Bismarck ISOTed to RMS Titanic - and U-234 Discussion Thread

ATP

Well-known member
Forcing the UK to declare war on Germany without the Belgian pretext is a propaganda move aimed at America. If the US embargoes arms sales to all of the belligerents Britain and France have to pull a lot of men off the front to make guns they OTL bought from America. Russia is just stuffed. They don't have the infrastructure. The Belgians won't be on the lines or selling guns to the Entente either because they aren't protected from the consequences of breaking their neutrality by an ocean.

Combined with the Americans not coming to replace the Russians, Entente morale may collapse in 1918. With clever propaganda against the British blockade with physical materials like photographic plates smuggled to America by U-boat the Entente may feel under pressure to settle before America joins on the German side by that point.
Germany have one way to end war quickly - let french rusch them,and then attack through Belgium and take Paris.It would work if they do not send part of their France to East Prussia.
If they only defend from french and attack Russia they would eventually break them,but not before 1916.Long war would hurt them more then Allies.

And,unfortunatelly,USA was arleady controlled by Wall Street,and those dudes wonted Germany down.Russia,too - but they would let german made their work there.
England would attack Germany to keep balance in Europe.
Best what Germany could achieve without Schielfen plan is draw,even with new technology.

There is one way to avoid war with England - become their puppet like prussia once was,or at least stop developing fleet.
But even then they would attack if Germany become too powerfull in their opinion,so i would not waste time on that.
 

Buba

A total creep
Forcing the UK to declare war on Germany without the Belgian pretext is a propaganda move aimed at America.
Yes, a good move.
If the US embargoes arms sales to all of the belligerents Britain and France have to pull a lot of men off the front to make guns they OTL bought from America.
The USA will not embargo arms sales to the Entente because:
- Wilson
- it has no arms to sell

The USA provided many things to the Entente, but weapons - apart from some small arms - were not on the list.
The Belgians won't be on the lines or selling guns to the Entente either because they aren't protected from the consequences of breaking their neutrality by an ocean.
Selling arms to belligerents does not break neutrality. Usually. Or if you are a Great Power. Such an activity becomes a breach of neutrality only when a Great Power declares it to be so.

Combined with the Americans not coming to replace the Russians, Entente morale may collapse in 1918.
Playing its cards right - even with the nonsensical so-called Schlieffen Plan BUT without provoking the USA into war - the Central Powers could had negotiated a peace in 1917/18.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
The USA provided many things to the Entente, but weapons - apart from some small arms - were not on the list.
You blow off infantry arms, but try taking or holding ground without them some time. It's infantry that goes over the top and it's infantry that comes out of the redoubts after the artillery barrage to repel them.

You may scoff at second line rifles, but they were purchased and issued because those people needed rifles. If they couldn't buy even obsolete guns like the Remington Rolling Blocks they'd have to scale back until they could give everyone a Berthier or SMLE or whatever relic they could pull out of their warehouses, and they already pulled out all the warehouse relics OTL. Berthiers don't grow on trees. They're manufactured by men who can't also be soldiers at the same time in factories that aren't up to the scale of the demand and have to be expanded by men who can't also be soldiers at the same time with tooling made by people who can't also be soldiers at the same time. Or the Berthiers the French need for their own use aren't going to support folks like the Serbs and Russians, the latter of which also wouldn't be getting their half million Remington Rolling Blocks delivered. Even the ones contracted but not delivered matter. Without the expectation of more guns in 1918 to replace losses it might not have taken a revolution to get them to surrender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
You blow off infantry arms, but try taking or holding ground without them some time. It's infantry that goes over the top and it's infantry that comes out of the redoubts after the artillery barrage to repel them.

I don't think he's "blowing off" the importance of small arms; he's pointing out that the war material supplied by the United States in WWI was not the massive, decisive contribution that it was in WWII.

The involvement of the United States in WWII was absolutely pivotal and essentially dictated the entire outcome of the war; our involvement in WWI was not nearly as important.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
I don't think he's "blowing off" the importance of small arms; he's pointing out that the war material supplied by the United States in WWI was not the massive, decisive contribution that it was in WWII.

The involvement of the United States in WWII was absolutely pivotal and essentially dictated the entire outcome of the war; our involvement in WWI was not nearly as important.
The margin of victory in WWI was slimmer than you think. French morale came close to collapse in 1917 and the promise of American reinforcements helped end the mutinies. If instead the Yanks hadn't been coming the closing of the eastern front would have compounded the issues. Maybe OTL the Entente's wonder weapons would have provided enough hope to keep France in the war, but TTL Germany will preempt them.

Russia was critically short on infantry weapons. If having even fewer means they fall in autumn of 1917 instead of spring of 1918 Romania's fall is similarly accelerated. With Romania out of the Entente the food and oil pressure is mostly off Germany, especially if they fall before winter. The shock of Brest-Litovsk also falls closer to the start of the mutinies for even greater impact on French morale.

If France wants to supply Russia with small arms without America's help they can't field as many infantry themselves. Fewer men covering the same length of front means less downtime which probably means the 1917 mutinies start sooner or are more severe. If they start sooner there is no Nivelle Offensive, which means less attrition which gives the Germans time. If the French Army sits in its trenches for long enough without offensive action while the Germans occupy French soil civilian morale collapses. If the 1917 mutinies become the 1917-18 mutinies Germany gets a draw in the west and victory in the east, probably trading back occupied France for colonies neither nation can actually hold for much longer.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Well-known member
The USA had sold arms and especially explosives to the Entente. So they contributed much to the war effort. But in 1917 the Entente was on the merge of collapsing. If Kerensky had made peace in early 1917, I guess several steps would take in another direction.

In June I will have less time to post.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The USA had sold arms and especially explosives to the Entente. So they contributed much to the war effort. But in 1917 the Entente was on the merge of collapsing. If Kerensky had made peace in early 1917, I guess several steps would take in another direction.

In June I will have less time to post.
If Germans executed Schieffen plan just like they planned,Entente would collapse in 1916 or earlier.USA would not matter,even if they want attack Germany.
So,just made your Germany do that,win war,and wait for WW2 started by France,England&Russia ,not Germany
Plus - you do not need any new weapons for that,becouse germans could do that in OTL.
 
Last edited:

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Well, I'm curious to see where you go with this. It's interesting to me to see how different people deal with such a situation. We can see some of that in Final Countdown, where the Americans have little issue with interfering in history, which actually could have negative repercussions for the US depending on how things played out following an attack the US of that timeline would not have even been aware of. Zipang shows the modern day Japanese being put in a difficult position as they recognize their countrymen of that era as basically bad people, but know the devastation the war caused and want better for their country. And while the US in their time is an ally (indeed the ship they sail on is based on an American design), they know they would be seen as nothing more than an enemy by the US of that time. Meanwhile, both Imperial Japan and the US of that time (shortly after Midway) want to get a hold of that ship and its tech, or destroy it to prevent it falling into the hands of the other. So in the end they try to tell both powers to fuck off and hide out in as remote a location as they can find to stay out of history's way (though they do get foiled).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
If Germans executed Schieffen plan just like they planned,Entente would collapse in 1916 or earlier.

That doesn't make any sense. The Germans did execute the Schlieffen Plan, but failed to carry it through because the Schlieffen Plan was delusionally optimistic to the point where it did not include *any* contingency planning at all. Germany's strategy involved assuming that everything would surely go exactly as planned both politically and on the battlefield, and fell apart when reality differed from expectations.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
"It isn't just this. I am writing an essay on the economic situation. The industry doesn't know everything. They need to guess some stats, which will have to be reworked, when the time has come. That means delays. And the armour scheme is IMO problematic. Too thin. And I doubt, they will be able to build the number of armour plates needed."
This conversation is taking place long before this abbreviation originated and even longer before it started creeping into the youth dialect of spoken English. In a work of historical fiction predating Usenet "in my opinion" should always be written out fully.
 

ATP

Well-known member
That doesn't make any sense. The Germans did execute the Schlieffen Plan, but failed to carry it through because the Schlieffen Plan was delusionally optimistic to the point where it did not include *any* contingency planning at all. Germany's strategy involved assuming that everything would surely go exactly as planned both politically and on the battlefield, and fell apart when reality differed from expectations.

If they do not send few dyvisions to East Prussia,where they were no really needed/Russians send only 2 armies there,and there is nothing worth defending there anyway/
Then their plan would still worked.Which mean Paris taken in 1914,France taken over,Russia overtaken in 1915 - and we have German Europe.
Of course,germans beong germans would made all nation hate them,and about 1940,when Russia and France would go for revenge,everybody else would help them.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Well-known member
The Schlieffen plan had chances to succeed, IF Moltke the younger didn't sent three corps to East Prussia, where they arrived after Tannenberg. The plan might have worked. OTOH the Germans know now that:

1. It may not work properly.
2. It will give the British a too good excuse to enter the war (not that they don't plan to do so).
3. Russia is far weaker than assumed.

Thus a Russia first strategy has strong benefits.

Oh, to be clear. Everyone waits for the equivalent of ww1 starting here. I may make comments or posts in this way. However, it may or may not happen! Nobody knows the course of this TL. And I won't tell anyone, what will happen.
 

ATP

Well-known member
The Schlieffen plan had chances to succeed, IF Moltke the younger didn't sent three corps to East Prussia, where they arrived after Tannenberg. The plan might have worked. OTOH the Germans know now that:

1. It may not work properly.
2. It will give the British a too good excuse to enter the war (not that they don't plan to do so).
3. Russia is far weaker than assumed.

Thus a Russia first strategy has strong benefits.

Oh, to be clear. Everyone waits for the equivalent of ww1 starting here. I may make comments or posts in this way. However, it may or may not happen! Nobody knows the course of this TL. And I won't tell anyone, what will happen.

Russia lacked ammo for guns - according to memories i read,in 1915 they used only one battery for dyvision becouse of that.
So,attacking them should worked.
Problem is - England would attack Germany if Russia start breaking,becouse they wonted weak,bloodied Europe which they could control,not victory of one state.
And,they must start war before other countries catch up with technology,and Russia becomy economical superpower.If they wait more then 15 years,it would be too late.

P.S German have planned create new vassal states - Poland would not worked,becouse they would not gave up land stealed by germans,and Belaruss would not work becouse people there considered themself tsar property.
But Ukraine and Baltic state - could work.Maybe,if they made judeopolonia/lands of old polish kingdom except that stealed by germans,and conrtolled by jews/ it would worked,too.
 

ATP

Well-known member
i am reading "70 lat wspomnień"/70th years of memories/ by Hipolit Korwin -Milewski.He was rich,old and important aristocrat,who knew what tsarist elites were doing.

In the beginning of war,they belived that they would take Berlin in 2 weeks.Hipolit,who never was soldier,still knew that it was bullshit.

In 1915 he come to France,and in 1918 ,when war was ending,meet in Switzerland aristocrats from A-H/count Berhold,baron de Vaux and others/ ,which belived then Germany wonted war before 1916
becouse in 1908 King of England,Edward 6,meet in Iszl Franc Joseph and try to coerce him into abadonning Germany and joining Allies,becouse after 1916 Russia would end modernisation,England would made draft mandatory,and they with France crush Germany.
Franz Joseph told all of that Germany,and that is why they wanted war before 1916.

There is one problem - those aristocrats belived in that story,but Hipolit himself not.Why? A-H was Germany ally becouse they fear Russia,so they would never help them in anything.And King of England must knew that.

But Germany still wonted WW1 becouse they belived that Russia after 1916 would be too powerfull - so,maybe story is true.
 

Buba

A total creep
IMO those aristocrats were too full of themselves and overestimated their importance and knowledge. Politically the King of Great Britain was a nobody - at best he would be carrying an offer from his Cabinet.
Also - peacetime conscription in the UK? Now that is ASB. This is idle chat of aristos over their cognac after dinner ...
I agree on all Great Powers wanting war for their various reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
IMO those aristocrats were too full of themselves and overestimated their importance and knowledge. Politically the King of Great Britain was a nobody - at best he would be carrying an offer from his Cabinet.
Also - peacetime conscription in the UK? Now that is ASB. This is idle chat of aristos over their cognac after dinner ...
I agree on all Great Powers wanting war for their various reasons.

All true.Probably Edward never proposed something like that,or proposed in the name of his Cabinet something which they could not deliver/conscription/ ,Franz Joseph told Willy,Willy belived - and started more war preparations.But he would start war even without it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top