1918 - the year of offensives

The Soviet Union will still be just as aggressive and they may control a communist German rump state.

Plus all the regional conflicts that have the potential to become a general European war. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are civil wars waiting to happen. Hungary has border disputes with Czechslovakia and Romania. Italy has border disputes with Yugoslavia. Poland has border disputes with the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and the rump German state. Bulgaria has border disputes with Greece, Serbia/Yugoslavia and Romania. The rump German state has border disputes with everyone except Switzerland and the Netherlands. Turkey has multiple border disputes also. Spain will still fall apart and the Soviet Union will still take the opportunity to install a client communist government. If France continues to occupy the Saar and Rhineland into the late 1930s you can expect an insurrection. If the rump German state becomes communist then France is likely to become communist also, as they almost did historically during 1936.

Europe looks like a house of cards to me. The first gust of wind will blow something over.

"..... Europe looks like a house of cards to me. The first gust of wind will blow something over."

Absolutely, DB. And after 1917 (after 1905, actually) the additional inflammatory in the European tinder box in the form of international communism - an 'almost' revolution in 1905 and then a sovereign state dedicated to revolution and hegemony after
1917.

MM

Red Petrograd: revolution in the ... - Google Books
Okhrana data is now available on the internet. There was another "almost Russian revolution" during the summer of 1914. Mobilization for war may have delayed Russian revolution for 2 1/2 years.

That's interesting - doesn't surprise seeing how the Russo-Japan war was so closely linked to the 1905.

Thanks,

MM

In the summer of 1914 Russia was believed to be on the edge of revolution.

Click to expand...

U.S. Ambassador James Gerard. Excerpt from his book "My Four Years In Germany"

There was considerable internal unrest. The 1912 wave of strikes continued into 1913. Revolutionary propaganda made gains. Dissatisfaction was evident in all social classes. The Duma was divided by conflicts between the reactionary, constitutional and left parties and was unable to produce a majority. The sole source of unanimity was the willingness to sacrifice in the interest of national defense.

Click to expand...

Extract from 1913 German Army intelligence summary for Russia.

The Official German Army intelligence summary disproves those who claim time was on the side of Russian Army modernization. Mobilization was the only thing which could halt Russian revoluntionary activity. Therefore the best July 1914 German strategy was to take whatever steps necessary to delay the onset of a major European war. By the end of the year Russian would probably be fighting a civil war. Then the Habsburgs would have a free hand to deal with the Serbian terrorist organization headed by Dragutin Dimitrijević.

So the Czarist gov't used "mobilization" as a diversion from pending unrest ... and we know that European "mobilization" was one of the contributing factors to the
cascading events that brought inevitable war in August, 1914 .....? I didn't realize that under till now, DB, but what a sad train of events.

MM

I have read an Irish claim that British mobilization during August 1914 averted an Anglo-Irish war during the fall of 1914. I don't know enough Irish history to weigh in one way or the other but it sounds plausible as they did fight during 1916.

No doubt Europe in 1914 was a powder keg waiting to explode. No doubt that Communist Russia after the war was an exporter of unrest and revolution. That was its stated purpose in the world. no doubt also that in a post war environment where Germany had been forced to unconditional surrender, but somehow retained independance as a nation, there would be a likelihood of internecine disputes between the newly emerging minor nations of Europe, like Poland, Hungary Latvia and the like.

However none of these nations, the USSR included, in that interwar period, had the capacity to undertake map changing aggression in the same way that an "undefeated" germany thought that it could. Above all else, IMO, the germans harboured a deep resentment at the "unfair" treatment that was meted out on them under Versailles. Somehow, Germans were convinced that they were not facing defeat in 1918, or that if they were, they had been duped or coerced into accepting a peace that was biased against them. To a degree, Versaille was an unfair treaty, but only if you accept the lie that Germany was not defeated in 1918. If you do accept that Germany was facing total defeat, and further accept that it was Germany and her Central Power allies that had initiated wars of aggression in the highly volatile European scene of 1914, then Versailles was a treaty light in its burden.

The myth of being "stabbed in the back" was a powerful force in shaping German attitudes for the 2nd world war. And not just because it gave the nazis means and opportunity to pervert the political systems in Germany. Many ordinary, decent germans were hoodwinked and influenced by this lie. They had seen the country nearly torn apart by internecine political disputes, a central government weak and inneffective, an economy wrecked by mismanagement, Germany humilated by partial occupation, Germany labelled a pariah and aggressive state. Where was the evidence....above all, where was the evidence of total defeat? Germans were depserate to find blame, to seek reason for the state of affairs they witnessed.

My opinion is that unconditional German surrender would not solve the stability or long term problems facing central and eastern Europe at that time, but would avoid the prospect of another Total War. The brush fire disputes between minor nations headed by otherwise rational people were well within the capabilities of the League to deal with. The authority of the league was largely destroyed by the rise of political extremism, like the Fascists, and the Communists, but without germany to really rip the organizatrion apart it may have stood some chance of actually doing some good. If nothing else the democracies would not have been so exposed as the weak states that they appeared to be. Would this have been enough to maintain some stability and avoid general war??? Not sure on that one......

"... British mobilization during August 1914 averted an Anglo-Irish war during the fall of 1914."

I have never heard that before, DB, and I too know very little about Irish affairs, but - were what you say true - an Irish uprising is peanuts, nada, squat when compared to what the Czar was trying to abort in July, 1914. IMHO.

Parsifal - your post is very thoughtful and true. As we well know from these threads, there are still Germanaphiles amongst us who are swayed by events and
believe that their team has been hard done-by - . I don't. But I am very fond of Germans and German achievements and - as I have stated elsewhere - I believe the true test of any organism - be it individual or nation - is to learn from past mistakes and change behavior. Japan got it on one try. It took Germany two tries. And as we know - France still looks incredulous and exclaims "moi !!!! .

Reading Wm Manchester on the Krupp enterprise(s) a few weeks ago I was interested to learn that German resentment of France traces its origins to the 30 Years War - where France was intervening in the affairs of various German principalities - servicing her interests politically as well as trying to stem the influence of the
Protestant Revolution (reformation).

Murder-Mystery writers like to talk about "Motive and Opportunity". Well. Germany had both in spades .

MM

PS - The current issue of Vanity Fair has a very insightful article about the economic role of Germany in the current Euro-sovereign debt crisis. It is very insightful about Germany and Germans and speaks to the best and the worst .

"It's the Economy, Dummkopf" http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/09/europe-201109

Worth reading.

I disagree.

michaelmaltby is right. A 1914 Irish rebellion/civil war would be peanuts compared to British participation in WWI. Without WWI the entire BEF would be available. The initial fighting would be quickly over. After that it's up to Anglo-Irish politicians to create a permanent solution.

Russian civil war was inevitable by 1914. But without WWI the entire German Army would be available to manage the resulting mess. A rump Bolshevik-communist state would probably control St. Petersburg. A rump SR-communist state would probably control Moscow. Neither communist state would be powerful enough to project military power outside the immediate area. The remainer of Imperial Russia would consisted of the historical post-Russian independent nations with borders guaranteed by the German Army. What's wrong with that?

Dragutin Dimitrijevi

Captain Dimitrijević and a group of junior officers planned the assassination of the autocratic and unpopular king of Serbia. On 11 June 1903, the group stormed the royal palace and killed both King Alexander and his wife Queen Draga.

Dimitrijević, who used the codename Apis, became leader of the secret Black Hand group. In 1911 Dimitrijević organised an attempt to assassinate Emperor Franz Josef. When this failed, Dimitrijević turned his attention to the heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Click to expand...

1914 Serbia had a lot in common with 2001 Afghanistan. An entire nation controlled by a professional terrorist. If other European nations (especially Austria-Hungary) had been on the ball the murderers would have been dealt with during 1903. By 1914 Serbia was armed to the teeth making the job much more difficult. None the less it had to be done. Without WWI the Habsburgs and Bulgaria will get the job done in a couple months.

Portugal was heading towards civil war. Not a big deal unless you live in Portugal.

The 1914 French economy was sluggish and it will get worse after Russia defaults on all those French loans. Just another day in France.

The remainder of Europe was mostly stable and most national economies were booming. A situation beneficial to all.

"..... No doubt Europe in 1914 was a powder keg waiting to explode."

Parsifal, davebender has a point. You might want to just remove "1914" from your lead sentence , as throughout the post you are (we are) discussing events
post 1917-18.

MM

During 1900 the U.S. Republican Party almost adopted the position that Canada should be annexed.

I have no idea what brought this on. Were Canadians at that time lobbying to become our next state? Did the Canadian Prime Minister forget to send a Christmas card to the American President?

davebender said:

During 1900 the U.S. Republican Party almost adopted the position that Canada should be annexed.

I have no idea what brought this on. Were Canadians at that time lobbying to become our next state? Did the Canadian Prime Minister forget to send a Christmas card to the American President?

Click to expand...

Just the opposite there was concern that we were part of manifest destiny, its was the driving force in getting the cross country railway built it wouldn't have taken a whole lot to annex the 3 prairie provinces as there was very few folks there til the railway brought in the people with the offer of free land

".... Were Canadians at that time lobbying to become our next state? "

You mean the next twelve states don't you DB?

MM

Inititally it would probably be called something like "Canada Territory". Individual regions would become American states when they met population requirements for statehood.

So the strategy was all worked out, eh Dave ....? Operation Canadian Bacon I .

I don't think the Elephants of the GOP were serious .... I think they were phishing for votes or special interests.

But, there is this, from Wikipedia:

"Starting in 1855, while Canada was under British control, free trade was implemented between the colonies of British North America and the United States under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1866, a year before Canadian Confederation, the United States Congress voted to cancel the treaty.

Free trade with the U.S. has long been a controversial issue in Canada. Historically, Canadians who advocated a closer relationship with the U.S., especially closer economic ties, were portrayed by critics as encouraging political annexation by the Americans. Under Canada's first Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald, the protectionist National Policy became a cornerstone of the new Canadian nation.

The Liberal Party of Canada had traditionally supported free trade. In the 1911 Canadian federal election, free trade in natural products became the central issue. The Conservative Party campaigned using fiery anti-American rhetoric, and the Liberals lost the election. Further political disputes over free trade were shelved for many decades.

From 1935-1980, a number of bilateral trade agreements greatly reduced tariffs in both nations. The most significant of these agreements was the 1960s Automotive Products Trade Agreement (also known as the Auto Pact)."

MM

Back in the 60s, the then Australian prime Minister, Harold Holt, coined the phrase..."all the way with LBJ" suggesting Australia should become the 53rd (???) state in Union. That put the whole country of 14 million (at that time) on a par with nebraska or Hawaii.

President LBJ couldn't get re-elected in the USA. Perhaps he should have ran for PM of Australia during 1969. Better yet, he should have run for PM of Australia during 1965. Then the USA might elect someone smart enough to keep out of Vietnam.

They (Australians) went nuts over him, which is beyond me....I didnt think he was all that great. I agree, his responses to vietnam were pretty poor.

Anyway, with regard to MM comments about the french, I agree totally that the French as a national identity are about the most obnoxious, cranky countries that are in the western group of nations. Clemenceaus bastardization of the 14 points in the final treaty is enough proof of that. A treaty that punishes the germans but does not teach them....a treaty and penalises them but fails to deliver security to Europe.

But just the same, france cannot be categorised, IMO as an aggressor nation or a threat to European security. Difficult yes, obnoxious yes, unthinking yes, self absorbed yes, but a security risk, no....

Have you read Article 2 and Article 3 of the Franco-Russian Military Alliance Convention? France and Russia were committed to invading Germany simultaneously with over 2 million soldiers as soon as Austria-Hungary mobilized vs Serbia. And that's exactly what happened historically. Seems pretty aggressive to me and I suspect 1914 Deutsches Reich viewed it the same way.

First World War.com - Primary Documents - Franco-Russian Military Convention, 18 August 1892

Article 2
In case the forces of the Triple Alliance, or of any one of the Powers belonging to it, should be mobilized, France and Russia, at the first news of this event and without previous agreement being necessary, shall mobilize immediately and simultaneously the whole of their forces, and shall transport them as far as possible to their frontiers.

Article 3
The available forces to be employed against Germany shall be, on the part of France, 1,300,000 men, on the part of Russia, 700,000 or 800,000 men.

These forces shall engage to the full with such speed that Germany will have to fight simultaneously on the East and on the West.

Click to expand...