Why so much sympathies for Central Powers?

[Devolved]

Not to interfere with your argument with I Blame Communism, but that line about people on this site reading things that aren't there should apply to you as well.

The Germans would have bigger chances at preventing a WWII or at least winning a short version because they would be in a much better position, not because they are cruel ruthless tyrants.

At the end of a CP-victorious First World War, Germany would have had total control over Mitteleuropa. It is hard to say because there are different versions of the war possible, but let's just say that there was a late victory in the war (no US intervention) and that A-H and the Ottomans survive, because this thread is about the Central Powers, not just Germany. Therefore, at the end of WWI, the Central Powers would control Poland, the Baltics and the Ukraine plus the Balkans and a sizeable colonial empire in Africa. Their opponents would be the USSR and a revanchist France and Italy. Britain might or might not go radical, but it would at least favor the revanchist sentiments.

Compare this to the situation France and Britain were in after OTL WWI. They had the USSR against them as a communist threat, plus they had a rearming Germany and a potentially backstabbing Italy to worry about. Also, Britain and France had democratic governments which were wary of war.

Germany and the Central Powers, on the other hand, would have pursued some reforms, but the German Reich was unlikely to be wary of war as long as it was for a just cause. When France would start violating the Treaty of Versailles Germany would be able to intervene because while the Soviet Union was a threat to them, it was not nearly as big as a threat as it was to France and Britain who stood alone. Germany ITTL would never have been forced to go through limitations on her army and all that happened after WWI. Instead, France starts from a weakened position. Therefore, this Germany is certainly capable of fighting France, Italy, Britain and Russia at once, and winning like they did in WWI. Compare this to the Entente position at the eve of WWII: America had withdrawn into isolationism and Russia was also neutral. Germany had been relatively weak at first, but reluctance because of the wish to have an anti-Soviet buffer state had prevented them from seizing that moment. Germany would have none of that reluctance.

The thread is asking about why some sympathize with the CP not what would have happened if they won.

 

[Sift Green]

The thread is asking about why some sympathize with the CP not what would have happened if they won.

What would have happened when they won is usually the reason people sympathize with them.

 

[Devolved]

What would have happened when they won is usually the reason people sympathize with them.

Some people. Not everyone. Not me.

I prefer a thread about how to beat the CP with lower casualties.

 

[The Space Viking]

Some people. Not everyone. Not me.

I prefer a thread about how to beat the CP with lower casualties.

If your sympathies (or empathy) isn't for the CP, then you should keep them to yourself. Clearly they are OT.

 

[Fletch]

If your sympathies (or empathy) isn't for the CP, then you should keep them to yourself.

What? Why?

 

[Devolved]

What? Why?

Don't be surprised FletcherofSaltoun. It reinforces one of the points I made at the beginning.

 

[mailinutile2]

For the Kaiser's Zeppelins!
What's so surprising about it?

 

[Fletch]

For the Kaiser's Zeppelins!
What's so surprising about it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckNsV4MP4nU

Belgium put the Kibosh on the Kaiser!

 

[Xgentis]

If your sympathies (or empathy) isn't for the CP, then you should keep them to yourself. Clearly they are OT.

Ok you are clearly a troll.

 

[Kaiser James I]

I feel some sympathy for the Central Powers for several reasons...
They were not much better or worse, overall, than the Entente--not like in World ar II, when there were some very evil regmes involved (Germany, Japan, and the USSR.)

It's also an interesting time, because the Great War set the pattern for the 20th century.
Also, they were thoroughly screwed by the supposedly neutral United States' thoroughly un neutral bias, allowing Britain to ride roughshod over American rights from day one.

They were not "screwed" by the US. The US wanted to negotiate a lasting peace but had to "compromise" its 14 points to at least get the League of Nations. We got screwed by our "allies" Britain and France. They wanted more colonies and to punish Germany.

I do agree, however, that the US should have stayed out. Maybe the future would have been better off with a German victory.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the people who who really got screwed over were this lot, but I understand that these views may be heterodox.

 

[John Farson]

They were not "screwed" by the US. The US wanted to negotiate a lasting peace but had to "compromise" its 14 points to at least get the League of Nations. We got screwed by our "allies" Britain and France. They wanted more colonies and to punish Germany.

I do agree, however, that the US should have stayed out. Maybe the future would have been better off with a German victory.

Or not. It's not as if Brest-Litovsk was any better than Versailles.

More to the point, the German army utterly steamrolled Belgium, despite that country's neutrality. Strange that Germany could afford to leave Belgium alone in 1870 (at a time when the Germans were utterly scared shitless of the French, let me remind you), yet not do the same in 1914 when it was much stronger than it had been in the Franco-Prussian War.

 

[Devolved]

Or not. It's not as if Brest-Litovsk was any better than Versailles.

More to the point, the German army utterly steamrolled Belgium, despite that country's neutrality. Strange that Germany could afford to leave Belgium alone in 1870 (at a time when the Germans were utterly scared shitless of the French, let me remind you), yet not do the same in 1914 when it was much stronger than it had been in the Franco-Prussian War.

The original Schlieffen plan called for the Netherlands to be steamrollered too. We had to wait for Reich number three to correct that oversight.

 

[I Blame Communism]

The original Schlieffen plan called for the Netherlands to be steamrollered too. We had to wait for Reich number three to correct that oversight.

The original plan actually called for First Army to nip through Limburg on the assumption that the Dutch - not militarily strong, and generally quite pro-German - wouldn't actually join in.

More to the point, the German army utterly steamrolled Belgium, despite that country's neutrality. Strange that Germany could afford to leave Belgium alone in 1870 (at a time when the Germans were utterly scared shitless of the French, let me remind you), yet not do the same in 1914 when it was much stronger than it had been in the Franco-Prussian War.

Countries "utterly scared shitless" of another seldom wage offensive war on them; "having a fair shot of a win by anyone's estimate" does not mean "scared the other lot utterly shitless".

Germany was much stronger in population and industrial terms, but France was stronger too, and in particular both sides had extensively fortified their mutual border.

 

[Devolved]

The original plan actually called for First Army to nip through Limburg on the assumption that the Dutch - not militarily strong, and generally quite pro-German - wouldn't actually join in.

They also assumed Britain wouldn't join in. Then they assumed they could take Paris in about 40 days. Then they assumed the US wouldn't join in.

They weren't good at assuming. Perhaps a useful CP ATL would have the Germans not assuming so much.

 

[Kaiser James I]

More to the point, the German army utterly steamrolled Belgium, despite that country's neutrality. Strange that Germany could afford to leave Belgium alone in 1870 (at a time when the Germans were utterly scared shitless of the French, let me remind you), yet not do the same in 1914 when it was much stronger than it had been in the Franco-Prussian War.

The German Army couldn't move through the Ardennes and Alsace-Lorraine to invade France because the French were already invading it. The Plan was to let the French take German territory while the Germans moved through Belgium, Holland, and into northern France, capturing Paris, defeating them before they could muster a defense.

 

[The Space Viking]

Ok you are clearly a troll.

So because his statement was OT, and I called that out, I'm a troll? Great logic there...

 

[John Farson]

Countries "utterly scared shitless" of another seldom wage offensive war on them; "having a fair shot of a win by anyone's estimate" does not mean "scared the other lot utterly shitless".

Germany was much stronger in population and industrial terms, but France was stronger too, and in particular both sides had extensively fortified their mutual border.

Ok, I could have phrased that better. What I mean is that the Germans (i.e. the Prussians, Bavarians etc.) on the eve of the F-P War weren't at all certain how the war was going to end up. Oh, Bismarck had his plans all right, but for many people in the German states the French were still seen as the big bad aggressors (shades of Louis XIV, Napoleon etc.). It was a surprise to everyone how one-sided the actual war turned out to be.

Still, my point remains that despite waging war against France (who, under Napoleon III had declared war first), Bismarck didn't feel the need to go through Belgium, unlike his heirs 44 years later.

 

[Xgentis]

So because his statement was OT, and I called that out, I'm a troll? Great logic there...

So because we are on an alternate history board we are obligated to feel sympathy for the CP? And not voice our sympathy for the entente because it is OT?

 

[I Blame Communism]

They also assumed Britain wouldn't join in. Then they assumed they could take Paris in about 40 days. Then they assumed the US wouldn't join in.

They weren't good at assuming. Perhaps a useful CP ATL would have the Germans not assuming so much.

Signifying? Your statement remains untrue.

Ok, I could have phrased that better. What I mean is that the Germans (i.e. the Prussians, Bavarians etc.) on the eve of the F-P War weren't at all certain how the war was going to end up.

Agreed.

Oh, Bismarck had his plans all right, but for many people in the German states the French were still seen as the big bad aggressors (shades of Louis XIV, Napoleon etc.). It was a surprise to everyone how one-sided the actual war turned out to be.

Our lot never started it, well-known fact. I referred to the fact that the plans of the general staff were for an attack against France, regardless of who started it: if they were scared shitless, they'd presumably have planned to husband their resources and bleed the enemy.

Still, my point remains that despite waging war against France (who, under Napoleon III had declared war first), Bismarck didn't feel the need to go through Belgium, unlike his heirs 44 years later.

Bismarck wasn't a military planner, but anyway: to simplify, it's because you never fool anybody twice with the same trick.