My personal feelings on the future, not necessarily the author's but more looking at the entanglements in the Eastern End of the Mediterranean. (All tied up in the question of control of the Northern Africa and specifically the Suez Canal.Sorry but i wanted to know, where in the timeline was it implied that the Ottomans eventually get dogpilled?
That would be Über den Totalen Krieg in German.Auf Totaler Krieg" - On Total War
Denmark is unlikely to be much help to France-Austria in ground operations but their navy was nothing to sneeze at (even if much smaller than the other combatants), which buffs France a bit too (or at least means they don’t need as aggressive a presence in the North Sea.Imo Iron triangle should have the superior Navy. France alone won’t be able to blockade Germany like in WW1, not like the Brits would let them anyway. That being said Italy has a lot of coastline. And the majority of France’s heavy units should be concentrated in the Med. if France was rational the main objective would be to knock out Italy first and reach a status quo ante with the Germans. Without Russia the strategic situation for France is very not good
Your arguments in its favor are sound and logical, but no, I don’t think I’ve tipped my hand much either wayMy personal feelings on the future, not necessarily the author's but more looking at the entanglements in the Eastern End of the Mediterranean. (All tied up in the question of control of the Northern Africa and specifically the Suez Canal.
Google betrays me once again!That would be Über den Totalen Krieg in German.
Auf is a geographic word(auf dem Baum=On the tree)
Or simpler,Totaler Krieg or Der Totale Krieg
Seriously,use DeepL or DM me,I’m GermanGoogle betrays me once again!
That would absolutely be the smart play for Paris…If I’m at GQG we’re goin all in on Italy, secure LOC with Austria, and capture the Italian industrial heartland in one fell swoop. Just got to get past those pesky alps. Idk how much help Austria will be anyway fight both Italy+Germany+Hungary
For this exact reason, but Italy also has beautiful visually and excellent defensible borders which they can sit back on and let France elan itself to death on@Dunbar is right - go for Italy first, especially considering that the plurality (if not outright majority) of Italian factories by 1919 are in the Genoa-Milan-Turin triangle.
Will do! I’ll have some terms i need translated ahead of the CEWSeriously,use DeepL or DM me,I’m German
The best move for France is not to shackle themselves to a disintegrating corpse in Austria and not go to war against a larger, better industrialized, more populous Germany in the first place. But, having screwed the pooch there, if I running France and was forced into a war I'd much rather try and fight Italy in the Alps than Germany in the Ardennes/Luxembourg. Neither option is good but Italy-first is the better one.For this exact reason, but Italy also has beautiful visually and excellent defensible borders which they can sit back on and let France elan itself to death on
I hadn't thought about this before but this sets up a potentially interesting strategic conundrum/point of conflict for the Triangle. Until the Regia Marina is defeated and the bulk of French forces can be transferred out of the Med, any idea of attacking into the North Sea is out of the question... which means that until then the Danish fleet stuck in port is functionally useless. I'm sure that Paris would be very keen to get the Danes to run the gauntlet and set up shop in a French port to help defend against any German excursions instead. On the flip side, how keen would the Danes be to effectively lose their navy in order to slightly help out the French? Probably not very.Denmark is unlikely to be much help to France-Austria in ground operations but their navy was nothing to sneeze at (even if much smaller than the other combatants), which buffs France a bit too (or at least means they don’t need as aggressive a presence in the North Sea.
Wholly agree, there.The best move for France is not to shackle themselves to a disintegrating corpse in Austria and not go to war against a larger, better industrialized, more populous Germany in the first place. But, having screwed the pooch there, if I running France and was forced into a war I'd much rather try and fight Italy in the Alps than Germany in the Ardennes/Luxembourg. Neither option is good but Italy-first is the better one.
Or, conversely, the second the Triangle is triggered the Germans simply sink the Danish fleet or blockade it into ports (I’ve already decided how this is going to go, mind you, and it isn’t going to end well for Denmark)I hadn't thought about this before but this sets up a potentially interesting strategic conundrum/point of conflict for the Triangle. Until the Regia Marina is defeated and the bulk of French forces can be transferred out of the Med, any idea of attacking into the North Sea is out of the question... which means that until then the Danish fleet stuck in port is functionally useless. I'm sure that Paris would be very keen to get the Danes to run the gauntlet and set up shop in a French port to help defend against any German excursions instead. On the flip side, how keen would the Danes be to effectively lose their navy in order to slightly help out the French? Probably not very.
Are we sure that Honved revolts and its just isnt the cause?+Hungary
As much as I wondered how much land the US was taking from the CS before you started the GAW, here, I want to get a feeling for what control (both De Jure and De Facto) of the Suez looks like in 1922.Denmark is unlikely to be much help to France-Austria in ground operations but their navy was nothing to sneeze at (even if much smaller than the other combatants), which buffs France a bit too (or at least means they don’t need as aggressive a presence in the North Sea.
But they do need something, because the “Italy or Germany first” question has no good answers for them
Your arguments in its favor are sound and logical, but no, I don’t think I’ve tipped my hand much either way
Google betrays me once again!
Yeah, this is the other thing. Any attempt to make a break for France necessarily would mean fighting through the teeth of the KM. I'm sure the French would still try to offer up the suggestion, though, as unlikely as it is to be taken up by the Danes.Or, conversely, the second the Triangle is triggered the Germans simply sink the Danish fleet or blockade it into ports (I’ve already decided how this is going to go, mind you, and it isn’t going to end well for Denmark)
Yes Denmark really is out on a limb, since Germany's first priority in this conflict is to leverage its naval superiority to deliver a crippling blow to Denmark, and its complete and total numerical superiority to overrun Jutland. Its very likely it looks indistinguishable from 1940 otl.Wholly agree, there.
Or, conversely, the second the Triangle is triggered the Germans simply sink the Danish fleet or blockade it into ports (I’ve already decided how this is going to go, mind you, and it isn’t going to end well for Denmark)
Battle of Kiel Canal, 1919Yes Denmark really is out on a limb, since Germany's first priority in this conflict is to leverage its naval superiority to deliver a crippling blow to Denmark,
GQG should order the Danish fleet to rush the Kiel canal. Just turn the fleet into scrap to block it. Just gotta get the Danes to agree. But the French have elan and God on their side I’m sure things will work out.Battle of Kiel Canal, 1919
The Honved is in theory commanded by the PM of Hungary, who is directly appointed by Ferdinand II and currently able to rule be decree with a suspended Diet.Are we sure that Honved revolts and its just isnt the cause?
That I… don’t entirely know.As much as I wondered how much land the US was taking from the CS before you started the GAW, here, I want to get a feeling for what control (both De Jure and De Facto) of the Suez looks like in 1922.
Also, at this point, what is the most significant country to have an ambassador in the UK, France or Germany with Arabic as their first language, Morocco? (Is it the only one?)
“Yo guys can you just pretty please get Copenhagen’d again? Merci!”Yeah, this is the other thing. Any attempt to make a break for France necessarily would mean fighting through the teeth of the KM. I'm sure the French would still try to offer up the suggestion, though, as unlikely as it is to be taken up by the Danes.
The nature of German polycentrism probably precludes that kind of planning but, yes, making sure that Saxony especially is not at risk of Austrian Bombers/artillery would be importantYes Denmark really is out on a limb, since Germany's first priority in this conflict is to leverage its naval superiority to deliver a crippling blow to Denmark, and its complete and total numerical superiority to overrun Jutland. Its very likely it looks indistinguishable from 1940 otl.
Its secondary priority is presumably to safeguard its Saxon and Silesian industrial centres, and then trying to do the same in the west. I dont know if its been written about, but it's plausible that this Germany has thumbed the scales a bit and as an object of policy tried to shift industry away from the Rhur and into the east, due to the French threat.
BeltschlactBattle of Kiel Canal, 1919
Denmark did have pretty substantial mining operations in strategic waterways during WW1, did they not?GQG should order the Danish fleet to rush the Kiel canal. Just turn the fleet into scrap to block it. Just gotta get the Danes to agree. But the French have elan and God on their side I’m sure things will work out.
I was thinking this same question, both for the annexed parts of Virginia and for any CS citizens in Arizona Territory...Random question: After the US annexed northern VA at Mount Vernon were there any large-scale population transfers of Confederate citizens south? I'm thinking something along the lines of how the USSR made Germans living in East Prussia in 1944-1945 move west to Germany proper.
Or, if it wasn't explicit (or even implicit) American policy, did the vast majority of Confederate civilians living in say Fairfax County just pack up and move south when the Confederate army retreated south towards Fredericksburg in 1915/1916?
So I guess my overall question is are the newly annexed parts of Maryland more or less empty of Confederate civilians as of mid-1917 or will there have to be some sort of assimilation program/policy?