Oh. Wouldn't have changed an iota. France mobilized first.
WWI without Russia
- Thread starter Terxpahseyton
- Start date
Mobilization wasn't tantamount to a declaration of war. In the 1908-9 Bosnian crisis, states mobilized and demobilized. Russia mobilized almost every year after that, for one reason or another. (This contributed to Germany and Austria-Hungary being extremely antsy about what the Russians and the Entente in general were going to do.)
But it was an important step, and helped close off a lot of diplomatic options away from war.
But it was an important step, and helped close off a lot of diplomatic options away from war.
Had Germany swept over France, how might the map of Western Europe changed from any ensuing treaty?
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
Well i've heard that Germany wanted to eiher annex or satellite Belgium and take parts of northern France had they won. And in Africa they wanted to connect German east Africa and German Kamerun. But I'm not sure if that's actually correct, correct me if it's wrong.
That was the September Plan. Germany only really made up that plan on the go, after they'd already entered the war. Their primary goal in starting the war was simply to gain themselves some breathing room, since France and Russia were both growing militarily and industrially at a faster rate than Germany. Since it would be untenable to be sandwiched between two such belligerent nations with more military power than Germany - think Poland in WWII, between Russia and Germany - Germany had no choice but to try to knock out one or the other - or preferably both - quickly. France was their choice, being the weaker of the two.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Thanks for the informative posts (especially Dachs of course 
)
To the whiners: That I asked "How had the war went without an eastern front" and not "Would WWI happened without Russian involvement" was not arbitrary.
)To the whiners: That I asked "How had the war went without an eastern front" and not "Would WWI happened without Russian involvement" was not arbitrary.
Well, yes, Britain can't take them on land, but through blockades (as said before).
And if blockaded, I don't know if Germany would be as concerned about resources (they should have plenty since this war would be totally naval) as they would economic stagnation. I mean, if they can't trade through the sea, they'd probably have to rely on overland routes, which, I'm pretty sure aren't as efficient as shipping.
Then again, I'm no expert on German economics of the period, I'm not really sure if a majority of their economy was dependent on trading with other nations via sea routes or not.
True, they'd lose a buttload of exports, which were growing increasingly important to their economy. But really it depends on the political stances of other states, which could be...well...pretty much anything.
True, they'd lose a buttload of exports, which were growing increasingly important to their economy. But really it depends on the political stances of other states, which could be...well...pretty much anything.
Yeah, I think we've reached the point in the timeline where it's basically up for grabs
Ok, as long as it packed some sort of punch we're good
Similar threads
