ChrTh
Happy Yule!
If the Germans had won WWI, there wouldn't have been a WWII (or at least not in the style that we witnessed) 
spectulive history: ww1
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
Pellaken
The one and only.
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.
alsase-lorraine *spelling?* was WELL defended. germany could have help back france for a long time...
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...
the threads basis, is that the plan was never made... or atleast never followed
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.
this dosent answer the question
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 you dont belive in what-if's why did you answer the thread?
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
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.
alsase-lorraine *spelling?* was WELL defended. germany could have help back france for a long time...
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...
the threads basis, is that the plan was never made... or atleast never followed
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.
this dosent answer the question
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 you dont belive in what-if's why did you answer the thread?
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
alsase-lorraine *spelling?* was WELL defended. germany could have help back france for a long time...
Alsace-Lorraine was not well defended for one very good reason: it was a trap the Germans laid. They knew that once hostilities started, the French would be so gung-ho to take back what they lost in 1871 that they would waste their troops. The French took back Alsace-Lorriane almost immediately...and it was a total waste of manpower and lives for them.
the threads basis, is that the plan was never made... or atleast never followed
If there was no plan, there would be no war. The only reason the Germans persuaded the Austrians to reject the Serbian's pledge of 13 of 14 points was because they believed in their assured victory as a result of the plan. We are meticulous people. If there had not been a plan in place, Austria would've accepted the 13 points and war would have been averted.
Now, if you wish, you could argue about different plans, but the question was framed in such a way that assumed the war had already started. If you want to talk What Ifs with WWI (unless it's the Russian/American question, which are legit), you need to go back many years to start.
this dosent answer the question
That's because the question is moot. The only possible way to attack France is through Belgium.
if you dont belive in what-if's why did you answer the thread?
I do believe in What Ifs...there are many other valid What Ifs in this thread. The first two questions are just moot, as I've demonstrated, unless you reframe the questions appropriately (for example, a good question would be, What if the French had extended the Maginot Line along the Belgian border?)
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
At least read Robert K. Massie's Dreadnought, and the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. They're a good starting point.
Alsace-Lorraine was not well defended for one very good reason: it was a trap the Germans laid. They knew that once hostilities started, the French would be so gung-ho to take back what they lost in 1871 that they would waste their troops. The French took back Alsace-Lorriane almost immediately...and it was a total waste of manpower and lives for them.
the threads basis, is that the plan was never made... or atleast never followed
If there was no plan, there would be no war. The only reason the Germans persuaded the Austrians to reject the Serbian's pledge of 13 of 14 points was because they believed in their assured victory as a result of the plan. We are meticulous people. If there had not been a plan in place, Austria would've accepted the 13 points and war would have been averted.
Now, if you wish, you could argue about different plans, but the question was framed in such a way that assumed the war had already started. If you want to talk What Ifs with WWI (unless it's the Russian/American question, which are legit), you need to go back many years to start.
this dosent answer the question
That's because the question is moot. The only possible way to attack France is through Belgium.
if you dont belive in what-if's why did you answer the thread?
I do believe in What Ifs...there are many other valid What Ifs in this thread. The first two questions are just moot, as I've demonstrated, unless you reframe the questions appropriately (for example, a good question would be, What if the French had extended the Maginot Line along the Belgian border?)
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
At least read Robert K. Massie's Dreadnought, and the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman. They're a good starting point.
Pellaken
The one and only.
Alsace-Lorraine was not well defended for one very good reason: it was a trap the Germans laid. They knew that once hostilities started, the French would be so gung-ho to take back what they lost in 1871 that they would waste their troops. The French took back Alsace-Lorriane almost immediately...and it was a total waste of manpower and lives for them.
---you obviousley have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. the terriroty was well defended, it was a federal territory, infact. and france most certainley did not take it back at the begining of the war.
If there was no plan, there would be no war. The only reason the Germans persuaded the Austrians to reject the Serbian's pledge of 13 of 14 points was because they believed in their assured victory as a result of the plan. We are meticulous people. If there had not been a plan in place, Austria would've accepted the 13 points and war would have been averted.
---ok then, assuming there was another plan, that dident involve belgium
That's because the question is moot. The only possible way to attack France is through Belgium.
---look at a map. there are other ways. perhaps not logical ways, as that part of france was well defended, but there were other ways
I do believe in What Ifs...there are many other valid What Ifs in this thread. The first two questions are just moot, as I've demonstrated, unless you reframe the questions appropriately (for example, a good question would be, What if the French had extended the Maginot Line along the Belgian border?)
---there WAS no maginot line. that was in WW2.
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
---then provice evidince to back yourself up next time. dont just say things with no way ro back it up. your first paragraph though was dead on.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
---perhaps weak was a bad word. the fact remains, the industrial superpower germany became by 1914, was not the same nation that existed in 1871.
---you obviousley have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. the terriroty was well defended, it was a federal territory, infact. and france most certainley did not take it back at the begining of the war.
If there was no plan, there would be no war. The only reason the Germans persuaded the Austrians to reject the Serbian's pledge of 13 of 14 points was because they believed in their assured victory as a result of the plan. We are meticulous people. If there had not been a plan in place, Austria would've accepted the 13 points and war would have been averted.
---ok then, assuming there was another plan, that dident involve belgium
That's because the question is moot. The only possible way to attack France is through Belgium.
---look at a map. there are other ways. perhaps not logical ways, as that part of france was well defended, but there were other ways
I do believe in What Ifs...there are many other valid What Ifs in this thread. The first two questions are just moot, as I've demonstrated, unless you reframe the questions appropriately (for example, a good question would be, What if the French had extended the Maginot Line along the Belgian border?)
---there WAS no maginot line. that was in WW2.
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
---then provice evidince to back yourself up next time. dont just say things with no way ro back it up. your first paragraph though was dead on.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
---perhaps weak was a bad word. the fact remains, the industrial superpower germany became by 1914, was not the same nation that existed in 1871.
ChrTh
Happy Yule!
---you obviousley have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. the terriroty was well defended, it was a federal territory, infact. and france most certainley did not take it back at the begining of the war.
I stand corrected: "On 14th August, 1914, the French Army, led by Ferdinand Foch, Auguste Dubail and Michel Maunoury marched into Lorraine. The French soldiers were no match for the machine-guns and heavy artillery of Crown Prince Rupprecht and German Sixth Army and were forced to retreat. By 22nd August the French troops had left Germany and was back in the fortress zones of Belfort, Epinal and Toul." I was confusing the success of the action with the intent of the action.
---ok then, assuming there was another plan, that dident involve belgium
---look at a map. there are other ways. perhaps not logical ways, as that part of france was well defended, but there were other ways
Have you ever know the Germans to be illogical in warfare? Your choices are
A) Through a lowland country minimally defended that provides a direct route to the capital
or
B) Through rugged terrain defended by fortresses
Which way would you choose?
I can't type the whole thing here, but p. 895-6 of Robert K. Massie's "Dreadnought" (paperback edition) is probably the best summary of the German feelings about the way the war would play out, and how they should best meet it (and from where the plan was devised)
---there WAS no maginot line. that was in WW2.
I again stand corrected, but there still was a line of forts in a similar array prior to hostilities in WWI.
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
---then provice evidince to back yourself up next time. dont just say things with no way ro back it up. your first paragraph though was dead on.
I can't memorize every fact! I was just trying to steer the discussion away from what I (and many historians) consider to be moot points.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
---perhaps weak was a bad word. the fact remains, the industrial superpower germany became by 1914, was not the same nation that existed in 1871. [/B]
True, but the 1871 Germany easily defeated France, while the 1914 Germany ultimately was defeated. It's all relative.
In the end, the Schlieffen Plan was brilliant. The problem was that it was written for a different era. Trench warfare didn't exist in 1871, but that is essentially the year that Schlieffen was planning for (despite composing it in the late 1890s) (isn't that a maxim of some sort? Generals are all fighting the previous war?). If technology had remained static in the intervening years, then German victory could've been considered likely.
They made a mistake: they saw the conditions they necessitated the Plan as still existent in 1914 (and they were correct on that view)...but they didn't take into consideration other factors.
But I can't devise a different plan than attacking France via Belgium...because it was the best plan. Now, if there had been some flexibility in it...
I stand corrected: "On 14th August, 1914, the French Army, led by Ferdinand Foch, Auguste Dubail and Michel Maunoury marched into Lorraine. The French soldiers were no match for the machine-guns and heavy artillery of Crown Prince Rupprecht and German Sixth Army and were forced to retreat. By 22nd August the French troops had left Germany and was back in the fortress zones of Belfort, Epinal and Toul." I was confusing the success of the action with the intent of the action.
---ok then, assuming there was another plan, that dident involve belgium
---look at a map. there are other ways. perhaps not logical ways, as that part of france was well defended, but there were other ways
Have you ever know the Germans to be illogical in warfare? Your choices are
A) Through a lowland country minimally defended that provides a direct route to the capital
or
B) Through rugged terrain defended by fortresses
Which way would you choose?
I can't type the whole thing here, but p. 895-6 of Robert K. Massie's "Dreadnought" (paperback edition) is probably the best summary of the German feelings about the way the war would play out, and how they should best meet it (and from where the plan was devised)
---there WAS no maginot line. that was in WW2.
I again stand corrected, but there still was a line of forts in a similar array prior to hostilities in WWI.
If the plan had succeeded, well, it'd be a German Europe after all.
you are wrong.
I didn't mean completely German a la Hitler's plan. I envision more of a Germany-dominated continent, a la the US in the American continents. EDIT: "Hegemony" was the word I was looking for.
And how could I be wrong? Where discussing What ifs here, I thought. I didn't realize you had a crystal ball that foresaw all possibilities. Might I borrow some time on it, for I have some questions about the early days of the Roman Principate.
---then provice evidince to back yourself up next time. dont just say things with no way ro back it up. your first paragraph though was dead on.
I can't memorize every fact! I was just trying to steer the discussion away from what I (and many historians) consider to be moot points.
also, Germany was, originally, weak in 1871. it took a while for thier power to build. thier pop in 1871 was that of an average european nation, today, only russia has more.
ROTFLMAO! I think Napoleon III would beg to differ with that one!
---perhaps weak was a bad word. the fact remains, the industrial superpower germany became by 1914, was not the same nation that existed in 1871. [/B]
True, but the 1871 Germany easily defeated France, while the 1914 Germany ultimately was defeated. It's all relative.
In the end, the Schlieffen Plan was brilliant. The problem was that it was written for a different era. Trench warfare didn't exist in 1871, but that is essentially the year that Schlieffen was planning for (despite composing it in the late 1890s) (isn't that a maxim of some sort? Generals are all fighting the previous war?). If technology had remained static in the intervening years, then German victory could've been considered likely.
They made a mistake: they saw the conditions they necessitated the Plan as still existent in 1914 (and they were correct on that view)...but they didn't take into consideration other factors.
But I can't devise a different plan than attacking France via Belgium...because it was the best plan. Now, if there had been some flexibility in it...
Pellaken
The one and only.
the belgium thing, was, my fault. it was written wrong. the question should have read:
assuming germany attacked russia first, and did not attack belgium....
this is what I had in mind at the start.
also, to clear, in 1871, germany could defeat France
in 1914, germany could defeat France and Britain {and I speculate, would have, if not for the USA}
assuming germany attacked russia first, and did not attack belgium....
this is what I had in mind at the start.
also, to clear, in 1871, germany could defeat France
in 1914, germany could defeat France and Britain {and I speculate, would have, if not for the USA}
Similar threads
