For a question like this, I think that's a fair response only if you literally think that Britain can't actually lose a war at this point. Otherwise it's not saying anything meaningful.
Poll: Best Way to Knock out the UK? (WW1)
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
For a question like this, I think that's a fair response only if you literally think that Britain can't actually lose a war at this point. Otherwise it's not saying anything meaningful.
You basically need to beat France, and then Britain will probably make peace. Unlike WWII, the UK isn't as firmly committed to the conflict, and likely would make peace if it became necessary (especially if you can keep the US out).
None of the proposed solutions really do that:
-The HSF was extremely lucky to escape from Jutland as it was; more ships doesn't change that (and the Brits can afford losses much more than the Germans can)
-Allied mutinies: possible, but seem difficult to successfully capitalize on too much; offensives into trenches weren't especially successful even at the best of times, and a serious threat to Paris is likely enough to cause the mutineers to end the mutiny
-If you can send significant forces to Ireland and support them, you might as well go full on invasion of Britain; i.e. it basically requires the Royal Navy to be eliminated first. Good luck with that. The alternative is just a few agents as support, and that's not enough to do anything other than make the Brits angry.
-Even if you can somehow seize Suez, the British are capable of sending supplies and ships around the Cape. Besides, they can retake it fairly easily (as they have effective naval supremacy)
-The Indian Independence movement isn't really positioned to be much more than a minor nuisance at this point, and it will just anger the British (and discredit any Independence figures who go along, at least in the short term)
You need either a quick defeat of France in 1914 or to avoid antagonizing the US later on.
None of the proposed solutions really do that:
-The HSF was extremely lucky to escape from Jutland as it was; more ships doesn't change that (and the Brits can afford losses much more than the Germans can)
-Allied mutinies: possible, but seem difficult to successfully capitalize on too much; offensives into trenches weren't especially successful even at the best of times, and a serious threat to Paris is likely enough to cause the mutineers to end the mutiny
-If you can send significant forces to Ireland and support them, you might as well go full on invasion of Britain; i.e. it basically requires the Royal Navy to be eliminated first. Good luck with that. The alternative is just a few agents as support, and that's not enough to do anything other than make the Brits angry.
-Even if you can somehow seize Suez, the British are capable of sending supplies and ships around the Cape. Besides, they can retake it fairly easily (as they have effective naval supremacy)
-The Indian Independence movement isn't really positioned to be much more than a minor nuisance at this point, and it will just anger the British (and discredit any Independence figures who go along, at least in the short term)
You need either a quick defeat of France in 1914 or to avoid antagonizing the US later on.
cpip
Gone Fishin'
Persuade Wilson that Germany is willing to offer peace terms, but it's those intractable British that won't see reason and come to the table. Wilson had spoken of using the financial power of the United States to lean on the British and French if that was necessary, but it ended up that he felt the Germans were the obstacle, and so they had to be eliminated instead.
That's harder than most of the options on the list, honestly. Germany's ability to communicate to the United States directly was quite limited, and outweighed greatly by the influence that Robert Lansing and Colonel House had on Wilson. Combine that with a deluge of British propaganda that could be much more easily disseminated, and there really wasn't a contest in terms of swaying Wilson. Or to the extent that there was, it wasn't one that the Germans could so directly influence.
cpip
Gone Fishin'
At the end of 1916, Wilson approached both sides and offered to mediate a peace. The Entente responded with a list of demands. The Germans stonewalled. That started a string of stupid moves by Germany; had the Germans been more able to play to Wilson's ego, they could have gotten him on their side.
Again, little they could do directly. And just as importantly, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were diplomatic ignoramuses. If they're in charge, bad diplomacy seems unavoidable. If not, then no USW, in which case the whole situation changes dramatically anyways.
They almost won the war, so idk about that.
And Remember, sending Lenin to Russia was a stroke of diplomatic genius as far as I'd judge and IIRC, it was Ludendorff's idea
Without America, Germany probably should have won the war, certainly from a starting point of 1916, but they guaranteed its involvement, so I'd say that's a net negative compared to Falkenhayn in terms of trying to win.
As for Lenin, that move was highly effective, yes, but I'd say that's less genius on their parts and more the extreme weakness of Kerensky. Most radicals fail horribly, so they couldn't have reasonably known that that one guy was gonna pull it off.
The real danger to the RN was not at Jutland but the following year. The majority of its ships were oil-burners, and the supply of imported oil was failing to keep up with consumption. By May 1917 the Grand Fleet was having to cruise at three-fifths of normal speed to conserve fuel, and the US Navy had to keep most of its battleships at home because Britain could not spare the fuel-oil for them.A six month reserve at the start of the year was down to less than three months by June, and it appeared that if current trends continued the reserve would be exhausted by year's end[1].
Agreed. A crucial factor in overcoming the oil shortage was the availability of American tankers, which made up nearly a third of the 3.6 million ton US merchant marine.
[1] See Fayle Seaborne Trade, Vol 3, P176.
None of the options listed work.
- Committing the HSF will only get it sunk.
- Attacking during the Allied mutinies is the best way to get them to stop.
- Sending troops to Ireland only gets their ships sunk en route.
- Germany was already beaten by the time of Brest-Litovsk, so it doesn't really matter.
- The logistics to support a bigger advance on Suez weren't there. That attack should have never taken place, as it spooked the British into beefing up their own logistics, which allowed them to invade Palestine later.
- There is no way to send any help to India
Germany might be able, under very favorable circumstances, to knock France out super early and win that way, but it basically requires the French doing even more bone-headed mistakes than they did OTL. Therefor, I voted Rule Britannia
- Committing the HSF will only get it sunk.
- Attacking during the Allied mutinies is the best way to get them to stop.
- Sending troops to Ireland only gets their ships sunk en route.
- Germany was already beaten by the time of Brest-Litovsk, so it doesn't really matter.
- The logistics to support a bigger advance on Suez weren't there. That attack should have never taken place, as it spooked the British into beefing up their own logistics, which allowed them to invade Palestine later.
- There is no way to send any help to India
Germany might be able, under very favorable circumstances, to knock France out super early and win that way, but it basically requires the French doing even more bone-headed mistakes than they did OTL. Therefor, I voted Rule Britannia
Give up on East Prussia and remain defensive against Russia and put as much towards France as possible and don't let up. Also more mobile field guns. If it requires a rail car to get it to the front, you shouldn't be invading anyone with it.
IIRC, about 200,000 Irish troops fought for the British Army throughout the war. However, Irish nationalist sentiments still boiled over in 1916.
So I'm fairly confident that with additional arms, officers, and men sent to Ireland to help ferment this even further, the Germans could have created a situation for full on civil war instead of a week long Rebellion.
And that, I image would be eno7gh to divert significant attention away from the western front; enough to at least symbolically 'knock Britian out of the war'
So I'm fairly confident that with additional arms, officers, and men sent to Ireland to help ferment this even further, the Germans could have created a situation for full on civil war instead of a week long Rebellion.
And that, I image would be eno7gh to divert significant attention away from the western front; enough to at least symbolically 'knock Britian out of the war'
Yeah, basically. It's unfeasible to apply enough direct pressure to Britain to force them to terms, but the Germans could have gotten to a point where Britain could still continue the war, but there would be no point to it, as any hope for actual success on the continent is gone.
Daniels
Banned
Go to war with Russia but stay on the defensive in the West. OTL between 1/3 and 1/4 of all German casualties were sustained on the Eastern Front - and this was enough for Russia to collapse in 1917. Would Germany send some 65% of its armies to the East, Russia would collapse by 1916. Meanwhile France cant do anything because if they violate Belgian neutrality they will be under a lot of pressure from Britain and attacking the German fortifications in Alsac- Lorraine is a very bad idea...
It's not so easy, since the Russian army was much stronger on the defensive than attacking; like the Belgians, they'd sunk a lot of money into extensive fortifications that would need to be reduced without their having expended so much of their strength on incompetent attacks like IOTL.
Plus, the French will also be much stronger for not having lost so much of their coal, industry, and pre-war troops in 1914. It's just the theme-park version of history that tells us that attacking never worked on the Western Front; even though Germany failed to defeat France outright in 1914, their attacks still gave them huge strategic gains it would be foolish to throw away.