If you are correct in regards to this, then I would have completely avoided going to war in 1914 if it would have been the German Kaiser during this time.ChristopherPerrien wrote:Big picture wise back then. Did not matter who was king of what. Or how bad or good a king was.Futurist wrote:What about if Kaiser Wilhelm II was less of a dunce and a buffoon than he was in real life, though?ChristopherPerrien wrote: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 wrote:Britain isn't going to blockade Germany in this TL due to Britain being neutral in World War I in this TL, though.
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.
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).
What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
Also, though, would Britain have been willing to enter World War I if World War I would have been delayed by several months or more in comparison to real life? After all, wasn't the Irish Home Rule Crisis in Ireland about to become extremely heated (to put it very mildly) right before the start of World War I? If so, then would Britain have been willing to enter World War I at the very same time that it was busy dealing with the very large troubles in Ireland (as a result of the Irish Home Rule Crisis)?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
In addition to this, here is an interesting question--due to the fact that the Ostflucht was already in progress during this time, could a lot of the ethnic Germans from Russia which Germany might resettle in the Baltic states eventually decide to move to the more industrialized, more urbanized, and more prosperous western parts of Germany?
Any thoughts on this?
Any thoughts on this?
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
The problem at the time is that the (bureaucratic/institutional) tail was wagging the (political - elected or dynastic) dog; literally everywhere.
In Germany you have the bureaucrats agitating and scheming behind Kaiser's back and keeping him completely in the dark while he is on a fishing trip. In Russia you have mid-level bureaucrats financing the murder of the successor to the throne of a large neighboring empire. In France you have the execution of peace advocate Jaures (by a "lone madman") and the character assassination of Caillaux. In Britain you have the scheming and maneuvering of Grey and his cohorts. In the KuK empire Konrad quips after the debacle in Galicia "The Archduke would have me shot." Instead he stays to preside over the debacle in Italy.
So there are some significant structural problems. A soft landing is highly unlikely.
In Germany you have the bureaucrats agitating and scheming behind Kaiser's back and keeping him completely in the dark while he is on a fishing trip. In Russia you have mid-level bureaucrats financing the murder of the successor to the throne of a large neighboring empire. In France you have the execution of peace advocate Jaures (by a "lone madman") and the character assassination of Caillaux. In Britain you have the scheming and maneuvering of Grey and his cohorts. In the KuK empire Konrad quips after the debacle in Galicia "The Archduke would have me shot." Instead he stays to preside over the debacle in Italy.
So there are some significant structural problems. A soft landing is highly unlikely.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
That was back in 1914, though. In contrast, I am talking about a scenario after a German victory in World War I here.BDV wrote:The problem at the time is that the (bureaucratic/institutional) tail was wagging the (political - elected or dynastic) dog; literally everywhere.
In Germany you have the bureaucrats agitating and scheming behind Kaiser's back and keeping him completely in the dark while he is on a fishing trip. In Russia you have mid-level bureaucrats financing the murder of the successor to the throne of a large neighboring empire. In France you have the execution of peace advocate Jaures (by a "lone madman") and the character assassination of Caillaux. In Britain you have the scheming and maneuvering of Grey and his cohorts. In the KuK empire Konrad quips after the debacle in Galicia "The Archduke would have me shot." Instead he stays to preside over the debacle in Italy.
So there are some significant structural problems. A soft landing is highly unlikely.
-
- 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?
Quite probably that is what would have happened. After all, the Baltic Germans evacuated from Estonia and Latvia in 1939-40 did not want to be resettled in the western provinces of Poland annexed by Germany, they wanted to go to Germany itself.In addition to this, here is an interesting question--due to the fact that the Ostflucht was already in progress during this time, could a lot of the ethnic Germans from Russia which Germany might resettle in the Baltic states eventually decide to move to the more industrialized, more urbanized, and more prosperous western parts of Germany?
I would guess that the 10 million or so ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after 1945 are quite happy to be living in Germany and not in Ukraine or Romania, or similar places.
Re: What does Germany need to do if it wants to *permanently* keep the Baltic states?
Out of curiosity, though--did they want to go to eastern Germany or to western Germany?michael mills wrote:Quite probably that is what would have happened. After all, the Baltic Germans evacuated from Estonia and Latvia in 1939-40 did not want to be resettled in the western provinces of Poland annexed by Germany, they wanted to go to Germany itself.In addition to this, here is an interesting question--due to the fact that the Ostflucht was already in progress during this time, could a lot of the ethnic Germans from Russia which Germany might resettle in the Baltic states eventually decide to move to the more industrialized, more urbanized, and more prosperous western parts of Germany?
Completely agreed. Also, though, isn't this figure closer to 15 million ethnic Germans than to 10 million ethnic Germans?I would guess that the 10 million or so ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe after 1945 are quite happy to be living in Germany and not in Ukraine or Romania, or similar places.