Monkspider's history corner: Which country was most responsible for World War I?

[KrazyHorse]

And I hate to think what it would have done to Germany's own deployment to load the Russian Army on German trains...

[KrazyHorse]

Even assuming the Russians could get to the German frontier (which they had quite a bit of difficulty doing)...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogger
And I hate to think what it would have done to Germany's own deployment to load the Russian Army on German trains...

True...but if Germany didn't have to commit troops to the Eastern Front, it probably could have come out on top in the West. The two-front wars always kill ya.

[KrazyHorse]

That's the thing...

They didn't need Russia as an ally, though. Just a nonbelligerant.

And Russia got its ass pretty decisively kicked early on. It wasn't the drain it was in WWII...

[KrazyHorse]

I suppose you could argue that the first miracle of the Marne wouldn't have happened had the Germans been able to more effectively concentrate their forces. But I'm not sure. The German advance was getting bogged down, and more soldiers might only have made it worse...

[GePap]

Russia and the Habsburgs were not natural enemies: while they competed in the Balkans, both were conservative monarchies with worries of nationalism and radicalism. It's Willy's fault that the Three Emperor's League Bismarck set up fell apart.

[DuncanK]

Either Germany or Great Britain were most at fault. Britain shouldn't have made an alliance with France, but Germany shouldn't have tried to compete with the British in overseas trade and naval build up. Of course, if the French wouldn't have gotten beat so bad in 1871 things would be a lot different. Then France would have been able to screw everything up more

[KrazyHorse]

Either Germany or Great Britain were most at fault. Britain shouldn't have made an alliance with France, but Germany shouldn't have tried to compete with the British in overseas trade and naval build up. Of course, if the French wouldn't have gotten beat so bad in 1871 things would be a lot different. Then France would have been able to screw everything up more

?

Germany and the UK were the 2 of the big 5 least eager for war.

[GePap]

On the issue of the Schliffen Plan: more troops would have helped. Add an extra Crop, or even an extra army, and the First Army would not have been forced to make that left turn before Paris and expose its flank, and then they would not have to have retreated to cover thier flank, openign the Gap between them and the Second army into which the allies moved.

The main problem with the Schliffen Plan is the question of wether it was humanly possible to expect troops on foot to make that March while fighting all the way.

[DuncanK]

True, but in the process of trying to avoid war they made the eventual war worse. Not that they were at fault at causing the war. But they caused the war to be so bad.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see why Russia would have sat out or allied with the Central Powers anyway, considering the spark of the war was Russia vs. Austria in a power play for the Balkans. I can't think of any scenario where Russia would have sat by and let Austria have its way there.

[KrazyHorse]

And where they're getting their supplies from is another question. Which is where my comment about more troops just hurting comes in.

There's only X amount of road and rail transport available. Put twice as many men on the ground and you're not only doubling your supply needs; you're also reducing the amount of transportation available for getting those supplies to the front...

And that cartwheel meant that the section of front farthest from home base was also moving the fastest...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't see why Russia would have sat out or allied with the Central Powers anyway, considering the spark of the war was Russia vs. Austria in a power play for the Balkans. I can't think of any scenario where Russia would have sat by and let Austria have its way there.

If you assume that Russia and AH were allied, then the situation in the Balkans as it developed from 1908 to 1914 might have been different, starting with the AH decision to annex Bosnia. Also, the Serbian government up to 1906 was very pro-Habsburg, and only after it was overthrown did a new anti-Habsburg government come in: if Russia and AH had still been allies, perhaps the Serbians would have been less inclined to be anti-Austrian.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Frogger
And where they're getting their supplies from is another question. Which is where my comment about more troops just hurting comes in.

There's only X amount of road and rail transport available. Put twice as many men on the ground and you're not only doubling your supply needs; you're also reducing the amount of transportation available for getting those supplies to the front...

And that cartwheel meant that the section of front farthest from home base was also moving the fastest...

The problem with the German advance was not one of supplies. Once German forces crossed the front, it is highly unlikely their rolling stock could use French or Belgian Lines. Also,no one is speaking of twice the troops_ the Germans had only one army in the east, and seven in the west, in August. At best, you increase the number of german forces by 25%.

Again, the main problem is that it is highly questionable if in the age before mass mechanized transport, and army ould move fast enough to satisfy the Grman Plans.

[Boris Godunov]

So... let's say Germany ended up winning the war. Good or bad thing for history? Would it have prevented WWII? Would the Germans have been more aggressive about combating the USSR in its early stages, perhaps even demolishing communism before it spread?