CENTRAL POWERS: A World War for Revenge and for Freedom

[NoemiChan]

Another thread for the War History Fanatics......

I've been reading history books even when I was young, and WW1 was one of the wars that in my opinion is more of a political war. Why? I'm not sure, but many of us are sure that it resulted mainly because of Austria's revenge against Serbia for killing their monarch and I'm not against that (my opinion). Actually I might have done the same thing.

About the thread, I just wanted to know your views, whether the Central Powers were at the position to wage war for the sake of revenge? And that the Allies for freedom? But surely they all wage war because of alliances than anything else (probably wealth and territories). Would it change history if they won? Where there a chance that they could have won?

[Irenicus]

Er, the Allies never actually fought for anything remotely close to "freedom." It wasn't like they were actually fighting Nazis.

Moreover it is commonly accepted that the pretext, Austria's "punishment" of Serbia, was only just that, a pretext. Serbia did not authorize the assassination, for one, so it wasn't actually revenge that Austria was fighting for. It was, in all honesty, fighting to stem the tide of nationalism at any cost.

If anything the ones who were fighting for revenge would be the French. They had, in a sense, planned for this war since a tragic summer in 1871...

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Aren't most wars political wars in some way?

But that's beside the point. I'm not sure that the Great War itself was as important as its aftermath, namely the Treaty of Versailles. It was, I suppose, significant if you consider it one of the starting points for a lot of the troubles we're having today.

[Ithekro]

The Alliance system is mostly to blame for the scale of the war. However there was another oddly human factor in this war. Nationalism was high and the most recent war had been over a generation earlier. The young men wanted to go to war for the thrill of it. The "advanture" I suppose. The honor and glory of it. What did they get? Trenches the likes of which hadn't been seen before (I think the closest thing would have been the Union lines outside Richmond during early 1865). Death for little to no gain, or death for nothing at all.

The war stripped some towns of all the men of a generation. That combined with the Second World Wars losses effectively broke Europeean nations. They just no longer had the manpower for their colonies and industries. They've recovered somewhat since then, but their population are in decline (by birth rate at least).

As for the Great War. The Germans wrote the Austrians a blank check so to speak before Austria invade Serbia. Sebia hadn't been independent of Austria all that long and I imagine the Empire wanted to regain some of their lost holdings. The Ottomans wouldn't mind taking back some of that region themselves even if it might put them into conflict with Austria again in the future. The Germans did not have anything at stake though. They knew if Russia came to the aid of Serbia the Alliances would bring in France for sure. Thus the Germans decided that they had to knock either France or Russia out quickly so they could focus on a longer war with the other one later. If things had gone according to plane (which from what I understand was based on a tactic by Robert E. Lee) France should have colllaped to the German Army after having gone through Belgium to get around French lines at the border. But generals die and things don't operate as clockwork. The French manage to stop the Germans before they get to Paris. Then the long war starts.

After this the Germans were forced to fight both France and Russia instead of taking France out of the picture first (unlike the Second World War...the theory is that the German get to Paris, the France surrenders, pays the Germans some money, maybe a slice of territory, and the Germans leave to go fight Russia). The war against Russia went a lot better than the war against France and Britain. The Germans actually won that part of the war when the Revolution happens. Lenin calls for peace, the Germans get some territory and then try to rush to France in 1917....because they very well know what is coming their way...the Americans are coming.

The Unrestricted submarine warfare was effective, but considered against the laws of the sea. One would fire a warning shot to your target and evacuated the crew if you needed to sink the ship...if you didn't just capture it as a prize. Submarines are too small to have prize crews, have no room for passangers...and too slow and fragile to give a warning shot. Thus, torpedo amidships and the transports is gone. No warning, and less survivors if their was no convoy in the North Atlantic. This warfare, when unrestricted, brought the American, who traded heavily on the seas, into the war. The million or so American troops arrived in France just before the Germans could capitalize on the French and British Armies loss of moral and the the rest of the German Army that had been on the Eastern Front arriving to "finish" the war. (Some report that the French had actuallt stopped the Germans before the Americans arrived and the German Army was effectively done anyway at that point...making the American forces basically the clean up units that puch the Germans back since the French, British, and German armies are spent by 1918).

I might not that the United States traded heavily with Britain, France, and Germany. The British blockade stopped American ships from going to Germany as much as the German submarines stopped American ships from going to the United Kingdom and France. Trouble was the different styles (the British blockade was more effective at keeping American shipping out of Germany, but ships were lost to German torpedoes, not so many to British gunfire). While one might wonder if the Americans sided with Germany what would happen? Well...one you have to get American troops and supplies past the British Royal Navy. The United States Navy was not exactly small fry in 1917, but it was not as large as the Royal Navy. The newest ship we had I believe was USS Arizona, which while it had All or Nothing armor (quite thick) and twelve 14" guns, they would have to content with the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, which also have good armor and are armed with eight 15" guns. Also there are more 15" armed British ships than there are 14" gun armed American ships in 1917. (Britain has 12 such ships (the 5 Queen Elizabeths, 5 Revenge-class (last one finished in late 1917) and two Battlecruisers: Repulse and Renown) as well as two light cruiser with 15" guns, Glorious and Courageous, and one light cruiser/carrier with a single 18" cannon (Furious). The Americans have 6 with a 7th by the end of 1917 (USS New York, Texas, Oaklahoma, Nevada, Pennslyvania, Arizona and the 7th being USS Mississippi). Carriers? The British have a few early ones by this time. The Americans...none, but there were plans to convert ships if this became an issue (it wouldn't with the aircraft of the day). The Americans only advantage would be that the German High Seas Fleet can also sail...at that point the British Royal Navy has about an equal fight even when counting the French Navy with the British. But that is all timing. Then you have to figure out just how the US Army is going to help if you can get past the Royal Navy. Invade the United Kingdom? No. Invade France to help knock it out of the War. Probably. How? I would guess they would have to sail around to Germany to unload troops and supplies to run up to the German lines...as you can't launch a full invasion from New York to Brest...can you?

Other problem...Canada. The largest unfortafied border on the planet. Do you invade Canada instead of trying to get past the Royal Navy? Sounds reasonable. If forces Commonwealth troops to defend against the Americans in North America when they can't really redeploy from Europe. Thee Royal Navy is being used to keep the Germans bottled up...not you have to run a blockade of the US Navy to get troops to Canada. That doesn't sound like a fun prostect since the US Navy was designed to fight that sort of war. A Battle Line designed to force the enemy to come to it mixed with what are basically raider forces (the light cruisers and such) that could cut the British supply lines. Add to this the obscene number of destroyers built during the war, British transports would have an awful time getting to Canada.

But what of Italy? What of it? First more or less a neutral to Central Power, then an Allied power? What was up with that? A combined Austrian-Italian fleet could have been a powerful thing in the Mediterranian Sea agianst the British and French (especially with much of the Royal Navy busy keeping the German High Seas Fleet in the Baltic Sea).


Is that a rant...or just sort of a random continuation of the material?

[Irenicus]

^the Austrian Empire never ruled Serbia. In fact it was Serbia's status as a Balkan ethnic nation outside of Austria's borders that provoked them so much. An independent and jingoistic Serbia on its border was a permanent call to arms for the Empire's Slavic nationalities.

Serbia was for many centuries before the First World War an Ottoman vassal ever since the Ottoman sultans subjugated them in their campaigns in the Balkans. In the 19th century as Ottoman power declined it drifted closer to Russia in a peculiar situation where de jure it was an Ottoman vassal, de facto it had autonomy, aligned with Russia, the Ottoman's primary enemy, and hungry for true independence and more "historic" lands it claimed.

By the early 1900's though, tensions in the Balkans, usually already high, was positively uncontrollable. People forget that Europe had already seen two Balkan wars in the 1900's before the Great War broke out. The first one toppled Ottoman power in the region, freeing the various nationalities to pursue their own nationalist desires -- a recipe for disaster as one would expect, as they swiftly turned on each other for the next round. Meanwhile, Austria forcefully incorporated Bosnia-Herzegovina into its empire, provoking fear of further interventions from that quarter. Which, well, did happen, in the form of Austria's ultimatum to Serbia following the assassination of the unfortunate Archduke. The Balkans prior to the outbreak of the Balkan Wars was a three powers game: Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman empire all had direct interests in the region. Even then it brought a number of conflicts (Crimean War, Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, etc.) but things got progressively more desperate when all the little powers broke free and started fighting for their own places in the sun.

As for the other major powers of the Great War, each had its own quarrels and diplomatic successes and failures. People also forget that the early 1900's was also a time of intense diplomatic gamesmanship among the great powers. France was eager on revanchism, no matter the cost -- the generation which saw the Prussians starved Paris to its knees was no longer in power, every generation after instead hungered for revenge; Britain too saw Germany's rapid ascent following its unification as a direct threat to its hegemony. After the two powers came to an understanding following the Fashoda crisis, the Entente Cordiale was arranged. Russia was worried about Germany too -- naturally given their shared border -- and the Germans failed to dissuage that fear. Of course, Germany too determinedly sought to forge its own bloc, and it courted other powers in different ways with varying amounts of receptiveness. At one point it appeared as if Teddy Roosevelt was receptive to the Kaiser's entreaties regarding the alarming Japanese expansion -- even then the Americans were already worrying about Japan -- and the equally alarming Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and therefore the value of a counterbalancing German-American-Chinese alignment. Apparently last minute Japanese diplomacy won the day and the Americans refused to commit. Interesting alternate scenario if the diplomatic results turned out differently from real life. It wasn't like the Americans had an inherent hatred for Germany in the first place...

Of course, once war broke out and trench warfare forced total war on Europe, diplomacy became a sideshow to the prevailing concern to win, win, win at any cost before even thinking about how to arrange a new, workable balance of power -- something the Versailles treaty tragically failed at.

[don_Durandal]

Diplomacy didn't entirely take the back seat once war started. As a matter of fact it was one of the core parts of the Entente's strategy. The results are rather obvious once you consider the entries of the United States, Italy, Greece and Romania on their side (although in the later case that didn't help the Allies' side much). That they won the war despite tactical shortcomings shows that the Entente's strategy was sound, especially in a war that could have been won only through attrition (rather than the hard-living myth of breakthrough). It's also a reflection of the greater democracy enjoyed by the Entente's nation as strategy was directed by civilian governments, while for instance in the German Empire the army's control of the state led them to such blunders as unrestricted submarine warfare and disregard of Belgium's neutrality (a casus belli for Great Britain).

Those stating that the US saved the Allies during the war tend to forget or disregard that their involvement was a direct consequence of the Entente constant diplomatic and propaganda efforts. It was a strategic success, and the credit goes to the UK and France's diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

[...] But what of Italy? What of it? First more or less a neutral to Central Power, then an Allied power? What was up with that? A combined Austrian-Italian fleet could have been a powerful thing in the Mediterranian Sea agianst the British and French (especially with much of the Royal Navy busy keeping the German High Seas Fleet in the Baltic Sea). [...]

Italy's entry in the war on the side of the Central Powers is a favourite amongst WW1 alternate history aficionados (when for some reason they want the CP to win). In truth though had they done this it wouldn't have had much of an influence in the short term.
Great Britain and France actually had a specific naval deal as part of the Entente. France was to concentrate on the Mediterranean while the UK ruled the rest. France's navy was more than a match for both Austria-Hungary's and Italy's navies combined.
On land France kept a garrison on the Italian border throughout the war (so it is not like they could have been caught unaware). Until 1915 it was six alpine divisions, and thereafter territorial units. That and the Franco-Italian border is mountainous and easily defended (as the events of 1940 on that particular front have shown us).
That and the population's sympathy was largely won for France's side. One can wonder whether Italian soldiers would have fought with the same selfless sacrifice as they did against the "natural enemy" Austro-Hungarians (and yes, the Italian's supposed military cowardice, and the French for that matter, is largely busted once you analyse WW1).


About the Treaty of Versailles, one historian (I don't remember if it was Cailleteau or Schnetzler) put it very aptly when he wrote:
"The allies were too lenient in the Armistice, and too harsh in the Treaty", or "the allies won the war, but lost the peace".

It's not so much the Treaty of Versailles in itself that caused WW2 twenty years later. There's of course the economic state of Germany and Europe in the interbellum. It was also the way the war was ended, with the German army left pretty much intact and the frontline still outside of the German border. Had the armistice been postponed for a few weeks the war could have dragged into Germany and that would have nipped in the bud the idea that the German Army had won the war but was betrayed by the politicians, as Nazi propaganda would have it.
Considering that there was 10.000 casualties on 11 november 1918 alone (including 3.000 US) and that all US divisions spent the morning until (and even after) 11 o'clock on the offensive, it's arguable that the allies were entirely spent.
In retrospect, a few more thousand casualties in some weeks might have saved the millions of WW2.

Sorry, that was too long...

[yezhanquan]

In some ways, WWI was an opportunity for the great powers to settle some scores. As the earlier posters have noted, the French-German and Austrian + Hungarian - Russian rivalries proved to be great contributors to the outbreak of war.

And don had his point: the failure to grind Germany into dust proved to be less than fortunate. In the second war, they took care to make sure it didn't happen again. Oh, and Hitler would have gladly burnt the whole place to the ground by that time.

[Ithekro]

It has been a while since I looked up pre-1900 European maps, and forgot it was the Ottomans the held Serbia rather than the Austrians.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by don_Durandal

Those stating that the US saved the Allies during the war tend to forget or disregard that their involvement was a direct consequence of the Entente constant diplomatic and propaganda efforts. It was a strategic success, and the credit goes to the UK and France's diplomacy.

My apologies for not being clear. I meant in the sense of the Central Powers.

Which, in short, means Germany (Austria-Hungary was too busy fighting for its very survival; and what have the Ottomans to say to the Americans?). And yes as you noted the Germans did not take into account diplomatic repercussions of their war policy. They didn't exactly stop trying diplomacy, courting Bulgaria and Greece (for one success and one failure), even Mexico at one point, etc., but compared to the Entente or indeed the German Empire itself prior to the war, the strategic scope of their diplomatic efforts were, perhaps by necessity, much more restricted.

[Ithekro]

Hmmm. One wonders what would have happened if the Germans had managed to defeat part of the Royal Navy at Jutland. They wouldn't have beaten it all, since the Royal Navy was huge at that time, but there was a real chance to take out the Fifth Battle Squadron on the night following the action. That is the majority of the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, the fastest and most heavily armed battleships in the Royal Navy at the time. It was suggested that the reason they did not get destroyed is because they did not fire on Seydlitz that nigt as it sailed between their columns. They would have sunk that vessel, and while their was a little concern about friendly fire, it might have given their position away to the entire High Seas Fleet...that if I read the charts correctly, were directly behind the Fifth Battle Squadron, in a Crossing the T type situation at that time...and in weapons range.

Losing 3 Battlecruisers already that day followed by the possible loss of four fast battleships would have be a full loss for Britan as oppose to the general Strategic victory for Britian and tactical victory for Germany. It still might have been a Strategic victory if the Royal Navy had managed to keep the High Seas Fleet bottled up, but with half of their operational 15" gun armed Battleships sunk, it might make a difference in what the Germans thought they could do afterwards.