After the February revolution 1917, a mild peace

[SolomonW]

Say after the February revolution, German leaders decide that the immediate
problem is that they must win in the in West. There were some talks between
the Provisional Government of Russia and Germany, but here with a little
more brains on both sides.

Russia possibly could have negotiated an and of the war, based on
"restoring Russia’s pre-1914 border, perhaps with some frontier changes,
and for creating a new Polish state that would hold a plebiscite to
determine whether or not it would be under Russian sovereignty."

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives


Now let us say that these terms are agreed. The war in the East stops.

Germany starts to move large numbers of troops to the Western Front say in
July 1917. A major German offensive then, might have broken through the
French lines before any significant influx of American troops arrived.

[Eric Van De Hey]

This is pretty much Alien Space Bats territory.

Firstly because a German leadership willing to give a mild peace to almost anybody in WWI would have to be VERY different from the ones that historically came in, and likely the product of very different influences than what shaped Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Etc al.

and

Secondly because one of the key problems was the fact that Kerensky WOULD NOT accept a separate peace and abandon his allies. (And not without good reason given how the war had gone up to that point).

For starters, the dominant fear the Central Powers had during the interbellum WAS of Tsarist Power. Particularly industrialization and so on. A peace that does not end with Russia at least Checked if not crippled is not going to alleviate that big problem. ANd couple that with the desire to form some kind of barrier to protect the Hungarian plain and East Prussia and how that gradually expanded, and by 1917 the German leadership wants its G*damned Lebensraum.

[SolomonW]

Post by Eric Van De Hey
This is pretty much Alien Space Bats territory.
Firstly because a German leadership willing to give a mild peace to almost anybody in WWI would have to be VERY different from the ones that historically came in, and likely the product of very different influences than what shaped Ludendorff, Hindenburg, Etc al.

Tend to agree particularly as the German leaders sensed victory in the
East.

Post by Eric Van De Hey
and
Secondly because one of the key problems was the fact that Kerensky WOULD NOT accept a separate peace and abandon his allies. (And not without good reason given how the war had gone up to that point).

A good offer might get him to change his mind, in fact a good offer might
put him into a position that he has to accept.

Post by Eric Van De Hey
For starters, the dominant fear the Central Powers had during the interbellum WAS of Tsarist Power. Particularly industrialization and so on. A peace that does not end with Russia at least Checked if not crippled is not going to alleviate that big problem. ANd couple that with the desire to form some kind of barrier to protect the Hungarian plain and East Prussia and how that gradually expanded, and by 1917 the German leadership wants its G*damned Lebensraum.

A clever German leadership might think if they can transfer their troops
defeat France, then Russia will not be a threat.

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW
Say after the February revolution, German leaders decide that the immediate
problem is that they must win in the in West. There were some talks between
the Provisional Government of Russia and Germany, but here with a little
more brains on both sides.

Unfortunately, the people in the Russian Duma had even fewer brains than the Czar. These were precisely the imbecilic yes-men the Czar had hand-picked from the wealthy and the nobility to do his bidding, and act as front men for him. These were the idiots, the absolute fools, who concluded that assassinating Rasputin would save the nation, because he was the only real problem that Russia had in 1916!

Post by SolomonW
Russia possibly could have negotiated an and of the war, based on
"restoring Russia’s pre-1914 border, perhaps with some frontier changes,
and for creating a new Polish state that would hold a plebiscite to
determine whether or not it would be under Russian sovereignty."
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/peace_initiatives

No. The Kaiser was still absolutely paranoid about the Russians, and he wanted all the territory he could get for resources to fight France and Britain with. He's not going to give up any territory to Russia, under any circumstances. In any case, the entire basis of Russian industry is financing from the French and the British, so, if they pull out of the War, the Russians will find themselves back in the Stone Age, effectively, with no Capital, at all.

Post by SolomonW
Now let us say that these terms are agreed. The war in the East stops.

Inconceivable. Absolutely impossible.

Post by SolomonW
Germany starts to move large numbers of troops to the Western Front say in
July 1917. A major German offensive then, might have broken through the
French lines before any significant influx of American troops arrived.

I'm not really sure it would have been any more successful than the 1918 offensive.

[SolomonW]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:56:52 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus wrote:

<snip see my discussion with Eric Van De Hey >

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Germany starts to move large numbers of troops to the Western Front say in
July 1917. A major German offensive then, might have broken through the
French lines before any significant influx of American troops arrived.

I'm not really sure it would have been any more successful than the 1918 offensive.

Why not, in 1918, France was back in the war and it was the US forces in
1918 that stopped the German offensive?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW
<snip see my discussion with Eric Van De Hey >

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Germany starts to move large numbers of troops to the Western Front say in
July 1917. A major German offensive then, might have broken through the
French lines before any significant influx of American troops arrived.

I'm not really sure it would have been any more successful than the 1918 offensive.

Why not, in 1918, France was back in the war and it was the US forces in
1918 that stopped the German offensive?

Is this a POD or are you confused? Point being the 1918 German
offensive was stopped BEFORE they were seriously engaged by American
troops. American troops DID play a substantial part in driving the
Germans back to the 11/11/1918 armistice line but they made no
substantial offensives at all while the 1918 German offensive was
being beaten back.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW
<snip see my discussion with Eric Van De Hey >

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Germany starts to move large numbers of troops to the Western Front say in
July 1917. A major German offensive then, might have broken through the
French lines before any significant influx of American troops arrived.

I'm not really sure it would have been any more successful than the 1918 offensive.

Why not, in 1918, France was back in the war and it was the US forces in
1918 that stopped the German offensive?

Is this a POD or are you confused? Point being the 1918 German
offensive was stopped BEFORE they were seriously engaged by American
troops.

They seem at this point to being doing a fair bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_campaigns_in_World_War_I

Post by The Horny Goat
American troops DID play a substantial part in driving the
Germans back to the 11/11/1918 armistice line

agreed

Post by The Horny Goat
but they made no
substantial offensives at all while the 1918 German offensive was
being beaten back.

I do not think I said offensive.

[s***@yahoo.com]

this Kaiser=bad stuff mystifies me. Have you folks read the willy-nicky telegrams? these dudes seem seriously mild mannered.

[SolomonW]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
this Kaiser=bad stuff mystifies me. Have you folks read the willy-nicky telegrams? these dudes seem seriously mild mannered.

Some of them.


Lying to each other and themselves too.

[Eric Van De Hey]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
this Kaiser=bad stuff mystifies me. Have you folks read the willy-nicky telegrams? these dudes seem seriously mild mannered.

I have.

Have you read the other stuff the dude wrote?

Or even taken a gander at his Wikiquotes page?

It includes stuff like this.

"Where my Guards appear, there is no room for democracy. " - July 20th, 1917

"If a British parliamentarian comes to sue for peace, he must first kneel before the imperial standard, for this is a victory of monarchy over democracy. " - March 28th, 1918

"The imminent struggle for existence which the Germanic peoples of Europe will have to fight out against the Slavs (Russians) and their Latin supporters finds the Anglo-Saxons on the side of the Slavs. Reason: petty envy, fear of our growing big. " - 1912

And of course, the JUSTLY infamous Hun Speech in which he talked about the German expeditionary forces to China giving quarter to none and making themselves infamous for mass slaughter.

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=755&language=english

Now in defense to him and the German troop record in 1900, it IS true that the Western Allied troops fighting the Boxers didn't behave very well in general. While the British, Americans, and French murdered far less than the Germans they had a good number of atrocities to their name, and the Russians were MUCH worse than the Germans in terms of slaughter, especially because they had their whole parallel war in Manchuria where they murdered by the thousands.

HOWEVER, what makes this speech remarkable is tha those atrocities were generally the product of troops and junior officers at the front engaged in a high tension racial conflict, and either condemned by the national leadership or tacitly accepted (like in the Tsarist ARmy). The Hun Speech is remarkable because it sees the autocratic leader OPENLY ENDORSING MASS MURDER AND THE SLAUGHTER OF NON COMBATANTS AND THE SLAUGHTERED. And that was truly a ghastly, scandalous thing in the world of 1900 not only because it harkened back to the actions of the Prussian army in Denmark in 1864 and France, but also foreshadowed what would come to happen in Namibia and WWI.

So no. Wilhelm II was not mild-mannered, and the fact that the Willy-Nicky Telegrams are the way they were is a testament to the deep and affectionate personal bonds he had with "Nicky." It pointedly did not extend to Russians as a whole, and DEFINITELY not to the Serbs who would be slaughtered at higher rates in WWI than even Hitler and Stalin managed against Poles in WWII.

No, Wilhelm II was not some kind of WWI Hitler like he was often portrayed as in Allied propaganda. That role fits more with the like ofo Ludendorff (who was a johnny come lately).

He WAS however an avowed racist, autocratic despot and warmonger who gladly supported the policies of the Imperial Cabinet and Military and put his stamp of approval on breaches of international law that had no equal in Europe for a century or more.

He was not the grand architect of WWI but he helped build it into as awful as it was.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Eric Van De Hey
the Serbs who would be slaughtered at higher rates
in WW I than even Hitler and Stalin managed against
Poles in WW II...

A great many Serbs died in WW I, but I never heard
that Austria-Hungary or Germany "slaughtered" them;
that is, deliberately killed non-combatants or PoWs.

My understanding is that as Serbia was overrun by
the CPs, there was a general breakdown of public
order, with a huge number of refugees fleeing to
Albania or Greek Macedonia in very bad conditions,
leading to a great many deaths from typhus and
other diseases, and starvation and exposure.

Very bad, of course, and ultimately the responsibility
of the CPs - but not _morally_ equivalent to the
intentional mass murders carried out by Nazi Germany
and the USSR in Poland (bearing in mind that about
1/3 of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland,
and the deliberate liquidation of Polish military officers
and intelligentsia by the USSR).

I note that Bulgaria was also involved, and from what
I've read, Bulgarian occupation was much nastier.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:18:33 -0700 (PDT), Eric Van De Hey

Post by Eric Van De Hey
He was not the grand architect of WWI but he helped build it into as awful as it was.

My view is that had Germany not unconditionally supported
Austria-Hungary in 1914 it would have been a much smaller and shorter
war.

Plain and simply in 1914 Germany DID NOT HAVE A WAR PLAN FOR A ONE
FRONT WAR IN EASTERN EUROPE - and as such gave France an impossible
ultimatum demanded the French cede their main border defences.

In short, the 1914 German war plan (which did NOT include a scenario
for a one front war) ensured any war Germany was involved in would be
on two fronts and that ensured the participation of all great powers
of Europe.

It is primarily this that causes me to state my belief that
Versailles' Article 231 was entirely justified. With a rational single
front plan (which they did have in 1904-05) you DON'T get a European
war involving France and Britain.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Eric! thanks for the answer. You offered some stuff I hadn't seen before. When I was a child my relatives shared little bits of old timey stuff that made it clear the superficial official presentation of history was "bunk". Strong anti-war sentiment, stupid racists vandalizing norwegian property since it's kinda like germans, etc.

Thus I really appreciated it when modern kids, who presumably raised themselves, would post research showing the US big media saying pre-war stuff like "the Kaiser is the best hope for peace".

Nils K. Hamer