If Russia Descends Into Revolution Several Months Earlier, Does Germany Still Launch Unrestricted Submarine Warfare?

[Futurist]

In your honest opinion, would Germany have still launched unrestricted submarine warfare if Russia would have descended into revolution several months earlier (in comparison to real life)?

Any thoughts on this?

As for me, I would say No due to my skepticism that Germany would be willing to risk bringing the U.S. into a war that Germany was already winning. After all, having Russia descend into revolution would tilt World War I in favor of Germany--something that I would think that Germany's leadership would be well-aware of.

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes. This would be because of the British blockade. The economic loss that was causing was severe on Germany. Worse, the US was now selling an equal, or greater, amount of stuff to Britain and France that supported their war effort. The U-boat campaign came to be a way to retaliate against the British and French at sea that would cause real and serious economic pain.
Foregoing it, would have just given the British and French more war material and manpower to win in the West while Germany's home economy still withered on the vine.

[stg 44]

In your honest opinion, would Germany have still launched unrestricted submarine warfare if Russia would have descended into revolution several months earlier (in comparison to real life)?

Any thoughts on this?

As for me, I would say No due to my skepticism that Germany would be willing to risk bringing the U.S. into a war that Germany was already winning. After all, having Russia descend into revolution would tilt World War I in favor of Germany--something that I would think that Germany's leadership would be well-aware of.

Depends. If its after Falkenhayn is knocked out of command then probably not, but if Falkenhayn is still around he most likely doesn't agree to USW and defers to the civilian government that didn't want it. Historically H-L strong armed the Kaiser and Chancellor into it, but if they aren't in command it won't likely happen. Falkenhayn would get credit for Russia imploding if it happens under his watch and probably heads off Romanian entry into the war, while helping blunt the historical damage that Russia did in the latter half of 1916.

[Futurist]

In your honest opinion, would Germany have still launched unrestricted submarine warfare if Russia would have descended into revolution several months earlier (in comparison to real life)?

Any thoughts on this?

As for me, I would say No due to my skepticism that Germany would be willing to risk bringing the U.S. into a war that Germany was already winning. After all, having Russia descend into revolution would tilt World War I in favor of Germany--something that I would think that Germany's leadership would be well-aware of.

Depends. If its before Falkenhayn is knocked out of command then probably not, but if Falkenhayn is still around he most likely doesn't agree to USW and defers to the civilian government that didn't want it. Historically H-L strong armed the Kaiser and Chancellor into it, but if they aren't in command it won't likely happen. Falkenhayn would get credit for Russia imploding if it happens under his watch and probably heads off Romanian entry into the war, while helping blunt the historical damage that Russia did in the latter half of 1916.

Thanks for your answer here, stg 44!

Also, though, what about if Russia descends into revolution after Falkenhayn is ousted (but still several months earlier than in real life)? Would Germany still launch unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in such a scenario?

[stg 44]

Also, though, what about if Russia descends into revolution after Falkenhayn is ousted (but still several months earlier than in real life)? Would Germany still launch unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in such a scenario?

Yes, because Ludendorff drank the media cool aid about the 'wonder weapon' that was the Uboat. If you want a break down of the politics behind USW being ordered in 1916 then read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-I ... 0198202792
Great book all around

[Futurist]

Also, though, what about if Russia descends into revolution after Falkenhayn is ousted (but still several months earlier than in real life)? Would Germany still launch unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in such a scenario?

Yes, because Ludendorff drank the media cool aid about the 'wonder weapon' that was the Uboat. If you want a break down of the politics behind USW being ordered in 1916 then read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-I ... 0198202792
Great book all around

What about Hindenburg? Was he also a huge fan of U-boats and USW even back in 1916?

[maltesefalcon]

First of all the login issue has been solved for me so I am back to be a PITA or commenter depending on your point of view.

The decision to go to USW by Germany may have been affected by an earlier Russian revolution. But the decision would not need to take into account US opinion, or risk of war with them.

The US opinion would have largely been formed after the sinking of Lusitania in 1915, which prompted outrage but no declaration of war stateside.

It was the Zimmerman telegram which tipped the scales on that one.

[OpanaPointer]

In both wars the Germans believed they could use unrestricted submarine warfare to end their war before the US became involved. They were only wrong twice, that's not too bad is it?

[AnchorSteam]

Yes. This would be because of the British blockade. The economic loss that was causing was severe on Germany. Worse, the US was now selling an equal, or greater, amount of stuff to Britain and France that supported their war effort. The U-boat campaign came to be a way to retaliate against the British and French at sea that would cause real and serious economic pain.
Foregoing it, would have just given the British and French more war material and manpower to win in the West while Germany's home economy still withered on the vine.

I'll agree with that.
Being able to steal anything they wanted from the Ukraine and Belarus does not seem to have made things all that much better for Germany in 1918. It also may be due to Germany's failure to manage resources and cope with shortage in that war.
A shortage of coal, in Germany, what the hell was going on there?

[T. A. Gardner]

I'll agree with that.
Being able to steal anything they wanted from the Ukraine and Belarus does not seem to have made things all that much better for Germany in 1918. It also may be due to Germany's failure to manage resources and cope with shortage in that war.
A shortage of coal, in Germany, what the hell was going on there?

By 1918, the Germans were digging up the plumbing in cities to get the lead pipe to make bullets. The civilian population was slaughtering horses in the streets to have some meat. There was a shortage of everything in Germany and the leadership knew they had to win quick or face open revolt at home.

[History Learner]

If you get a peace with Russia in 1917, whether USW or not is launched becomes a background question to the wider one of large scale force transfers to the West likely dooming France and Italy.

[Futurist]

If you get a peace with Russia in 1917, whether USW or not is launched becomes a background question to the wider one of large scale force transfers to the West likely dooming France and Italy.

What makes you think that France and Italy would be more likely to fall to a German onslaught in 1917 in comparison to 1918?

[History Learner]

If you get a peace with Russia in 1917, whether USW or not is launched becomes a background question to the wider one of large scale force transfers to the West likely dooming France and Italy.

What makes you think that France and Italy would be more likely to fall to a German onslaught in 1917 in comparison to 1918?

For one, the German terms in late 1917 essentially were limited to Poland, Lithuania and Courland; removing Ukraine alone frees up about 20 Divisions IIRC. Likewise, the timing here is much better, in that the peace occurs in early 1917 and gives the Germans all year to move forces West and then launch an offensive with their increased number, rather than the situation found historically where the Americans were transporting in about as fast as the Germans could get units West.

[stg 44]

Also, though, what about if Russia descends into revolution after Falkenhayn is ousted (but still several months earlier than in real life)? Would Germany still launch unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in such a scenario?

Yes, because Ludendorff drank the media cool aid about the 'wonder weapon' that was the Uboat. If you want a break down of the politics behind USW being ordered in 1916 then read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-I ... 0198202792
Great book all around

What about Hindenburg? Was he also a huge fan of U-boats and USW even back in 1916?

Hindenburg was mostly a figurehead. Yes he was sympatico with Ludendorff on the Uboats.

[Futurist]

Also, though, what about if Russia descends into revolution after Falkenhayn is ousted (but still several months earlier than in real life)? Would Germany still launch unrestricted submarine warfare (USW) in such a scenario?

Yes, because Ludendorff drank the media cool aid about the 'wonder weapon' that was the Uboat. If you want a break down of the politics behind USW being ordered in 1916 then read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-I ... 0198202792
Great book all around

What about Hindenburg? Was he also a huge fan of U-boats and USW even back in 1916?

Hindenburg was mostly a figurehead. Yes he was sympatico with Ludendorff on the Uboats.

Thanks! Anyway, I'm wondering--if Ludendorff dies in or before 1916, who exactly would replace Falkenhayn when Falkenhayn is removed from command after the debacle at Verdun? Hindenburg was a figurehead, so who would be the actual German military guy in charge in this scenario if Ludendorff is, purely hypothetically, already dead by that point in time? Wilhelm Groener? Or someone else--and, if so, whom exactly?