Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

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

Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#1

Post by Futurist » 07 Nov 2021, 21:10

Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win? I'm highly impressed by the fact that the Allies were able to fully recover from the 1940 Fall of France and to eventually decisively win World War II five years later. I'm wondering if something similar could have ever actually had a realistic chance to occur in World War I had some things went differently. As in, have Germany get better luck in the West (perhaps encircling and destroying both the French Fifth Army commanded by Charles Lanrezac as well as destroying the BEF at Mons) in the very beginning of this war would have allowed Germany to achieve a tactical victory at the Marne before being able to deal the decisive finishing blow to the French the next year (specifically in 1915), after which point Germany would have devoted all of its attention to the East. But then the British are going to need to aggressively reinforce the Russian front with a lot of their own (British + British Empire) troops in order to hold back the Germans in the East and to eventually try pushing the Germans back. If the Germans will ever be stupid enough to still launch unrestricted submarine warfare against the US, feeling that they already have the war in the bag and that thus they don't have that much to lose by trying to get the British to capitulate, this could be enough to still get the US into WWI, in which case the US would have to send a lot of troops to the Russian Front because there won't be a Western Front any longer in this scenario due to the previous Fall of France and a D-Day-style amphibious invasion presumably being unfeasible with the logistics of the 1910s, no? But even then, you will actually need to find a realistic way to prevent Russia from having an internal collapse--perhaps a palace coup against Tsar Nicholas II early enough, with the installation of one of his cousins as a more competent Russian Tsar in his place? And ultimately there would still be the question as to whether the Russo-Anglo-Americans are actually going to have the necessary logistical abilities and the necessary willpower to sustain an extremely massive number of casualties in order for them to advance all of the way up to Berlin and to destroy the German war machine once and for all.

Anyway, what do you personally think about all of this? I'm trying to figure out a realistic way to recreate World War II-style conditions for World War I by making World War I a mostly Eastern Front-focused conflict. But I also want to see if there is any realistic way to still have an Allied victory in such a World War I.

Thoughts?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#2

Post by Peter89 » 08 Nov 2021, 11:16

Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win? I'm highly impressed by the fact that the Allies were able to fully recover from the 1940 Fall of France and to eventually decisively win World War II five years later. I'm wondering if something similar could have ever actually had a realistic chance to occur in World War I had some things went differently. As in, have Germany get better luck in the West (perhaps encircling and destroying both the French Fifth Army commanded by Charles Lanrezac as well as destroying the BEF at Mons) in the very beginning of this war would have allowed Germany to achieve a tactical victory at the Marne before being able to deal the decisive finishing blow to the French the next year (specifically in 1915), after which point Germany would have devoted all of its attention to the East. But then the British are going to need to aggressively reinforce the Russian front with a lot of their own (British + British Empire) troops in order to hold back the Germans in the East and to eventually try pushing the Germans back. If the Germans will ever be stupid enough to still launch unrestricted submarine warfare against the US, feeling that they already have the war in the bag and that thus they don't have that much to lose by trying to get the British to capitulate, this could be enough to still get the US into WWI, in which case the US would have to send a lot of troops to the Russian Front because there won't be a Western Front any longer in this scenario due to the previous Fall of France and a D-Day-style amphibious invasion presumably being unfeasible with the logistics of the 1910s, no? But even then, you will actually need to find a realistic way to prevent Russia from having an internal collapse--perhaps a palace coup against Tsar Nicholas II early enough, with the installation of one of his cousins as a more competent Russian Tsar in his place? And ultimately there would still be the question as to whether the Russo-Anglo-Americans are actually going to have the necessary logistical abilities and the necessary willpower to sustain an extremely massive number of casualties in order for them to advance all of the way up to Berlin and to destroy the German war machine once and for all.

Anyway, what do you personally think about all of this? I'm trying to figure out a realistic way to recreate World War II-style conditions for World War I by making World War I a mostly Eastern Front-focused conflict. But I also want to see if there is any realistic way to still have an Allied victory in such a World War I.

Thoughts?
The German chance to win in France was not so much in the hands of France but in the hands of Russia. Germany and the A-H Empire were unable to quickly score a victory against numerically superior enemies on very distant fronts.

At this time, the Americans were not in the war, and the Italians were neither.

Most people forget that one of the fundamental differences between WW1 and WW2 was Russia/SU. In WW1, Russia was aggressive from day 1, and they fielded a huge army. Germany could not opt to leave its eastern frontier undefended for years as in WW2.

And with Russia on the offensive, the German chances to score a decisive victory in France were minimal if not nonexistent.

Also, in WW1, there was a real chance to politically collapse Imperial Russia, not like in WW2. Thus, in my opinion, an "East first" strategy in WW1 would always made more sense than a "West first". The A-H attack on Serbia made no sense in military terms.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."


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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#3

Post by Terry Duncan » 08 Nov 2021, 17:56

Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?
Yes. The manner of a victory rather depends on quite how costly defeating France is for Germany.
Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
As in, have Germany get better luck in the West (perhaps encircling and destroying both the French Fifth Army commanded by Charles Lanrezac as well as destroying the BEF at Mons) in the very beginning of this war would have allowed Germany to achieve a tactical victory at the Marne before being able to deal the decisive finishing blow to the French the next year (specifically in 1915), after which point Germany would have devoted all of its attention to the East.
You have identified pretty much the only realistic chance to win fast enough. Winning at The Marne is not going to be conclusive as most likely the French will retire onto a further defence line they had identified in the pre-war years - I cannot remember the name, but the line just bends back further angled to the SW and leaving Paris and its garrison in place (at the time it was the world largest fortress with a huge garrison, one the Germans never really solved how to deal with).

If the French refuse to listen to Lanrezac or force his army to halt in place a day or two longer, then the encirclement/annihilation battle they wished for may have taken place. If the flanked and outnumbered BEF/5th Army collapse, it allows the Germans to crash into the flank and read of the rest of the French army. This is where you need to look to 1871 for an example of what is likely next, a long drawn out war where the French conduct irregular warfare against German forces, refusing to commit to a large battle. In 1871 the Germans were rather glad to get out when they did, they were winning but unable to force things to a conclusion. Likely there would need to be a large force to occupy whatever part of France the Germans wanted to try and hold, and they may well have suffered large casualties even if the balance favoured them (like the Kessel fighting in 1941). France in 1914 was very different from the France of 1939, it is unlikely to just fold and be nice even if the main armies are defeated.
Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
Anyway, what do you personally think about all of this? I'm trying to figure out a realistic way to recreate World War II-style conditions for World War I by making World War I a mostly Eastern Front-focused conflict. But I also want to see if there is any realistic way to still have an Allied victory in such a World War I.

Thoughts?
The British blockade. Prior to the war, the British had concluded it would take 18 months or so of a total blockade to collapse Germany. When war came, the blockade was not total, certain goods were allowed to pass through in order to keep the Americans happy. After the US joined the war they forgot all objections as to what was not contraband of war and the blockade became total. Germany cannot defeat Russia within two years simply due to the inability to project supply lines into Russia rapidly, having to build them after each advance. In this particular case, the entire war is going to be fought very differently, the Russians do not need to attack, only to defend their own land, something that will help morale at home too. With the Russians not launching costly offensives, they become much harder to defeat. Rationing was introduced in Germany in 1914 even with a partial blockade.

The total blockade will not be popular with the US, but Britain is likely to say it is fighting for its existence and brush away complaints. The US is 3,000 miles away with no bases near Britain and little way to project its naval power across the Atlantic, so as unhappy as it may be the chances are the US will protest and maybe apply sanctions of its own, but war is not likely. There will no doubt be the talk of annexing Canada, an independent nation in its own right, which is unlikely to make the Canadians happy or better disposed to the Americans. Britain is more likely to place war orders in the US and pay compensation rather like it did historically to keep the peace.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#4

Post by T. A. Gardner » 08 Nov 2021, 20:45

This is why, and I've suggested it before, the Germans don't go for a quick win in France. They go for a quick win against Russia. In the West, they dig in along the French - German border and are backed up by extensive pre-existing fortifications. The French--per their doctrine--would have gone on the offensive to breech the German front and win the war.
The result is the original bloodbath of the Western Front only the French take the drubbing while the defending Germans take lighter (although still serious) losses.
With no involvement of Belgium, the British stay out of the war. This means no blockade of Germany. The French navy on its own isn't going to stand up to the High Seas Fleet and has no way to impose a blockade in any case, particularly if the British object to their ships being searched or seized.

This means German still has heavy trade with the US and isn't in a shortage situation for war materials.

The Russians go down PDQ against a major German offensive resulting in their capitulation say a year or so earlier than historically happened. That leaves France going it alone against Germany and Austria-Hungary. If the Germans can get the Ottoman Empire to throw in with them, then France's N. African colonies (at least those in the eastern part of the Med) become threatened. Britain might react to that, but that leaves them in a much weaker position overall to forcing a German surrender.

With the pressure on, France and German agree to terms and end the war with Germany coming out ahead.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#5

Post by Futurist » 08 Nov 2021, 22:55

T. A. Gardner wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 20:45
This is why, and I've suggested it before, the Germans don't go for a quick win in France. They go for a quick win against Russia. In the West, they dig in along the French - German border and are backed up by extensive pre-existing fortifications. The French--per their doctrine--would have gone on the offensive to breech the German front and win the war.
The result is the original bloodbath of the Western Front only the French take the drubbing while the defending Germans take lighter (although still serious) losses.
With no involvement of Belgium, the British stay out of the war. This means no blockade of Germany. The French navy on its own isn't going to stand up to the High Seas Fleet and has no way to impose a blockade in any case, particularly if the British object to their ships being searched or seized.

This means German still has heavy trade with the US and isn't in a shortage situation for war materials.

The Russians go down PDQ against a major German offensive resulting in their capitulation say a year or so earlier than historically happened. That leaves France going it alone against Germany and Austria-Hungary. If the Germans can get the Ottoman Empire to throw in with them, then France's N. African colonies (at least those in the eastern part of the Med) become threatened. Britain might react to that, but that leaves them in a much weaker position overall to forcing a German surrender.

With the pressure on, France and German agree to terms and end the war with Germany coming out ahead.
A quick win against Russia was perceived as being unfeasible due to Russia's vast terrain, no? The Germans did have the experience of Napoleon to learn from a century earlier, after all.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#6

Post by Futurist » 08 Nov 2021, 22:58

Terry Duncan wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 17:56
Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?
Yes. The manner of a victory rather depends on quite how costly defeating France is for Germany.
Agreed that the bloodier defeating France is for Germany, the better it is for the Allies.
Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
As in, have Germany get better luck in the West (perhaps encircling and destroying both the French Fifth Army commanded by Charles Lanrezac as well as destroying the BEF at Mons) in the very beginning of this war would have allowed Germany to achieve a tactical victory at the Marne before being able to deal the decisive finishing blow to the French the next year (specifically in 1915), after which point Germany would have devoted all of its attention to the East.
You have identified pretty much the only realistic chance to win fast enough. Winning at The Marne is not going to be conclusive as most likely the French will retire onto a further defence line they had identified in the pre-war years - I cannot remember the name, but the line just bends back further angled to the SW and leaving Paris and its garrison in place (at the time it was the world largest fortress with a huge garrison, one the Germans never really solved how to deal with).

If the French refuse to listen to Lanrezac or force his army to halt in place a day or two longer, then the encirclement/annihilation battle they wished for may have taken place. If the flanked and outnumbered BEF/5th Army collapse, it allows the Germans to crash into the flank and read of the rest of the French army. This is where you need to look to 1871 for an example of what is likely next, a long drawn out war where the French conduct irregular warfare against German forces, refusing to commit to a large battle. In 1871 the Germans were rather glad to get out when they did, they were winning but unable to force things to a conclusion. Likely there would need to be a large force to occupy whatever part of France the Germans wanted to try and hold, and they may well have suffered large casualties even if the balance favoured them (like the Kessel fighting in 1941). France in 1914 was very different from the France of 1939, it is unlikely to just fold and be nice even if the main armies are defeated.
What made the France of 1940 so eager to quickly fold? The lack of Russian and US participation in the war?

And Yeah, I was thinking of having Imperial Germany do what Hitler did in World War II and occupy a giant part of France until ALL OF the Allies would have actually agreed to a final peace treaty ending World War I. To do otherwise might create a risk of the French subsequently recovering and stabbing Germany in the back when Germany is busy fighting Russia in the East, I'm presuming.
Futurist wrote:
07 Nov 2021, 21:10
Anyway, what do you personally think about all of this? I'm trying to figure out a realistic way to recreate World War II-style conditions for World War I by making World War I a mostly Eastern Front-focused conflict. But I also want to see if there is any realistic way to still have an Allied victory in such a World War I.

Thoughts?
The British blockade. Prior to the war, the British had concluded it would take 18 months or so of a total blockade to collapse Germany. When war came, the blockade was not total, certain goods were allowed to pass through in order to keep the Americans happy. After the US joined the war they forgot all objections as to what was not contraband of war and the blockade became total. Germany cannot defeat Russia within two years simply due to the inability to project supply lines into Russia rapidly, having to build them after each advance. In this particular case, the entire war is going to be fought very differently, the Russians do not need to attack, only to defend their own land, something that will help morale at home too. With the Russians not launching costly offensives, they become much harder to defeat. Rationing was introduced in Germany in 1914 even with a partial blockade.

The total blockade will not be popular with the US, but Britain is likely to say it is fighting for its existence and brush away complaints. The US is 3,000 miles away with no bases near Britain and little way to project its naval power across the Atlantic, so as unhappy as it may be the chances are the US will protest and maybe apply sanctions of its own, but war is not likely. There will no doubt be the talk of annexing Canada, an independent nation in its own right, which is unlikely to make the Canadians happy or better disposed to the Americans. Britain is more likely to place war orders in the US and pay compensation rather like it did historically to keep the peace.
Could this cause the Germans to launch USW against Britain much earlier in comparison to real life, thus resulting in an earlier US entry into WWI? And would the Anglo-Americans have sent a lot of their own troops into Russia in such a scenario to help the Russians fight the Germans?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#7

Post by Peter89 » 09 Nov 2021, 10:46

T. A. Gardner wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 20:45
This is why, and I've suggested it before, the Germans don't go for a quick win in France. They go for a quick win against Russia. In the West, they dig in along the French - German border and are backed up by extensive pre-existing fortifications. The French--per their doctrine--would have gone on the offensive to breech the German front and win the war.
The result is the original bloodbath of the Western Front only the French take the drubbing while the defending Germans take lighter (although still serious) losses.
With no involvement of Belgium, the British stay out of the war. This means no blockade of Germany. The French navy on its own isn't going to stand up to the High Seas Fleet and has no way to impose a blockade in any case, particularly if the British object to their ships being searched or seized.

This means German still has heavy trade with the US and isn't in a shortage situation for war materials.

The Russians go down PDQ against a major German offensive resulting in their capitulation say a year or so earlier than historically happened. That leaves France going it alone against Germany and Austria-Hungary. If the Germans can get the Ottoman Empire to throw in with them, then France's N. African colonies (at least those in the eastern part of the Med) become threatened. Britain might react to that, but that leaves them in a much weaker position overall to forcing a German surrender.

With the pressure on, France and German agree to terms and end the war with Germany coming out ahead.
While I doubt that the British would stay out of the war, indeed, with hindsight, this could be the only working strategy. Neither Britain nor France was in a position to help Russia directly, and we know that Russia has collapsed internally. Now the question is, how much of that collapse was related to 3 years of senseless bloodletting, and how much to the defeat of the armed forces?
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#8

Post by T. A. Gardner » 09 Nov 2021, 17:50

Peter89 wrote:
09 Nov 2021, 10:46
While I doubt that the British would stay out of the war, indeed, with hindsight, this could be the only working strategy. Neither Britain nor France was in a position to help Russia directly, and we know that Russia has collapsed internally. Now the question is, how much of that collapse was related to 3 years of senseless bloodletting, and how much to the defeat of the armed forces?
Historically, the Russian army by the beginning of 1917 was ready to crack. Mutinies started among the troops and the army was refusing to fight. There had already been something like a year or more of riots in cities across Russia over heavy-handed conscription and the mass casualties the army was taking.

I could see France still demanding Russia sent troops to France to help them break the German front. That would only exacerbate things like it did historically (Russia sent 4 brigades) .

So, I'd think that a much larger German army in the East going on the offensive is going to breakdown the Russian army faster--say by 1916 and when the collapse comes it's followed by an internal civil war sans the Communists. That is, the Germans have no reason to allow Lenin and company to return to Russia.

France is then left in a position where the Germans have access to more resources from the occupied portions of Russia and all of Poland while while they are having issues about mass casualties themselves. With little or nothing to gain continuing the war a negotiated peace is arranged.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#9

Post by Terry Duncan » 09 Nov 2021, 18:37

Futurist wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 22:58
What made the France of 1940 so eager to quickly fold? The lack of Russian and US participation in the war?
The loss of so many men in WWI. France already had a declining population birthrate and the loss of pretty much an entire generation made the problem worse. The political nature of France was also divided in 1939/40 with many actually sympathising with the Nazi anti-Communist stance, whilst a similar portion of the population sympathised with the Communists and hated the Nazis. There was simply no will to see another bloodbath which is why Daladier and Chamberlain were cheered heartily when they returned from Munich. They were also massively unprepared with their modern war materials only coming online in 1941.
Futurist wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 22:58
Could this cause the Germans to launch USW against Britain much earlier in comparison to real life, thus resulting in an earlier US entry into WWI? And would the Anglo-Americans have sent a lot of their own troops into Russia in such a scenario to help the Russians fight the Germans?
The Germans have no way to force Britain to end a war with their conventional force, the army, so must look to the navy to change things to their favour. This can either be a naval battle to gain dominance - or a series of them maybe - or eventually, a submarine blockade of Britain to try and force the issue. It would be hard to supply forces in Russia, so more likely you would see some attempt to fight in Western Europe or maybe through the ports of a minor nation suitably bribed to join in when an expeditionary force was ready to be dispatched.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#10

Post by Futurist » 10 Nov 2021, 07:34

Would it be possible for the Anglo-Russians to quickly build a railroad from the Persian Gulf through Iran and the Caucasus for Britain to subsequently move troops and supplies into Russia through it?

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#11

Post by Terry Duncan » 10 Nov 2021, 18:26

Futurist wrote:
10 Nov 2021, 07:34
Would it be possible for the Anglo-Russians to quickly build a railroad from the Persian Gulf through Iran and the Caucasus for Britain to subsequently move troops and supplies into Russia through it?
You could build such a railway fairly easily physically, it may not be acceptable politically given the two nations were involved in The Great Game for many years and were rivals long before they were allies. The different gauges of railways could also prove an issue, but it would be pretty simple for both nations to construct a major railway hub where things were swapped over as they had been from Russia in Europe since railways began.

To be honest, I am not sure that Britain will want to send many men to fight in Russia, it would be more traditional to create a front elsewhere so that smaller numbers of men could be more effective.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#12

Post by Futurist » 10 Nov 2021, 21:05

Terry Duncan wrote:
10 Nov 2021, 18:26
Futurist wrote:
10 Nov 2021, 07:34
Would it be possible for the Anglo-Russians to quickly build a railroad from the Persian Gulf through Iran and the Caucasus for Britain to subsequently move troops and supplies into Russia through it?
You could build such a railway fairly easily physically, it may not be acceptable politically given the two nations were involved in The Great Game for many years and were rivals long before they were allies. The different gauges of railways could also prove an issue, but it would be pretty simple for both nations to construct a major railway hub where things were swapped over as they had been from Russia in Europe since railways began.

To be honest, I am not sure that Britain will want to send many men to fight in Russia, it would be more traditional to create a front elsewhere so that smaller numbers of men could be more effective.
If a new front is to be created elsewhere, the Ottoman Empire might seem like a pretty good bet. Though Britain could also decide to try reinforcing the Balkan Front.

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#13

Post by Futurist » 11 Nov 2021, 05:45

Terry Duncan wrote:
09 Nov 2021, 18:37
Futurist wrote:
08 Nov 2021, 22:58
Could this cause the Germans to launch USW against Britain much earlier in comparison to real life, thus resulting in an earlier US entry into WWI? And would the Anglo-Americans have sent a lot of their own troops into Russia in such a scenario to help the Russians fight the Germans?
The Germans have no way to force Britain to end a war with their conventional force, the army, so must look to the navy to change things to their favour. This can either be a naval battle to gain dominance - or a series of them maybe - or eventually, a submarine blockade of Britain to try and force the issue. It would be hard to supply forces in Russia, so more likely you would see some attempt to fight in Western Europe or maybe through the ports of a minor nation suitably bribed to join in when an expeditionary force was ready to be dispatched.
By the way, Terry, I have a question for you: If World War I starts in 1905 (or 1906) over Morocco, would Germany be able to quickly defeat France while Russia stays out? Would Germany be able to quickly defeat both France and Russia? Or would Germany quickly defeat France, then head for the east towards Russia but eventually run out of munitions due to the lack of a Haber-Bosch process yet, thus ensuring that the Allies would win this war by default?

In one of his books, Adolf Hitler regrets the fact that Germany did not wage a preventative war in 1904, but I'm trying to figure out just how sound Hitler's logic was on this specific issue (as opposed to on other issues where he was obviously dead-wrong!). Hitler wrote that such a preventative war would have been far preferable to the mass slaughter that actually took place on the battlefields in Europe and elsewhere in 1914-1918. Was Hitler actually right about this?

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

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#14

Post by Futurist » 11 Nov 2021, 05:52

From Adolf Hitler's Second Book (1928):

https://archive.md/DlfWt
Moreover, the hardest war that had ever been fought by Prussia was a preventive war. When Frederick The
Great had received final knowledge of the intention of his old enemies, through a scribbler soul, he did not wait
until the others attacked, on the grounds of a fundamental rejection of a preventive war, but went immediately
over to the attack himself.

For Germany, any violation of the two power standard of necessity should have been a cause for a preventive
war. For what would it have been easier to answer before history: for a preventive war in 1904, which could
have defeated France when Russia seemed to be entangled in Eastern Asia, or for the World War which ensued
from this neglect, and which required many times the blood, and plunged our Folk into the abyss of defeat?

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Is there any realistic way for France to quickly fall in World War I only for the Allies to still subsequently win?

#15

Post by pugsville » 11 Nov 2021, 06:56

The Only way I see a quick Entente win after a quick French exit is a near simultaneous exit of Austria Hungary.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”