WW1 : Alternate Scenarios

File: 1471662856576.jpg (215KB, 748x823px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 748x823px

britain would still have found a reason to bring themselves in alongside france and russia. the 1839 treaty of london only required britain to respect belgian neutrality, not uphold it. that was belgium's business. literally no legal requirement to defend it.

fact of the matter was the germany was their largest rival and they were not willing to risk a scenario in which germany emerged as the undisputed master of mainland europe.

>>2392067
Thoughts on world 1914-1945

WW2. Half a million Germans died at least. Not to mention the crushing amount of deaths of Russians and other slavs. I'll leave the holocaust and any other ethnic cleansing out of it just to keep it strictly to openly accepted warfare deaths (military and civillian, again not including the holocaust) and add about a million anglo-American combined dead.

Europe was destroyed, the iron curtain sealed tight, and all European colonial holdings were opening into independence. East Asia had stupifying millions of dead, and Japan lost its industrial base.

Ironically, almost every objective the axis powers of central Europe sought to complete through war and intense militarism from 1914 to 1945 were brought into fruition shortly after their capitulation and utter destruction. In western Europe, and then in almost all Europe after the fall of the Soviet bloc.

Germany got its desired position as leader of a pan-European continental sphere of unity based on German economic power. France lost all relevance as a serious military power, and Britain lost its empire, the maintenance of which was all it really cared about during both world wars.

Japan too sought power and wealth in a greater sphere of pan-Asian-Pacific influence by bringing about a self destructive war, and it ironically only achieved this aim after capitulation and millions of deaths by having the US pump in loads of money, force democracy and western trading practices on it.

Basically, after German unification into a single state and before the first world war, they were being pressured on all sides (France to the west, russia to the east) to contain them as the continental super power they naturally were.

>>2392117
Cont.

I dont blame Germany for merely realizing its economic, scientific, and cultural potential. The older great powers of the entante were truly trying to hold them down. I don't condone the schleifen plan they used to back Austria in war, but they didn't lose the war of 1914 in the way they did in '45. They merely signed a constricting armistice that posponed hostilities for a couple decades. Hitler was in the right to do whatever he could to unite German peoples and territories in the inter-war period, but he didn't learn the lessons of unchecked militarism as a means to achievement of his nation's goals. This is why Hitler will ultimately be seen in the future forever more as a poor statesman, regardless of ethnic cleansing and authoritarianism.

The entante powers fortunately did learn one important rule from the armistice of 1918. They learned that imposing resentful and destructive punishments on your enemy merely postponed hostilities to a further date. By embracing democracy, trade, and infrastructure, you can negotiate loans in order to rebuild your enemy to your liking. When the Versailles treaty was imposed, the league of nations had no room for negotiating. They could try to embargo or sanction a non-compliant nation, but Germany was already under the most humiliating imposition possible. This left the leage with no bargaining chips other than resuming the hostilities that ended in 1918.

>>2392145
Cont.

The schliefen plan of marching through Belgium was a plan in place several years before hostilities broke out in 1914. Britain's guarantee of Belgium's neutrality and independence gave the British a reason to further control and contain the newly unified and very powerful second Reich. They didn't want another European monolith like Napoleon a hundred years earlier gaining control of the continent.

The Germans were at fault for using an out dated plan, the British were at fault because their guarantee of Belgian independence was bullshit scribbled on old paper. They had no real obligation to enter a general European war over Belgium, it was merely a means to an end. Britain was yet another old giant power on the block that just couldn't find room for one more big boy. Same as Russia and France.

Now, Germany is cruising for a bruising yet a third time, now that brexit has happened and Europe in general is realizing they have already been conquered by Germany without a single shot being fired.

For similar reasons, the US will lose global hegemony soon either through war or more likely, economic collapse, as more and more of the global population realizes they've been conquered economically.

Thoughts on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQW3VefRozc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBxLHCy_10w

>>2392067
Without British intervention, Germany could have won WW1.

However, it should be considered that Germany went through Belgium not just because they lacked the confidence in their ability to win a two-fronts war but also to avoid unnecessary casualties. The idea was to finish the war as quickly as possible. Also, Germany went into the war believing that Britain would be against them either way due to having a spy in the Russian embassy who taught them about talks of naval landing operations in the Baltic where Britain would support Russia. This was in fact one of the major reasons why Bethmann-Hollwegh gave in to the military's demands of a pre-emptive strike - they felt completely encircled and saw no other way out.

This is most of all hindsight however. If you told the German leadership how costly a victory over France and Russia would be - even if victory was assured - they would think twice about making such an attempt and seek a diplomatic solution instead. None of the parties involved in WW1 would seek war had they known beforehand how things would turn out.

>>2392568
>None of the parties involved in WW1 would seek war had they known beforehand how things would turn out.

As the saying goes, war is merely a continuation of a stubborn government policy.

Diplomatic relations could have saved millions. King George, tsar Nicholas, and Kaiser willy were all first cousins if im not mistaken, as we're their respective ambassadors

>>2392067

Asquith and Grey both wanted war to prevent Germany from destroying France and dominating the continent.

At the same time they had no real reason to go to war with Germany on paper that they could explain to the public.

Grey maintained til his death he had diplomatically not bound Britian to defend France.

They also had cold feet about the whole thing sensing that the war could be a big fucking deal and not like Franco-Prussia and were looking for an easy way out.

Finally they agreed 'well if germany attacks Belgium then we have to go to war otherwise we won't.

But they already knew from talks with Germany about the situation that Germany was going to attack belgium.

Anyway they felt bound because British diplomatic policy for over 100 years had been keep the powers on the continent equal. They had to side with France because they thought france was going to get fucked up. Had the situation been reversed they would have found a way to attack France.

But they really didnt want a situation where the kaiser could impose a continental sysem a la Napoleon which could ruin Britian in the long term.

Germany was going to pull Britian in to the war either way, Belgium was just a story for the english press.

Germanys only shot at beating France was through Belgium with 9/10s of its army. If they had sent it through elsass lothringen it would have just ended up in the stalemate we saw anyway.

They ended up weaking the right wing too much and sending troops to the left wing because of percieved success but it ended up compromising the whole plan.

>>2392104
>Under the treaty, the European powers recognized and guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium
If you guarantee the existence of a nation and it is invaded and you do nothing, you are not fulfilling your obligation.

>>2392067

Britain would have intervened on the side of France no matter what happened. The invasion of Belgium was just a very convenient excuse to get public support.

THe interesting thing about the build up to WWI is that you can really out blame on almost everyone.

>>2392986
Well yes, but a lot of germaboos like to blame other people for the idiotic foreign policy, and actions of Germany in the lead up and opening days of World War 1 because in their minds Germany winning was the only right outcome, so anyone that interferes with that is in the wrong.
In all honesty, there is a real chance the Germans would have still lost even if the British did not aid Belgium. Belgium was much tougher then the Germans anticipated and greatly slowed them down. It would have still been a bloody and long conflict.

>>2392067
>This alerts Britain (Allies with Belgium) and they become involved with Germany, leading to WW1.
WW1 was already a world war as soon as France and Russia were involved, you faggy self-centered bong

>Could Germany have avoided major economic collapse / WW1 if they had not made this crucial decision to attack Belgium?
Belgium was a convenient excuse
Britain was part of the Triple Entente and would have sided with them anyway
Attacking through the French fortified border would've been a much worse decision for Germany, and would have lead to most of the war being fought on German soil

How would war turn out if Germany attacked thru switzerland and not Belgium?
Which countries would remain neutral, and which would go to war earlier.

And if that happend could central won?

>>2392940
Just like the U.S. guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty and independence if they gave up their nuclear stock pile.

Look how that turned out