Does Germany resume USW if Russia descends into revolution a couple of months earlier?

CaliGuy

Banned
I apologize for asking so many questions here; however, I am simply very curious and get a lot of new thoughts very quickly.

Anyway, though, here goes:

If Russia descends into revolution a couple of months earlier in comparison to our TL (as in, late 1916 rather than early 1917), does Germany still resume unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in early 1917? Or does Germany conclude that the war is finally turning in its favor and that thus USW is both unnecessary and too much of a risk?

Any thoughts on this?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
That's a good question. My gut instinct is that they would not. They were fairly certain that USW would bring the USA into the war and felt that it was a price worth paying if they had a good chance to knock Britain out. If Russia collapsed earlier, thus freeing up the manpower for a final offensive on the Western Front, they might decide to keep that ace up their sleeve and try something like the Spring Offensive first. If it failed, they could always try USW at that point.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes if H-L are in charge. Now if it happens before Falkenhayn is fired, then all bets are off; his staying in power is the only route to keeping USW off the table.
 
It would need to be more than a couple of months. If it happens four or five months earlier (say at the end of October) then they may well not. Certainly Bethmann would have a far stronger case against it.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That's a good question. My gut instinct is that they would not. They were fairly certain that USW would bring the USA into the war and felt that it was a price worth paying if they had a good chance to knock Britain out. If Russia collapsed earlier, thus freeing up the manpower for a final offensive on the Western Front, they might decide to keep that ace up their sleeve and try something like the Spring Offensive first. If it failed, they could always try USW at that point.
Wouldn't the Spring Offensive still be likely to fail--at least for logistical reasons--in this TL, though? If so, would Hindy & Ludy go for USA immediately after this failure or would they first try to make a status quo ante bellum peace with Britain and France before they actually resume USW?
 

CaliGuy

Banned

Yes if H-L are in charge.

Did Hindy & Ludy view USW as some mind of "magic bullet" which was virtually guaranteed to knock Britain out of the war?

Also, would Hindy & Ludy have been overcome with hubris in a scenario where Russia began imploding earlier--thus further helping push them in favor of resuming USW?

Now if it happens before Falkenhayn is fired, then all bets are off; his staying in power is the only route to keeping USW off the table.

OK; also, though, wasn't Falkenyahn (and Bethmann-Hollweg as well) against resuming USW?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It would need to be more than a couple of months. If it happens four or five months earlier (say at the end of October) then they may well not. Certainly Bethmann would have a far stronger case against it.
Would it need to be more than a couple of months in order for Germany to make sure that Russia is indeed imploding?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Wouldn't the Spring Offensive still be likely to fail--at least for logistical reasons--in this TL, though?

Hard to say. IOTL, American soldiers themselves did not play a role in stopping the German offensives (except for a very minor role with the fifth offensive). But both the British and the French had their moments of despairing, and that was when they knew thousands of American troops were arriving in France every week. ITTL, the fact that they simply had to hang on long enough for the American army to build up its strength would not exist, which would mean morale would be lower and the leaders perhaps more open to a negotiated settlement on terms advantageous to Germany.
 
I think why Russia collapses is important, yoy could have the Brusilov offensive fail catastrophically.
 

Deleted member 1487


Did Hindy & Ludy view USW as some mind of "magic bullet" which was virtually guaranteed to knock Britain out of the war?
Yes.

Also, would Hindy & Ludy have been overcome with hubris in a scenario where Russia began imploding earlier--thus further helping push them in favor of resuming USW?
No, they just thought it was what was needed to beat Britain...by fighting fire with fire.

OK; also, though, wasn't Falkenyahn (and Bethmann-Hollweg as well) against resuming USW?
Correct, but H-L had the power to roll right over them because the media had presented it as a 'wonder weapon' that would end the war and the public supported resumption, apparently no understanding the political ramifications nor the threat of American entry. H-L were largely influenced by that media rhetoric too.
 

CaliGuy

Banned

OK.

No, they just thought it was what was needed to beat Britain...by fighting fire with fire.

H & L really hated Britain's blockade of Germany, didn't they?

Correct, but H-L had the power to roll right over them because the media had presented it as a 'wonder weapon' that would end the war and the public supported resumption, apparently no understanding the political ramifications nor the threat of American entry. H-L were largely influenced by that media rhetoric too.

Who exactly was in charge/control of the German media during this time, though?
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany conducted a "sharpened " uboat campaign in early 1916 which was ended after the Sussex incident, this meant that enemy flagged ships could be sunk without warning. If Russia revolts earlier then having another sharpened campaign might be an option that appeases most parties to an extent for a while. Maybe long enough to redeploy the armies from east to west before launching USW and a land offensive simultaneously.
 
Would it need to be more than a couple of months in order for Germany to make sure that Russia is indeed imploding?

Well, the Revolution happened in mid-March, so two months earlier would be mid-January - by which time the decision for USW had been taken, and indeed some U-boats (not all of whom had wireless) had already set out. And even if they hadn't it would have been a lot harder to get a decision for USW reversed than to have it not made in the first place.

Also, I had a reason for suggesting Oct-Nov. In late October a strike broke out in Petrograd, and troops sent to suppress it fired on the police instead of on the workers. The Cossacks arrived in time to scotch the mutiny, but had they take longer (or the soldiers fought them off) things might well have spiralled out of control. See

http://www.gwpda.org/memoir/FrAmbRus/pal3-03.htm and scroll to the entry for Oct 31.
 
H & L really hated Britain's blockade of Germany, didn't they?

No doubt, but their principal concern was fear of military defeat. Germany had made heavy weather of getting through 1916, and on the face of things 1917 promised to be even worse, with the British Army getting more seasoned, and the Russians better armed as their munitions production increased. The French Army mutinies were still in the future, so outwardly it appeared to have survived Verdun. All in all, if present trends continued Germany seemed unlikely to last another year. Hence a certain reluctance to "look a gift horse in the mouth" when the Navy promised victory by USW. H&L were getting desperate, and USW seemed like the only hope.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
No doubt, but their principal concern was fear of military defeat. Germany had made heavy weather of getting through 1916, and on the face of things 1917 promised to be even worse, with the British Army getting more seasoned, and the Russians better armed as their munitions production increased. The French Army mutinies were still in the future, so outwardly it appeared to have survived Verdun. All in all, if present trends continued Germany seemed unlikely to last another year. Hence a certain reluctance to "look a gift horse in the mouth" when the Navy promised victory by USW. H&L were getting desperate, and USW seemed like the only hope.
Agreed that the decision to resume USW looks better without hindsight; however, weren't both Bethmann-Hollweg and Falkenhayn still against USW during this time?
 
Agreed that the decision to resume USW looks better without hindsight; however, weren't both Bethmann-Hollweg and Falkenhayn still against USW during this time?

Not sure about Falkenhayn , but Bethmann certainly was. He wasn't convinced that US intervention could be as blithely dismissed as the navy was doing. But given what they did and didn't know, I can see why he was overruled.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Not sure about Falkenhayn , but Bethmann certainly was. He wasn't convinced that US intervention could be as blithely dismissed as the navy was doing. But given what they did and didn't know, I can see why he was overruled.
OK.

Also, though, did H & L or Kaiser Bill make the final decision in regards to this?
 
Top