20-01-2003 13:42									#1
	Historical What-If: World War I in 1905 Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Germany had an excellent opportunity to gain hegemony in Europe in the summer of 1905. Russia was reeling from its defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and in no position to defend itself from a German attack. The UK wasn't yet in an alliance with France and Russia. This left France to stand virtually alone against Germany.

How would history had turned out had Germany siezed upon the unparalled opportunity these events presented it and provoked "The Great War" in 1905 instead of letting events run thier course in 1914?

	20-01-2003 13:59									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think defense had the advantage in that era. Any nation taking the offense would have been making a mistake. It wasn't until the invention of the tank that big offensive gains could be made at a low cost to the attacker.

	20-01-2003 13:59									#3
	Tired of ads?

I would still bet that England joins on the side of France, especially if Holland and Belgium were invaded, and a stalemate is reached with them similar to 1914...only the war on the east would be much easier for the Germans and Austrians...and they gain a lot of ground, most of which isn't given back after the war.

	20-01-2003 14:00									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK I think defense had the advantage in that era. Any nation taking the offense would have been making a mistake. It wasn't until the invention of the tank that big offensive gains could be made at a low cost to the attacker.

In the west this is true, but in the east? Germany made very large gains against the Russians, and defeated them in most every major battle and offensive even in 1914 through 1918, when Russia was slightly better prepared to handle such a war.

	20-01-2003 14:16									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Germany nearly won in the West rather quickly... it was only when trench warfare set in did things get really nasty. If Germany could maintain the momentum that they had in 1914 without losing it, then I think Germany would end up winning.

	20-01-2003 14:52									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

Theodore Rossevelt would be in the White House, and ther's no way that loveable little warmonger would have sat the war out for three years. I think we can assume that the US would have entered right away. We can also assume that the Decembrist Revolution in Russia would have succeeded.

But here's the really tantalizing part:

Ottoman participation on the side of Germany was occasioned by Britain refusing to deliver a battleship they had been building for the Turks -- but they weren't building that ship in 1905. It's reasonable to assume Turkey would remain neutral. Thus:
1) No partition of the Middle East by the Great Powers
2) No British mandate in Palastine

	20-01-2003 15:08									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Britain in 1905 was still trying to learn the military lessons of the Boer War, and hadn't really got a proper General Staff structure set up. Britain would still have allied with France but would have struggled to come to any strategic plan to fight a war.

The crucial difference in 1905 was that the Russian rail network was inferior to 1914 and the Russians would have struggled to send troops to the front. In 1914 the Germans took divisions from the West to face the larger Russian forces at that time. In 1905 this would not have been necessary so German forces in the West would have been stronger and might well have overrun France in a replay of 1870, rather than grinding to a halt and trench warfare.

	20-01-2003 19:51									#8
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The Russians weren't any readier in 1914 either, and the British would have still been dragged into the war. But with a live Schlieffen, it just might have worked, considering that there would have been much less pressure from the eastern fronts.

Although it would have been hard for Britain to intervene against an enemy of Japan considering the alliance London and Tokyo had.

	20-01-2003 19:54									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

nm

	20-01-2003 20:01									#10
	Re: Historical What-If: World War I in 1905 Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The UK wasn't yet in an alliance with France and Russia. This left France to stand virtually alone against Germany.

The UK and France were alligned in 1904. The French and Russians were already alligned. Does that not mean they were ipso facto a triple alliance in the event of a German attack on France.

	20-01-2003 20:05									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Theodore Rossevelt would be in the White House, and ther's no way that loveable little warmonger would have sat the war out for three years. I think we can assume that the US would have entered right away.

Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

I see no reason to believe the U.S. would have entered any differently than in the actual war.

England, no doubt, would have acted to contain Germany, as they viewed Germany as their greatest rival in Europe.

My guess is that Germany knocks Russia out very quickly, and then throws those Eastern troops against France and brings the war to a quick close with a favorable peace. Austria gets its way in the Balkans, Germany gets Poland. However, I think this would set the stage for a future conflict, as England and France aren't likely to be content with Germany's position of dominance on the continent.

	20-01-2003 21:52									#12
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

I love TR and have little patience for Wilsosn, but I must disagree. TR loved war and adventurism, as his role in the attack on the Phillipines (going behind the backs of his superiors and greenlighting the attack while only asst. secretary of the Navy) nicely illustrates. There's no way he would have sat out WWI if it happened on hi watch.

	20-01-2003 22:01									#13
	Tired of ads?

Yet, during his presidency, TR didn't get us involved in many international conflicts. Wilson undertook more foreign interventions than any president before or since. If even he dragged his feet on WWI, I don't see why Roosevelt would have been more aggressive. It was a longstanding U.S. policy not to get involved in European wars, and I really doubt Roosevelt would have been gung-ho to jump into a war that was looking likely to be pretty bloody. The Phillipines was a very different ball of wax from being part of a huge European continental war. Unless there is some compelling reason for TR to get involved beyong simple "warmongering," I don't see it happening.

	20-01-2003 22:02									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I was reading the vol. II of the Rothschilds history, and since these guys were connected at every major power, it gives some insights into the inner workings of diplomacy. I was surprised that Germany and UK almost allied in the end of 1800's, because the colonial interests of both nations were so closely matched in Africa and elsewhere.

Now that would have been some alliance!

	20-01-2003 22:08									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Saras, it probably would have happend if Bismarck had retained his position. It was the Kaiser's foolishness that sparked the France-England alliance in the first place. Had Germany not been such a bully towards France in Morocco, and had the Kaiser not blatantly tried to challenge British naval power, the alliance could have happened.

	20-01-2003 22:11									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Saras I was reading the vol. II of the Rothschilds history, and since these guys were connected at every major power, it gives some insights into the inner workings of diplomacy. I was surprised that Germany and UK almost allied in the end of 1800's, because the colonial interests of both nations were so closely matched in Africa and elsewhere. Now that would have been some alliance!

And it would have been a more natural alliance. The monarchs were far more related than either were with the French, and England had long-standing conflicts with the Mediterranean countries (not sure about Germany vs France back then as Germany was relatively "new").

	20-01-2003 22:17									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Not sure about Germany vs. France? Remember the whole Franco-Prussian war? Germany was founded on antagonizing France!

	20-01-2003 22:23									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

And brits stayed on the sidelines in that one, remember?

	20-01-2003 22:38									#19
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wasn't there, so I can't remember anything. Let's ask Slowwhand, he might recall it.

	20-01-2003 22:49									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

Love ya Boris, but this is bullshit

	20-01-2003 23:45									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by orange Love ya Boris, but this is bullshit

How can I argue with such a specific statement?

I'm not saying TR was a pacifist (though he did win a Nobel Peace Prize, oddly enough), I'm saying Wilson was far more prone to international intervention. In 1905, I sincerely doubt the U.S.A. would have had any inkling of intervening in a European war.

Wilson had, IIRC, 127 foreign military expeditions during his presidency. It finally got to the point that Congress had to smack him down and threaten to revoke funding if he kept it up.

	20-01-2003 23:48									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Woodrow Wilson was bar far the most interventionist and warmongering president the U.S. ever had. Roosevelt wasn't a warmonger, just a very famous and capable former military leader.

Wilson only wanted to war with small Latin American nations. He was very much against war with industrialized nations and he was reluctant to get into WWI.

	20-01-2003 23:51									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Wilson only wanted to war with small Latin American nations. He was very much against war with industrialized nations and he was reluctant to get into WWI.

So why did he send interventionist expeditions into Russia and Africa?

Wilson's reluctance over getting involved in Europe wasn't through his lack of desire, it was through the lack of popular support until 1917. Wilson was actually eager to be more directly involved in the war, but he knew he couldn't so long as American antipathy was so high. That's why the Lusitania was such a critical incident, as it helped push the American public towards the pro-intervention camp. Wilson wasn't upset one bit.

I don't think Roosevelt would have been more willing to enter the war, and theorize he actually would have been less willing. Especially in 1905, when there were even stronger notions of American isolationism. Getting involved in European wars that were confined to Europe was not going to be something most Americans wanted.

	20-01-2003 23:53									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I know the French had not perfected trench warfare, but they did have machine guns I believe, and that weapon did wonders on defense. I don't remember reading that Germany made great advances into France at the beginning of the war. They took some land I know, but it was at a great cost and it wasn't strategic at all.

	20-01-2003 23:57									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Germany came within a hair's breadth of surrounding Paris in 1914 and ending the war as quickly as it had begun. However, the German commander chickened out over his thin supply lines and turned south too soon. If he had pressed on with the plan, history might be quite a bit different today.

	21-01-2003 00:00									#26
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I'm not saying TR was a pacifist (though he did win a Nobel Peace Prize, oddly enough)

What does the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with pacifism?

	21-01-2003 00:18									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

TR was pouning his fists in Congress for joining the war in Europe in 1914. TR wanted us to get in on the colonial grab when Germany's empire was divied up. If he were Prez., we would have gone to war. Hell, we almost went to war with Germany over what is now American Somoa. Only a typhoon stoppped it from happening by sinking the British and German ships, while leaving the Americans still floating.

The War in Europe problably would have been something of a replay of WWI. Despite Russia's inability to fight, Germany would have needed large numbers of troops on that front in any event. The submarine fleets were barely even started (so that aspect would have been different). The Ottomans held more territory then (since the second Balkan War hadn't happened yet). Which ever side the OE joined, all of the rest of the Balkans would have done the opposite (and since the OE's army was largely officered by Germans, it's likely they would have sided with Germany).

	21-01-2003 00:46									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Just because TR may have wanted intervention against Germany doesn't mean it would have happened. I doubt Congress would improve US entry into the war, and even if it did it owuld have taken awhile to get the US army to the point where it could have made an impact.

	21-01-2003 01:03									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's the point, Shi. American sentiment at the time was decidely isolationist. And as Che pointed out, since Germany would have been unable to engage in the kind of submarine warfare they did in 1914-1918, stirring up American support for entering the war would have been extremely difficult.

	21-01-2003 03:02									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So why did he send interventionist expeditions into Russia and Africa?

not industrialized at the time. I admit they aren't LA though.

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Wilson's reluctance over getting involved in Europe wasn't through his lack of desire, it was through the lack of popular support until 1917. Wilson was actually eager to be more directly involved in the war, but he knew he couldn't so long as American antipathy was so high. That's why the Lusitania was such a critical incident, as it helped push the American public towards the pro-intervention camp. Wilson wasn't upset one bit. I don't think Roosevelt would have been more willing to enter the war, and theorize he actually would have been less willing. Especially in 1905, when there were even stronger notions of American isolationism. Getting involved in European wars that were confined to Europe was not going to be something most Americans wanted.

Agreed