spectulive history: ww1

Pellaken

The one and only.
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
1,407
Location
Charlottetown PEI, Canada
what if:

germany and austria had invaded russia first instead of france?

germany had not attacked belgium, would britain still have joined?

austria had given italy what it asked for, and italy joined the centrals?

the centrals had won?

germany did not back austria in june 1914, after the assanation

russia never fell into revoulition

the americans never came

italy had remained neutral

and anything else you can think of :)
I'll post my responces tomarrow, as for now, ite bed time!
 
Originally posted by Pellaken
what if:

1.germany and austria had invaded russia first instead of france?

2.germany had not attacked belgium, would britain still have joined?

3.austria had given italy what it asked for, and italy joined the centrals?

4.the centrals had won?

5.germany did not back austria in june 1914, after the assanation

6.russia never fell into revoulition

7.the americans never came

8.italy had remained neutral

and anything else you can think of :)
I'll post my responces tomarrow, as for now, ite bed time!

1. Russia would have fallen rather quickly and Germany could have held off France and/or England with its forts and trenches the same way the French and English held them off in the real war. Serbia would have been destroyed and Germany would be become supreme in Europe and perhaps the world, Austria would still have remained a declining power, however.

2. The Briitish would have eventually joined after a short (few monthgs to a year) period of Neutrality, it may have been enough of a delay in getting the Germans to Paris (and ending the war), however.

3. Italy would not join the Centrals as the Triple Alliance was a defensive alliance and clearly in WW1 Austria was an aggressor, and even if the Italians HAD joined the Central Powers, I think its effect would be marginal at best, they would be as ineffective invading the French Alps as they were in invading the Austrian Alps.

4. Germany would be master of Europe and Austria its little sister, eventually alliances woudl shift again and there would be a coalition to balance power again. (WW2?)

5. The Austrians would still have attacked the Serbs anyway. The Austrian Minister Berchtold (I think was his name) got the Archduke to declare war on Serbia by lying to him and telling him the Serbs made a pre-emptive attack on Austria, the archduke preferred a diplomatic resolution, not war. The British were ready to step in and mediate.

6. Russia was doomed from the the start. They were committed to fight to the bitter end because they were ont he fast track (at least in diplomatic circles) to becoming another Austra or Turkey, because they had lost the 1905 war to Japan, and been humbled by the Bosnian Crisis of 1909, they could not face another humiliation. Thus Russia had to fight and had to stay - revolution was and inevitability. However if the 'whites' had won the revolution, then Russia's future would look a lot different, perhaps more like France after 1871.

7. The English blockade is what eventually what did the Germans in, a war of attrition requires the use of trremendous resources and the Germans could not produce enough. SO the outcome would be the same, perhaps taking a bit longer. However without Presidnt Wilson's 14 Points, would the Treaties of Versailles and Saint Germain been as harsh as they ended up being? Also America would have remained as isiolationsist as always, even more so then they were in the 1920s and 30s - its influence on European affairs would have continued to be negligible.

8. I think the Italian involvement was minor from any perspective.
 
first off, Italy, was indeed a slight nusience.
3 was ment more to explain what they would have taken, land wise, and the peace treatys they would have signed.


now, my responces:


what if:

1.germany and austria had invaded russia first instead of france?
I think they would have made it into poland, taken all of poland, and been ready for more invasion by 1915. the french would have bogged down in A-L and Britain, seeing this, and seeing no invasion in Belgium, would have waited a bit before joining. this, IMHO, would have extended germany's live. it was doomed to run out of resources by 1919, but in this instance, I'd say that could have been extended a year.
I think that France and or Britain would have eventually indaved Belgium, and maybe even Holland to attack germany. they had talked about it, and I belive it would have been done. Belgium clearley stated that NO ONE was to use its land... a Belgium on the central's side would create the rather interesting war.


2.germany had not attacked belgium, would britain still have joined?
yes, but at a later date.

3.austria had given italy what it asked for, and italy joined the centrals?
I think that, like Italy was to Austria, Italy would have been a minor nuisence to France. it would, though, have presented a target for naval invasions of the allies. if Germany had started by attacking Russia, France might have been able to move enough troops to Italy as to crush it.

4.the centrals had won?
The Brest-Litovsk treaty would still be in effect. I think Germany would have annexed Lexumbourg, and imposed a saarland/rhineland economic occupation of northern france, as they did after the franco-prussian war. as for belgium, I dont know. perhaps annexed by germany, perhaps by Holland {germanys friend} or perhaps by Austria even, who has some historical claim. perhaps not annexed at all. France, and especially england, would have probably not last any land, only money. I'm guessing that Poland would have been annexed by Germany. perhaps Lithuania too...


5.germany did not back austria in june 1914, after the assanation
I think that germany might have used this oppertuity to grow:
imagine. austira invades serbia, and germany comes in to attack! takes all german austrian lands for itself, sponceres an independant hungary, gives bosnia to serbia, galacia to russia... then again, perhaps I'm dreaming

6.russia never fell into revoulition
Germany would have fell earlier. perhaps in august or september

7.the americans never came
Germany MIGHT have been able to force a stalemate. with russia out, eventually, the resources germany needed would become avilable. Germany may have forced france into the same as years before, trench warfare with no major sucess. eventually, I'm guessing, both sides would have accepted a deal similar to the russian-polish treaty of riga, that states that all land held by the army on both sides will now be annexed to thier respective nations. Germany would have "won" in this case

8.italy had remained neutral
not much. perhaps some more austria divisons, a delay of thier downfall by a week...
 
1.germany and austria had invaded russia first instead of france?

5.germany did not back austria in june 1914, after the assanation

6.russia never fell into revoulition

7.the americans never came

7. I think I agree more with Pellaken here. The food shortages caused by the English blockade may have been offset by Ukrainian wheatfields.

8.italy had remained neutral



1. Likely, things would have turned out worse for Centrals had they struck east first. First, Russia was knocked out of the war by revolution brought about by 3 years of lack of munitions and failure on the battlefield. It took some time for popular opinion to turn against the Czar.
Second, what hamstringed Germany against France was supply problems caused by advancing too fast. Surely with Russia's vast space, this same problem would have occured, while a strong France was now ready to attack in the west.

5. Austria vs. Russia.

6. Then by reasoning, they must have had some degree of success. In that case, too unthinkable to be realistic ;)

7. I think I agree more with Pellaken here. The food shortages caused by the English blockade may have been offset by Ukrainian wheatfields.

8. I disagree with previous posts. Italy was weak, yes, and ineffective, yes... but they also contributed a substantial amount of men, and when put on a front against another ineffective army (Austria), it has the very useful bonus of keeping manpower tied down.
No Italy= more Austrians available against Russia, perhaps reinforcements along western front even, later on.
I don't know how much this might have affected the course of the war, but I do believe it would be more substantial than you think.
 
well, the Austria VS Russia thing would also be a guess of mine. I'd say that Russia would have won, and perhaps extended the life of the tzar by 10 or 20 years. I guess, similarley, that Russia would have sponcered an independant hungary, and taken Galacia.

also, Italy was not an asset, but a liability. if not for reinforcements from France and Britain, Italy would have lost the war to austria. Italy serves only as a front. any gain by its military is offest by the military weakness. only new fronts in the alps would be the positive for having Italy on your side.
 
Originally posted by Pellaken
Russia never fell into revoulition

Basically impossible.

It would have required that Russia both:

-Had greater success in the war, rather than losing a huge chunk of it's territory to The Central Powers.

and

-Was in a hugely better economic and material position and to a lesser extent, a better political one when the war broke out.

I cannot see how either of those could have been a realistic possiblity for Russia.

If you were doing an alternate history, then you would have to go way back into the 19th century, and make some sort of massive economic and social revolution take place in Russia a la France or Britain.

By the time the war broke out, some form of revolution in Russia was a basic inevitablity. It was basically unable to fight a successful war with an industrial power like Germany in it's comparitively backward state.
 
rmsharpe would have you belive that if it wasent for reagan that the USSR would have never fell. so, using that as the example, I'd have to say that {in his mind anyways} this should be possible too.

the first revoulition wasent eh problem, it was the second, bloody, one, where the "whites" tried to get back into power.
 
what if the Decembrist revolt in Russia (look it up) had succeded? yeah it was a long shot but..... what if?
 
Awww, crap. I can't remember, is this the 1905 revolution? If it is, that's an interesting question, and one I'd have to think about when I'm more sober (or even at all sober). I'll try to get back to you on that one.
 
Originally posted by Pellaken
rmsharpe would have you belive that if it wasent for reagan that the USSR would have never fell. so, using that as the example, I'd have to say that {in his mind anyways} this should be possible too.

Would you rather have me believe that Jimmy Carter caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Reagan did cause the collapse, at that time. If the Soviet Union had become the dominant power in the world, do you think they would have collapsed?

As well, would the Soviet Union increased military production to keep up with the United States?

Reagan's idea was simple: outspend the Russians and drive them into collapse. It worked.
 
outspend? I never realised reagan was so.... liberal :)

eathier way, the fact remains, that after 1979, the economey of the eastern block was ready for collapse. I agree that he probably had some part in bringing down the USSR {what other right-conservative fanatic wouldent} but it would have collapsed nontheless. perhaps a few years later... perhaps the commy exctremists would have won the coup.... who knows? the fact is, with or without him, by 2010, there would ne no USSR.

and for the historical record....
the USSR was the dominant power on earch from 1945-1964 after that, the USA became #1, and the USSR #2. the USA has been #1 ever since.


my record: from 1700
1700-1700 Britain#1
1700-1712 France#1 {french-spainish union}
1712-1802 Britain#1
1802-1815 France#1 (napoleon era)
1815-1900 Britain#1
1900-1941 USA#1 (after spanish-american war)
1941-1945 germany#1 (nazi era)
1945-1964 USSR#1 (stalin-khruschev era)
1964-2002 USA#1
and the #2's
1700-1700 France#2
1700-1712 Britain#2
1712-1802 France#2
1802-1815 Britain#2
1815-1848 France#2
1848-1900 USA#2 (after mexican-american war)
1900-1918 Germany#2
1918-1938 Britain#2
1938-1941 Germany#2 (nazi era)
1941-1964 USA#2
1964-1991 USSR#2
1992-2002 Japan#2 (the USSR collapsed at 11:59.59 on dec 31 1991}
and the #3's
1700-1700 Spain#3
1700-1712 Ottoman Empire#3
1712-1733 Austria#3
1733-1815 Russia#3
1815-1848 USA#3
1848-1866 France#3
1866-1871 Prussia#3
1871-1900 Germany#3
1900-1918 Britain#3
1918-1936 France#3
1936-1938 Germany#3
1938-1940 France#3
1940-1945 USSR#3
1945-1960 Britain#3
1960-1991 Japan#3
1991-2002 Germany#3
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Reagan did cause the collapse, at that time.

The structure of the Soviet economy meant that Reagan was fairly irrelevant. It was, due to it's incredibly bad organisation and subsequent stagnation under Brezhnev etc destined to collapse with or without Reagan.

Reagan probably accelerated the collapse. Nothing more. The Soviets brought themselves down.
 
I think France was more powerful than you think in the 18th centruy. England had the bigger empire, but France projected more power in Europe at the time and that is what mattered most. England was isolationist in its own right until quite recenty.

Therefore (simplistically):

1700 - 1815 France (as stated above)
1816 - 1871 England (first to industrialize), although Russia is gaining fast (power-wise)
1871 - 1918 Germany
1919 - 1922 America (although the window closed pretty quickly as isolationism returned)
1923 - 1935 England
1936 - 1942 Germany
1943 - 1968 USA (Vietnam drags America down)
1969 - 1980 USSR (although the lead is slim)
1981 - 2001 USA
 
Originally posted by Magnus
I think France was more powerful than you think in the 18th centruy. England had the bigger empire, but France projected more power in Europe at the time and that is what mattered most. England was isolationist in its own right until quite recenty.

I agree completely with you on the France thing. The assesment of the world leaders at points in history is slightly better, too. :)
 
Q:
1.germany and austria had invaded russia first instead of france?

2.germany had not attacked belgium, would britain still have joined?

A:
1. Why the hell would you invade Russia first? It was estimated that it takes the Russian Armies 6 weeks to mobilize, while the French Army was ready immediately. If Germany attacks Russia first, they leave their entire western flank open to French conquest.

Remember, Germany only intended to fight two one-front wars, not one two-front war. France was to be conquered in 5 weeks, then the troops would attack Russia. This is the Schlieffen Plan. It was the bible. Once the plan was enacted, it had to continue...

2. Which segues nicely to this answer. The Plan required the 'walk-through' of Belgium to avoid the French Maginot Line (why the French were never smart enough to extend it along the Belgium border is beyond me). Germany was hoping Belgium would just let them through...but if they didn't, no big deal, because the Germans expected the war to be over before Britain ever had a chance to do anything. The Belgian resistance, and the quick--yet incomplete--British force (I can't remember their designation), were a large factor in the German defeat.

So the answer to both these questions really is...well, these What ifs do not exist. The alliance between Russia and France necessitated the Schlieffen Plan. The Schlieffen Plan forbade dissension. Belgium HAD to be attacked. France had to fall first.

If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
 
Back
Top Bottom