tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post1061956169564279220..comments2024-03-11T06:48:32.094-05:00Comments on Alternate History Weekly Update: The Almost Certain Victory: A Strategic Analysis of World War OneMitrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12415640801753049329noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-24858763701557825422014-04-17T23:14:10.971-05:002014-04-17T23:14:10.971-05:00A few points for "war blogger.
1) How could t...A few points for "war blogger.<br />1) How could the British have plans to violate Belgian neutrality when Germany's invasion of Belgium was the final excuse Britain needed to join the war?<br />2) The German army did NOT have more machine guns than the other armies at the war's outset. After their encounters with the British the Germans reacted to a mistaken belief that the British fielded more machine guns and increased throughout 1915, but that's after the war began.<br />3) While Tannenberg and Mansurian lakes were major victories; the Russian army were far from finished and still inflicted a humiliation on the German at Vistula River as well as proving more than a match for the Austrians.<br />4) Falkanhayn actually adopted your idea of neglecting the west and concentrating on the east in 1915. While it pushed the Russians out of Poland and eastward; it did not break the Russian army and only served to incur unaffordable German & Austrian casualties and stretch their supply lines, a situation Brusilov exploited in 1916.Russell Roosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11060311886301296928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-74043395052586910692013-03-18T23:19:01.073-05:002013-03-18T23:19:01.073-05:00Essentially I think the key to any kind of WW1 Alt...Essentially I think the key to any kind of WW1 Alternate History lies in the events in the Balkans leading up to the war, rather than with any of the major powers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-66713732285903660902013-03-18T23:14:57.582-05:002013-03-18T23:14:57.582-05:00Although what you are saying holds some validity, ...Although what you are saying holds some validity, I think its worth pointing out that the issues facing each side were much more complex than you're giving them credit for. Up until 1903 Serbia had a pro-Austrian monarchy that- coupled with Bulgaria having the same territorial aspirations as Russia, had the odds stacked in favor of a Central Victory. This being the result of Austria-Hungary not having to focus forces in the south before bringing them north to face Russia. Effectively, trying to fight Serbia first and then Russia forced Austria-Hungary to give up the initiative against Russia as well. And the fact that Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia was the perfect pretext for Italy not joining in on the Central Powers' side during the war, another point where diplomacy and a more delicate touch could have worked better in the long run. The problem was in fact that the alliance between Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary was a defensive alliance and so by "being the bad guy" the Central Powers lost Italy as an ally, which could have very easily tipped the balance in their favor. As I said before the issues are alot more complex, but most have to with the events leading up to the war rather than the war itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-20739062176032976842012-04-26T05:01:05.964-05:002012-04-26T05:01:05.964-05:00Yes, they could have learned from Port Author and ...Yes, they could have learned from Port Author and other battles, but most of the evidence is that they didn't learn very much (and nor did anyone else). Going completely on the defensive would have risked losing if the allies had actually found a way to crack through the defence lines – as they did, with combined operations between tanks, aircraft and infantry in 1917-18. On paper, the allies were far more formidable than the Germans, which was at least partly why the Germans intended to knock France out of the war ASAP. <br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-82771639416951038922012-04-23T10:56:39.359-05:002012-04-23T10:56:39.359-05:00Bevin Alexander in his book "Sun Tzu at Getty...Bevin Alexander in his book "Sun Tzu at Gettysburg: Ancient Military Wisdom in the Modern World" suggests that the Schlieffen Plan could have actually *worked*...had anyone in Germany actually understood what it was supposed to be - on the grounds that *then* it would have followed a Sun Tzu path to victory.<br /><br />But then, Alexander almost deifies Sun Tzu - and also apparently lives in a world where the old saying “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” has, in fact, never been said, so I'm not sure how much weight his view on it holds.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00979315533452771041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-21869824375278396962012-04-19T08:49:53.339-05:002012-04-19T08:49:53.339-05:00The Germans might have concluded from Port Arthur ...The Germans might have concluded from Port Arthur and the American Civil war that a well-conducted defense was effective, and that the major threat to defeating them was to cut off their supply of fertilizer so that their population starved, as happened at the end of the war. Letting the French attack, making clear Serbian complicity in the assassination of the ArchDuke, and perpetually offering peace, was perhaps their path to victory.<br /><br />The other German victory path, after the Somme offensive, was to offer peace, as the Austro-Hungarians urged.<br /><br />The Austrian path to victory was accepting the Serbian start-of-war offer, and not allowing the march to war advance.<br /><br /> In fact, matters were stable through 1916, when the German government tried a major ramp-up in combat power and wrecked their agriculture.<br /><br />An appropriate German-Austrian tactic was an offensive against the Russians, the objective being the Ukraine.<br />If an offensive was wanted, a much stronger effort against the Italians to take them out of the war might have been more interesting than what they did.George Phillieshttp://libertyforamerica.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-78016420290518606722012-04-19T08:31:28.272-05:002012-04-19T08:31:28.272-05:00The Germans basically HAD to win outright in the W...The Germans basically HAD to win outright in the West, at least by forcing the French out of the war. (No France, no BEF). They knew and planned for a 2-front war on the assumption that they could beat France before the Russians got mobilised. Heading east first would have been risky (from their point of view) as the French would have a chance to attack from the West.<br /><br />Their problem was always the danger of being crushed between two powers. One of them had to be destroyed first and the most dangerous one appeared to be France. <br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-20965494759893299822012-04-18T16:13:27.486-05:002012-04-18T16:13:27.486-05:00A defensive posture in the west doesn't mean a...A defensive posture in the west doesn't mean a general shift to the defensive. What we have here is a change from a "France First" to a "Russia First" strategy on the side of the German General Staff. It's basically just a strategic switch, with the added benefit that the smaller covering force - now in the west, not the east - has favorable defensive terrain at its disposal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-81539458106558267452012-04-18T15:30:47.257-05:002012-04-18T15:30:47.257-05:00However, this is most likely not possible, becuase...However, this is most likely not possible, becuase all the armies of the time where lulled by the "School of the Offensive," which all the major continental powers subscribed to: France to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine; Germany to defeat France; Austria-Hungary to defeat Serbia and Russia to steam roll Germany and Austria. It just ended up that all these plans conflicted with one another, and they all had to be modified or scrapped: France ceased attacks on Germany to defend itself; Germany had to deal with Russia quickly; Austria couldn't break through Serbian lines due to German pressure, and Germany was unable to win its decisive battle.Tyler "tbguy1992" Bugghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576024473014951233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-8080254978416019422012-04-18T11:39:39.041-05:002012-04-18T11:39:39.041-05:00The accuracy of your assessment hinges on the Germ...The accuracy of your assessment hinges on the Germans going through with the Schlieffenplan, Chris. If we place the POD at a strategic change in the German High Command towards a defensive posture in the west the whole thing cracks. The western German borders of 1914 are *perfect* terrain for the defensive warfare WW1 favors. Even if Belgium should join the Allies (Britain planned to violate their neutrality anyway) this favorable terrain extends as far as Aachen in the north. Well dug-in the even small portions of the German Army - which had the most machineguns of all modern armies at the start of the war - could have blunted or beaten back Allied offensives, freeing the bulk of German forces for action against the Russians and on the Balkans. The Russian Army, while numerous, wasn't in too much of a peachy shape. It's doubtful it could have staid as long in the war as it did when faced with the bulk of the Hungaro-Austrians *and* the Germans, especially considering that a single German army was able to kick them in the bud for close to eight months with the Battle of Tannenberg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com