Deleted member 94680
Much more believable, especially if the older designs and pre-dreads are scrapped as a cost saving/efficiency measure. 20 battleships is 5 squadrons of 4, with an aircraft carrier attached to each.
Let Them Pass
- Thread starter Geon
- Start date
- Status
20 and 12 is much better. I'm not sure the Germans would accept being so far behind the Royal Navy. I would have thought the Germans (with French reparations) would be in a much better position to keep up with German shipbuilding.
Then again if the Germans needed to expand shipyards and the Kiel canel to deal with a new breed of larger battleships that would eat up shipyard money very quickly.
ferdi254
Banned
I doubt this war would be called a world war as the fighting was short and mostly in Europe with the USA not being in. 1792 to 1815 had seen more fighting, destruction and much more land affected.
And a second round in 1944? Ouch that is going to hurt. A Germany without all the loss of WWI and without a crazy lunatic to run it might have nuclear weapons until then. And if not outright at the start within 2 years certainly.
And a second round in 1944? Ouch that is going to hurt. A Germany without all the loss of WWI and without a crazy lunatic to run it might have nuclear weapons until then. And if not outright at the start within 2 years certainly.
Last edited:
This war was pretty global if you consider the Japanese invading and taking over German possessions in China, British and French colonial forces invading German colonies in Africa, any British troops coming from Canada and India, and the South American wars of independence against Bonaparte controlled Spain.
It's definitely not as bloody and all encompassing as the WW1 was in OTL but the term "world war" is more of a eye catching label. You could make the case that the Seven Years War could be considered World War 1.
I think one of the largest effects that a shorter war would have is how the world responds to the Spanish Flu during peace time rather than at war.
The H1N1 virus is definitely present, probably in China but it could have been in the French or British empires, but it's way too early to have gone global (about in 1918 OTL).
People will still get the virus and people will still die, but I am very curious on how government's would respond to the outbreak during peace time rather than during the Great War
In peace time, there would be a lot less movement of people from troops to workers, less people in unsanitary conditions within trenches, trains, or ships, and no wartime press censorship regarding the diseases (so it probably wouldn't be called the Spanish Flu).
Post War Part 3
Geon
Donor
Italy: The fact that Italy missed out on the war was a major factor in the post-war politics of that country. Among those outraged that Italy did not come into the war on the side of the allies was General Luigi Cadrona. Cadrona was infuriated that Italy had not joined the war and accused the government of “rank cowardice.” For this he was summarily dismissed from his post.
Another individual who was none too happy with Italy’s neutrality stance during the brief World War I was former socialist, former schoolteacher, and political activist, Benito Mussolini. Mussolini felt the government missed a golden opportunity at redressing old wrongs and reclaiming Italian territory “stolen” by Austro-Hungary. A confirmed fascist by 1916, Mussolini agitated for political change and for a government that would restore greatness to Italy. In his own mind Mussolini dreamed of restoring the glories of the old Roman Empire.
Cadrona and Mussolini had similar goals in mind. Cadrona was well-respected in the army and his dismissal brought demonstrations in several cities for his reinstatement. Mussolini, ever the adroit politician played on this. He found further support in the form of Italy’s Premier, Antonio Salandra.
In 1922 with Salandra’s health failing him, he threw his total support to Mussolini and his Fascist party. Mussolini’s party won a major electoral victory that year and Mussolini would be elected Premier of Italy.
Mussolini would quickly quell any party who voiced any sort of leftist philosophy by any means possible. He further began a process of modernization of the Italian Army and Navy hoping to eventually reach parity with the other major powers.
Italy had not had a part in the First World War. But she was preparing for the part she would play in the Second.
Another individual who was none too happy with Italy’s neutrality stance during the brief World War I was former socialist, former schoolteacher, and political activist, Benito Mussolini. Mussolini felt the government missed a golden opportunity at redressing old wrongs and reclaiming Italian territory “stolen” by Austro-Hungary. A confirmed fascist by 1916, Mussolini agitated for political change and for a government that would restore greatness to Italy. In his own mind Mussolini dreamed of restoring the glories of the old Roman Empire.
Cadrona and Mussolini had similar goals in mind. Cadrona was well-respected in the army and his dismissal brought demonstrations in several cities for his reinstatement. Mussolini, ever the adroit politician played on this. He found further support in the form of Italy’s Premier, Antonio Salandra.
In 1922 with Salandra’s health failing him, he threw his total support to Mussolini and his Fascist party. Mussolini’s party won a major electoral victory that year and Mussolini would be elected Premier of Italy.
Mussolini would quickly quell any party who voiced any sort of leftist philosophy by any means possible. He further began a process of modernization of the Italian Army and Navy hoping to eventually reach parity with the other major powers.
Italy had not had a part in the First World War. But she was preparing for the part she would play in the Second.
Last edited:
Oh good, Mussolini taking power. I'm sure that won't have any negative consequences for the future of Italy/Europe in general.
Depending on how much Germany wants to preserve the territory of Austria-Hungary (or just Austria if trends continue), Mussolini would have a better time colonizing eastern Africa than taking more land in Europe.
The problem here is that Italy never joined the war and so it doesn't have the "land owed to us" popular reasoning and has to make due with the "historical Italian land" claim.
Have you decided whether France is leaning right wing or left wing after the war?
The right wing (conservatives and militarists) would be interested in allying with Italy against Germany, but the left wing (mostly socialists with minor communists) would be opposed to Italy due to the repression of Leftists.
The problem here is that Italy never joined the war and so it doesn't have the "land owed to us" popular reasoning and has to make due with the "historical Italian land" claim.
Have you decided whether France is leaning right wing or left wing after the war?
The right wing (conservatives and militarists) would be interested in allying with Italy against Germany, but the left wing (mostly socialists with minor communists) would be opposed to Italy due to the repression of Leftists.
Post War Part 4
Geon
Donor
I will simply say that France and Italy will have a lot in common in the years to come.
And regarding Austro-Hungary
----------------------------------------------
Austria-Hungary: On November 21, 1916 the Emperor Franz Joseph died at the age of 86. He would be mourned throughout the Empire as well as in Germany. His death marked the end of the old order in Austria-Hungary.
Emperor Karl I assumed power within a week of his grandfather’s death.
Karl I inherited an Empire that was in a state of foment. The First World War had shown the need to standardize the Army and Navy. Equipment, uniforms, and language had all been major issues that had led to the near disasters of the Serbian invasion and the Russian invasion of Galicia. Clearly this needed to be corrected.
Emperor Karl’s first action was to order one Count von Hotzendorf to retire. Hotzendorf’s blundered foreign policy and military strategy had nearly cost Austria-Hungary the war. Many at court quietly rejoiced at Hotzendorf’s departure for these very reasons.
Karl I then brought retired German Army officers into Vienna to begin training the Austro-Hungarian army and bringing the army up to modern German standards. He also decreed that German would become the lingua franca of the Army from now on. Regardless of nationality all those in the army would be taught Basic German. Standardizing the language used was one of many military reforms ordered by Karl. Likewise, equipment and uniforms were also to be standardized.
Given that travel by rail in Austro-Hungary was extremely slow owing to many parts of the rail system having different gauges, Karl I ordered a major renovation and standardization of the railway system in Austro-Hungary. By 1929 the rail system was totally standardized, and a rail journey no longer required changing trains on a regular basis.
Like the other major naval powers Karl sought if not parity with Italy at least to make the Austro-Hungarian navy a credible threat. By 1934 the Austro-Hungarian navy consisted of 11 Battleships, 8 Battlecruisers, and hundreds of smaller craft. Austro-Hungary was also working on a prototype aircraft carrier following German designs.
Politically, Karl I sought to streamline the complicated bureaucracy of the Empire. Seeing the democratic writing on the wall, he combined the Imperial Council and the Diet of Hungary into a single assembly called The Supreme Council. This bicameral body would be given broad legislative authority. But Karl retained the right to declare war, to appoint ministers – subject to the Council’s approval, and to adjourn the Council – again subject to a 2/3 majority vote of said council.
In foreign policy the major issue continued to be Serbia. Even though Serbia’s government had meticulously agreed to the terms of the July Ultimatum of 1914 the fact was that an Austro-Hungarian venturing out at night in Serbia was taking his life in his hands! The Serbs hatred of the Austro-Hungarians was only matched by their hatred of the “allies” for forcing this “peace” upon them. Acts of violence against citizens of Austro-Hungary were still painfully common. And the “Black Hand” remained a potent force often wreaking havoc by bombs and assassinations of local officials. Despite being proclaimed an “illegal organization” and despite efforts by both the Serbian government and the Austro-Hungarian government to repress it the “Black Hand” enjoyed a revival particularly among young Serbs resentful of their countries subjugation by Austro-Hungary.
This resentment would play a part in what was to come.
Interesting
Rail gauges is an important standard, though keeping some narrow gauges makes sense in some locations--mountain and industrial lines, really.
What gauge? Standard, I hope.
Note that regauging steam to a narrower gauge is often formidably difficult, depending on the locomotive's design. Ladaing gauges also need to be changed in some cases. (Loading gauge: Maximum dimensions of the equipment.)
Rail gauges is an important standard, though keeping some narrow gauges makes sense in some locations--mountain and industrial lines, really.
What gauge? Standard, I hope.
Note that regauging steam to a narrower gauge is often formidably difficult, depending on the locomotive's design. Ladaing gauges also need to be changed in some cases. (Loading gauge: Maximum dimensions of the equipment.)
Imagine a second world war that's starts in exactly the same way as the first.
Serbia attacking Austria/Austria-Hungary , only this time it being the Serbian military and not a simple assassination.
But in this case, I would see Italy "coming to aid" Serbia rather than the Russians. Germany could come help A-H, to which France joins in to help Italy and to attack Germany.
Russia would probably sit this one out because the Serbians aren't worth the trouble and Britain might join France just to limit German power in the continent.
How are relations between Serbs and the other ethnic groups of the Balkans, like the Croats, Bosnias, and Slovens?
Post War Part 5
Geon
Donor
Russia: After the death of the Czarevich Alexei both Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra withdrew into seclusion for three months.
Emerging from that seclusion Czar Nicholas II found a nation that was foundering and angry. Russia had lost the war and a good piece of her territory as well as her prestige. Famines and workers’ strikes threatened the stability of the Romanoff dynasty as much as the death of the young Czarevich.
The Duma under its new premier, one Alexander Kerensky, voted on a series of land-reforms breaking up most of the old Boyar estates. In addition, it was also clear that Russian transportation systems needed to be greatly upgraded. The Duma was so busy with these issues it didn’t realize that others with a different agenda were planning its downfall.
The Russian Army had many leaders in it who believed that they had been betrayed by government, not necessarily the Czar, but the Czar’s ministers and advisors. As a result, there was constant discussion of a need for stronger leadership. Various generals looked upon the Duma and its leadership as nothing more then “pink Bolsheviks” who were trying to defang the Army. It was clear that something needed to be done.
In the meantime, Czar Nicholas II had proclaimed his brother Prince Michael would be the next in the line of succession. Michael was very much pro-military which made him a choice the militarists in the army could accept.
On August 21st, 1922 while reviewing some of the troops outside of St. Petersburg, a stray gunshot caused the horse Nicholas II was riding at the time to rear. Nicholas was thrown from the horse and suffered a concussion. He was rushed back to the Imperial Palace. Three days later, owing to a cerebral hemorrhage brought on by the fall, Nicholas II died. Michael was now Czar Michael II.
The Army saw it’s opportunity. On September 12th, the day after Czar Michael’s coronation elements of the St. Petersburg garrison occupied the Duma and arrested its membership including Alexander Kerensky on charges of treason and mismanagement. Some would be executed for treason. Others, like Kerensky would be sentenced to “internal exile.” The September Coup would turn Russia from an embryonic constitutional monarchy into a military autocracy. A council of generals marched to the Palace to declare their complete loyalty to Czar Michael, even as that same council appointed itself the supreme governing authority of Russia, in the name of the Czar.
Over the next decade and a half, the Russian military would undergo a major renovation as the Russians sought to undo the disgrace suffered in the first World War. While the Russian Navy was never rebuilt to anywhere near its earlier glory days the Army and the Army-controlled air-force that developed was a formidable force.
The Russian Council of Generals as it would be called would rule Russia with an iron hand for the next few decades. They were playing the long game, building, waiting, and planning. Always looking westward and planning their revenge.
Emerging from that seclusion Czar Nicholas II found a nation that was foundering and angry. Russia had lost the war and a good piece of her territory as well as her prestige. Famines and workers’ strikes threatened the stability of the Romanoff dynasty as much as the death of the young Czarevich.
The Duma under its new premier, one Alexander Kerensky, voted on a series of land-reforms breaking up most of the old Boyar estates. In addition, it was also clear that Russian transportation systems needed to be greatly upgraded. The Duma was so busy with these issues it didn’t realize that others with a different agenda were planning its downfall.
The Russian Army had many leaders in it who believed that they had been betrayed by government, not necessarily the Czar, but the Czar’s ministers and advisors. As a result, there was constant discussion of a need for stronger leadership. Various generals looked upon the Duma and its leadership as nothing more then “pink Bolsheviks” who were trying to defang the Army. It was clear that something needed to be done.
In the meantime, Czar Nicholas II had proclaimed his brother Prince Michael would be the next in the line of succession. Michael was very much pro-military which made him a choice the militarists in the army could accept.
On August 21st, 1922 while reviewing some of the troops outside of St. Petersburg, a stray gunshot caused the horse Nicholas II was riding at the time to rear. Nicholas was thrown from the horse and suffered a concussion. He was rushed back to the Imperial Palace. Three days later, owing to a cerebral hemorrhage brought on by the fall, Nicholas II died. Michael was now Czar Michael II.
The Army saw it’s opportunity. On September 12th, the day after Czar Michael’s coronation elements of the St. Petersburg garrison occupied the Duma and arrested its membership including Alexander Kerensky on charges of treason and mismanagement. Some would be executed for treason. Others, like Kerensky would be sentenced to “internal exile.” The September Coup would turn Russia from an embryonic constitutional monarchy into a military autocracy. A council of generals marched to the Palace to declare their complete loyalty to Czar Michael, even as that same council appointed itself the supreme governing authority of Russia, in the name of the Czar.
Over the next decade and a half, the Russian military would undergo a major renovation as the Russians sought to undo the disgrace suffered in the first World War. While the Russian Navy was never rebuilt to anywhere near its earlier glory days the Army and the Army-controlled air-force that developed was a formidable force.
The Russian Council of Generals as it would be called would rule Russia with an iron hand for the next few decades. They were playing the long game, building, waiting, and planning. Always looking westward and planning their revenge.
Last edited:
Anglocalvinist67
Banned
Russian history is tragic even in this timeline. Rasputin and Nicholas II became sympathetic characters but they received no credit for their accomplishments.
And the thoroughly worthy Kerensky never catches a break.
Will you be writing something about the post war US? Without involvement in WWI things have to be very different. The Government will remain small, so will the budget and taxes, and civil liberties will be better.protected.
And the thoroughly worthy Kerensky never catches a break.
Will you be writing something about the post war US? Without involvement in WWI things have to be very different. The Government will remain small, so will the budget and taxes, and civil liberties will be better.protected.
Post War Part 6
Geon
Donor
Speaking of which!
--------------------------------
The United States: The United States was neutral during the brief World War I. The brevity of the war was a major political asset for Woodrow Wilson. A short war meant uninterrupted trade with both the Entente and Central Powers.
As a result, the U.S. economy continued its growth through the 20’s and the 30’s. While an isolationist sentiment still prevailed in the nation. As President James Cox would say in his inauguration speech in 1921, “the policy of America should be America first.” President Cox would see the national collective bargaining for the unions come into being. Also, during his tenure two Constitutional amendments would be considered by the nation; the 18trh and the 19th amendments.
The 19th amendment, which allowed women suffrage, would pass by a wide majority with ¾ of the states voting it into law. The 18th amendment, the so-called “Prohibition” amendment would barely gain support from half the states in the Union. As one political commentator would say later, “America wanted to party, and they didn’t care for the bluenoses spoiling it.”
And party the country did. What would become known as “the wild decades” was a period of industrial and economic growth. Fortunes were made in the stock market and the number of millionaires in the country had tripled by the end of the 20’s.
But there were problems brewing. Most notably farm foreclosures and farm failures brought on by poor soil management. Thousands of farmers in the Midwest were losing farms they had held for generations. And the massive dust storms caused by these failures in what would become known as the “Dust Bowl” would darken the skies as far east as Washington, D.C.
With the “Farm Depression” a major issue, in 1930 President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the Farm Protection Act to provide no interest loans for farmers needing assistance to keep their farms. In addition, the FPA allowed the expansion of the Department of Agriculture to help farmers keep their land by making it more productive using soil management techniques that preserved topsoil.
In foreign matters except for occasional problems with the Mexican border the United States had few worries. She was confident in her growing navy which by 1934 consisted of 4 aircraft carriers 20 Battleships, and assorted smaller vessels.
By the end of FDR’s presidency in 1936 the country was on an even keel and looking forward to bigger and better things to come. At the 1939 Expo in Chicago a huge sphere-shaped diorama showed what a “model” city of the 1950’s would look like complete with private helicopters and heliports among other wonders. The sky seemed the limit for the future.
But many leaders were already looking toward Europe where storm clouds were gathering with uneasy looks.
--------------------------------
The United States: The United States was neutral during the brief World War I. The brevity of the war was a major political asset for Woodrow Wilson. A short war meant uninterrupted trade with both the Entente and Central Powers.
As a result, the U.S. economy continued its growth through the 20’s and the 30’s. While an isolationist sentiment still prevailed in the nation. As President James Cox would say in his inauguration speech in 1921, “the policy of America should be America first.” President Cox would see the national collective bargaining for the unions come into being. Also, during his tenure two Constitutional amendments would be considered by the nation; the 18trh and the 19th amendments.
The 19th amendment, which allowed women suffrage, would pass by a wide majority with ¾ of the states voting it into law. The 18th amendment, the so-called “Prohibition” amendment would barely gain support from half the states in the Union. As one political commentator would say later, “America wanted to party, and they didn’t care for the bluenoses spoiling it.”
And party the country did. What would become known as “the wild decades” was a period of industrial and economic growth. Fortunes were made in the stock market and the number of millionaires in the country had tripled by the end of the 20’s.
But there were problems brewing. Most notably farm foreclosures and farm failures brought on by poor soil management. Thousands of farmers in the Midwest were losing farms they had held for generations. And the massive dust storms caused by these failures in what would become known as the “Dust Bowl” would darken the skies as far east as Washington, D.C.
With the “Farm Depression” a major issue, in 1930 President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the Farm Protection Act to provide no interest loans for farmers needing assistance to keep their farms. In addition, the FPA allowed the expansion of the Department of Agriculture to help farmers keep their land by making it more productive using soil management techniques that preserved topsoil.
In foreign matters except for occasional problems with the Mexican border the United States had few worries. She was confident in her growing navy which by 1934 consisted of 4 aircraft carriers 20 Battleships, and assorted smaller vessels.
By the end of FDR’s presidency in 1936 the country was on an even keel and looking forward to bigger and better things to come. At the 1939 Expo in Chicago a huge sphere-shaped diorama showed what a “model” city of the 1950’s would look like complete with private helicopters and heliports among other wonders. The sky seemed the limit for the future.
But many leaders were already looking toward Europe where storm clouds were gathering with uneasy looks.
No, quite improbable. Cadorna would have raged against the politicians in private, but not publicy. Besides the actual decision to not enter the war was taken by the king. Talking of "rank cowardice" would smell a bit too much of high treason for an old guard officer like Cadorna.
But let's suppose that the general loose control a couple of times. Soon some officer sent by the court would come by, tell him that the king himself is worried about the general's health and maybe a long, very long, holyday is in order. After all a general must have nerves of steel...
Not necessarily. Mussolini began the war in 1914 as convinced neutralist when he was still the Avanti (the main socialist newspaper) director. He changed opinion in the following weeks when he began to promote intervention, for which he was expelled by the socialist party. Mussolini founded then his own newspaper (Il popolo d'Italia) and was supported in this, among others, by the french goverment with a secret payment of ten millions of francs in november 1914 to promote italian entry into war against the central powers.
Since the quick folding of France in this timeline, I doubt that there would have been enough time to replay OTL sciarada. I think that Mussolini would have probably remained a socialist, for the momet at least.
But even if he had anyway decided to support intervention, Mussolini could hardly have founded i Fasci di Combattimento. Without the deep divisions created by the war, the large numbers of veterans accustomed to violence, the economical crisis and the general resentment for the flawed victory and the goverment false promises, Mussolini would have lacked a pool of supporters. He would have been just another left wing extremist (because in the beginning fascism was a leftish revolutionary movement).
To tell you the truth, I've never seen Cadorna associated with the words well-respected. But maybe is just me. Anyway who should have demonstrated for his reinstatement?
The officers? No, IIRC it could have been considered rebellion and would have been the kiss of death for any possible carrer.
The soldiers? No, this time Cadorna had no chance to butcher them, true, but his opinion about the common soldier were well known. Let's say that there was no love lost among them.
The common people? Like they would care...
Absolutely ASB. Without the war and the economic crisis caused by it, there simply aren't the condition for fascism rise to power. In fact fascism could grow in importance and popularity thank to the patronage of the industrial and agrarian elites who used the squadristi to fight socialist unions, break strikes, burn socialists' houses and murder opponents. These elites resolved to support fascism because they were deeply afraid of a socialist revolution (which could nearly have happened) like the russian one (which we are lacking ITTL). It's really ironic that fascists, since they opposed the "socialist revolution", gained the reputation of defensors of law and order...
In this timeline, you would probably see the liberals keep the power longer (so Giolitti stills rules from behind the scenes) and then a slow rise of cristian democrats and moderate socialists. I'm afraid not a lot of room for extremist
Last edited:
Chapter 45: Reflections on What Might Have Been
Geon
Donor
This will be the final entry for this TL. To those who are wondering about Japan, the Ottomans, and Serbia's future I will cover that in the pre-war section of the sequel to this TL. Please enjoy when it comes out. In the meantime, thank you all for your likes and critiques. They have been greatly appreciated.
----------------
Historians have often wondered what would have happened if King Albert I had sided with his advisors and refused the Germans passage through Belgium?
It is certain that given the mercurial nature of the Kaiser, the people of Belgium would have paid a heavy price for their king’s defiance. But many military historians argue that delaying the Germans even for a few weeks would have destroyed their timetable and given France and England time to prepare their defenses. The German offensive could have been stopped cold on or near the River Marne.
This is the view of most military scholars. What is less clear is what would have happened afterward. Some posit a short war in the west with the Germans being stopped by the combined forces of the French and English and then rolled back into Germany forcing a German surrender once the Saar industrial basin was threatened.
Others suggest a long and brutal war lasting three or more years would have been the result. With other nations in Europe becoming involved in the conflict and the combatants forced to “dig in” for the prolonged and bitter war.
Those who favor the latter view believe that such a war would have so shocked the collective psyche of the public in the warring nations they would be demanding their leadership seek peace regardless of what the terms might be. Further, the population would not have allowed itself to be dragged into yet another major conflict only three decades later.
The tragedy is, the relatively low casualties of the First World War (2,300,000 killed, injured, wounded and missing) were not enough to scare the various political powers away from seeing war as a viable option to solve conflicts between nations.
This combined with several other factors was a contributing cause to the Second World War. The leadership of the nations of Europe failed to see the danger of using war to resolve conflicts. Instead they saw war in terms of the 18th and 19th centuries instead of the 20th.
Another factor was what one historian called “the revenge factor.” For France, Serbia, and Russia there were very personal reasons for wanting revenge against the former Central Powers. Those reasons would draw these three nations and others together in a mutual alliance with the intent of redrawing the map of Europe and re-writing the wrongs of the First World War.
Still another factor was the technology factor. The First World War saw the beginnings of mobile warfare, aerial warfare and strategic bombing, and submarine warfare. But the fact the war only lasted for two months meant that no one saw the full ramifications of what these new developments, as well as such developments as chemical warfare would entail for armies and for civilian populations. Lessons that might have been learned in the First World War would come to haunt the combatants in the Second.
Finally, the growth of right-wing nationalism in several of the major players in the Second World War played a major factor. The idea of building a greater Italy, or a greater Russia, proved to be too great a temptation for many leaders and their people to ignore. In nations like Italy the public had been fed for years on the “former glory days” of Empire which is a major stock-in-trade for nationalistic movements., Perhaps a longer World War I would have dampened such enthusiasm.
In 1914 when confronted by those in his cabinet who urged him to say no to the German ultimatum King Albert I said, “Which is better going down in one last noble and futile battle or standing at the end knowing we did all in our power to save this nation?” One must wonder looking in retrospect at the cost of the Second World War whether the decision that saved Belgium was worth it.
(From A Perspective on Two Wars, by Dr. Stephen Ambrose, 1976, Time/Life Press)
----------------
Chapter 45: Reflections on What Might Have Been
Historians have often wondered what would have happened if King Albert I had sided with his advisors and refused the Germans passage through Belgium?
It is certain that given the mercurial nature of the Kaiser, the people of Belgium would have paid a heavy price for their king’s defiance. But many military historians argue that delaying the Germans even for a few weeks would have destroyed their timetable and given France and England time to prepare their defenses. The German offensive could have been stopped cold on or near the River Marne.
This is the view of most military scholars. What is less clear is what would have happened afterward. Some posit a short war in the west with the Germans being stopped by the combined forces of the French and English and then rolled back into Germany forcing a German surrender once the Saar industrial basin was threatened.
Others suggest a long and brutal war lasting three or more years would have been the result. With other nations in Europe becoming involved in the conflict and the combatants forced to “dig in” for the prolonged and bitter war.
Those who favor the latter view believe that such a war would have so shocked the collective psyche of the public in the warring nations they would be demanding their leadership seek peace regardless of what the terms might be. Further, the population would not have allowed itself to be dragged into yet another major conflict only three decades later.
The tragedy is, the relatively low casualties of the First World War (2,300,000 killed, injured, wounded and missing) were not enough to scare the various political powers away from seeing war as a viable option to solve conflicts between nations.
This combined with several other factors was a contributing cause to the Second World War. The leadership of the nations of Europe failed to see the danger of using war to resolve conflicts. Instead they saw war in terms of the 18th and 19th centuries instead of the 20th.
Another factor was what one historian called “the revenge factor.” For France, Serbia, and Russia there were very personal reasons for wanting revenge against the former Central Powers. Those reasons would draw these three nations and others together in a mutual alliance with the intent of redrawing the map of Europe and re-writing the wrongs of the First World War.
Still another factor was the technology factor. The First World War saw the beginnings of mobile warfare, aerial warfare and strategic bombing, and submarine warfare. But the fact the war only lasted for two months meant that no one saw the full ramifications of what these new developments, as well as such developments as chemical warfare would entail for armies and for civilian populations. Lessons that might have been learned in the First World War would come to haunt the combatants in the Second.
Finally, the growth of right-wing nationalism in several of the major players in the Second World War played a major factor. The idea of building a greater Italy, or a greater Russia, proved to be too great a temptation for many leaders and their people to ignore. In nations like Italy the public had been fed for years on the “former glory days” of Empire which is a major stock-in-trade for nationalistic movements., Perhaps a longer World War I would have dampened such enthusiasm.
In 1914 when confronted by those in his cabinet who urged him to say no to the German ultimatum King Albert I said, “Which is better going down in one last noble and futile battle or standing at the end knowing we did all in our power to save this nation?” One must wonder looking in retrospect at the cost of the Second World War whether the decision that saved Belgium was worth it.
(From A Perspective on Two Wars, by Dr. Stephen Ambrose, 1976, Time/Life Press)
Glad to hear that there will be a sequel. Will you be posting a link to the sequel in this timeline when it comes out?
- Status