Jump to content


Photo

What If: Kaiser Willie Dies In 1909?


  • Please log in to reply
252 replies to this topic

#241 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,974 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 0609 AM

Similarity is that both were done by locals, with a help of the foreign power.


It makes a rather big difference if that foreign power has its own interest in annexing the country on the wishes of one local ethnic group, but not another. So in the Czechoslovakian example, the nearest equivalent to Young Bosnia was the Sudetenland NSDAP, and the Sudetendeutsche Freikorps takes the place of the Black Hand. After all, according to Germany there was a Czech terror regime against Germans and Slovaks in the country. :)


With regard to the Sudetenland that's not untrue, just exaggerated and giving me an idea.

WI AH had treated Bosnia like they treated Poland? They get the ethnic Croat parts, the Serbs the Serbian ones and Muslim majority areas are up for negotiations.

How would that have gone down in Serbia?
  • 0

#242 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 0910 AM

Bojan Lol, he was quite a bad shot and both hits are way more accident than a marksmanship. Ever shot FN 1910? Obviously not, since if you did you would know that thing practically has no sights.

 

 

I think he was close enough that he shot them both and then lied.  I also think the terrorist that earlier had tried to lob a grenade into the car was intending that his grenade would explode right on top of Franz or Sophie too.      

 

And there was a number of things that lead to Sarajevo that can be blamed on A-H, which you always conveniently ignore.

 

 

Austria-Hungary did plenty of things wrong in 1914.  Their violent campaign in Serbia during 1914 with thousands of civilians murdered was a war crime.   So, plenty of crimes and errors by Vienna.  But putting a known violent sociopath with a known tendency for violent conspiracies in charge of the Serbian army’s intelligence organisation was not one of them.

 

As for combat performances most of the Europe got rolled over, and WTF does that have to do with a topic, except being a cheep jab?

 

 

Not my intention.  The collapse of the Serbian army in 1941 stands in complete contrast to the – frankly – very respectable combat performance of Serbian forces before and since.  It strikes me as a symptom of a serious failure in the Serbian attempt to create a nation state.  Far worse than the Austrians did in Bosnia.

 

IMO, instead of Yugoslavia Serbia should have taken Serb majority territories (as was offered) and told rest to take care of themselves. But that idiot of the Alexander I fucked up that.

 

 

So a smaller more Serbian version of Yugoslavia?   Sounds like a better plan than Yugoslavia to me too.  My general impression is that both Serbia and Italy went too far into the “Austria-Hungary must go” camp.   Something like a rump Austria (Croatia, Austria, Czechs) might have been more in their interests than totally dissolving the empire, since total disunion favoured Germany.


  • 0

#243 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 0928 AM

That assumes Germany wins and wins decisive enough to dominate the continent and then decides to turn on Britain as opposed to resume trade with the rest of the world.

 

Germany lost the war and still dominated Europe in the decades afterwards.  So yes, I'm thinking from that if Germany wins the war it will completely dominate Europe. 


  • 0

#244 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,900 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 1256 PM

I find it a highly strange debate. Say Germany or AH supports and equips some Irish to kill Edward VIII during a visit to Ireland, I guess that would be okay too. 


  • 0

#245 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,764 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 1346 PM

Or Irish terrorists with friends in Dublin murder a former chief of defence staff who is also a close relative to the monarch along with some innocent bystanders. I must have missed the ensuing war between the UK and Republic of Ireland.
  • 0

#246 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,764 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 1348 PM

And why should Germany care about terrorists in Bosnia or a war between AH and Russia?
  • 0

#247 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,974 posts

Posted 20 November 2019 - 1509 PM

 

That assumes Germany wins and wins decisive enough to dominate the continent and then decides to turn on Britain as opposed to resume trade with the rest of the world.

 

Germany lost the war and still dominated Europe in the decades afterwards.  So yes, I'm thinking from that if Germany wins the war it will completely dominate Europe. 

 

 

Germany dominating continental Europe after WW1? That is news to me to put it mildly. In the decade and half after the war Germany wasn't even capale of self defence against say Belgium, much less in any position to dominate anything. 

 

German domination in the secenario depends of the if and the how. A negotiated end to the war in 1915 could restore the status quo ante(more or less for a time). 


  • 0

#248 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:37 AM

I find it a highly strange debate. Say Germany or AH supports and equips some Irish to kill Edward VIII during a visit to Ireland, I guess that would be okay too. 

 

 

It's all about domination and submission, these discussions.  Everything else is some flavor of nonsense.  The reason why the example you give is no good is because the British are the upper caste country of the international system and the Austrians were the lower caste.  The rights that apply to British royalty would be different since the German army doing what you say would be a world war, and the Serbian army doing the same thing to  those Austrias, Vienna will just have to suck it up.

 

Austria's big mistake was that they pissed around with these terrorist clowns in the Serbian army since 1903.  They should have wiped them out in 1904 with the Russians distracted by Japan.  If Apis wanted to be shot by firing squad wearing his army issue hat, or his little Black Hand members hat, his choice.  But by 1914 the opportunity had passed.  Their mistake then was getting too aggressive in response.  The Hungarians were - finally - ready to act.  Berchtold wasted this opportunity on a war.  He would have done better to use the assassination for a massive increase in Austrian and German defense spending.  The Franco-Russians were already maxing out on their defense budgets.  The Germans and Austrians had some room.


Edited by glenn239, Yesterday, 10:37 AM.

  • 0

#249 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:44 AM

Or Irish terrorists with friends in Dublin murder a former chief of defence staff who is also a close relative to the monarch along with some innocent bystanders. I must have missed the ensuing war between the UK and Republic of Ireland.

 

So if the German army murdered the heir to the British throne in Ireland in 1909, you're saying that the war which followed would be Britain's fault?   This is what you are telling me?  That if a member of Moltke's general staff trained, armed, and inserted two Irish terrorist squads from Berlin into Dublin for the express purpose of murdering George V in the year before he took the throne, and those terrorists murdered George V using the weapons that the German army had supplied, that Britain would be at fault for a war with Germany that followed?


Edited by glenn239, Yesterday, 10:45 AM.

  • 0

#250 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:50 AM

 

 

That assumes Germany wins and wins decisive enough to dominate the continent and then decides to turn on Britain as opposed to resume trade with the rest of the world.

 

Germany lost the war and still dominated Europe in the decades afterwards.  So yes, I'm thinking from that if Germany wins the war it will completely dominate Europe. 

 

 

Germany dominating continental Europe after WW1? That is news to me to put it mildly. In the decade and half after the war Germany wasn't even capale of self defence against say Belgium, much less in any position to dominate anything. 

 

German domination in the secenario depends of the if and the how. A negotiated end to the war in 1915 could restore the status quo ante(more or less for a time). 

 

 

Poland was actually ignoring Germany till the mid 30's, because they recognised the only military threat they had to match was the USSR. Weimar Germany couldnt fight its way out of a paper bag.


  • 0

#251 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:59 AM

 

 


 

Germany dominating continental Europe after WW1? That is news to me to put it mildly. In the decade and half after the war Germany wasn't even capale of self defence against say Belgium, much less in any position to dominate anything. 

 

 

 

Perhaps it was Switzerland that shook the European system to its core from 1933 to 1945?  The French occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 was an act of desperation, not strength.  Even by 4 years after Versailles and disarmed having lost territory and all its allies, the German core position was so strong after its defeat in WW1 that the French were already looking at disaster.  Yet you suppose that if Germany wins the war it's situation will somehow be worse than when it was actually defeated?  It will have gained territory in your AH, Russia will be broken up, Germany will be highly resistant to the blockade with Ukraine, and its allies are all still intact.  Surely the outcome to such a war is the German domination of Europe, and the idea of German exhaustion, a fantasy.

 

 

German domination in the secenario depends of the if and the how. A negotiated end to the war in 1915 could restore the status quo ante(more or less for a time). 

 

Some realism is required.  Once Russia went to war with Austria there was no possibility of a status quo outcome.  As each new CP member joined in, the post-war settlement would be skewed further and further from status quo.  Serbia and Russia would be crushed.  Status quo in the West might be possible, but in the East, total CP domination making France's position hopeless.


  • 0

#252 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,974 posts

Posted Yesterday, 03:01 PM

Perhaps it was Switzerland that shook the European system to its core from 1933 to 1945?

 

 

One, that is at least 15 years after the end of the war and two, that is not the same as dominating. The latter only began after the Fall of France. 

 

 

Some realism is required. ... Status quo in the West might be possible, but in the East, total CP domination making France's position hopeless.

 

 

Eventually the CP are likely dominate but that might be a reason for the Entente to try and cut their losses before the situation becomes hopeless. 


  • 0

#253 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,454 posts

Posted Today, 08:42 AM

Germany even in defeat exited WW1 as the strongest power in Europe, except restrained in various ways - limits to its military forces, economic reparations, territorial losses, political restrictions on alliances - by the Versailles treaty.  If Germany  had won the war, it would have had no limits to its military forces, it would have been receiving reparations from the defeated powers, it would have no limits on its political alliances and it would have gained territory, not lost it. 

 

I agree that the CP were going to dominate if Britain remained neutral.  That's why there was no chance Britain would remain neutral - they were going to war with Germany if France did, and the actual facts of the Franco-German rupture did not matter.   This is why Moltke asked for and received the automatic permission to violate Belgian neutrality.  Because the dice were already cast, and had Germany gone east as you envision, the British would have allied with France and the front would be established at Aachen, with Belgium dragged in on the side of the Entente just like Greece was dragged into the war by the Entente against its will.

 

If Britain - meaning a small cabal of Grey, Asquith, the King and a few other insiders - had wanted neutrality, this hardly required allowing Germany to steamroll Russia to get it.  The Germans asked for Britain to help them hold the ring between Austria and Serbia.  London could have done that.  Think of this.  Instead of an Austrian note on the 23rd, three separate but identically worded notes, one from Austria, one from Germany, one from Britain.  The notes are the 10 demands of the Austrian ultimatum, except the demands are from three countries, not one.  Serbia must accept unconditionally.  There is no war.


Edited by glenn239, Today, 08:43 AM.

  • 0