|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Mar 24, 2021 17:24:34 GMT
How could Russia have won WW1? If It didn't declare war on anyone.  They didn't have the political, economic, or military capabilities for the war. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Mar 24, 2021 17:36:11 GMT
How could Russia have won WW1? If It didn't declare war on anyone. They didn't have the political, economic, or military capabilities for the war. Pretty much. Russia might be able to etch out a win if they focus more on Austria-Hungary in the beginning and avoid major engagements on German terms. You'd also need the Ottomans to somehow not join the war, so Russia can trade with other countries through the Mediterranean. But, even if Russia somehow wins, it is going to end up with a bunch of its territory occupied, like the Western Allies, before German surrenders. The German back in the stab myth will be even stronger. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Mar 24, 2021 18:22:38 GMT
If Japan had attacked the USSR in co-operation with Germany during Operation Barbarossa, would this have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or would the Japanese be easily pushed back?
|
|
|
|
Post by zink on Mar 24, 2021 18:40:15 GMT
If Japan had attacked the USSR in co-operation with Germany during Operation Barbarossa, would this have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or would the Japanese be easily pushed back? What's takin the far east suppose to do? |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Mar 24, 2021 18:41:06 GMT
If Japan had attacked the USSR in co-operation with Germany during Operation Barbarossa, would this have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or would the Japanese be easily pushed back? Nope, the Germans still did not have the capabilities to take Moscow and Stalingrad. The Soviets would definitely beat Japan in the first major counterattack that they can organize. Assuming that Japan goes north for resources instead of going south, their huge navy is going to be useless here and that's not going to sit well with the IJN. Expect some major infighting between the IJA and the IJN. Secondly, there's not a lot of benefits for Japan to attack the Soviets. I did previously mention resources, but there's much more in the south. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Mar 25, 2021 1:04:48 GMT
If Japan had attacked the USSR in co-operation with Germany during Operation Barbarossa, would this have led to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Or would the Japanese be easily pushed back? Nope, the Germans still did not have the capabilities to take Moscow and Stalingrad. The Soviets would definitely beat Japan in the first major counterattack that they can organize. Assuming that Japan goes north for resources instead of going south, their huge navy is going to be useless here and that's not going to sit well with the IJN. Expect some major infighting between the IJA and the IJN. Secondly, there's not a lot of benefits for Japan to attack the Soviets. I did previously mention resources, but there's much more in the south. No. The fresh Division of troops from defending Moscow came at the time when the Germans were about to take Berlin. They were well fed and we'll equipped. They were a part of the pushback of the Germans. They left the far eats virtually empty. As you said however, there were no benifits for the Japanese attacking the east. Maybe the Germand could have given them something after the war ended. I think that was one of the reason along with your second point on Navy that made the Japanese reluctant to attack the USSR. Russians were not able to hold only German attack on one side, how could they hold it on two sides? |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Mar 25, 2021 1:29:02 GMT
Nope, the Germans still did not have the capabilities to take Moscow and Stalingrad. The Soviets would definitely beat Japan in the first major counterattack that they can organize. Assuming that Japan goes north for resources instead of going south, their huge navy is going to be useless here and that's not going to sit well with the IJN. Expect some major infighting between the IJA and the IJN. Secondly, there's not a lot of benefits for Japan to attack the Soviets. I did previously mention resources, but there's much more in the south. No. The fresh Division of troops from defending Moscow came at the time when the Germans were about to take Berlin. They were well fed and we'll equipped. They were a part of the pushback of the Germans. They left the far eats virtually empty. As you said however, there were no benifits for the Japanese attacking the east. Maybe the Germand could have given them something after the war ended. I think that was one of the reason along with your second point on Navy that made the Japanese reluctant to attack the USSR. Russians were not able to hold only German attack on one side, how could they hold it on two sides? Yes, the fresh divisions were critical in the successful counterattack. Still, without them, the Soviets can still hold Moscow, which is the important part. Regardless, taking Moscow still wouldn't have won the war for Germany. Yes, the far east was stripped bare, but just the soviets can just trade space for time. Japan's logistics are going to be even worse than Germany's here. They are going to get bogged down and the soviets will be able to wear them down through defense in depth. I don't see anything Germany could offer Japan. Germany could offer to ship captured Soviet oil, but why would they do that? Better to keep it for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Mar 25, 2021 1:34:35 GMT
No. The fresh Division of troops from defending Moscow came at the time when the Germans were about to take Berlin. They were well fed and we'll equipped. They were a part of the pushback of the Germans. They left the far eats virtually empty. As you said however, there were no benifits for the Japanese attacking the east. Maybe the Germand could have given them something after the war ended. I think that was one of the reason along with your second point on Navy that made the Japanese reluctant to attack the USSR. Russians were not able to hold only German attack on one side, how could they hold it on two sides? Yes, the fresh divisions were critical in the successful counterattack. Still, without them, the Soviets can still hold Moscow, which is the important part. Regardless, taking Moscow still wouldn't have won the war for Germany. Yes, the far east was stripped bare, but just the soviets can just trade space for time. Japan's logistics are going to be even worse than Germany's here. They are going to get bogged down and the soviets will be able to wear them down through defense in depth. I don't see anything Germany could offer Japan. Germany could offer to ship captured Soviet oil, but why would they do that? Better to keep it for themselves. Yes. It might be one of the reason Japan was reluctant to attack Soviets I feel. And for Germans, getting Moscow was important because Hitler never planned to go beyond the Urals. As I said, he planned to conduct bombing and raids on the Russians, dismantle Moscow and convert it into a water body (worst possible thought ever) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 2:53:18 GMT
How could Russia have won WW1? If the generals commanding troops against Germany has just attacked and tied down them and Romania had joined the war during brusilov offensive, helping it in its continuation, would have knocked Austria out of war and Germany would have most probably came to negotiating table. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 3:15:39 GMT
Nope, the Germans still did not have the capabilities to take Moscow and Stalingrad. The Soviets would definitely beat Japan in the first major counterattack that they can organize. Assuming that Japan goes north for resources instead of going south, their huge navy is going to be useless here and that's not going to sit well with the IJN. Expect some major infighting between the IJA and the IJN. Secondly, there's not a lot of benefits for Japan to attack the Soviets. I did previously mention resources, but there's much more in the south. No. The fresh Division of troops from defending Moscow came at the time when the Germans were about to take Berlin. They were well fed and we'll equipped. They were a part of the pushback of the Germans. They left the far eats virtually empty. As you said however, there were no benifits for the Japanese attacking the east. Maybe the Germand could have given them something after the war ended. I think that was one of the reason along with your second point on Navy that made the Japanese reluctant to attack the USSR. Russians were not able to hold only German attack on one side, how could they hold it on two sides? Hitler disliked Japanese and once said that after axis victory, the war of dominance will happen between whites and yellows(Japanese),not immediately but in about 100 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 3:54:34 GMT
This week's question: What would have happened if Germany won WW1, and what would be your strategy that allows them to win? Germany just needs better strategy and diplomacy. Germany should defend in the west and attack in the east. Not attacking in the west means no invasion of Belgium. This delays British involvement since they don't have an immediate reason to go to war. I still think they would enter the war because prominent francophiles like Edward Grey. With a later British entry into the war, Germany gets three big advantages. First, British troops arriving on the Western Front later will mean that Germans can afford to allot less troops to defending the west early in the war, which will have positive ramifications for the war in the east. Second, a British blockade being implemented later in the war, means Germany can import key war materials for a longer period of time. Third, without a rape of Belgium, Germany has a much better reputation in neutral countries, most importantly in the US. The only offensive action that Germany should undertake against France before Russia is defeated, is a limited counteroffensive to take the iron mines of Briey-Longwy and gain better defensive territory in the Vosges. By attacking in the east, Germany can better support its incompetent ally Austria-Hungary. If the central powers look strong in the east, Italy, Romania, and Greece will have second thoughts about joining the war. A stronger performance in the east earlier on would actually encourage Romania to join the central powers, since they had claims on Russia too. With Russia struggling, they are going to pressure the French for an offensive in the west. But, all France can do is attack the heavily defended German border. They are going to be forced to take massive casualties trying to break through. They can't invade Belgium because Belgium's western border is too small for a breakthrough into the Ruhr and that will kill their reputation in neutral countries. They also can't just defend because to do so, would be political and national suicide; they would be seen as essentially giving up. As for better diplomacy, Germany needs to not antagonize the US so much. No Zimmerman Telegram and don't reinstate unrestricted submarine warfare. While there is no way for Germany to stop the US from loaning tons of money to the Entente, it's better than having more troops on the Western Front. As for Austria Hungary, they need to figure out that Redl is a spy much sooner. Redl leaked all of their mobilization and war plans, as well as the layout of their fortifications on the Russian border. They only discovered his activities as a spy in 1913. They need to discover this much sooner, preferably before 1910. If they do this, their invasion of Serbia would be better and they would be in a better position to attack Russia without significant German support. Also, A cool POD that can contribute to a Central Powers Victory: Admiral Essen attacks some Swedish ships (He tried to do this in OTL), forcing the Swedes to demand an apology and compensation from Russia or face war. Due to Essen's popularity with the navy and the public, Russia is forced to refuse. Thus, Sweden declares war and opens up a another front. I like this POD because it expands the war in a drastic way. This POD would create a Scandinavian Front, which nobody in TTL would be able to see coming since Scandinavia is full of neutral countries. You are seeing the war by today's perspective, but If you see it by 1914 perspective it is different. Germany's army was the strongest in Europe so was its economy(British Blockade's did not have any major impact on German production or civilians till November 1916, compare it with German U-boat campaign against Britain in second world war). It could have defeated any nation one on one. As of its plan to go on offensive in west instead of east was fairly reasonable since defeating Russia will take way more time and they also thought that Austria will tie down whatever troops Russia can mobilize but Austrians thought that Germany will defend against Russia till it defeats those two Balkan puppets of Russia, you can now understand the misunderstanding. Most Austrians generals hasn't even seen combat, actually most generals of that era had not seen combat except Balkan ones and that is why you should not be surprised at the outcome of Austrian invasion of Serbia. Nations who joined Entente later like Italy, Romania and Greece were Germanophiles or atleast viewed Germany as an ally. Italy has been helped by Prussia directly in acquiring Venetia and indirectly in capturing Papal states. It was also part of Triple Alliance. Luigi 'Idiot of Isonzo' Cadorna even begin planning an offensive against France seeing Italy's joining of war being inevitable though it will later turn out that left leaning liberal government allied themselves with Entente. Romania's joined the war in an extreme example of opportunism. Greece has a unique case. It's King's wife was sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II and King and his supporters tried their best for Preserving greek neutrality. But Entente in an example of Victors write history and bigotry sent their troops on greek soil without permission and literally used military force against any greek opposing the occupation of Salonika( more people were killed in Greece during Allied occupation than the real number( not exxageration by entente propaganda) of killed during so-called rape of Belgium. King would dismiss pro-entente PM( not puppet) which will lead to a national schism and with Entente help, pro-entente group will come up on top. Best chance of German victory was in 1918 Spring Offensive, if they had managed to capture Amiens or if Romania and Greece remained neutral and Royalist group wins in national schism and Italy joins Central powers ( probably on Germany agreeing to give them colonies of Colonies, I believe Germany can share it in exchange for easy victory since it has free hand in Africa as other central powers has ambitions in continent only). |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Mar 25, 2021 5:20:27 GMT
No. The fresh Division of troops from defending Moscow came at the time when the Germans were about to take Berlin. They were well fed and we'll equipped. They were a part of the pushback of the Germans. They left the far eats virtually empty. As you said however, there were no benifits for the Japanese attacking the east. Maybe the Germand could have given them something after the war ended. I think that was one of the reason along with your second point on Navy that made the Japanese reluctant to attack the USSR. Russians were not able to hold only German attack on one side, how could they hold it on two sides? Hitler disliked Japanese and once said that after axis victory, the war of dominance will happen between whites and yellows(Japanese),not immediately but in about 100 years. I agree on that. An alternative cold war and a possible RP theme! |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote de la Mancha on Mar 25, 2021 18:58:45 GMT
What if the French won the Franco-Prussian War ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Mar 25, 2021 21:10:19 GMT
What if the French won the Franco-Prussian War ? I believe that prussia may have been forced to demilitarise a bit, and ultimately the German states may not have become completely unified, as prussia was the driving force behind this unification. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodolfo Graziani on Mar 25, 2021 21:16:20 GMT
But to be fair I dont really know as much as Hangrybird, for example
|
|
They didn't have the political, economic, or military capabilities for the war.
