What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#1

Post by Futurist » 24 Dec 2015, 01:07

What exactly does Germany need to do if it wants to permanently (as in, to the present-day and beyond) keep the Baltic states after a German victory in World War I?

Also, please keep in mind that all of your suggestions for this need to actually be realistic. Thus, expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are certainly (and thankfully) completely unacceptable options for this.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#2

Post by Futurist » 24 Dec 2015, 01:17

Also, did I post this question in the correct section of this forum? After all, this question is an alternate history question.


User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#3

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Dec 2015, 14:28

The subject may get a better response in the Alternate History section, but it is at least worth consideration here as war objectives are frequently discussed. The subjects you mention as off-limits would almost certainly not do anything to allow Germany to hold on to the Baltic States anyhow, there had been programs of 'Germanisation' and 'Russification' in various areas that had done little to endear the locals to their rulers, so more extreme methods almost certainly will achieve little. Not making the citizens 'colonial citizens' like those of Alsace-Lorraine had been made after 1871 would probably go a long way to helping, as would allowing them a genuine say in how they are governed, although that is not easily possible with a state like Wihlelmine Germany.

For Germany to keep such areas after a victorious conclusion to WWI, she would almost certainly need to win WWII also, or whatever the follow-up war gets to be called. Russia would be most unlikely to accept the loss of long held territory, so a 'return match' in the long tradition of European wars is all too likely. A lot might depend on quite what state Germany ends the war in, as a Germany that had won via the 1918 Spring Offensives would be exhausted and suffering Communist agitation almost certainly, and as it was Poland had to fight off a Soviet invasion in 1920, so something similar is not altogether impossible if Germany holds the lands.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#4

Post by Futurist » 24 Dec 2015, 22:56

Terry Duncan wrote:The subject may get a better response in the Alternate History section, but it is at least worth consideration here as war objectives are frequently discussed. The subjects you mention as off-limits would almost certainly not do anything to allow Germany to hold on to the Baltic States anyhow, there had been programs of 'Germanisation' and 'Russification' in various areas that had done little to endear the locals to their rulers, so more extreme methods almost certainly will achieve little.
Actually, the post-World War II ethnic cleansing and expulsion of ethnic Germans in real life does appear to have been successful. However, I am certainly and vehemently opposed to things such as ethnic cleansing, expulsions, and genocide, which is why I would prefer to avoid discussing them in this thread of mine.
Not making the citizens 'colonial citizens' like those of Alsace-Lorraine had been made after 1871 would probably go a long way to helping, as would allowing them a genuine say in how they are governed, although that is not easily possible with a state like Wihlelmine Germany.
Completely agreed, though having German Kaiser Wilhelm II die young and be replaced by someone better might help in regards to this. :)
For Germany to keep such areas after a victorious conclusion to WWI, she would almost certainly need to win WWII also, or whatever the follow-up war gets to be called. Russia would be most unlikely to accept the loss of long held territory, so a 'return match' in the long tradition of European wars is all too likely. A lot might depend on quite what state Germany ends the war in, as a Germany that had won via the 1918 Spring Offensives would be exhausted and suffering Communist agitation almost certainly, and as it was Poland had to fight off a Soviet invasion in 1920, so something similar is not altogether impossible if Germany holds the lands.
What about this scenario, though--then-Prince Wilhelm falls down the stairs in 1880, severely hits his head as a result of this fall, and dies shortly afterwards as a result of internal bleeding. As a result of Wilhelm's death, Wilhelm's younger brother Heinrich becomes the new German Kaiser in 1888 after both his grandfather and his father pass away. In spite of his love of the German Navy, Kaiser Heinrich decides not to significantly expand the German Navy for the time being due to the fact that this will be both an unnecessary provocation towards Britain and a huge waste of Germany money. Instead, Kaiser Heinrich decides to use this money to strengthen the German Army, and later, the German Air Force as well. A couple of decades later, World War I breaks out. In this TL's World War I, Germany declines to use the Schlieffen Plan and instead prepares for a long war against both France and Russia (with Britain being neutral). After both France and Russia endure extremely massive casualties as they unsuccessfully try to break through German defenses, Germany goes on the offensive in the East while playing defense in the West. After several years of intense fighting (and also as a result of Kaiser Heinrich's massive investments in both the German Army and the German Air Force), Germany (and Germany's allies, obviously) successfully knocks Russia out of World War I and then quickly turns West and knocks France out of World War I as well. In the post-World War I peace treaty in this TL, Germany acquires Poland, the Baltic states, the rest of Lorraine, and maybe some other territory as well. :)

Indeed, would this scenario of mine work for this?

Also, though, if Germany and its allies successfully manage to strip Russia of oil-rich Baku and to push Russia north of the Great Caucasus Mountains, then would Russia actually have the military power to try reconquering the Baltic states just 20 or so years after its (Russia's) defeat in World War I?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#5

Post by Futurist » 24 Dec 2015, 22:57

Also, for the record, I have now posted this very same thread and question to the What If section of this forum as well. :)

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#6

Post by michael mills » 29 Dec 2015, 01:38

Russia gained control over what are now Estonia and the northern part of Latvia (Livonia) in 1721, after defeating Sweden, and over what is now Lithuania and the southern part of Latvia (Courland) in the Second Polish Partition in 1793. It did not seem to have any difficulty in keeping possession of those territories until it was defeated by Germany during the First World War.

Russian control over Estonia and Livonia was maintained essentially through a pact with the Baltic German ruling class in those territories, under which the so-called "Baltic barons" retained their hereditary privileges and dominance over the native population, which had a serf-like status. In the early 18th Century, the Swedish Government had tried to remove those privileges and introduce direct rule from Stockholm; that caused the Baltic German ruling class to switch its allegiance to the Russian Tar Peter I, which was the essential factor allowing Russia to conquer the two territories. thereafter, Baltic Germans came to play a major role in the administration of the Russian Empire, in particular the military, despite their small numbers; that is the reason why so many Russian generals in the late 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries had German names.

In Lithuania, power was held by a Polish aristocracy which was absorbed into the Russian aristocracy after the Polish partitions. When Germany occupied what is now Lithuania in 1915, it favoured the nascent Lithuanian nationalist movement against the Polish ruling class as the prime means of maintaining control; it also favoured the Jewish minority.

In Courland, which was also occupied in 1915, German control was exercised through the Baltic German ruling class, in the same way as Russian rule had previously been. When it occupied Livonia and Estonia at the end of 1917, it followed the same pattern as in Courland; the local administrations set up by Germany in Estonia and Latvia were heavily dominated by Baltic Germans, with little representation for the native Estonians and Latvians.

In the counter-factual situation of Germany's not collapsing in 1918 and the war's ending with a compromise peace, it is likely that Germany would have retained control over the Baltic States by turning them into "border states" (Randstaaten) that were "attached" (angegliedert) to Germany rather than formally annexed, with princes from German dynasties as their heads of state (which would have been nothing unusual, since German princes had been made heads of state of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria when those countries gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire).

In Lithuania, actual power would probably have been given to the Lithuanian nationalists, who saw the Poles as their main enemy, and Germany as a protector against a resurgent Poland. In historical reality, ie before the German surrender at then end of 1918, German policy was to keep the Kingdom of Poland created by it out of Russian Poland as weak as possible by favouring the Lithuanians and Ukrainians. When Germany set up a Kingdom of Lithuania, it gave it Vilnius as its capital, together with a considerable amount of territory that today is part of Belarus.

It is thus possible that an undefeated Germany could have maintained hegemony over a Lithuanian state by playing the Lithuanians off against the Poles, and perhaps granting that state access to the port of Memel.

In the case of Estonian and Latvian puppet states, it is reasonably certain that Germany would have sought to maintain control in the same way that Russia previously had, by retaining the dominant position of the Baltic German ruling class, combined with increasing the ethnic German population by withdrawing all the ethnic Germans from the agricultural colonies in Russia and resettling them in the 60% of the land in Estonia and Livonia owned by the Baltic barons. In historical reality, the Baltic German landowners had agreed to donate one-third of their lands for settlement by ethnic Germans and Germans from the Reich.

It needs to be borne in mind that a substantial part of the Estonian and Latvian populations had been compulsorily evacuated by the Russian military authorities during the great retreat of 1915, leaving Estonia and Livonia with much reduced population densities (which were quite low to begin with), which would have facilitated ethnic German settlement in those territories. It is fairly certain that an undefeated Germany retaining control over Estonia and Livonia would have prevented the return of the evacuated Estonians and Latvians, thereby increasing the ethnic German element in the population, perhaps even to the point where it became a majority.

In this counterfactual scenario, it is likely that Germany would have had the greatest problems in Latvia, since in historical reality the Latvians had shown the greatest resistance to the German occupation, and also the highest level of support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia. In the elections for the All-Russian Constituent Assembly held in September 1917, the Bolsheviks had gained 75% of the vote in Livonia (which was then not yet under German occupation), as opposed to 25% in Russia as a whole.

Accordingly, it is likely that an undefeated Germany would have had to resort to a considerable degree of repression in order to maintain control over Latvia. That would probably not have been the case in Estonia, since the Estonians, like the Finns, saw Russia as the main threat to their national well-being, particularly once it came under Bolshevik rule. In historical reality, independent Estonia tended to be pro-German in the inter-war period, seeing Germany as a potential ally against the Soviet threat. By contrast, independent Latvia tended to be hostile to Germany.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#7

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 29 Dec 2015, 03:08

Futurist wrote:What exactly does Germany need to do if it wants to permanently (as in, to the present-day and beyond) keep the Baltic states after a German victory in World War I?

Also, please keep in mind that all of your suggestions for this need to actually be realistic. Thus, expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are certainly (and thankfully) completely unacceptable options for this.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
After WWI? Keep? I don't see the Germans keeping any land that wasn't occupied by a fair amount of Germans as a % of the population. Bismarck said something of this back in the 1800's. It is hazardous to a nation or empire to do so*. Witness what Poland did to the USSR. While Otto was long dead by the fictional end of WWI in this topic, I think his "ghost" would have had some influence to this end. Germany , IMO , would have been very reticent to be worrying about all the eastern communist influence coming from these areas, though occupation, and also from Russia proper. The reasonable thing Germany would have done is let them be buffer states from Russia and the real "commies". Wilhelm would have wanted to keep them at far as at arm's length as possible. Of course Wilhelm probably would have well pursued punishing the assassins of his uncle, so there could have been a continued military occupation of the eastern bloc nations to do this against any Communists and Russia proper and restore a monarchy in Russia. IIRC , historically German units and also Allied countries assisted the White Russians to fight the "red menace"

*Bismark is now quite underrated in the realm of world greatest statesmen. He was #1, IMO.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#8

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 29 Dec 2015, 03:32

Futurist wrote: What about this scenario, though--then-Prince Wilhelm falls down the stairs in 1880, severely hits his head as a result of this fall, and dies shortly afterwards as a result of internal bleeding. As a result of Wilhelm's death, Wilhelm's younger brother Heinrich becomes the new German Kaiser in 1888 after both his grandfather and his father pass away. In spite of his love of the German Navy, Kaiser Heinrich decides not to significantly expand the German Navy for the time being due to the fact that this will be both an unnecessary provocation towards Britain and a huge waste of Germany money. Instead, Kaiser Heinrich decides to use this money to strengthen the German Army, and later, the German Air Force as well. A couple of decades later, World War I breaks out. In this TL's World War I, Germany declines to use the Schlieffen Plan and instead prepares for a long war against both France and Russia (with Britain being neutral). After both France and Russia endure extremely massive casualties as they unsuccessfully try to break through German defenses, Germany goes on the offensive in the East while playing defense in the West. After several years of intense fighting (and also as a result of Kaiser Heinrich's massive investments in both the German Army and the German Air Force), Germany (and Germany's allies, obviously) successfully knocks Russia out of World War I and then quickly turns West and knocks France out of World War I as well.
A longer war will not work.

Germany has to win against Russia faster than they historically did. Bottomline. With the imposition of a continental blockade by England, Germany needed food(grain) faster from the East and Russia more than anything to win WWI. As it was, it was the "home front" that caused Germany to lose WWI. And the lack of food was the biggest reason the homefront deteriorated as bad as it did.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#9

Post by Futurist » 29 Dec 2015, 07:10

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Futurist wrote: What about this scenario, though--then-Prince Wilhelm falls down the stairs in 1880, severely hits his head as a result of this fall, and dies shortly afterwards as a result of internal bleeding. As a result of Wilhelm's death, Wilhelm's younger brother Heinrich becomes the new German Kaiser in 1888 after both his grandfather and his father pass away. In spite of his love of the German Navy, Kaiser Heinrich decides not to significantly expand the German Navy for the time being due to the fact that this will be both an unnecessary provocation towards Britain and a huge waste of Germany money. Instead, Kaiser Heinrich decides to use this money to strengthen the German Army, and later, the German Air Force as well. A couple of decades later, World War I breaks out. In this TL's World War I, Germany declines to use the Schlieffen Plan and instead prepares for a long war against both France and Russia (with Britain being neutral). After both France and Russia endure extremely massive casualties as they unsuccessfully try to break through German defenses, Germany goes on the offensive in the East while playing defense in the West. After several years of intense fighting (and also as a result of Kaiser Heinrich's massive investments in both the German Army and the German Air Force), Germany (and Germany's allies, obviously) successfully knocks Russia out of World War I and then quickly turns West and knocks France out of World War I as well.
A longer war will not work.

Germany has to win against Russia faster than they historically did. Bottomline. With the imposition of a continental blockade by England, Germany needed food(grain) faster from the East and Russia more than anything to win WWI. As it was, it was the "home front" that caused Germany to lose WWI. And the lack of food was the biggest reason the homefront deteriorated as bad as it did.
Britain isn't going to blockade Germany in this TL due to Britain being neutral in World War I in this TL, though. :)

Also, at best, I would argue that the home front was only partially responsible for Germany's defeat in World War I. After all, Germany's strategic situation was already extremely bad in October-November 1918.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#10

Post by maltesefalcon » 29 Dec 2015, 07:20

Futurist wrote:What exactly does Germany need to do if it wants to permanently (as in, to the present-day and beyond) keep the Baltic states after a German victory in World War I?

Also, please keep in mind that all of your suggestions for this need to actually be realistic. Thus, expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are certainly (and thankfully) completely unacceptable options for this.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
One might suggest that if Germany does win the war as stipulated above, what happens next is pretty well up to them.

But they do need to win. Perhaps an explanation of how that came about should have been part of the original post?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#11

Post by Futurist » 29 Dec 2015, 08:05

maltesefalcon wrote:
Futurist wrote:What exactly does Germany need to do if it wants to permanently (as in, to the present-day and beyond) keep the Baltic states after a German victory in World War I?

Also, please keep in mind that all of your suggestions for this need to actually be realistic. Thus, expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are certainly (and thankfully) completely unacceptable options for this.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
One might suggest that if Germany does win the war as stipulated above, what happens next is pretty well up to them.

But they do need to win. Perhaps an explanation of how that came about should have been part of the original post?
What about this scenario, though--then-Prince Wilhelm falls down the stairs in 1880, severely hits his head as a result of this fall, and dies shortly afterwards as a result of internal bleeding. As a result of Wilhelm's death, Wilhelm's younger brother Heinrich becomes the new German Kaiser in 1888 after both his grandfather and his father pass away. In spite of his love of the German Navy, Kaiser Heinrich decides not to significantly expand the German Navy for the time being due to the fact that this will be both an unnecessary provocation towards Britain and a huge waste of Germany money. Instead, Kaiser Heinrich decides to use this money to strengthen the German Army, and later, the German Air Force as well. A couple of decades later, World War I breaks out. In this TL's World War I, Germany declines to use the Schlieffen Plan and instead prepares for a long war against both France and Russia (with Britain being neutral). After both France and Russia endure extremely massive casualties as they unsuccessfully try to break through German defenses, Germany goes on the offensive in the East while playing defense in the West. After several years of intense fighting (and also as a result of Kaiser Heinrich's massive investments in both the German Army and the German Air Force), Germany (and Germany's allies, obviously) successfully knocks Russia out of World War I and then quickly turns West and knocks France out of World War I as well. In the post-World War I peace treaty in this TL, Germany acquires Poland, the Baltic states, the rest of Lorraine, and maybe some other territory as well. :)

Indeed, would this scenario of mine work for this? :)

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#12

Post by Futurist » 29 Dec 2015, 08:16

michael mills wrote:Russia gained control over what are now Estonia and the northern part of Latvia (Livonia) in 1721, after defeating Sweden, and over what is now Lithuania and the southern part of Latvia (Courland) in the Second Polish Partition in 1793. It did not seem to have any difficulty in keeping possession of those territories until it was defeated by Germany during the First World War.
Yes; correct!
Russian control over Estonia and Livonia was maintained essentially through a pact with the Baltic German ruling class in those territories, under which the so-called "Baltic barons" retained their hereditary privileges and dominance over the native population, which had a serf-like status. In the early 18th Century, the Swedish Government had tried to remove those privileges and introduce direct rule from Stockholm; that caused the Baltic German ruling class to switch its allegiance to the Russian Tar Peter I, which was the essential factor allowing Russia to conquer the two territories. thereafter, Baltic Germans came to play a major role in the administration of the Russian Empire, in particular the military, despite their small numbers; that is the reason why so many Russian generals in the late 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries had German names.

In Lithuania, power was held by a Polish aristocracy which was absorbed into the Russian aristocracy after the Polish partitions. When Germany occupied what is now Lithuania in 1915, it favoured the nascent Lithuanian nationalist movement against the Polish ruling class as the prime means of maintaining control; it also favoured the Jewish minority.

In Courland, which was also occupied in 1915, German control was exercised through the Baltic German ruling class, in the same way as Russian rule had previously been. When it occupied Livonia and Estonia at the end of 1917, it followed the same pattern as in Courland; the local administrations set up by Germany in Estonia and Latvia were heavily dominated by Baltic Germans, with little representation for the native Estonians and Latvians.
Yes, all of this likewise appears to be correct! :)
In the counter-factual situation of Germany's not collapsing in 1918 and the war's ending with a compromise peace, it is likely that Germany would have retained control over the Baltic States by turning them into "border states" (Randstaaten) that were "attached" (angegliedert) to Germany rather than formally annexed, with princes from German dynasties as their heads of state (which would have been nothing unusual, since German princes had been made heads of state of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria when those countries gained their independence from the Ottoman Empire).

In Lithuania, actual power would probably have been given to the Lithuanian nationalists, who saw the Poles as their main enemy, and Germany as a protector against a resurgent Poland. In historical reality, ie before the German surrender at then end of 1918, German policy was to keep the Kingdom of Poland created by it out of Russian Poland as weak as possible by favouring the Lithuanians and Ukrainians. When Germany set up a Kingdom of Lithuania, it gave it Vilnius as its capital, together with a considerable amount of territory that today is part of Belarus.

It is thus possible that an undefeated Germany could have maintained hegemony over a Lithuanian state by playing the Lithuanians off against the Poles, and perhaps granting that state access to the port of Memel.

In the case of Estonian and Latvian puppet states, it is reasonably certain that Germany would have sought to maintain control in the same way that Russia previously had, by retaining the dominant position of the Baltic German ruling class, combined with increasing the ethnic German population by withdrawing all the ethnic Germans from the agricultural colonies in Russia and resettling them in the 60% of the land in Estonia and Livonia owned by the Baltic barons. In historical reality, the Baltic German landowners had agreed to donate one-third of their lands for settlement by ethnic Germans and Germans from the Reich.

It needs to be borne in mind that a substantial part of the Estonian and Latvian populations had been compulsorily evacuated by the Russian military authorities during the great retreat of 1915, leaving Estonia and Livonia with much reduced population densities (which were quite low to begin with), which would have facilitated ethnic German settlement in those territories. It is fairly certain that an undefeated Germany retaining control over Estonia and Livonia would have prevented the return of the evacuated Estonians and Latvians, thereby increasing the ethnic German element in the population, perhaps even to the point where it became a majority.

In this counterfactual scenario, it is likely that Germany would have had the greatest problems in Latvia, since in historical reality the Latvians had shown the greatest resistance to the German occupation, and also the highest level of support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia. In the elections for the All-Russian Constituent Assembly held in September 1917, the Bolsheviks had gained 75% of the vote in Livonia (which was then not yet under German occupation), as opposed to 25% in Russia as a whole.

Accordingly, it is likely that an undefeated Germany would have had to resort to a considerable degree of repression in order to maintain control over Latvia. That would probably not have been the case in Estonia, since the Estonians, like the Finns, saw Russia as the main threat to their national well-being, particularly once it came under Bolshevik rule. In historical reality, independent Estonia tended to be pro-German in the inter-war period, seeing Germany as a potential ally against the Soviet threat. By contrast, independent Latvia tended to be hostile to Germany.
Excellent explanation, Michael! :) That said, though, I have four questions for you:

1. Would Lithuania have been much less resistant to German rule in this scenario than Latvia would have been?

2. Could anti-German sentiments in Latvia have realistically been significantly reduced if Germany would have significantly improved ethnic Latvians' standard of living and if Germany would have deported all of the Latvian nationalist and/or Bolshevik agitators that it could find (and possibly after putting them on trial) to some other territory/country, such as to Poland or to Ukraine? After all, less Latvian nationalist and Bolshevik agitation might mean that there will gradually be much less anti-German and pro-Bolshevik agitation in Latvia, whereas a significant improvement of ethnic Latvians' standard of living under German rule might very result result in much more support for continued German rule among ethnic Latvians.

3. Is having Germany decide not to resume unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 a good "point of departure" (from real life) which will result in a compromise pro-German peace in World War I? After all, without the U.S.'s entry into World War I, it would probably be much harder for the Entente/Allies to militarily defeat Germany. Plus, the lack of a morale boost for the Entente/Allies as a result of the U.S.'s entry into World War I might cause the Entente/Allies to be more receptive to a compromise pro-German peace (especially after Russia will capitulate and collapse), no?

4. Could Germany have realistically outright annexed some or all of the Baltic states to Germany in this scenario (perhaps several decades after the end of World War I)?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#13

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 29 Dec 2015, 22:06

Futurist wrote:

A longer war will not work.

Germany has to win against Russia faster than they historically did. Bottomline. With the imposition of a continental blockade by England, Germany needed food(grain) faster from the East and Russia more than anything to win WWI. As it was, it was the "home front" that caused Germany to lose WWI. And the lack of food was the biggest reason the homefront deteriorated as bad as it did.
Britain isn't going to blockade Germany in this TL due to Britain being neutral in World War I in this TL, though. :)
So Germany is not going to attack France or Russia? Because of after the Moroccan Crisis and Algrecias Conference of 1905 , any war France got involved in with Germany , short of starting it themselves, was going to bring England in on France's side. And the first thing England does in a continental war is slap on a blockade.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#14

Post by Futurist » 29 Dec 2015, 22:08

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Futurist wrote:

A longer war will not work.

Germany has to win against Russia faster than they historically did. Bottomline. With the imposition of a continental blockade by England, Germany needed food(grain) faster from the East and Russia more than anything to win WWI. As it was, it was the "home front" that caused Germany to lose WWI. And the lack of food was the biggest reason the homefront deteriorated as bad as it did.
Britain isn't going to blockade Germany in this TL due to Britain being neutral in World War I in this TL, though. :)
So Germany is not going to attack France or Russia? Because of after the Moroccan Crisis and Algrecias Conference of 1905 , any war France got involved in with Germany , short of starting it themselves, was going to bring England in on France's side. And the first thing England does in a continental war is slap on a blockade.
What about if Kaiser Wilhelm II was less of a dunce and a buffoon than he was in real life, though?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?

#15

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 29 Dec 2015, 22:22

Futurist wrote:
ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Futurist wrote:

A longer war will not work.

Germany has to win against Russia faster than they historically did. Bottomline. With the imposition of a continental blockade by England, Germany needed food(grain) faster from the East and Russia more than anything to win WWI. As it was, it was the "home front" that caused Germany to lose WWI. And the lack of food was the biggest reason the homefront deteriorated as bad as it did.
Britain isn't going to blockade Germany in this TL due to Britain being neutral in World War I in this TL, though. :)
So Germany is not going to attack France or Russia? Because of after the Moroccan Crisis and Algrecias Conference of 1905 , any war France got involved in with Germany , short of starting it themselves, was going to bring England in on France's side. And the first thing England does in a continental war is slap on a blockade.
What about if Kaiser Wilhelm II was less of a dunce and a buffoon than he was in real life, though?
Big picture wise back then. Did not matter who was king of what. Or how bad or good a king was.
England's old tried , tested and trusted "PeripherAL" strategy , had always been to support the weaker continental power.
Friedrich I?II?(the Kaiser'S anglophile father) could have been King of Prussia at the start of WWI, and England would have still fought against Germany(as Germany was the strongest Continental power, capable of taking over Europe and threatening England's global Empire using Napoleon's "continental" strategy).

Post Reply

Return to “What if”