority of German manpower and firepower was focused west. If the Kaiser decides to head East after France is crushed underfoot, thanks to Austria-Hungary not having to send its men to fight off the Russians and Germany not having to send any troops East at all.

This isnt WW2, where the Russia/Soviet Union had actually industrialized and has an internally stable population and Germany was severely neutered for 20 years and operating under a raider economy. This is the Russia Empire with a total fucking moron at the helm, inadequate industrialization to supply its entire armed forces, and an internal situation that is just looking for an excuse to engage in another revolution. But this time, with the soldier's on the revolutionary side.

Wilhelm II had his faults, but he wasnt nearly the incompetent that Nicky was. He even suggested and proposed alternate courses of actions and strategies to the Schlieffen Plan, which may or may not have worked, but he wasnt ignorant of the possible consequences to those actions. Oh sure, people point out the HSF as a strategic mistake, but do you really think that had that hadnt been built, that Britain would have really have let the Germans have their way with the continent?

But if France falls that early, or it even looks like it will, the war is over. Russia cant stand up to Germany alone, and I highly doubt Nicky II would do the competent thing and retreat into the hinterlands. Even if he did, the German High Command had Napoleon's fate in mind and would damn sure not attempt and rush off to Moscow. They might go a little faster, but they werent stupid enough to try and chase the Russian Army to Moscow in a single go. And they dont have to.

And think about it. Germany is essentially occupying, however lightly, France. Which means they have control of its imports that come in now. Do you really think America would stand for the blockade to be extended to the entire continent? This isnt 1812, when America is a backwater and Britain could care less about its food, this is an America which is strategically untouchable and which supplies a massive amount of material to the British, food being a major one.

It literally is that simple, Stark. If France is knocked out of the war, Germany wins. If it has to strip France of every ounce of food it has to survive long enough to exploit Ukraine and convince America to propose an embargo of Britain in opposition to the blockade, it will. Even worse is if France simply refuses to fight them any longer and comes to a seperate peace with Germany, then that puts Britain into a horrific political and strategic situation. Now, some may say that Germany couldnt exploit the Ukraine. Yes, they could. If it ended up being a historical replacement of what Stalin pulled, they could do it. Horrific, yes, it was wrong for Stalin too. But it happened.

It wouldnt need to though. Like at all.

Austria-Hungary's force alone will be enough to tip the balance. It wont be fighting against Russia, most of it will be fighting against France with Germany. And after that, Russia is fucked IF. AND ONLY IF, Germany goes for it and takes down Russia while it is still feasible to do so. Germany has no need of French territory, demographics and industrial numbers are completely in German favor. Russia is the one that needs to be severely curtailed in economic and military growth as far as Germany is concerned.

And if it does so, Germany wins. Period. Its population growth post war wont be nearly so abysmal, its patents will not have been stolen as War Loot, and its financial situation will not be shot to shit by the reparations, and its military will not have been prevented from development for nearly 20 years. And unlike France and Britain, it actually would have had tangible gains to boast to itself about. So even if round two begins, Germany starts off more than a hundred miles closer to Moscow, with more people to fight with, and with no need to loot the other economies of Europe for support, since this Germany may have discovered and begun utilizing coal liquefaction much earlier, even if they hadnt, WWII is exactly the quick war that Germany needs against France.

It gets better. Because if the Revolution does happen, the White forces will have a boost from German forces, even if it doesnt, there is no guarantee whatever Russia comes out of this will be as powerful as the Soviet Union. Cant be, actually.

So yes, Stark, Germany wins this round and curtails Russia's growth, it can keep a boot on the continent for the forseeable future. Which includes a Germany which will one day eclipse the UK is GDP and stay there.
Because, Murrica, thats why.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

Post by Thanas » 2013-01-26 07:38pm

Germany was not really interested in massive territorial gains in the east, especially considering they already considered the poles enough. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk is more a reason of the strategic situation there instead of a grand strategic plan. Germany almost surely would not occupy or annex the Ukraine. At best, they would take the baltic countries and that would have been that. Their main territorial gains would come in the west at the expense of France, which most likely would have lost parts, if not all, of the champaigne. German policy was not to grab land in the east and by focusing on it with hindsight is a completely anachronistic way to look at it.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

Post Reply