 |
| |
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
Let me summarize it all again then 
28. 07. Austro-Hungarian Empire declares war on Serbia
29. 07. Russia begins mobilization of its army
31. 07. Germany demands Russia to quit mobilization and issues France to keep neutrality in the case of a war between Germany and Russia
The demands are ignored/rejected
01. 08. Germany declares war on Russia.
03. 08. Germany declares war on France.
04. 08. The German army enters Belgium, causing the declaration of war by Great Britain, to Germany
Alas, I don't have the dates here for the Allied countries declaring war on Austria.
The Ottoman empire didn't enter the war before October, 29 1914. Bulgary entered on the side of the Central Powers on October, 14 1915.
Japan entered on the Allied side on August 23 1914, Italy on the 23rd of March 1915. Others are:
09. 03. 1916: Portugal
27. 08. 1916: Romania
06. 04. 1917: United States of America 
27. 06. Greece
I left out those South American tiny countries that entered the war for only god knows which reasons... Montenegro joined Serbia on the 5th of August, 1914, San Marino followed Italy on 3rd of June, 1915
everything should be comprehensable now, apart from the missing figures for Austrian entering of war against Russia and the Entente
Would the UK have entered the war if Germany hadn't marched through Belgium? I think so, because the pact between Great Britain and Belgium was like 100 years old ar that time, an apparent pretext.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
I'm afraid the French would have beaten the crap out of us if we hadn't marched through Belgium...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Question that I have often asked, if we didn't presumably Germany would have won the war. How would it all have panned out from there? |
Part of the reason that the war started was because Germany didn't believe that Britain would enter the war. The British didn't give Germany any explicit answer to the issue and in fact hinted that they would stay out. It's a really complex issue about which numerous historians have written books. I think that one of the best is "The Pity of War" by Ferguson. Great read...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
The Foreign Minister (Grey IIRC) was on a fishing trip during the critical days, and his underlings were not that competent. There was no direct contact AFAIK on the issue of British entry. |
Many of Europe's leaders were on vacation as it was the summer when the crisis occurred. However there was much contact between all the nations regarding what kind of position Britain would take in a conflict.
In a letter from Grey to British Ambassador to France, Sir Francis Bertie: "it was the uncertainty with regard to whether we would intervene which was the encouraging element in Berlin, and that, if we would only declare definitely on the side of Russia and France, it would decide the German attitude in favor of peace."
Despite all the contact the British still did not signal their intentions to the other nations. Not the single cause of the war, but a contributing factor. In any event this is OT.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dan Severn
|
|
Wellborn, Texas The Warrior Dennis Miller
May 2001
time: 23:15
|
|
Why is everyone afraid to give civs more than 1 UU?
In Civ2, good scenarios often uprooted the tech tree entirely and gave each civ its own unique set.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
WW1 Nut
|
|
Don't bother putting the american's in, they were useless. Well according to first hand reports by General Ludendorff. They came in to late to matter.
I'm with the guy who said why not make more than 1 UU, there are soooo many options there.
And for all those not entirly sic of WW1 useless knoledge, the only reason the German offensive was so unsucessful was because of the reassigning of the troop ratio contrary to what General Von Schlieffen had origionally put them at 10 years earlier when that plan was devised by the German General staff.
I'm not sure how exactly one would make both Russia have the revolution, and Italy join, but most of the other countries could just begin the game on one side or another. It's really not worth the agrivation to make the different countries join at spasific dates.
Oh and IMO, the British comanndo should be Canadian. And Sir Arthur Currie should be a British Leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Constantine
|
|
Dusseldorf, Germany
Mar 2002
time: 05:15
|
|
Sure the Americans came in late, but they certainly weren't useless, and Ludendorff doesn't seem like one who should have the defining opinion on it anyways, though his insight shouldn't be overlooked. And I really don't think anyone should listen to someone who considers history "useless knoledge." (is that how you spell in c-a-n-a-d-i-a?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WW1 Nut
|
|
1 - F-U it was a typo, if that's all you can say you have one useless argument.
2 - Ludendorff is harelded as one of the greatest generals of all time, the US sucked, it's a fact, they have the highest Casualty : Kill ratio of all the countries (even the Austro-Hungarians did more) in the short time they were in the war. They had an 8% casualty rate and they were in the war for a little over a year. (and they weren't even in really any of the more heated battles) This was partially due to the fact that, in their ignorance, many of their generals did not listen to the advice of Brittish, French, and other countries that had been in the war for much longer then they had.
3 - Well I'm sorry to say, but at least for me History is almost useless trivia, it's fun to know, I intend to end up teaching it, but frankly, in the hunter-gatherer sence of the term, it is useless. History is good to know, but I think I'd rather have shelter, food, air, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Constantine
|
|
Dusseldorf, Germany
Mar 2002
time: 05:15
|
|
1-Wasn't Ludendorff the one who modified the Schlieffen plan?
2-By the war's end, America had occupied more land on the western front than the British forces did.
3-High casualties were due to a lack of experience and that the Americans were sent to attacks the best defended areas of the Germany's western front in 1918, and by the way, casualty statistics have no relation to the amount of time a country fights.
4-In the time that America was in the war, it was never unsuccessful in repulsing an attack when on the defensive, and never fell short of attaining its offensive goals (not an easy task against us Germans  )
5-Check out The Great War Society's AMERICA'S MILITARY CONTRIBUTION TO VICTORY IN THE GREAT WAR at www.worldwar1.com/dbc/salsresp.htm id you're not convinced.
6-My arguments are also organized by number, so take that! Haha! Sorry canada person.
Last edited by Constantine on 06-08-2002 at 02:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jreza99
|
|
America really only made an impact in its industrial capacity. As it is it took her a year to mobilize and raise a sufficient army. We were unexperienced also going in. If anything, just our presence in numbers helped. As for the Air Service during the first World War, America's suffered a rate of almost 100% casaulties at the hands of the Germans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
|
 |
St. John's, NF
Aug 2001
time: 01:45
|
|
Actually, I'm pretty sure Canada had a higher casualty rate, some 66 000 dead out of 600 000 or 700 000 soldiers (all out of a population of only about 8 million at that). However, I find interesting especially with the First World War is that there is almost a perverse pride from having a higher casualy figure. That war was not a pretty one, and nothing got done cheaply in terms of lives. Brilliant victories still left as many as 10% killed or wounded (see Vimy Ridge below). I've been considering writing a history paper on this, how since the First World War, people remember defeats and loses much more than victories. Here in my province of Newfoundland the fact that we lost our entire battalion on the first day of the Somme offensive is remembered every July 1st (and there is a lot of friction due to Canada day also being July 1st). Before the First World War, I don't think people would have so readily remembered their defeats. But then again, there were few actual "victories" in the First World War, just battles where the death toll was merely "horrendous", and not "catastrophic".
Also, in the end the US only contributed about as much man power as Canada, though in a shorter period of time. Their contribution was probably more by the fact that they raised morale after the allies lost Russia, and allowed the allies to have that little extra puch to finally convince the Germans and Ausro-Hungarians that they were going to lose.
Anyway, how about Canadian troops being a British UU, seriously. We fough amazingly at Vimy Ridge - a brilliant attack that left only 3 658 dead and 7004 wouldned which is actually good in First World War terms. Canada used only 100 000 men, while the last time the British and French tried to take the ridge they LOST 150 000 men. After that (this is true) the British had to be extra careful that the Germans did not know where they were placing their Canadian units. If a Canadian Division took up positions in a particular stretch of the front, is was almost certain that a major attack would be launched from there in a matter of days. Knowing where the Canadians were was actually a very reliable way to know when and where an attack would occur.
So anyway, perhaps Canadian Infantry (I don't know, give them a kilt or something) could have really good attack and defense values, but only be built or drafed in Canada; probably give Canada a couple of cities like Toronto, Ottawa & Montreal on the far left of the map, maybe you could even have to deal with extra unrest in French Montreal.
Also, one more idea that I was working on for my own First World War Scenario was airplanes. I wanted to give planes the ability to scout and intercect only, and let Zeppelins bomb. This would represent that the air war came from scouting with planes, then stopping the enemy from scouting till you eventually had planes shooting each other down for little strategic gain. It would work really well if planes could be intercepted when scouting and you gave them equl attack and defense (i.e. ADM: 4-4-0), This way you could use your planes to scout over an enemy city and draw up their fighters for a dog fight, which would be even.
Anyway, those are my ideas I've been looking forward to a First World War scenario since I saw how well the regular Infantry represented the troops of the time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-10-2001 13:19
|