2/3rds will force the Russians onto the defensive early, so you might not see Tannenberg or Masurian Lakes at all. Tussling with the First and Second armies hunkered down in Warsaw or other fortified places would be costlier than destroying them in detail in the field.
Poll: Best Way to Knock out the UK? (WW1)
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
2/3rds will force the Russians onto the defensive early, so you might not see Tannenberg or Masurian Lakes at all. Tussling with the First and Second armies hunkered down in Warsaw or other fortified places would be costlier than destroying them in detail in the field.
ben0628
Banned
In your estimation which German course of action couldve been the best way to knock the UK out of the war, after it entered it on side of the allies in 1914?
Note: When choosing, the option doesn't have to mean that said action wouldve knocked Britain out of the war with 100% certainty; only that it would create the best situation for it to happen .
My Answer: Send troops to aid Irish Rebellion.
I guess I'll give this a try (WW1 is having a field day on the forum this week).
I picked something else. Adjust the Schlieffen Plan. Make capturing Channel Ports the objective instead of Paris. Prevent the British from effectively landing and supplying troops in Northern France. Only have the Germans move South after channel ports are secured.
OR stay on defensive in the West, delay British involvement by staying out of Belgium, and go ape shit on Russia. Win in the east by 15/16, divert troops westward and finish off GB and France in 16/17.
Here's the deal, GB can't be defeated, only its allies can really lose.
Daniels
Banned
Yeah so 1914 and some parts of 1915 will be thougher for the Germans but with a phoney war 1915 style in the west they still have it easier. Here the OTL losses of Germany
August 1914- August 1915 Western Front: 331 000 KIA+MIA - Eastern Front: 140 000
August 1915 - August 1916 Western Front: 210 000 KIA+ MIA - Eastern Front 92 000
Even if we double German losses in the East for these two years - they are still a little smaller than overall OTL losses. Ofc Russian losses would be most likely twice as large as well, leading to a collapse in 1916.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Britain will stay in unless the Germans, by some near-miraculous piece of good luck, manage to inflict a decisive defeat on the Grand Fleet without suffering significant losses themselves. This is extremely difficult and unlikely, but not out-and-out impossible. What's worse for the Germans, though, is that this might cause the British to throw in the towel if the French had also been defeated, so you have two difficult PODs. Even then, it won't led to a British surrender, but only a cessation of hostilities between Britain and Germany.
There's no reason to expect that, though. First thing to mention is that I don't believe the British would have sat out the war no matter what Germany did, but even putting that aside for the sake of argument, the French lost 330,000 troops in the Battle of the Frontiers. Those losses would have been significantly reduced without the OTL threat to Paris, and despite them the Entente was on the offensive in the West through most of 1915, so why, in a scenario where they've had fewer casualties, would they attack less?
On top of which, the economic difficulties of the OTL German invasion would be alleviated significantly, so it's not even certain that they'd run out of foreign reserves on schedule here, in which case they could keep fighting into 1918 or possibly 1919, and quite possibly past the CP's point of endurance.
Ryan
Donor
you're forgetting that Germany is being blockaded so there's no way for any help to actually get to Ireland.
cpip
Gone Fishin'
I think Britain stays in as long as it has allies on the Continent. After that, the British government is going to be willing to negotiate.
So if France, Russia, and Italy all fold and want to go to the negotiating table, then Britain will go along as well. It's not likely to lose much of anything -- indeed, Britain may even come away with some of the seized colonies -- but Britain simply isn't going to hang on in WW1 if both the Western and Eastern fronts have collapsed. This isn't WW2, where there's an Existential Threat (tm) to the United Kingdom.
Admittedly, this isn't exactly "knocking Britain out of the war".
So if France, Russia, and Italy all fold and want to go to the negotiating table, then Britain will go along as well. It's not likely to lose much of anything -- indeed, Britain may even come away with some of the seized colonies -- but Britain simply isn't going to hang on in WW1 if both the Western and Eastern fronts have collapsed. This isn't WW2, where there's an Existential Threat (tm) to the United Kingdom.
Admittedly, this isn't exactly "knocking Britain out of the war".
Daniels
Banned
No violation of Belgian neutrality - no British entry into the war. Britain sat through the 1870/71 war and it would have sat out this war had it not been for Belgium.
Geography. Either the French violate Belgian neutrality - because little Belgium will do everything it can to NOT becoming the battlefield and will NOT allow French troops on its territory - or the French attack Alsac - Lorraine - which is a bad idea. With a flexible defence the Germans can manage a 5:1 superiority in this area - inflicting collosal casualties on the French while sustaining very few.
With Britain not in the war, the Germans are significantly better of because there is no blockade + they get more territories in the east earlier.
Submarines, lots and lots of submarines. If it's moving, sink it. Even if it brings America in it will take them ages to organise and get into the lines so just go all out on merchant shipping to try and knock the Brits out before the Americans can make their weight felt. Offer Britain generous terms for an armistice and you might just get away with it.
I've been thinking about it.
If Britain is not in, and doesn't look likely to come in, what is the downside to France invading Belgium south of the Meuse-Sambre?
Britain is not going to DOW France over this; and although Belgium will be extremely unhappy, it won't join the CP over this limited violation in the hinterland.
The only real effect would be upon British public opinion -- but if it looks like Britain is set to remain neutral, that hardly matters.
Prewar, Joffre wanted to go through southern Belgium, but French political leaders nixed the idea due to their need to get Britain in.
Here, it seems probable they will let him do it, though probably not in the first (14-22Aug) major offensive.
Daniels
Banned
for one France can forget to buy stuff in the US. OTL the Allies received some 3 billion dollars of goods (roughly 700 billion in todays currency) and Germany because of blockade only 25 million (0.6 billion) from the US.
If France violates Belgian neutrality the US will scale back its trade with it tremendously and instead trade with Germany. The French fleet is not strong enough to enforce a continental blockade especially not against the wishes of Britain. So Germany fights only France and can receive products from the US = overkill
And as I have allready written - on the defensive the Germans can bleed the French dry - especially when the French will have to sustain massive supply lines not on ttheir territory - something they never had to OTL.
Not absolutely certain. By mid-1917, shortage of fuel oil was becoming a problem for the RN, and without the use of American oil tankers the situation would have got worse. If there is any risk of the Navy being crippled by shortage of fuel, Britain won't continue the war for the sake of a colony or two.
Precisely.
Maybe these points are hindsight, though.
If Joffre launches his attack through southern Belgium, I figure it would be immediately after his armies in A-L get held up. The lesson he will draw from that is "If they're so strong in the south and center, their right must be weak". He will strike immediately in order to take advantage of the "weakness".
So, if a French Ardennes offensive is launched, it will still be very early in the war, before the delusions have been dispelled.
And since one of the main French delusions was that the war could only last a few months, any potential impact on trade with the U.S. would be considered irrelevant -- the war "won't last long enough" for it to matter.
And of course, in this early war period, the French still thought that French elan + French 75s can beat anything the Germans might do.
In the aftermath of defeats in A-L, Joffre's assessment was that some commanders hadn't been determined enough, and the 75s hadn't been used profligately enough in supporting the attacks. It wasn't until well after September that he accepted that his doctrine had been hopelessly flawed. So your point about the Germans bleeding the French dry, is valid, but Joffre won't see it until much later.
So I agree with your points, but they seem unlikely to have any effect on French decision-making.
Shadow Master
Banned
I would have to go with, construct masses of cargo submarines for trade missions to the USA, and no USW. Doesn't (knock UK out), but defeats most effects of Germnay being subjected to a british blockade, establishing better relations with USA both by trade and no sinkings of US ships.In your estimation which German course of action couldve been the best way to knock the UK out of the war, after it entered it on side of the allies in 1914?
Note: When choosing, the option doesn't have to mean that said action wouldve knocked Britain out of the war with 100% certainty; only that it would create the best situation for it to happen .
My Answer: Send troops to aid Irish Rebellion.
Wallet
Banned
Losing India would be a utter disaster for the British, but that's not realistic. The Indian Raj gave million of loyal troops, and had fighting the Ottomans lasted until 1919, there were plans for the entire Middle Eastern campaign to be under Indian control.
Germany did not have the resources nor the ability to transport them to truly cuz enough trouble in India.
So I voted for Ireland. That truly scared Loyde George, Churchill, and the war cabinet. They knew there was no way in hell they could fight in Europe and Ireland. That's way too close to home for comfort. That's why they agreed to a peace so quickly and gave Ireland independence after the war
Germany did not have the resources nor the ability to transport them to truly cuz enough trouble in India.
So I voted for Ireland. That truly scared Loyde George, Churchill, and the war cabinet. They knew there was no way in hell they could fight in Europe and Ireland. That's way too close to home for comfort. That's why they agreed to a peace so quickly and gave Ireland independence after the war
Well, no easy way to get public approval for entering the war.
IIRC, the Cabinet was not at all pleased to find the Army had basically signed them to aid France if anything happened. So no Belgium, lot harder to swing sending the Tommies in to die.
Could the French go through Luxembourg? It's the only alternative, unless they have a desire to piss off Switzerland.
Well, that depends on the kind of assistance you're sending. Nothing says you can't have some people in the US arm and train Irish patriots and have them go over to the Emerald Isle from the US.
1. this was my thought too
the British blockade of Germany seemed to win in the war for the allies
if germany were to have won with submarines they would have needed a different naval doctrine - they would have need to have taken a long view and build many more submarines, maybe even before the war
Key would be to have massive numbers of submarines before starting unrestricted campaign. In wiki says Germans had 350 and lost 200. With however many of these boats they were able to sink 300,000 tons/month in late 1917, well after convoy system was implemented, about as fast as they were being replaced.
Submarines seemed to be less than 1000 tons; so the steel of 4 battleships could have built 200 submarines instead. So they had the resources but 'invested' most in surface fleet
Istr that the Navy stopped ordering subs after the post-Lusitania suspension of USW. Had they continued doing so, they could have had over 200 in Feb 1917
Yes, they could.
According to Doughty in Pyrrhic Victory, although French leaders forbade Joffre to plan a preemptive strike through Belgium, they permitted him to do so with Luxembourg, which they viewed as a "fiefdom" of Germany.
More to the point, they knew that Britain only really cared about neutrality if the neutral in question was strategically located to affect British security or interests.
But going solely through Luxembourg doesn't initially increase the front very much -- only that short stretch northeast of Longwy. And once you get past the border, you can expand operations into central and northern Lux only at great risk: unless you seize the tail of Belgium south of Neufchateau, your troops operating deep inside Lux have only a very constricted line of supply. Even a short German advance from the Thionville region can cut them all off.
This is why Joffre wanted to go through Belgium south of the Meuse-Sambre. If the British look unlikely to come in, I think there is a real possibility -- even a probability -- that he will soon be permitted to do so. It is the only way to hook around the German fortified area, even as a hook through Belgium was the only way for the Germans to go around the French fortified area.
If Germany doesn't violate Belgium, the French very likely will.
This could "knock out" Britain in one way -- if for some reason Britain is still on the sidelines, a French invasion of even southern Belgium may tip the balance of public opinion sufficiently to keep Britain out altogether. It's a vastly tougher "sell" to convince British politicians that they must stand by an aggressive, treaty-violating France, than a France defending herself against treaty-violating Germans.
True, but would the British Public care about that middling difference? Because if they see France, the age old enemy, going through a neutral country, while Germany isn't....