Resolved, the 2nd German Empire’s actual mistake is the opposite of what you’ve been told

sillygoose

Well-known member
In regards to strengthening the German Army, trucks would be a REALLY good investment, especially if one still wants to make the Schlieffen Plan work. But even if one doesn't, trucks should still significantly help with logistics, just like they did for the Soviet Union during WWII when they got a lot of Lend-Lease trucks from the US.
Probably is the logistics of trucks: they need oil and rubber, neither of which Germany had anywhere near enough of to make it a viable thing. As it was it took the French+British+US economies combined to achieve substantial levels of motorization by 1918.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Probably is the logistics of trucks: they need oil and rubber, neither of which Germany had anywhere near enough of to make it a viable thing. As it was it took the French+British+US economies combined to achieve substantial levels of motorization by 1918.

Synthetic oil wasn't a thing yet?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Synthetic oil wasn't a thing yet?
Nope, only created in the 1920s. I mean as a viable industrial quantity process. Same with synthetic rubber. IIRC both were created in labs prior to 1914, but the process to make it in large amounts was a later development.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
An independent Ukraine will be harder to defend if Poland is Russian. But Yeah, the idea of giving Poland to Austria could work here.

And would probably be the best outcome for the Poles as well. IIRC, Austrian Poland was by far the best off (and considered as such) out of the three parts of partitioned Poland.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Problem was Germany didn't have enough horses to form more units without caused big food problems (which is what happened during the war). There are several books that cover this, "The Kaiser's Army" is probably the most accessible. Effectively the German army thought they had topped out in the number of troops they could field and it was only around 1911 or so that it became clear that an army expansion was needed quickly to keep up with France and Russia. That's why the army league sprung up in 1912 and the naval league dropped off. Prior there really wasn't a need for an army build up, so the navy was able to lobby to get more funding especially once the Dreadnought made all their BBs obsolete in 1906. As soon as the threat on land was obvious they did exactly what you're saying, but they had a limit in how much expansion they could do due to horse shortages and the lack of motorization (which everyone had a problem with at that time since the technology was brand new and the navy had priority for what little oil the CPs had access to). Plus don't forget that the air force was starting to expand and also demanding oil.

Its a whole complex history to the early 20th century arms race, especially once you factor in the major spending on forts in the east during this period.

Cars could replace horses, no?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Cars could replace horses, no?
Oil and rubber my dude. That and production facilities with sufficient labor are all issues. Horses are cheap by comparison. They'd need to seriously rationalize agriculture along the lines of the 1950s reforms if they were going to really change the situation as of the 1910s.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Agreed. And also, the B-B Railway actually made sense for Germany if Germany subsequently wanted to do economic penetration of Persia, Afghanistan, and China since theoretically this railroad could have eventually subsequently been extended to China through both Persia and Afghanistan.

Really?

Wouldn't any such project be doomed to be torn up by Afghan tribesmen for never getting sufficient pay-offs to stop interfering? Or, if built, it would constantly be robbed and broken. I mean that's been the history of the ring road reconstruction attempts.

FWIW, it appears that this one contemporary book actually did propose something like this:


The scope of Germany's Asiatic aspirations during the war is exemplified
by an article from the pen of the learned Orientalist Professor Bernhardt
Molden.[127] Germany's aid to Turkey, contends Professor Molden, is merely
symptomatic of her policy to raise the other Asiatic peoples now crushed
beneath English and Russian domination. Thus Germany will create puissant
allies for the "Second Punic War." Germany must therefore strive to
solidify the great Central Asian _bloc_--Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan,
China. Professor Molden urges a "Pan-Asian railroad" from Constantinople
to Peking. This should be especially alluring to Afghanistan, which would
thereby become one of the great pivots of world-politics and trade. In
fine: "Germany must free Asia." As another prominent German writer,
Friedrich Delitzsch, wrote in similar vein: "To renovate the East--such is
Germany's mission."[128]
 

ATP

Well-known member
You know, Adolf Hitler himself reached the same conclusion in either Mein Kampf or his Second Book. Specifically, Hitler argued there that had Germany waged a preventative war against France in 1904, then the whole bloodbath of 1914-1918 could have been avoided. I'm inclined to agree with him, but would have been even more inclined to agree with him had the Haber-Bosch process already been developed and commercialized back then. Had this actually been the case, it would have been a crime for Germany not to wage preventative war against France in 1905 during the Moroccan Crisis, after which it could head towards the East and impose an extremely crushing Brest-Litovsk-style settlement on Russia while also possibly imposing regime change on Russia.

Agree,germans should start war then,or not start at all.Russia becomed more powerfull,so it was question of time when England start opposing tsars again.
All germans need was wait for that.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Agree,germans should start war then,or not start at all.Russia becomed more powerfull,so it was question of time when England start opposing tsars again.
All germans need was wait for that.

The Haber-Bosch process didn't exist yet back in 1904-1905, unfortunately. :(

And would probably be the best outcome for the Poles as well. IIRC, Austrian Poland was by far the best off (and considered as such) out of the three parts of partitioned Poland.

Would Austria-Hungary have been converted into a triple monarchy in this TL? Because the Hungarians would have likely opposed that, as would possibly have the Polonophobic Germans.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Would Austria-Hungary have been converted into a triple monarchy in this TL? Because the Hungarians would have likely opposed that, as would possibly have the Polonophobic Germans.

Who knows. I have seen some ideas floating around that Hungarians had to do with Franz Ferdinand's death because he was pushing for the Triple Monarchy.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Who knows. I have seen some ideas floating around that Hungarians had to do with Franz Ferdinand's death because he was pushing for the Triple Monarchy.

Well, what I do know from this article is that the security precautions for Franz Ferdinand's 1914 Sarajevo visit were extraordinarily lax relative to what they were for his uncle Franz Joseph's 1910 Sarajevo visit:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top