futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 19, 2016 2:56:12 GMT
If Russia Descends Into Revolution Several Months Earlier, Does Germany Still Launch Unrestricted Submarine Warfare?
In your honest opinion, would Germany have still launched unrestricted submarine warfare if Russia would have descended into revolution several months earlier (in comparison to real life)?
Any thoughts on this?
As for me, I would say No due to my skepticism that Germany would be willing to risk bringing the U.S. into a war that Germany was already winning. After all, having Russia descend into revolution would tilt World War I in favor of Germany--something that I would think that Germany's leadership would be well-aware of.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,439
Likes: 12,050
|
Post by stevep on Jun 19, 2016 11:43:46 GMT
Not sure but I suspect yes. Germany was facing starvation due to the combination of blockade and over-militarisation and the chaos in the east would have been unlikely to alleviate this in the short term. The US was vastly underestimated and its role would likely have been fairly minimal compared with what Germany could have gained from having the eastern front secured a year earlier than OTL so I think they would have still gone for total victory and a USW campaign was the only real way of hurting Britain, which many of the German leadership saw as the key enemy.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 20, 2016 4:38:24 GMT
Not sure but I suspect yes. Germany was facing starvation due to the combination of blockade and over-militarisation and the chaos in the east would have been unlikely to alleviate this in the short term. The US was vastly underestimated and its role would likely have been fairly minimal compared with what Germany could have gained from having the eastern front secured a year earlier than OTL so I think they would have still gone for total victory and a USW campaign was the only real way of hurting Britain, which many of the German leadership saw as the key enemy. So, in other words, even with Russia knocked out of World War I a year earlier in comparison to real life, Germany would have been more concerned about being starved into submission by Britain (to the extent that food from Eastern Europe would have been unable to significantly reduce this starvation) than it would have been about the U.S.'s entry into World War I eventually shifting the scales militarily in favor of the Entente/Allies, correct? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,439
Likes: 12,050
|
Post by stevep on Jun 21, 2016 16:36:00 GMT
Not sure but I suspect yes. Germany was facing starvation due to the combination of blockade and over-militarisation and the chaos in the east would have been unlikely to alleviate this in the short term. The US was vastly underestimated and its role would likely have been fairly minimal compared with what Germany could have gained from having the eastern front secured a year earlier than OTL so I think they would have still gone for total victory and a USW campaign was the only real way of hurting Britain, which many of the German leadership saw as the key enemy. So, in other words, even with Russia knocked out of World War I a year earlier in comparison to real life, Germany would have been more concerned about being starved into submission by Britain (to the extent that food from Eastern Europe would have been unable to significantly reduce this starvation) than it would have been about the U.S.'s entry into World War I eventually shifting the scales militarily in favor of the Entente/Allies, correct? I would say a combination of fear about the blockade and its effects, even greater confidence about winning before the US can play a significant role [as the forces are available earlier while the US is more neutral and more forces are available without such huge areas to occupy in the east] and simply the sheer level of hatred in number of states by this time. |
|
