What if WWI never occurred?

[IraGlacialis]

What if Franz Ferdinand was never assassinated and the Great War never occured? How different would the world look? Would there just be another European war later on? What would the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Middle East look like by now? So on and so forth.
Your opinions, guys. Possibly even post a theoretical map during the early 21st century.


Oh, and if this is RMM, sorry.

[James]

World War One was just waiting to happen... If it hadn't been Franz Ferdinand, it likely would have been something else. The Ottoman Empire was going down the tubes anyway, Russia was ripe for revolution... WWI was only the trigger for these events.

I think things would've ended up looking pretty much the way they did in 1918... It would've just been 1919 or 1920.

[Ruledbyjames]

James is pretty spot on. It was an excuse. There had been so much tension between the European powers with the Germany vs Britain Naval Race, the Moroccan crisis, Germanys general bullyment of France and the whole situation with Austria-Hungary and the Russians eg. San Stefano.

Lenin did say that WW1 did speed up his revolution. It led to a disheartening of the Russian people which saw the Tsars and the Provisional Government fall. The Bolsheviks needed a small hardcore revolutionary corps WITH the sympathetic support of the general population.

[Murray B]

What if Franz Ferdinand was never assassinated and the Great War never occured? How different would the world look? Would there just be another European war later on? What would the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Middle East look like by now? So on and so forth.
Your opinions, guys. Possibly even post a theoretical map during the early 21st century.

Prior to 1960, or so, reliable birth control was not available and large families were the rule. A couple would often produce 10 or 11 children. For ease of computation let's say two people beget 8 over twenty years. That is about a 500 times increase in population over a century.

If one of the horsemen does not come then the world would become very overcrowded. [134 billion from 2 in 300 years]

Eventually though, famine must come and the result would be worse than war because so many more would die.

In those days the world could not support too many years of peace. Now, if you're the king of some seriously overcrowded place, what do you do?

[mas-36]

WW 1 would have started sooner or later. The assasination of Archduke Ferdinand lit the powderkeg that was already smoking through extreme nationalistic trends throughout Europe at the time.

From what I've read of WW 1, there seemed to have been much mutual understanding between politicians within governments and civilian populace alike from 1900-1913, that a war would occur someday soon. Everybody had new uniforms, weapons had recently been revolutionized and modernized, the weapons industry had been industrialized and was manufacturing weapons at a never before seen rate, and patriotic/nationalistic fervor was at an all time high.

Had Archduke Ferdinand not been assasinated, another tragic event elsewhere would have most likely triggered the war. A checkerboard alliance in Europe between the soon-to-be Allies and Axis, being stretched to the limits from all sides, would have ensured this.

Just my 2cents

[Kaapeli]

People&nations were so full of themselves that they would have found an excuse to make war no matter what sooner or later. Only from this mistake could they have learned that modern war is hell (not that it wasn't before but modern war is deadlier ^10).

[IraGlacialis]

OK, my opinion.
Like what most people said, WWI would have happened anyway, considering the Balkan Powderkeg, but it would have been delayed. And warfare and weapons of war would change sooner or later.

Here are a few other what if's to chew on. What if America was never involved? What if the Central Powers won? What if the Central Powers weren't shafted at the Treaty of Versailles? What if the Ottoman Empire dropped the Ottoman-German Alliance, stayed neutral, and split on its own without Europeans getting a hold of the regions?

Create your own what if's. There is a s***load of those for this subject.

[Ruledbyjames]

OK, my opinion.
Like what most people said, WWI would have happened anyway, considering the Balkan Powderkeg, but it would have been delayed. And warfare and weapons of war would change sooner or later.

Here are a few other what if's to chew on. What if America was never involved? What if the Central Powers won? What if the Central Powers weren't shafted at the Treaty of Versailles? What if the Ottoman Empire dropped the Ottoman-German Alliance, stayed neutral, and split on its own without Europeans getting a hold of the regions?

Create your own what if's. There is a s***load of those for this subject.

Exactly, we could go on about what ifs forever. If you have any factual questions we would be happy to answer them.

[IraGlacialis]

Hey, I just thought it would be interesting to see other people post opinions and predictions on how the world would turn out if WWI didn't happen or had turned out drastically different. The what ifs and the idea for other forumers to create own what ifs was there to elaborate upon certain details of the conflict. If the subject or the way I presented it is inappropriate for this section, this thread can quietly die and never be resurrected.

[Kitsune]

Ruledbyjames wrote:
James is pretty spot on. It was an excuse. There had been so much tension between the European powers with the Germany vs Britain Naval Race, the Moroccan crisis, Germanys general bullyment of France and the whole situation with Austria-Hungary and the Russians eg. San Stefano.

I disagree. I am not sure that WWI was inevitable at all. (What German bullying of France? I would like to hear more about it. And the British could simply have gotten over the fact if the Germans had a Navy almost half as large as theirs. The French had anyway, without the English going to war with them.) And even if there had been a war: chances are that it would not have been that catastrophic event with that desastrous an outcome. Their are countless scenarios one could imagine.




IraGlacialis wrote:
Here are a few other what if's to chew on. What if America was never involved? What if the Central Powers won? What if the Central Powers weren't shafted at the Treaty of Versailles?
In my opinion? The world would be a better place.
The first tragic thing of WWI was that it came to be at all. But the second tragic element was that the wrong side won it. The Triple Entente was the aggressor on the strategic level.

My conjectures about the matter: It depends on the exact how and when of course. In many ways, the overall situation for Germany was quite similiar to the situation Israel was in during the Six Day War. Had the Central Powers won as planned, namely fast and quick during 1914/15, they may have very well given in to the tempation to exploit the situation too much, as Israel did in 1967. This would have created a lot reason for resentment by especially France and Russia and then the situation might have been not much different from what happened in our world: another large conflict might have taken place a few decades afterwards with essentially the same parties on both sides.

But had France collapsed in 1917 (quite possible if one assumes that the USA had opted to stay out of the war), Germany and Austria would not have been in the position to impose as humiliating and crushing a treaty as it happened to them in our reality. A likely outcome might have been: no French territorial losses except perhaps for some colonies and Belgium returned to its neutral state (in our world it became a French pilotfish after WWI), with some agreements about armament levels (limiting the size of the French military to 75% of the German one, something like that) stabilizing the situation further.

Even more interesting is the East: Its a suprising fact that the treaty of Brest-Littowsk which Germany and Austria imposed on Russia in 1917 limited the fledging USSR to almost exactly the area Russia has today. Even more: a strong Imperial Germany would have been able to support the counter revolutionary forces in Russia in such a manner that they could have crushed the Bolsheviki. Now, if that had happened, the ramifications might have been immense. The states of East Central Europe might have kept their independence with no one being gobbled up by a Sovietunion again (like the Baltics in our reality), with the whole area belonging to a more Western sphere of influence. In other words: in many regards the situation would be similiar in 1919 already like it is in our world only from 1990 on. Its even possible that Russia itself could have profitted, if it had developed a working democracy back then. The ramifications are even larger: In this hypothetical world, China might never have become communist. And, last but not least, WWII would never have happened. Nor a Holocaust.

This world wouldn't be better for everyone of course. Poland might exist (its not unlikely that a Polish state would have been created sooner or later) but it would be smaller than today. With no Holocaust, no state of Isreal would exist (but then this would mean no constant conflict in the Middle East either). France might feel marginalized next to a more inflential Germany (but would have been spared the humiliation of a swift defeat without a WWII happening). And other things might be just similiar to today. America would have become a superpower in this world as well (with less entanglement in Europe though). Pearl Harbor and an American-Japanese war might still have happened. Most likely he Austrian-Hungarian Empire would have fallen apart sooner or later. And I don't see that the Islamic revival we face today would be affected very much, likely it would happen all the same.

Its all just speculation of course, but I always liked to do that.

[Labud]

World War One was just waiting to happen... If it hadn't been Franz Ferdinand, it likely would have been something else.


I completely agree. It was good reason to start the war in that moment. Austro-Hungary and Germany wanted to go to east. Serbia, as ally of Antanta, was their obstacle.
Anyway, Serbs made their biggest historical mistake. They made Yugoslavia. If they had only enlarge Serbia, there wouldn't be NDH genocide in WWII and wars in '90-ies.

[Switek]

I can make such historical fiction analysis in reference to my nation. Poland wouldn't be independent and Poles would become "Kurds" for middle Europe...

[Lokos]

Russia was ripe for revolution

Why do people look to 1905 and resoundingly claim 'Russia was ripe for revolution '?

From 1905 until 1913 revolutionary activity levels [i]crashed, and the economy began absolutely booming. Industry, capital, trade - all were growing by leaps and bounds.

John Keegan - the foremost historian on the subject of the First World War - has often commented that there would have been no Russian Revolution without a First World War. Even more specifically, there would have been no Russian Revolution without the disastrous effects of the mobilization of civil infrastructure for military purposes in 1915-1916.

Tsar Nicholas' decision to take personal command of the army in 1915 - moreso than any other factor - sealed the fate of the dynasty.

Contrary to popular belief, the revolutionary parties were neither large nor particularly significant in a political sense. Yet they were incredibly well organized, and inordinately opportunistic.

Lokos

[Ruledbyjames]

Kitsune, I am talking about how Bismark wanted to isolate France politically and militarily so germany could maintain their conquests from 1870/1871. Then we have the various crises' such as the first Moroccan where Wilhelm said that Morocco should be independant. That was clearly seen as an intrusion into Frances "sphere of influence". The the secound Moroccan crisis where the Germans sent the gunship Panther to Agadir in of 1905.

IN regards to your other comment about the War, no sides knew how large and devestating the War would've been. Many had believed it would've been similar to that of the Franco-Prussian war and they would've been home by Christmas.

[stonecutter]

What if America was never involved? What if the Central Powers won? What if the Central Powers weren't shafted at the Treaty of Versailles?


If America never entered WWI, the Allies would have still won, but it would have taken them longer, that's all. The main contribution of the American entry was in raising morale among the French and British troops more than anything.

The Central Powers were never "shafted" by the Treaty of Versailles, this is a myth that was started by the Third Reich in order to drum up support for yet another world war. Germany ended up never paying any (or hardly any) war reparations to France. Check out "Paris, 1919", by Margarte Macmillan (2001).

[hapazard]

oh yeah? and what aboute the polish corridor and alsace (sp?)?

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

WWII would've been called WWI

[Kitsune]

@Ruledbyjames:


Still, "bullying" seems not the appropriate word to me. Bismarck made a policy of friendly cooperation with everyone except France, that is true. And he may have been not so wrong to do this, later France used every opportunity to see so that Germany became isolated. As far as the various crises were concerned, they seem to be largely hyped up by Britain and France. Wilhelm II. saying something about Marocco - France felt pissed (Woodrow Wilson even said that every colony of every imperial power should become independent - they could live with that it seems). The German Kaiser saying that he felt friendship towards the Muslims - and the British feeled pissed. Germany sending a rather sorry affair of a warship to Agadir during the Marocco crisis (the "Panther" was a completely outdated "multi purpose vessel" which every British destroyer could have blown out of the water with ease) - and Britain and France behave as if their Teutonic neighbours would have send some super-dreadnought with a whole regiment of Marines onboard.

It seems safe to assume that the established powers of France and Britain simply didn't like the idea of sharing any influence with the comparatively new power Germany and teamed up against it. Diplomatic blundering aside, Germany did never anything really threatening. Not once did it anything that remotely resembled to threaten even one British or French colony, not even once did it threaten with war. At the time the Britsh amassed a giant force in South Africa right next to a German colony and both Britain and France threatened Germany with war various times before WWI broke out.

The powers who increased the size of their military just before 1914 were France and Russia, not Germany. Compared to Germany, France had a force almost of the same size and Russia double as large. Since both were allied, with England also in the boat, and one of the central powers, Italy, having made secret agreements with France not to intervene in case of war, the chances to win a conflict within a few months looked quite good for a Franco-Russian alliance. And when Russia mobilized their forces om 29th of July 1914 and the French parliament decided to do the same on July 31th, it was Germany that feeled bullied. That was what caused it to declare war.




@stonecutter:


I daisagree. The Versailles Treaty was absolutely crushing, with the reparations being the harmless part. For a country to lose all colonies, a sixth of its European heartland territory and basically the right to defend itself in the shark basin that was Europe back then (with two enemies, one of them something like a historic arch-enemy running the show) can rightfully be called "shafted". This is no myth at all. And it wasn't created by the evil Nazis as well. Virtually every German felt that way. Exactly since the date the Versailles treaty was signed. Many American diplomats agreed that the treaty was grossly unfair by the way - a lot retired out of protest after it was signed.

And if their had been no American support for the Entente, it really can't be said that they would have won it a bit later. France almost collapsed in 1917. In their 1918 offensive the German military achieved immense successes before running out of stream. Without any American equipment and sans those American soldiers defending France (numbering more than a million), it seems quite likely that the Reichswehr would have forced France into an armistice. Even a total victory is thinkable. You must have an very low opinion about the combat effectiveness of an American soldier to assume that their considerable presence and committment could be largely neglected as far as the outcome is concerned.

[roland]

But had France collapsed in 1917 (quite possible if one assumes that the USA had opted to stay out of the war),

I don't see how you can say that when the US troops started to have an influence on the war only the last four month when the French and the Brits already had defeated the last big German offensives of spring 1918.

[stonecutter]

The Versailles Treaty was absolutely crushing,
Was it anymore crushing than the terms that Germany imposed upon France in 1871? Or upon Russia in 1917? The problem with the Versailles Treaty isn't that it was too harsh, but that the Allies didn't end the war properly by letting the Germans know they had well and truly been defeated. The fight stopped too soon. To the average German, WWI wasn't lost, it was a "stalemate". Hence their resentment and dismay at being treated "unfairly" by the Treaty.



And if their had been no American support for the Entente, it really can't be said that they would have won it a bit later. France almost collapsed in 1917. In their 1918 offensive the German military achieved immense successes before running out of stream.

The French Army of 1918 was stronger than ever; it was very different from what it was in 1917, under General Petain's changes. And, even in 1917, the "mutiny" wasn't so much a mutiny as it was a strike.
In no way do I disparage the American soldier in WWI; last spring I visited Belleau Wood to say thank you to them, and to pay hommage to those guys' incredible bravery. But, in terms of their overall military contribution to ending the war, check out this reply from someone on the Axis History Forum, and see if you agree:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=95775

Here's the thing I posted elsewhere. The comment I was replying to read:"The U.S. 2nd Division stopped the German offensive who had made it within I believe 25 miles of Paris. Many argue this saved Paris"

Hi Guys,

I want to take up this quote, not in any way a chip at <the poster>. I've seen this pedalled around quite a bit, and like many truisms, it gets regurgitated endlessly - even on high quality websites like the Doughboy Centre. The only problem is that it's not remotely true. If I were French, I would regard such statements to be an insult to the memory of the Poilus who mostly did the job themselves. As as Australian, I have no dog in this fight, but I've seen the comment one too many times...

To understand the value of the US action in "saving Paris" one needs to understand the context of what lead up to the action. So here goes (sorry if I'm rehashing what people already know).

The story of the days leading up to 6th June are vital to understanding what came next. Sorry if this is retracing well known ground.
Note the terminology used:
French Corps/Div = 11e C.A.(Corps d'Armée), 43e DI (Division d'Infanterie) - other formations include Colonial (DIC), Cavalry (DC), Dismounted Cav (DCP)
British Corps/Div = IX Corps, 50th Div

On May 27, 18 German Divs (+ 8 more in reserve) attacked along Chemin des Dames, opposed by 4 French and 3 British Divisions in the front line. I can't speak for the quality of the French troops, but the Brits were in bad shape from the start - they were supposed to be in a "quiet sector" recovering from earlier battles:
50th Div was cut to pieces in ten days of heavy fighting at the Battle of Estaires in April (Operation Georgette)
8th Div suffered 4,100 casualties in the March Retreat, and another 3550 in a weeks fighting in April at Villers-Bretonneaux.
21st Div had been part of VII Corps which was crushed by von der Marwitz's 2nd Army in Operation Michael.

Built up a little with reserves and new drafts, these units were not in condition to resist an attack. And what an attack! The opening barrage for Blucher-Yorck was Bruchmuller's masterpiece. He had in tow more than 30% of all the artillery tubes available in France to saturate a mere 18 miles of front (at least 50% higher concentration than the opening of Op Michael). The British Divisions had seen the opening of Michael and Georgette and agreed that this was much worse. The situation was made worse still by the French commander (Duchesne) insisting that his own commanders, as well as IX Corps, stack the front line, rather than defend in depth. With a river close behind them and no room to manoeuvre, the defense was in an impossible position, but when called on it, Duchesne merely snapped "J'ai dit!" ("I have spoken!"). It would not be the last time this mistake was made, even though Foch, Petain and Fayolle (Duchesne's 3 line superiors) ordered otherwise.

VIe Armée's OOB on 27th May was (from left to right):
30e C.A. (55e DI, 19e DI, 2e DCP, 151e DI with 74e DI & 39e DI in reserve)
11e C.A. (61e DI, 21e DI, 22e DI with 157e DI in reserve)
IX Corps (50 Div, 8 Div, 21 Div with 25 Div in reserve)
45e DI (attached directly to VIe Armée, covering northern approaches to Rheims)

The attack fell on 11e C.A. and IX Corps on day 1 and widened to include 30e C.A. to the west on day 2. 50th Div and 21 DI were blown away and the Germans poured through the breach advancing 12 miles on the first day, reaching Fismes and Braine on the Vesle and closing on Soissons. 11e C.A. had all but ceased to exist as a fighting formation.

From this atrocious position the French started to recover. By the afternoon of the first day they had committed 6 fresh divisions, and by 1 June (Day 5), 40 French divisions were engaged. Hardly the deperately thin resources that are usually referred to.

In fact it was Ludendorff who was beginning to face a problem. His original objective was the line of the Vesle (which was reached on the first afternoon). His intent had been a wide front/shallow depth attack to draw in French reserves, with the intent of then expanding the front shortly afterwards. Ultimately this expanding battle would draw the French reserves that were currently supporting the British sector, and allow a final and decisive attack on the B.E.F. The Algerians of 45 DI and the remains of 21st and 8th Div anchored the right of the line in front of Rheims, while the 30e C.A. gave ground only slowly in the west. This constricted the width of the advance leading to a narrow deep penetration that looked nice on paper but which was useless to Ludendorff. He was unable to support the attack properly because his battering train, having blown the defenders off Chemin des Dames, was redeploying westward in preparation for this widening of the attack (Operation Gneisenau to the Germans, Battle of the Matz to the French).

Worse was afoot. On day 3 of the offensive, German troops around Fismes found the cellars. The region was dedicated to Champagne production, and just as in earlier offensives, the German soldiers found the temptation irresistable. By 30 May, squads were being detailed to clear the roads of inert drunk soldiers to make way for logistic support.

By 31 May, on the eastern side of the new salient, the line had stabilised into a series of firmly held positions running NE from north of Rheims to just east of Chateau-Thierry (the open "unfixed" end of the line), and would not move significantly until Ludendorff's last offensive (Friedensturm) opened on 15 July. The US 7th MG Battalion from 3rd Div, provided valuable fire support to the hard-used 22 DI (engaged since 27/5), and help blunt a German attempt to cross the Marne to the east of Chateau Thierry. CT itself would be lost the next day, but elements of the US 3rd Div started entering the line, and limited the harm.

The west side of the salient posed more difficulty for the defenders. The French line had curved back from the original position and ran North-South, facing eastwards at this point. The fighting on 31/5 and 1/6 ebbed and flowed, but again the line was stabilising. The only point where the Germans could still get traction was in the angle where the two fronts intersected, an area about 4-5 kms wide and a little over three deep. Attacks here went further and further into the noose, and ultimately arrived in the vicinity of Belleau Wood.

The point is that apart from limited movement in the Belleau Wood sector, the advance towards Paris had pretty much ground to a halt on 1 June, at which point only 7th MG Bn was in line, and the first elements of US 3 Div were just entering. The effort was revived in Op Gneisenau (Battle of the Matz), but Belleau Wood was on the finge of that battle and was not hugely relevant to it. With the narrow attack B-Y had turned into, the two attacks would not properly integrate. The French would dispose of the western arm of Gneisenau, after a hard couple of days. The eastern arm, which opened from within the pocket B-Y was still creating didn't really do much better. As with any pocket, logisitics bevame increasingly painful. That effort (again after initial adversity due to poor defensive tactics) was killed a few days later by a French counterstroke under Mangin (there's a good story there, which I'll save for another time).

The Germans did manage to expand the salient westwards a couple of kms over the next few days, and that made further movement in the Belleau Wood area viable (although still very constricted). On 6th June the French withdrawal made the Marines prepared reserve position the front line, and from there, I think we all know the story.

As to accounts of French retreats, I won't say chaotic scenes didn't happen, but I would point to the Australian experience witnessing the British retreats of March-April. Australian accounts are littered with comments pointing out that they passed thousands of retreating British troops while marching up to the front line. Yet there is no doubt that the Brits, by and large, stayed and fought. The bottom line is that in these situations, the rear area quickly fills with men whose normal jobs stand outside the defensive effort, but are disrupted by circumstances - postmasters, labour corps, Corps school instructors, airforce ground crew etc etc, together with the many lost soldiers looking for their units. These men convey a disproportionate feeling of confusion to men moving up through the rear area. In fact, when reunited with their units, they immediately return to combatworthiness.

But here's a stat that puts the whole situation into context:
Casualties 27th May - 6th June
Germany 130,000
France 98,000
Britain 28,700
United States 464

And here's another. On 1st June the Allied front line consisted of the following units:
39 French Divs (28 DI, 3 DIC, 7 DC, 1 DCP)
2 British Divisions
elements of 1 US Division.

I'm still trying to establish how many divisions Foch and Petain had to pull from the British sector (troops in line or support that had moved to help the Brits resist the earlier offensives). But the numbers were low, and without significant reserves being drawn off, no grand attack against the British was possible. With Op Gneisenau failing shortly afterwards (a couple of miles progress around Noyon and Soissons, smacked down by Mangin on day 3) and Friedensturm being stopped in its tracks in July (a couple of miles progress either side of Rheims, smacked down by Mangin on day 4), Germany's last chance was gone.

At Belleau Wood, they had stuck their heads into a small salient-within-a-salient, and however hard the fighting, it was never going to be decisive at any strategic level. Now, we all know that the 2nd and 3rd Divisions (and others) fought hard over the next month or so, and nearly 10,000 casualties were suffered between 6th and 25th June. Many, many of those casualties were the result of disorganised and inexperienced leadership, not any lack of drive from the troops, and there is much about Belleau Wood that reminds of the battles for the woods on the Somme. Impossible conditions, naive tactics, unbelievable courage.

But that fighting wasn't about "saving Paris", now was it?

Duckman

Sources:
Barrie Pitt "1918: The Last Act"
John Terraine "To Win a War"
Martin Marix Evans "1918: The Year of Victories"
J.E.Edmonds "Official History" 1918 Vol IV
Malcolm Brown, "The Imperial War Museum Book of 1918: Year of Victory"
Various French and American websites (especially this (French Div and Regt histories) and this (2nd Battle of the Marne in four languages)). US OOB and movements data was sourced from here.

[roland]

And if their had been no American support for the Entente, it really can't be said that they would have won it a bit later. France almost collapsed in 1917.


wrong: the Germans did no progress in 1917.
The mutined refused silly offensives on the barbed wires in front of machine guns but still hold the lines.
After that in fact 1917 was a year of reorganisation and in mid 1918 the French were strong like they never were before.



In their 1918 offensive the German military achieved immense successes before running out of stream.

you call the defeat of the second battle of the Marne "running out of stream" ??! you're putting your credibility (that is hight) in danger.



Without any American equipment


wrong again: the American were equipped with mostly French equipment

[Kilgor]

The Central Powers were never "shafted" by the Treaty of Versailles, this is a myth that was started by the Third Reich in order to drum up support for yet another world war. Germany ended up never paying any (or hardly any) war reparations to France. Check out "Paris, 1919", by Margarte Macmillan (2001).

Exactly
No doubt there was severe bitterness to Versailles, but the political instability and fighting between the fascists and communists just made trouble inevitable. Look at the political situation at France at the time too. It was a total dogs breakfast.

[Kitsune]

@roland:
Sorry. But their was a continous stream of supplies going from America to France and Britain. It played an important role. And more than a million American soldiers are an immense force. To say that they didn't overly affect the outcome (except for speeding the inevitable up a bit) and that this would be a certainty is not very credible.




@stonecutter:
Was it anymore crushing than the terms that Germany imposed upon France in 1871? Or upon Russia in 1917? The problem with the Versailles Treaty isn't that it was too harsh, but that the Allies didn't end the war properly by letting the Germans know they had well and truly been defeated. The fight stopped too soon. To the average German, WWI wasn't lost, it was a "stalemate".

Answer: Yes. And Yes. Far worse than both. Absolutely. And no, this myth about the so called "Dolchstoßlegende" is wrong. The problem was that the German army was demoblized after President Wilson proposed a peace based upon his 14 points. That would have been a defeat for Germany, but an acceptable one. But after the armistice had been accepted and the Reichswehr been unconditionally demobilized by the new German social democratic government, the French and British completely ignored the 14 points. Suddenly the Germans found out that quite a different peace was made, one that unbelievably harsh and humiliating. Actually, the Germans were not even allowed at the negotiation tables (in contrast to about every other in recent history back then, including the two the Germans imposed on France in 1871 and Russia in 1917). And that was what the Dolchstoßlegende was about: right wingers and later on Nazis accused the social democrats of giving away Germany's last trump, an army that still was able to fight and that was still in France (with winter approaching). Playing that trumpet could have ensured a place at the table and less harsh a treatment. But worse: according to the Dolchstoßlegende they also did it on purpose. It said that the new German government just wanted to keep the power it had at any cost and to do so, they served the Reich on a platter to ensure it. Spitting on all who had died defending it. In other words, it accused the government of the Weimarian Republic to be nothing more than a bunch of filthy traitors. That suspicion undermined its credibility and popularity within the German population.



But perhaps to illustrate what the Versailles treaty was like, I wil try to show this with an fictional example. Let's assume there is a war in the future between the USA on one side, and a Chinese, European, Russian and Japanese coalition on the other. After several years of brutal fighting, the USA loses. And now it goes this way:
First, the peace treaty assumes as a central notion, that the USA is solely responsible for the outbreak of the war. It is, so to speak, a criminal among nations that began the war with solely evil and imperialist intentions. Now, the peace treaty is negotiated - but the negotiators are only Chinese, Europeans, Japanese and Russians (and Mexicans and Canadians and some others) who squabble who gets what. The American people who have bled as well can follow this show on CNN. Gnashing their teeth all the while.
Now the conditions of the resulting treaty:

1) Reparations
I'll be merciful towards America. I will wave any reparations since this is supposed an analogy and you claim the reparations Germany had to pay were not worse mentioning. So the US has to pay nothing. How generous of me, isn't it?

2) Confiscations
That doesn't mean that the criminal United States get away just like that. America has to repair the damage it, and it alone, is responsible for. Therefore, all US gold reserves are distributed among the victors. The same goes for content of all US foreign bank accounts. All industrial plants or possessions located outside of US territory but belonging to US citzens or companies are now in the possession of the nations where they are located in. All technical patents the US owns in foreign countries belong now to those countries. The whole US trading fleet is to be handed over to China. A certain number of US industrial plants and train engines is to be handed over to Mexico and Canada.

3) Territorial Matters. The USA loses irrevocably all foreign military outposts like Okinawa, Diego Garcia or any other. The former US state Hawaii is from now on part of the Japanese nation. The former US state Alaska belongs to Russia from now own. The US States Texas, New Mexico and Arizona are returned to their rightful owner, Mexico. From now on, the US States Montana and Washington without Seattle will belong to Canada. Seattle becomes a free state, with its foreign affairs controlled by Ottawa and has to introduce a new currency tagged to the Japanese Yen. (If you ask what the sense of this mysterious ruling is...I don't have a clue. Just being a bit viscious perhaps, like the WWI victors were regarding Danzig). Finally: the wider area around New York and Boston has to stay demilitarized. No American military troops of any kind may stay there or enter it for whatever reason.

4) Armed Forces.
The USA has to hand over all ships of the US Navy to Europe and Japan. All airplanes are to be handed over to Russia all army equipment including Tanks, IFV's and artillery systems to China. From now on, the USA isn't allowed to have an Air Force and only a few small coastal defense ships as a Navy. No submarines of any kind are allowed. America may keep a National Guard of the size of no more than 300.000 men, infantery only, for self defense. No tanks are allowed and no heavy artillery. The US nuclear weapon arsenal is distributed among Europe, Japan, China and Russia. The USA are not allowed to keep any nuclear weapons. It is also not allowd any chemical or biological weapons.

5) Finishing Touches.
The USA loses its UN membership and with it its permanent seat in the UN Security Council. It needs not to be said that it also has no postion in IMF, NATO, SEATO or whatever else anymore. Its influence in international matter is from now on equal to zero.


That should be a nice analogue to what was done to Germany by the victorious powers after WWI. Fetching isn't it? Before the war a bold eagle - now a plucked chicken. Imagine what a typical American would say to such a treaty. Especially so when he has lost a son in the war. That the US economy is in the toilet, people are starving and that hyperinflation reigns just adds a bit to the flair. And rest assured, the victorious powers will repeatedly remind the American people of the helpless state their nation is in. By making some military occupations here and there over the next years. I suspect that ther would be little bit of resentment, don't you think?

The Versailles treaty compares in no way to the peace treaty Germany imposed upon France in 1871 - that was a mild one. Especially considering that the French had really caused, declared and started that war. France lost Alsace Lorraine and had to pay reparations (which it quite easily did). It lost no other territories, not one colony, no right to have armed forces of any kind. And it is also far harsher than what the treaty of Brest Littowsk did to Russia. That was a much stricter one, but while Russia lost a lot of subject states, none of them was true Russian heartland. And, most importantly, neither was Russia completely defanged and essentially rendered unable to defend itself.

[mas-36]

It should be noted that the most US troops in action at one time was just over 200,000. This occured during the last offensive of the war. The greatest contribution the US made was the fact that it was able to ship a large number of men across the seas in short order, and this did indeed raise the morale of the French and British soldiers. However, I look back at the American victories of WW 1, and find that in all cases, US forces were heavily reinforced with either French/British troops and/or artillery, sometimes both.

The US had much logistical problems, not to mention a lack of supplies back home as war production had not been in full gear until very late in the war. As a result, the US used French and British tanks, French and British aircraft, and much French and British artillery. Many US soldiers would recieve their training from French and British troops on how to use machine gins and throw grenades. It should also be noted that 1-Perhing used mass frontal assault whereas the French and British had discarded that tactic years before, and 2-US troops suffered equally during the infamous flu epidemic of 1918.

As for the French mutinees of 1917, Stonecutter is right. The confidence of French troops had been restored once better condition were met and the promise that they wouldn't be hurled at machineguns in senseless attacks had been kept. Petain reorganized everything, and the situation was already in order by the time US troops arrived. BTW- There's ample evidence to suggest that the Germans NEVER even knew of the mutinees.

Lets not forget the very succesful blockade of Germany by the British navy, which took a HUGE toll on the german populace.

I would have to conclude by saying that the arrival of US troops on the scene, thought only engaged in the fighting during the last 3 months of the war, was certainly A factor in the overall Allied vistory, but it was by no means THE deciding factor. This is not spitting on our dead at all, just being a realistic with the overall appraisal of US forces there at the time.

The French and British were and still are very grateful for the assistance we provided during WW 1. Our presence certainly brought the war to a quicker end, but has we not been involved, the war would have ended maybe a year later, perhaps sooner. Alsace and Lorraine would have remained German, most likey. But frankly, Germany was so broke and starved, I can't see how the outcome would have been much different. We certainly helped, but we didn't "save" anyone either.

A last note, a year or two ago, Military History Quarterly had a very good article explaining the creation of the AEF. Apparently, this idea originated with French general Joffre.

[roland]

Thanks mas36.
just there is no way Germany would have kept Alsace and Lorraine.
Had the war not been stopped way too soon while we were the most successful, we would instead most probably had annexed the left side of the Rhine and Prussia and Saxony burned to the ground.


@roland:
Sorry. But their was a continous stream of supplies going from America to France and Britain.


that's not what you meant in your post.
Now, that was a continuous steam of supplies paid and coming from all the world including the States.
The German couldn't because they were blockaded and any American ship venturing in the chanel in direction of Germany would have been properly sunk.
The geostrategic position of Germany suck, that's not new and your Emperor should have known it (had it been Bismark way, Germany wouldn't had annexed Alsace and Lorraine and there wouldn't had been WWI)



And more than a million American soldiers are an immense force. To say that they didn't overly affect the outcome (except for speeding the inevitable up a bit) and that this would be a certainty is not very credible.


you were speaking of 1917. Sorry but the US Army/Marines's influence on the war was nil in 1917 apart a big moral boost.

[cinoeye]

WWII would've been called WWI
That's funny!:)

[stonecutter]

Kitsune,

To go with your analogy, if the U.S. were involved in the worst, most destructive, and most atrocious war that mankind had ever seen, then having the victorious powers confiscate its navy, some of its territory (none of it true heartland U.S. -- which Alsace/Lorraine or the colonies weren't to Germany), and revoking its seat at the UN is the least that the victors would or should do.
France lost 1.4 million KIA -- that's 10% of her adult male population at the time. If the U.S. today fought a war and lost 15 million soldiers KIA, you can bet that after winning they would be obliterating the enemy country in a hurry. Such casuality figures are unimaginable. Not only that, but Germany completely destroyed northern France, the economic powerhouse of the country. All the important industry and mining sectors were sabotaged and blown up by retreating German troops at the end of the war. And you can't understand why France was so ticked at Germany and wanted a harsh treaty? If the States ever experience a fraction of what France went through (and I hope to God they never do), the nukes would come out in a hurry and there would be no more enemy country to speak of, period.

To have worked, the Versailles Treaty should have been either much more lenient, or much much harsher. Considering the mind-boggling scale of that war's tragedy, the former was not an option.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Breaking News. Serbian terrorist attack on Ferdinand Foiled!

Fast forward 20 years.

England, Germany and France would of eventually went to war against the US. Even with ww1. England and France. Especially England were gearing up for a war with the US.

[Kitsune]

@mas36:
I would have to conclude by saying that the arrival of US troops on the scene, thought only engaged in the fighting during the last 3 months of the war, was certainly A factor in the overall Allied vistory, but it was by no means THE deciding factor. This is not spitting on our dead at all, just being a realistic with the overall appraisal of US forces there at the time.

The French and British were and still are very grateful for the assistance we provided during WW 1. Our presence certainly brought the war to a quicker end, but has we not been involved, the war would have ended maybe a year later, perhaps sooner. Alsace and Lorraine would have remained German, most likey. But frankly, Germany was so broke and starved, I can't see how the outcome would have been much different. We certainly helped, but we didn't "save" anyone either.

In my opinion you seem two confuse two things. Namely the difference of a greater factor and a decisive factor. I never doubted that the contribution of the British and French to win the war was far, far larger than anything the Americans did. Nonetheless, the American intervention was almost certainly a cause for the final and solid victory of the Entente powers - and everything that followed was therefore as well. Even if it were only the boosting of moral and nothing else (and there was much else) this shouldn't be underestimated. Moral may be something immaterial but it can nonetheless be decisive. As Napoleon said: "In war, the moral is to the physical in the ratio of three to one."

Alsace-Lorraine would have only stayed German in case of clear German victory, by the way. In the case of an fair and square peace in the west, one that mistreated no one, the handing back of those regions would have been a possible means to compensate France for the destruction the war caused (which otherwise wasn't Germany's fault - the French tried in 1914 everything with their massive offensive à outrance that the war would be fought in Germany - they just failed miserably, that's all). Such a fair peace is, in my opinion, the most likely outcome had the Americans not intervened.

Thankfulness is an interesting point. France and Britain may be thankful to America - and they have every reason to be, since it was absolutely unecessary for the USA to intervene, they could easily have stayed out of the war. But for Germany the results of that intervention were absolutely devastating. In a certain respect the defeat of Germany in WWI and the crushing treatment it received afterwards are things we have never ever recovered from - not even to this very day.
And that is something we Germans should never forget.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Why do people look to 1905 and resoundingly claim 'Russia was ripe for revolution [in 1914]'?

From 1905 until 1913 revolutionary activity levels crashed, and the economy began absolutely booming. Industry, capital, trade - all were growing by leaps and bounds.

John Keegan - the foremost historian on the subject of the First World War - has often commented that there would have been no Russian Revolution without a First World War. Even more specifically, there would have been no Russian Revolution without the disastrous effects of the mobilization of civil infrastructure for military purposes in 1915-1916.

Tsar Nicholas' decision to take personal command of the army in 1915 - moreso than any other factor - sealed the fate of the dynasty.

Contrary to popular belief, the revolutionary parties were neither large nor particularly significant in a political sense. Yet they were incredibly well organized, and inordinately opportunistic.

Lokos

Because the most people get their "facts" from the "history" books written by by the followers of Marx, Lenin, Marcuse etc.

[Mastermind]

I believe wars are all started out of economic motivations. With a very few notable exceptions. But, certainly, WWI was an economic problem gone hot due to a goss lack of proper control. WWII was the same. Of course, money is power and power is money...to me, there is absolutely no difference...its always all about the money. So, regardless of the circumstances in the houses of royalty, there was going to be massive war in the early 20th century. Geo-politically, and on a larger time scale, such as over the surrounding 300 years, the two world wars hardly made any difference at all in how we are today except that without them, we certainly would not be as wealthy.

Just my personal opinion....MM

[roland]

In a certain respect the defeat of Germany in WWI and the crushing treatment it received afterwards are things we have never ever recovered from - not even to this very day.
And that is something we Germans should never forget.

And France didn't recovered from her victory either: on a lot of countryside there is more names on monuments listing the death for France than on the phone book.
Also, even if Germany had paid all she was supposed to do and signed for (she didn't and in fact paid almost nothing) that wont even have paid for the damages in France.
So sorry but I don't think your tears impress any French.

Instead you'd better get over it and consider that it is Wilson who accepted the armistice proposed by the Germans and imposed it to reluctant allies at a time they were running from success to success. That saved Germany from total destruction.
The truth is that the Yanks saved the German's @ss. Now you can say thank you and forgive them.

[Labud]

, Germany was so broke and starved, I can't see how the outcome would have been much different.

I agree with that. Because of that, the main question is: which reasons had quickened the end of the war? I think that American help is overestimating, and on the other hand, the Balkan front is uderestimateing. But the decision fell on this secondary front:

The Thesaloniki front was broken through on 15th september 1918 in the Battle of Dobor Polje. After that, Serbian Army made abnormal advance of more than 600 km for less than two months! The consequences were:
1. Capitulation of Bulgaria (with its 700 000 soldiers)
2. Isolation of Turkey
3. Disaster of Austro-Hungary
Without the allies, and with big front-hole on the south-east, Germany became woundable. In its vainly attempts to close the Balkan front Germany had pulled of some units from the Western front. All that made conditions for succesful great Antanta offensive in the west since 26. september (but with slow advancing) and breaking through the Italian front since 24. october. Without all that, the war would last much, much longer.

Marshal Zivojin Misic with Serbian High Command proposed the plan for breaking through the Thesaloniki front in the begining of 1917., but allies didn't have understanding for this proposal, expecting the main decision on the west. But, when general Franchet d'Esperey became the commander of Thesaloniki front, he pushed it up.

[Crankep]

John Keegan - the foremost historian on the subject of the First World War - has often commented that there would have been no Russian Revolution without a First World War. Even more specifically, there would have been no Russian Revolution without the disastrous effects of the mobilization of civil infrastructure for military purposes in 1915-1916.


Yeah, WW1 did as many wars do, leave some of the population unhappy to have lost sons, fathers, husbands etc. This probaly helped the bolcheviks to gain favour instead of the Tzar.

[Flamming_Python]

I for one do believe that there would have been a Russian Revolution with or without WW1. True the revolutinaries were a minority, but a very active one, as many have pointed out. The revolutionary movement had already been going on for over half a centuary by the time the final revolution happened; from the Narodnaya Volya extremists, to the massacre of the 1905 revolution, to the final 2 revolutions in 1917 that finished off the old system.

But more than anything, it was the autocratic Tsarist rule itself, that would seal its own fate one way or the other. The revolutinaries were of course a product of this system, along with the largely illiterate population who were tied to their land and masters. The Tsarist monarchy resembled more of an Asian/Middle-Eastern despotism, than a European constitutional monarchy or republic. It was incredibly reactionary and resistant to change. Any uprising or signs of discontent among its people it treated as a challange to power and used the harshest possible means to get rid off, rather than try and comprimise.

As Russia would have began to industrialise under this system, literacy would also have to be developed out of neccessity. Once that would happen, people would develop a political consiousness, and increasingly challange the old system. My bet would be on the Tsar refusing to budge, and thus a revolution would be triggered that way, even if not neccesserily a socialist one. The chaos however, would still be the same, and possibly much more catastrophic if it happened 10 years further down the line than as it did historically.

Furthermore, I suspect that history as it happened, saved Russia itself from self-destruction. If a socialist government was not installed, by revolution or other means, then national consiousness among non-ethnic Russian regions (most of the Russian empire, and half of modern Russia) would have grown in strength far beyond what happened historically. This would be compounded by the fact that a non-Socialist government would likely not have endevored to build up any of the ethnic republics to the same standards as European Russia, and would have kept those places as colonies, in line with the European policies towards their colonies.

Thus either the Tsar's empire would have splintered apart into nearly 100 different fragments in a spectacular firework of revolution, civil war and regional nationalism, or a liberal Russia would have suffered the same problems as the European empires suffered historically in 1960's, and would have ended up letting go off most of it's territory as all the different ethnic groups demanded the right to self-determination, far beyond the extent of what the Soviet Union experianced in 1991 when it split to form 15 sovereign states (of which only the majority of people in 7 of those states voted for independence).

[Jobu]

Inevitable. Germany had been pretty much left out of the global colonialism that other large European nations were enjoying so the Kaiser was left with nowhere to grow but on the continent.

[Lokos]

The revolutinaries were of course a product of this system, along with the largely illiterate population who were tied to their land and masters

1) The revolutionaries, much like in France circa 1789-1792, were mostly middle class, passably educated bureaucrats, merchants, educators, utilities workers etc.

2) The illiterate peasant population did not play a significant factor in the Revolution. It was the 'silent majority'. The conflict for control of the Russian state centred on St. Petersburg and, eventually, Moscow. Primarily St. Petersburg.


The Tsarist monarchy resembled more of an Asian/Middle-Eastern despotism, than a European constitutional monarchy or republic. It was incredibly reactionary and resistant to change.

Catherine the Great?

Peter the Great?

Alexander II?

The two Tsars and the Tsarina mentioned above are still considered great reformers by historians. The Romanov dynasty was highly resistant to revolutionary change - not change in general. The Russian state was not stagnating in 1905-1913. It was growing quickly, and was due to eclipse Germany as the European land power by 1916 (according to Ludendorff). This was partly the reasoning behind going to war in 1914, instead of abandoning Austria to its fate. Better to fight it while it was still winnable.


As Russia would have began to industrialise under this system, literacy would also have to be developed out of neccessity

Russia had been industrialising for some time, already.


Thus either the Tsar's empire would have splintered apart into nearly 100 different fragments in a spectacular firework of revolution, civil war and regional nationalism, or a liberal Russia would have suffered the same problems as the European empires suffered historically in 1960's, and would have ended up letting go off most of it's territory as all the different ethnic groups demanded the right to self-determination, far beyond the extent of what the Soviet Union experianced in 1991 when it split to form 15 sovereign states (of which only the majority of people in 7 of those states voted for independence).
19 Hours Ago 05:34 PM


Wild speculation, I'm sorry to say. We don't know what would have happened.

Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I think Russia's biggest problem was that although the Romanovs were generally very competant rulers. Like many empires over time, a few reletivly weak or conservative rulers can have dire consequences on a empire.

England under the Tudors is a very good case in point. Under both Henry's England emerged from the Medieval period and became a respected European power. Come Edward, Lady Jane Grey and Queen Mary who were reletivly weak rulers England was virtually bankrupt with massive religious, succession and social problems.

[stonecutter]

In a certain respect the defeat of Germany in WWI and the crushing treatment it received afterwards are things we have never ever recovered from - not even to this very day.
And that is something we Germans should never forget.

Kitsune,
Although it is easy for both sides to get worked up about all this, I for one would like to forget what happened, and look forward to the future instead. Last year I read an interview with one of France's few remaining WWI combat veterans, and he said that the most beautiful thing he's seen in his life is the friendship that France and Germany have developed since the end of the last war. If he of all people was perfectly happy to see the world in that light, then none of us have any excuse in dredging up painful memories of the past instead of working on continued warm relations.
Granted, he who doesn't know the past is condemned to repeat it, but also, I think he who obsesses about the past will eventually find it an anchor around his neck. A middle ground is necessary.... what do you think?

[mas-36]

Kitsune,
Although it is easy for both sides to get worked up about all this, I for one would like to forget what happened, and look forward to the future instead. Last year I read an interview with one of France's few remaining WWI combat veterans, and he said that the most beautiful thing he's seen in his life is the friendship that France and Germany have developed since the end of the last war. If he of all people was perfectly happy to see the world in that light, then none of us have any excuse in dredging up painful memories of the past instead of working on continued warm relations.
Granted, he who doesn't know the past is condemned to repeat it, but also, I think he who obsesses about the past will eventually find it an anchor around his neck. A middle ground is necessary.... what do you think?


Words of wisdom. Thanks Stonecutter! woot