What Is The World Like If 'The Shot Heard Round The World' Is Never Fired?

[David Floyd]

I thought that was the '61 World Series Game 7 homer against the Yankees?

[Faeelin]

It's possible we'll get a quicker war with the USA staying out.

Think about it. Germany knew that it had to strike now, as its allies were collapsing. In Germany there would have been a confrontation between the Socialist (SPD) and more conservative forces. Before the war, the SPD was the largest fraction of the Reichstag (Parliament). Either there would have been a lot of reforms which would have changed Germany into a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain or a revolution would have happened.

Austria-Hungary would have either exploded into a variety of nations, or turned into a federation. Either way, its relations with Germany worsen.

The Ottomans are continuing to weaken. Expect their survival up until the 30's, but by 20 they're no longer a major power.

In contrast, Russia was undergoing rapid industralization, at a pace equal (if not greater than ) the 5 year plans, with less bloodshed. Britain was pulling ahead in the naval race, and the USA was still increasing its lead over the other nations in terms of industrialization, although the final one had very little influence.

France, of course, was France.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Faeelin
In contrast, Russia was undergoing rapid industralization, at a pace equal (if not greater than ) the 5 year plans, with less bloodshed.

Which was made possible by massive quantities of French capital. Russia was, full all intents and purposes, a French colony.

[Lonestar]

Some comments:


Weapons Sales

The United States sold goods(or tried to) to both the Allies and Central Powers during the first few years of WW1. American ships bound for the Netherlands whose goods would ultimately reach Germany were seized buy the British, citing a American precedant of nabbing ships bound for Mexico with Confederate goods during the (un)Civil War.

The Schliffein Plan

Was not right-heavy enough. And then Moltke the Younger compunded it by moving a Army unit from the "Right wheel" to Bavaria to aid in a expect French attack.

The SP was also doomed because it didn't factor in the professional and very experience British Army. The 80,000 Man BEF was worth thrice the numbers of draftees. Soldiers who had been fighting colonial wars all their adult lives proved to know a bit more about tactics than some German farmer.

Winning the War

Could Germany have won if the United States had not entered? Short answer "no", long answer "Yes, but..." Germany would have to display some innovative thinking, and thus far they hadn't. The Most innovative Army of the war were the Brits, who led a tank rush at Cambrai with spectacular results.

The German Navy had repeated Mutinees after the Battle of Jutland. The Surface fleet was a non-isue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Germany did know that in 5-10 years, there would be no way it could fight a 2 front war (this doesn't mean they started the war... and I don't believe that they did). Russia was rapidly industrializing, and by 1920 probably would have been very strong. There may have been a bourgeois revolution, but any Communist revolt would have never succeeded (for one, Lenin would still be in Switzerland).

The Schlieffen Plan was a smart plan. And yes Von Moltke took a lot from it. He transfered armies to the left side, because it was afraid the left part would be overrun (which didn't happen at all... the left side overran the French and even pushed into France, when they were supposed to fall back). Moltke also took 2 armies and transfered it to Russia, but by the time they got there, Tannenburg had already been won and the Germans were having no problems with the Russian Army. Basically Moltke the Younger weakened the right arm by 3 armies for nothing, and that was what probably cost Germany the war.

Your comment about international law was silly and wrong. Just take it back and we can trun to beating you for other stupidities.

Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

Your point? And the reason we did so, was because it was too costly to try to run the British blockade to trade with Germany. We didn't trade with Germany because we didn't like them, but because we couldn't.

[David Floyd]

Was not right-heavy enough. And then Moltke the Younger compunded it by moving a Army unit from the "Right wheel" to Bavaria to aid in a expect French attack.

That, and several divisions were sent to East Prussia, but battles on both fronts were fought with them in transit, making their transfer pointless.

Could Germany have won if the United States had not entered? Short answer "no", long answer "Yes, but..." Germany would have to display some innovative thinking, and thus far they hadn't.

I would argue that without the USN, Germany had a good chance of forcing Britain out of the war with their U-Boats.

Your point? And the reason we did so, was because it was too costly to try to run the British blockade to trade with Germany. We didn't trade with Germany because we didn't like them, but because we couldn't.

Exactly so - the Brits were denying free trade, thus we should not have sold weapons to them either, nor should we have whined at Germany for trying to stop our arms sales when Britain did the same thing, with more success.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the British didn't blow our ships out of the water.... that was a big difference in public opinion.

If we didn't trade with either, our economy would have been sunk.

[David Floyd]

But the British didn't blow our ships out of the water....

Neither did the Germans.

If we didn't trade with either, our economy would have been sunk.

I'm not talking about food, etc - I'm talking about direct war material.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not talking about food, etc - I'm talking about direct war material.

The distinction is meaningless in general wars, David.

[David Floyd]

No it isn't - Imran's argument was that no trade would have wrecked our economy, I informed him I was referring to weapons and other direct war tools.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Imran's argument was that no trade would have wrecked our economy, I informed him I was referring to weapons and other direct war tools.

And I'm telling you that in a general war, such a WWI, the distinction between what is and isn't a direct war tool becomes irrelevent.

If I had been Germany, shipments of food, oil, etc. would have been the first to be sunk.

[David Floyd]

Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets. We are morally justified in selling the former, but never the later.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets.

From who's standpoint? Remember, you're argueing that Germany was justified in attacking unarmed ships because the cargo they carried would have otherwise been used to aid the war effort of the British. Given that standpoint, on what objective basis do you support sending any material to any belligerant when thier total resources were dedicated to the war effort.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Dino, general war or not, there is a distinction between food and medicine, and guns and bullets. We are morally justified in selling the former, but never the later.

It's the same as giving them bullets. All we were doing was freeing up resources for th' Kruats.

Now, What Germany should have done prior to WW1, was offer it's Pacific Island possesions to Japan after the war, on the stipulation that Japan attacks Russia in Siberia. Might be a better deal than they were getting out of their alliance with England.

[David Floyd]

The distinction I make is that food and medicine preserve life, and cannot be used as ofensive weapons, while weapons take life and can easily be used offensively.