Valdemar II
Banned
They didn't force a worse peace on Russia than the allies did on Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, the Russians only lost majority non-Russian areas.
Last edited:
WI: The Allies drive deep into Germany in WWI
- Thread starter Meadow
- Start date
They didn't force a worse peace on Russia than the allies did on Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, the Russians only lost majority non-Russian areas.
Actually, the British and American passages that you have quoted strike me as acknowledging things are dire, but have distinct undertones of being prepared to fight on, rather than throwing in the towel.
With regard to blithely assuming that we know better than the contemporaries...well, we do
We have the luxury to examine both sides and can see the flaws in the German plans and the Entente's defenses. We also have eye witness accounts to Ludendorf's failure to determine what would happen if he acheived the breakthrough he wanted. We also have access to detailed accounts as to the economics, the dire straits of Germany's home front and so on. So, with the greatest respect to contemporary accounts, they must be taken in the context that they are written.Beer
Banned
Really? Taking away more than 10% of the people and territory (in some cases german-majority territory and rigging some votes in contested territory), making Germany nearly defenceless with an artificially weakened Army, an insane amount of reparations with the express intent to jinx the economy, a constructed sole war-guilt clause ("oh so peaceful" France and Russia mobilized BEFORE Germany did) or the pillaging of german patents in an unprecedenced amount are just some highlights of a farce!
Esp. first B-L was never this harsh. Russia lost only non-Russian majority territory, for less percentage of people and land than Germany did in Versailles. B-L was designed to keep Russia at bay for some time, Russia could live even with second B-L. While the Entente tried to do a Carthago on Germany, Versailles was intended to seriously cripple Germany!
Well, of course it was. The question is was there a better way of preventing Germany from attaing hegemony in (Cental) Europe and launching another war?
Beer
Banned
Actually this is the tone of a message: "We are nearly screwed, but we can´t let it show."-type.
Beer
Banned
There would not have been another war on that scale in Europe or the world with Germany in the driver´s seat in Europe, had the CP won, that´s for sure!
Considering what happened all over the world with the "just" rule of the Entente, a world with the CP victorious would have saved us much sorrow!
And it is highly unlikely WW2 would have happened with a halfway decent peace treaty, instead one which fueled hate and bitterness for being treated so lousy! Even several people in the Entente recognized that this Versailles dictate was the false way.
Typo-
Especially what Germany was planning. They wanted to completely dominate Europe after the war, for the Entente (even the USA) that was simply unacceptable. The Germans could have easily just asked for the Entente recognizing their gains in the east in exchange for evacuating Belgium and respecting the independence of Belgium, Luxemburg and Holland. They choose not to do so until it was becoming clear that the Entente would win and they would lose. They played for everything in 1918 and lost everything when they lost.
Especially what Germany was planning. They wanted to completely dominate Europe after the war, for the Entente (even the USA) that was simply unacceptable. The Germans could have easily just asked for the Entente recognizing their gains in the east in exchange for evacuating Belgium and respecting the independence of Belgium, Luxemburg and Holland. They choose not to do so until it was becoming clear that the Entente would win and they would lose. They played for everything in 1918 and lost everything when they lost.
If you mean 'us' as in 'Germans', then definitely yes. If you define 'us' as Poles, then almost definitely no. If you define 'us' as all humans, then as we know opinions wary. I tend to think it would end up worse.
Do you something specific in mind, assuming WWI ended as OTL?
Deleted member 1487
They simply had no choice by that point though. France wanted an peace that was unacceptable to Germany (reparations, giving up A+L when it was still in German hands, losing colonies), which was just a starting point for negotiations for them. Even the French mutiniers felt this was a minimum acceptable peace. It sounds like a victory to me, which was pretty close to what she got OTL at Versailles. The moral of the story is that one side is going to get a raw deal, even at neogitations. The Germans didn't want to accept the 14 points until the very end of the war because it was essentially an allied victory, not a negotiated peace. Germany tried to do what was in her own interest: win a strong place at the negotiation table, something she didn't have if peace was offered in March 1918.
It just goes to show the mentality of both sides so late in the war, they wanted something that in 1914 would have been considered a puntative peace, but at that point was only a compromise. By 1918 the only way to have peace, for either side, was total victory. Germany's view of negotiated peace, which was their goal during Kaiserschlacht, was really an outright victory. This was not taking the leadership's views into consideration, but what the population would accept.
Am I Missing Something ?
The original question asked whether the allies could have advanced deeper into Germany in 1918-19. By the early days of November 1918, the German Army was retreating but not routed and it was as much the internal convulsions that provoked the end of the fighting.
The mutiny in Kiel spread far and wide in the days that followed so the question really is whether, had the revolutionaries succeeded in establishing a quasi-Soviet Government in Berlin, the new Government would have sought an armistice.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that newly-installed revolutionary Governments facing foreign invasion are surprisingly adept at mobilising forces against the invader and protecting the new-won revolution.
Thus, my contention is that IF the war had continued, the allies would have been thrown back out of Germany by the German revolutionary army and would have had, as in Russia and France in OTL, to have supported anti-revolutionary elements (had there been any of any substance).
Ebert's ability in heading off a Communist-style revolution in November 1918 would have huge repercussions not only within Germany but for the rest of Europe. Had a Communist regime been established in Germany in 1918-19, it would have destabilised or possibly spread its revolution through much of the rest of central Europe.
Of course, there would have been a confrontation with Soviet Russia sooner or later - the absence of an ideological divide would have made no difference.
The original question asked whether the allies could have advanced deeper into Germany in 1918-19. By the early days of November 1918, the German Army was retreating but not routed and it was as much the internal convulsions that provoked the end of the fighting.
The mutiny in Kiel spread far and wide in the days that followed so the question really is whether, had the revolutionaries succeeded in establishing a quasi-Soviet Government in Berlin, the new Government would have sought an armistice.
In fact, there's plenty of evidence that newly-installed revolutionary Governments facing foreign invasion are surprisingly adept at mobilising forces against the invader and protecting the new-won revolution.
Thus, my contention is that IF the war had continued, the allies would have been thrown back out of Germany by the German revolutionary army and would have had, as in Russia and France in OTL, to have supported anti-revolutionary elements (had there been any of any substance).
Ebert's ability in heading off a Communist-style revolution in November 1918 would have huge repercussions not only within Germany but for the rest of Europe. Had a Communist regime been established in Germany in 1918-19, it would have destabilised or possibly spread its revolution through much of the rest of central Europe.
Of course, there would have been a confrontation with Soviet Russia sooner or later - the absence of an ideological divide would have made no difference.
Beer
Banned
I mean "us" as Europeans!! Due to the loss and the propaganda, Germany´s plans for Europe after a CP victory are UNJUSTLY defiled. If you read the original german plans and documents (and not just what the Entente handpicked and falsely mixed like they wanted it to), then you can see that it would have been a far more peaceful and prosperous 20th. century in ALL of Europe.
I´m man enough to admit that imperial Germany would not have made this just for a better place in heaven after death, they wanted the prestige and most of the control for Germany and her allies alone for bringing in this properous time. But in the end it would have made earth a better place to live. As for your Poland: If it would have gone as Germany wanted, it would be independent Congress Poland you would live in. It might have been a bit larger with some parts of Galicia and White Russia for waving any designs on prussian and other austrian territory. BUT: It would be a far more wealthy (and for a longer time at that) Poland with more people in it, since a war on the scale of the WWs would never happened again in Europe, the CP would have been too strong.
Yes, Germany might have grumbled for some time, but more moderate reparations, no sole war guilt and no army restrictions would have meant a lasting peace. Germany would have said after some years: "Dumm gelaufen, aber das Leben geht weiter."(Went wrong, but life goes on) It might have helped too, if some territories would have stayed. Losing territory in war was nothing new at that time, but well over 10% of land and people was very harsh.
Deleted member 1487
No, the Germans were fighting a civil war against each other and the Communists were not winning. There would have been no revolutionary army; Rathenau proposed a mass levee to throw the Allies out, but that fell apart when the government did. Nothing like that was going to happen. The German army would have fallen apart, mass starvation, and then the Allies move in to Germany to crush the communists while the average soldier just goes home. All that happens in Germany implodes and a new government has to be created from the ashes after intense suffering. Less than after WW2 OTL, but still very unpleasant. If anything this would go a long way to stabilizing Germany after the fact, as the bad blood is hashed out and the new government isn't quite as tainted by what happened. The "Dolchstosslegende" probably doesn't gain the same traction it did OTL, but then again the Communists might just be repressed earlier meaning they won't be a party themselves in the 1920's and 1930's, leaving the SPD with a greater base to draw on in elections.
Some of them do, though a lot of that has a distinctly "whistling in the dark" sound to me. And certainly, if Hurley is quoting him correctly, it sounds as if Wilson thought that defeat in France would make a bad peace unavoidable.
But I find that French officer's remarks about Britain particularly interesting. It's all too obvious that he is not only anticipating defeat, but getting his alibi ready for afterwards. It was to be "Perfide Albion let us down". I suspect he wasn't alone in that intention.
Incidentally, in Pollard's A Short History of the Great War, there is mention of British soldiers being hissed in the streets of Paris in March 1918. That sounds as if such attitudes weren't limited to the officer class. Does anyone here know the French for "dolchstoss"?
Am I to assume you are perfectly willing to sacrifice the freedom/self-determination of Poles in Posen, West Prussia and Silesia for that goal?
I’ll write more in my next post, but please answer that first.
Beer
Banned
A cynic might say: sacrificing the self-determination (I resent your freedom comment. Germany was never overly repressive outside Hitlers time)of 3 million Poles for the lives of over 60 million people and a more prosperous Europe, anytime! But I´m no cynic. I truly believe, if Poland would have waived claims on West Prussia and Silesia (in the case of Silesia the Germans were the majority for hundreds of years), Poland would have gained over time much of Posen at the green table.
Germany is one of the best places to live in, but in any case I doubt polish self-determination in the staying german areas would be such a big problem. Just an OTL example, I don´t know of the cuff which town it was, but during the vote about staying in Germany or going to Poland, in this town around 43% percent voted to stay so it went to Poland, but you have to mention that the Germans made up only ca. 20% of the population there. And this was after Germany lost! Winning makes "sexy", so in a CP victory, it would have gone for staying.
Over time, these Poles would have become part of Germany, like e.g. the Hugenots.
They could have held the Rhine for a time. Trouble was, once Austria/Hungary folded, their southern border was wide open, so that an army on the Rhine would be outflanked by Allied forces advancing through Bavaria. All in all, they were surely right to cut their losses.
If you mean Russia, I don't think the situations are comparable. Russia was just too darned big for the armies of intervention to do much more than nibble round the edges. Germany didn't have that advantage.[1]
Revolutionary France is a slightly better parallel, but in 1792 France hadn't had a major war for nearly 30 years. Their involvement in the ARW messed up their finances but didn't involve much of the population in any fighting. That's very different from the German situation in 1918, all but collapsing after four years of carnage.
Incidentally, I think much the same about Lord Milner's notions of fighting on in Africa and Asia after losing the European war. I don't think the government could have sold it to the British public. For the past four years they had been fed the line that the fate of humanity was at stake in the battles of the Western Front, and had anyone now said "Well, it's not that bad. We can just fight on overseas," this would have raised the question "Well, if the front didn't really matter all that much, what exactly did our son get killed for?" in about half a million variations. And the seamen, many of whom had been doggedly putting to sea again and again after having been torpedoed three or four times already, might well have had something to say about being expected to go on doing so for this or that slice of tropical Africa. I can imagine an attitude analogous to the French mutineers "If they invade England, we'll fight 'em to the death - but not to hang on to a few colonies.They ain't worth dying for". If I'm right, that just leaves the US (and maybe Japan) in a naval war with Germany for a while longer, but finally resigning themselves to making peace.
In short, I think contemporary opinion was about right in viewing the 1918 battles as decisive.
[1] Istr a remark by General Max Hoffman at the time of the Spartakist rising in Jan 1919, along the lines of "If they seize power, the Entente will occupy Berlin. I wouldn't welcome that, but at least it's insurance of a sort".
I resent that comment. I also dread to imagine your definition of ‘overly repressed’.
1. Naturally, there would be universal peace if nations rolled over and in full cooperation accepted the dominance of the strongest and their generosity. That is sadly not the case.
2. Let’s turn the board around. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if after WWI Germany forever abounded their pursuit of European dominance and let itself be depend on the goodwill of the rest of Europe? Was there was no possibility of that kind of vulnerability to be abused that would be abused in any way? Is there a reason we should trust Germany to behave better and more morally sound than the Entente?
Of course it is. It had the land, the people, the resources and the time to develop. Naturally, economical benefits influence choices of the people. But then again, it isn’t the only factor, is it?
Deleted member 1487
While this is often said, an allied advance through Austria-Hungary is not likely to have achieved much. There were communist revolutions throughout the empire, but most importantly was the rail network was horribly degraded. Little steel was left for maintanience of the rail lines meaning that by 1918 it had all but imploded. There were problems getting enough supplies (though there were deficits, much food never even made it to the cities) to feed the population centers of Austria, let alone supply a conquering army in Germany.
The AHs were having trouble supplying their troops in Northern Italy through the passes, meaning that the Italians, Americans, and British wouldn't have been able to push through a great deal to invade Germany. 300,000 men of the AH in Italy were starving and heavily undersupplied because supplies could not be brought in fast enough. So in addition to having to repair and rennovate the rail lines of Northern Italy that were occupied and sabotaged, the Allies will have to expand and modernize the lines through the Alps. Then there is the mess in Austria to deal with. All this doesn't include the likelyhood of German agents sabotaging tunnels and such through the Brenner pass or along the Isonzo. I don't think the Austrians would stop them, as I'm sure occupation by the Italians was not exactly desired.
I know that I am nitpicking, but the Southern route into Germany wouldn't be an issue until 1919 really. Also, who is to say the Germans wouldn't move in an try to get the Austrians integrated into Germany, something the Austrians wanted after the war?
That said, the issue will be starvation in Germany and the civil war. The military won't be able to resist, least of all because of the lack of will of the soldiers. There would not be supplies coming from industrial areas thanks to communist revolution and rail junctions and whatnot would be occupied bringing in soldiers to put down the communists. The powers that be in Germany realized that surrender was better than revolution at home, which is why the agreeded to the harsh armistice terms in November. I suppose the POD is that they are even stupider than OTL, but that would require some interesting self dillusion to ignore the insurrection in Berlin outside the Reichstag windows.
Beer
Banned
Yes, e.g. Britain (with the help of admittedly great propaganda) always talked about how they just want the best for all and kicked the shins under the table with abandon, they got the nickname "perfidious Albion" for a reason! Prussian-led Germany was blunt, not very diplomatic, but you could count on that they did not just turn on their words without very good reason. And as you can see in the old documents, imperial Germany wanted a prosperous Europe, esp. the economic plans were ahead of their time. Which was the reason the Entente villified them, economic cooperation on that scale was simply too modern! Had Germany won, they would have implemented it and Europe would be far more wealthy and developed today, since we could have had combined economic efforts for 90 years instead of what came OTL! (And not so much cooks staleing the porridge; rough translation of a german proverb)
If you look at history, in well over a millenia, the various Germanies were never as two-faced as many Entente nations. Maybe blunt, sometimes not nice, but very seldom malicious, far more seldom than many others.
Last edited:
Assuming a fair plebiscite would be hold in a CP-victory world in 1920 where Germany has not slipped into Ludendorffian totalitarism (and that was rather unlikely IMO) I think Germany would have wonthat plebiscite in the OTL Upper Silesia plebiscite area with at least 70%, and in the parts of West Prussia that were ceded to Poland in OTL with about 55 to 60%.