WWI if Russia & US declared neutrality

[PeZook]

That must be why there wasn't an entire theatre of the first world war where mobile warfare was a big thing.

Wait, no, there was. It was Africa.

There was an entire WAR (the Polish-Russian war), which happened after, WWI where trench warfare never happened. It's not a universal approach at all

[Dr. Trainwreck]

IF the French inexplicably fought without Russia and IF the Germans had their whole army available, they'd have enough manpower to win by Verdun-style attrition. The war might drag out into 1915-16, but not longer than that.

Which will cost millions of souls and break Germany upon the wheel, exactly like it happened to the victors. Which annuls Dominarch's scenario of occupying and exploiting the Ukraine.

<snip military treatise>

All these I know. High firepower and low mobility means static warfare, especially since the cavalry charge is no longer a tactic (infantry could break a cavalry charge without pike since the 17th century). After a point it became nothing but math: I have fifty thousand soldiers, you have forty, if we both lose them twenty-thousand by twenty-thousand then I'll still have ten and you'll have nothing. All these reasons are why I scoff at other scenarios; as you implied, things are too large to be changed by one decision.

[PKRudeBoy]

All these I know. High firepower and low mobility means static warfare, especially since the cavalry charge is no longer a tactic (infantry could break a cavalry charge without pike since the 17th century). After a point it became nothing but math: I have fifty thousand soldiers, you have forty, if we both lose them twenty-thousand by twenty-thousand then I'll still have ten and you'll have nothing. All these reasons are why I scoff at other scenarios; as you implied, things are too large to be changed by one decision.

Thats the thing though, if one side fights purely defensively because they know that they are outnumbered, and decides not to waste men on pointless counterattacks, why would the casualties be anywhere near equal? If France decides to bleed Germany dry for every meter they take, I would think that the casualty ratio would be much more lopsided.

[Thanas]

IF the French inexplicably fought without Russia and IF the Germans had their whole army available, they'd have enough manpower to win by Verdun-style attrition. The war might drag out into 1915-16, but not longer than that.

Which will cost millions of souls and break Germany upon the wheel

Why? Actually, if there are no British, the war might very well turn out like 1871. If there are no Brits the Marne battle is lost by the French or never fought and Paris would fall most likely fall.

[Dominarch's Hope]

The Eastern Front was too big and the Russians were on the constant retreat and couldnt bring the firepower to stop Germamy long enough to build trenches.


If France does that....THEY FUCKING LOSE YOU IDIOTS. Holy shit. Trench Warfare happened in France for a damn reason. Because the German ran out of momentum and had to desperately fend off Russia and thus France could finally halt the German advance. Once that was done, the French built defensive trenches to defend against another German attack. It worked. Then Germany did the same.

But if France had decided to counterattack en masse? Lolno. They might get some ground back, but the German second push ends on the coast or at least past Paris.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Eastern Front was too big and the Russians were on the constant retreat and couldnt bring the firepower to stop Germamy long enough to build trenches.


If France does that....THEY FUCKING LOSE YOU IDIOTS. Holy shit. Trench Warfare happened in France for a damn reason. Because the German ran out of momentum and had to desperately fend off Russia and thus France could finally halt the German advance. Once that was done, the French built defensive trenches to defend against another German attack. It worked. Then Germany did the same.

But if France had decided to counterattack en masse? Lolno. They might get some ground back, but the German second push ends on the coast or at least past Paris.

Do you know anything about battlefield tactics and overall strategy during the war? You DO realize that they were constantly evolving, and isn't nearly as simple as "ALL TRENCHES LOL WTF".

[Dominarch's Hope]

Italy literally cant afford to stay with the Central Powers. Its a matter of coal. The central powers has no way of shipping the required coal to the Italians.

And no, proportionally, Italy didnt tie up huge numbers of men. It was completely impossible for them to breakout into Austro-Hungarian territory. Italy was screwed.

However, there is a chance that Germany manages to keep up momentum against the French, not tobmention the vast majority of the KuK is hammering the French too. Which means that the French simply will not have the manpower to completely stop them in the first place.

Even if the French do, which they feasibly could, there is nothing preventing Russia from making lots of money from selling the Central Powers food and ammunition, which basically neutralizes the blockade. Especially since Russia could end up as a middle man between the Central Power and America, and with the money they are making anyways, they could expand the Trans-Siberian Rail.


Of course, that supposes the war breaks out at all. If it doesnt, Serbia is simply crushed under foot. And Germany continues on the path of economically eclipsing the UK and the Commonwealth(excluding India whose GDP was mostly tied up in simply living) and Russia continues to modernize and France gets left in the dust. And by 1925, roughly, America decides to expand its navy to a second to none navy, which ends up strengthening thr Anglo-Japanese Alliance.

What scares me is that nuclear weapons might be built just a tad earlier. And by Germany.

[CaptHawkeye]

Are we seriously positing that Germany could have built the world's first nuclear weapon during the 20s? They couldn't even do it in 1943...

[Thanas]

More importantly, why would anybody desire to build nuclear weapons or manage to do it? No Hitler Germany means no brain drain from Germany to the Manhattan Project, no hostile Imperial Germany means no second world war (or at least not in the form of a genocidal war) and a victorious Imperial Germany most likely means that the tolerant and efficient Imperial administration continues, ergo no racist progroms.

Where such racism might happen is either Russia or France, but France would be too weakened to pose a threat to Imperial Germany and Russia would have no interest to go up against both Germany and Austria again.

[Simon_Jester]

<snip military treatise>

All these I know. High firepower and low mobility means static warfare, especially since the cavalry charge is no longer a tactic (infantry could break a cavalry charge without pike since the 17th century). After a point it became nothing but math: I have fifty thousand soldiers, you have forty, if we both lose them twenty-thousand by twenty-thousand then I'll still have ten and you'll have nothing. All these reasons are why I scoff at other scenarios; as you implied, things are too large to be changed by one decision.

Yeah. Was more... getting it out there on general principles, because spreading that information is the only way I know to counter the plagues of pop-history and bullshit like "trench warfare is inevitable." No, it's not; it's just what happens when industrialized nations fight each other in highly developed territory with mass conscript armies and (this is important) have no mechanized transport other than steamships and locomotives. As others note, there were entire theaters in WWI where those conditions did not apply, and trench warfare did not happen.

Thats the thing though, if one side fights purely defensively because they know that they are outnumbered, and decides not to waste men on pointless counterattacks, why would the casualties be anywhere near equal? If France decides to bleed Germany dry for every meter they take, I would think that the casualty ratio would be much more lopsided.

It's seldom that simple. Really big World War One battles usually didn't create very lopsided casualties. 4:3 maybe, but not 2:1 or 3:1. You could get localized instances of ratios that bad or worse (entire battalion charges out into killing zone of a machine gun nest), but that averaged out over major battles fought over dozens of kilometers of the front.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Why? Actually, if there are no British, the war might very well turn out like 1871. If there are no Brits the Marne battle is lost by the French or never fought and Paris would fall most likely fall.

Simon specified by attrition. And I replied that beating France by attrition would be far too costly for the alternate timeline we talk about. Unless, of course, the Germans win in the Marne, at which point they're in fairly good shape. A question: let's say the Germans repeat 1871, what are they likely to ask from France in the negotiations?

What scares me is that nuclear weapons might be built just a tad earlier. And by Germany.

But if Germany is not bitter from defeat and also not ruled by genocidal tyrants, why would you be afraid of them having nukes?

Yeah. Was more... getting it out there on general principles, because spreading that information is the only way I know to counter the plagues of pop-history and bullshit like "trench warfare is inevitable." No, it's not; it's just what happens when industrialized nations fight each other in highly developed territory with mass conscript armies and (this is important) have no mechanized transport other than steamships and locomotives. As others note, there were entire theaters in WWI where those conditions did not apply, and trench warfare did not happen.

Yes. Although there were trenches in the East too, they were temporary measures.

[Thanas]

Why? Actually, if there are no British, the war might very well turn out like 1871. If there are no Brits the Marne battle is lost by the French or never fought and Paris would fall most likely fall.

Simon specified by attrition. And I replied that beating France by attrition would be far too costly for the alternate timeline we talk about. Unless, of course, the Germans win in the Marne, at which point they're in fairly good shape. A question: let's say the Germans repeat 1871, what are they likely to ask from France in the negotiations?

They probably would want at most part of southern Belgium (German minority) and/or parts of the champagne. The real problem in making any assumptions here is that the first German war aims were really only formulated in 1916 iirc. IMO the most likely parts would be some territorial concessions to safeguard Alsac-Lorraine. The french colonies in Africa most likely are not a war goal at this point due to the other western african German territories being net losses.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Trenches are a liability. With proper assault tactics they are easily swamped and overcome by storm at the bayonet. With proper defensive tactics, they are occupied lightly by pickets and you allow the enemy into the first rank and then dial in your artillery on a known position and blow them away.

Both of these things happened in 1918, which is why the war did not end in a stalemate. The idea that you could not tactically carry ground against trenches like DH claims is unsupportable by any evidence. The static nature of trench warfare had nothing to do with the trenches as such, it was entirely about the sheer numbers of personnel mobilized and the extensive transportation infrastructure allowing for expansive defence in depth.

There was no technological absolute making it impossible to crack trenches.

The military staffs of the time just needed enough experience with them. It took less than four years to gain that experience, and when they did, vast and established entrenchment systems crumpled into dust in a couple hours of bombardment on both sides. Only defence in depth at a theatre level prevented war-winning breakthroughs.

The worst part is that the tactical mechanism of taking trenches by storm at the bayonet after suppressive artillery fire had been successfully used several times during the Civil War, so the trench was flawed as a defensive structure even before WW1 started. It was just these examples were not on a sufficient scale to be obvious to the general staffs of the time (so no fault of their's that they were not unrecognized, in fact, it is to be expected), because of the relatively limited, i.e., potentially non-repeatable sample scale.

However, afterwards, in retrospect, it became obvious that the trench was already flawed. To the contrary of those who argue that the Civil War proved its superiourity, it in fact proved its inferiority. As time and time again, trenches were successfully carried in many wars from 1860 - 1920 by the bayonet and the problem was in doctrine involving communication and commitment of reserves. Once these problems were solved, the trench was not an insurmountable obstacle in any sense, and conversely the same improvements made the defence in depth the most important part of holding a major defensive line, with the stereotypical trench as simply a shell soak of marginal relevance to the defence.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, to address the other unrelated point, any victory by Germany and the Donaumonarchie before 1916 is liable to involve the formation of a Habsburg Kingdom of Poland-Ruthenia under a cadet branch of the dynasty.

[Dominarch's Hope]

More importantly, why would anybody desire to build nuclear weapons or manage to do it? No Hitler Germany means no brain drain from Germany to the Manhattan Project, no hostile Imperial Germany means no second world war (or at least not in the form of a genocidal war) and a victorious Imperial Germany most likely means that the tolerant and efficient Imperial administration continues, ergo no racist progroms.

Where such racism might happen is either Russia or France, but France would be too weakened to pose a threat to Imperial Germany and Russia would have no interest to go up against both Germany and Austria again.

That first post is exactly why it becomes feasible for the Kaiserreich to be the one building the nuclear weapons. Especially since the electricity intensive method isnt required. And the proposal is late 30s early 40s.


The fear, people, is that it took a while forbpeople to think as nukes beyond being a Superbomb.

Which means the nightmare that MacArthur nearly brought on could happen. IE the conventionalization of nuclear weapons.

Oh and Duchess, the reason the war didnt end in stalemate was because Germany and its soldier were starving. And developments in 1918 cant really help in 1914-1916.

[Thanas]

It still does not follow that nuclear weapons would be invented or used in that timeframe.

[Thanas]

Also, to address the other unrelated point, any victory by Germany and the Donaumonarchie before 1916 is liable to involve the formation of a Habsburg Kingdom of Poland-Ruthenia under a cadet branch of the dynasty.

Why would Germany have an interest in the creation of such a kingdom?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

@Thanas
So Germany entered the war more out of a pact with Austria-Hungary and not truly to gain something?

@Duchess
Yeah, trenches are in no way invincible. Arthur Currie regularly carried them by simple intelligence gathering and preparation. There are many ways to take a trench and most were at least tried in the war.

@Dominarch
Please humour us upon the reasons Germany would have to develop nuclear weapons, because as far as I can tell conventional bombs are plentiful and effective in any war unless you have the impetus of WWII pressing them on. Please don't tell me that WWII happens in your alternate timeline as well.

[Thanas]

@Thanas
So Germany entered the war more out of a pact with Austria-Hungary and not truly to gain something?

In the words of the German chancellor of that time, we seemed to have "stumbled into it". There were no war aims, this was seen primarily as a necessary action to protect the only true ally remaining to Germany. Which is another reason why this "Germany annexes half of the conquered countries lol" is so stupid.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the words of the German chancellor of that time, we seemed to have "stumbled into it". There were no war aims, this was seen primarily as a necessary action to protect the only true ally remaining to Germany.

Indeed, the weeks after Ferdinand's assassination involved a lot of duplicity and politicking between the major powers on both sides. The Germans by and large were unwilling to go to war. However, there were parties within the German government that DID want war, and largely conspired to make it happen ... they wanted to rake Russia out before it could become any stronger (IIRC, the Czar had just begun a modernization and expansion of the army). Although most of the central German leadership did not want to go to war, they also did not do enough to reign in factions within their government and their allies in Austria.

By the time the war had started, too much pride (both personal and national) was caught up in the myth of a decisive victory. The Germans had several opportunities to end the war diplomatically (even as late as 1918, if they had announced that they would respect the neutrality of Belgium and pull out of Russian territories to the east they probably could have negotiated a peace settlement, but they refused).

Which is another reason why this "Germany annexes half of the conquered countries lol" is so stupid.

Never heard of Brest-Litovsk, then?

[Thanas]

Indeed, the weeks after Ferdinand's assassination involved a lot of duplicity and politicking between the major powers on both sides. The Germans by and large were unwilling to go to war. However, there were parties within the German government that DID want war, and largely conspired to make it happen ... they wanted to rake Russia out before it could become any stronger (IIRC, the Czar had just begun a modernization and expansion of the army). Although most of the central German leadership did not want to go to war, they also did not do enough to reign in factions within their government and their allies in Austria.

By that token, you might just as well blame all major powers of the day for failing to reign in their factions. The fact still remains that Germany did not start the war, nor that they were the ones who mobilized first. If you have to blame someone (which I think to be pretty silly as all powers failed) it would have to be Russia and their support for Serbia.

(even as late as 1918, if they had announced that they would respect the neutrality of Belgium and pull out of Russian territories to the east they probably could have negotiated a peace settlement, but they refused).

What is your evidence for that?

Which is another reason why this "Germany annexes half of the conquered countries lol" is so stupid.

Never heard of Brest-Litovsk, then?

Brest litovsk was a result of the specific situation at that time in the war. It is completely nonsense to assume a Germany at the start of 1914 had ever such plans.

[Dominarch's Hope]

One of the benefits of Brest-Litovsk was having a buffer against Russia.

The reason for the possible nuclear development is simple. To have it. It is essentially the next machine gun in terms of revolutionizing warfare, in the context of being able to completely dominate over those who dont. And without Germany's scientific community being robbed of their work, driven out of the country, and not having that research grant money, they may very well get on with.

Other benefits of atomic research is the possible energy benefits. Even if it doesnt happen in the early 1940s, its almsot guaranteed that Germany will be the first nation to posess them.

Anyways....

Back to the timeline.

What are the possibilities if the war is averted at this point in time? Europe can explode like that again for the forseeable future, so what is the likelyhood that Germany develops a reverse of the Schlieffen Plan and stations most of its army eastwards and decides to let France smash itself against the forts along the border and be the one who violates Belgium neutrality. In the event of war.

[Ziggy Stardust]

By that token, you might just as well blame all major powers of the day for failing to reign in their factions. The fact still remains that Germany did not start the war, nor that they were the ones who mobilized first. If you have to blame someone (which I think to be pretty silly as all powers failed) it would have to be Russia and their support for Serbia.

Oh, I completely agree. I wasn't trying to disagree with your general point, I was simply elaborating that the situation was a bit more complicated than you seemed to give it credit for.

What is your evidence for that?

When I get home I will look through my books to find it. I remember reading about some abortive peace negotiations in late 1917/early 1918 that were characterized by extreme stubbornness on the part of the German command - not that the British or French were any less stubborn, mind you.

Brest litovsk was a result of the specific situation at that time in the war. It is completely nonsense to assume a Germany at the start of 1914 had ever such plans.

Of course the treaty didn't characterize German plans at the beginning of the war. However, there was a historical precedent for Germany annexing conquered territories, so the scenario you were mocking isn't "completely nonsense". Even though the Germans were reluctant to get into the war to begin with, the entire German war plan was geared towards an offensive campaign, and the military had long been interested in annexing territories to improve their strategic position in Europe.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Just because Germany was administering the territory surrendered by Brest-Litovsk doens't mean they intended to annex and incorporate it. Everything I remember reading indicated that the plans for Ukraine and Belarus were to use them as buffer states between them and Russia, not fill them with German farmer settlers. Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany are two very different creatures.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yeah, but they werent entirely adverse to forcefully annexing eastern territories dominated by Slavs.
See-Poland.