Germany's foreign policy and military strategy in the event that WWI will not occur at all in the 1910s?

[WolfBear]

What would Germany's foreign policy and military strategy be in the event that World War I does not occur at all in the 1910s? So, Franz Ferdinand and his wife survive Sarajevo in 1914 AND Franz Ferdinand is crowned and able to impose his rule upon Hungary without any Great Powers supporting any separatist movements in Austria-Hungary in the process of this.

Personally, I think that Germany will try creating an alliance with Britain in this scenario considering that a Russian detente might be blocked by the fact that France could refuse to agree to this for as long as Germany will keep Alsace-Lorraine, and France was the source of a lot of Russia's loans, so Russia would probably be unlikely to disobey France in this regard. Germany would, of course, also seek to solidify its alliance with Austria-Hungary and very possibly seek to establish an alliance with the Ottoman Empire considering that Kaiser Bill already wrote to Franz Ferdinand about the attractiveness of an Ottoman alliance even in the early 1910s in real life. Germany might, of course, also seek to achieve economic penetration in Persia, Afghanistan, and China, but in all of these places, it will be competing with other Great Powers, such as Russia and Britain--and in China's case, Japan and France as well.

I would presume that Germany's strategy in any future (1920s and beyond) World War would be to play defense in the West while going on the offensive in the East, possibly stopping at the Daugava-Dnieper Line and then creating a defensive line there. The post-war peace in such a scenario could be based on converting the existing front lines into permanent national borders.

Anyway, what do you think about all of this?

 

[sillygoose]

Good question. I would assume a West Wall fortress system that was originally proposed in 1903 since they already had an Eastern one. Raise more engineers and fortress units while focusing on increasing firepower and airpower (they were building that up considerably right before WW1) since they were relatively topped out in what they thought they could support in terms of number of divisions. Focus on total professionalization of the officer class and clean out the politically appointed Junkers so the more skilled middle class could get promoted. Focus on submarines and the Jeune Ecole strategy as well as naval airpower.

Keep working on the Berlin-Baghdad RR and build up the Ottomans.

Germany already tried the British route and found that the British had no interest and were just interested in working with the Russians and French. I suppose given the Home Rule Crisis they could really start working to get arms to the IRA to really kneecap the Brits.

Really not much they could do in terms of a fancy strategy like the Schlieffen Plan, just get ready to fight an attrition war the best they could. Certainly they should do something about rationalizing their agriculture like what later happened in the 1950s, but that means liquidating the Junker estates.

 

[WolfBear]

Good question. I would assume a West Wall fortress system that was originally proposed in 1903 since they already had an Eastern one. Raise more engineers and fortress units while focusing on increasing firepower and airpower (they were building that up considerably right before WW1) since they were relatively topped out in what they thought they could support in terms of number of divisions. Focus on total professionalization of the officer class and clean out the politically appointed Junkers so the more skilled middle class could get promoted. Focus on submarines and the Jeune Ecole strategy as well as naval airpower.

Keep working on the Berlin-Baghdad RR and build up the Ottomans.

Germany already tried the British route and found that the British had no interest and were just interested in working with the Russians and French. I suppose given the Home Rule Crisis they could really start working to get arms to the IRA to really kneecap the Brits.

Really not much they could do in terms of a fancy strategy like the Schlieffen Plan, just get ready to fight an attrition war the best they could. Certainly they should do something about rationalizing their agriculture like what later happened in the 1950s, but that means liquidating the Junker estates.

Might Britain be more interested in a German alliance if Russia is looking scarier in 1920 and beyond, though? Back in 1900, Russia didn't actually look anywhere near as scary, did it?

But Yeah, having Germany give weapons to the IRA seems like a good idea if Britain cannot be won over to the German side. A neutral Britain is the next best thing for Germany, and after that a Britain that still goes to war against Germany but also cannot send many or even any of its own troops to Europe due to it being very busy dealing with the crisis in Ireland.

Germany could of course also aim to support various revolutionary movements in Russia with the goal of destabilizing the Russian state, but that's also a risky strategy since it could subsequently blow up in Germany's face.

Liquidating the Junker estates would probably be politically unfeasible.

Would Germany be willing to militarily resist any additional Russian encroachments on Ottoman territory? What about Austria-Hungary being willing to militarily resist this?

Interestingly enough, the Germans could put themselves in quite a favorable position in a war of attrition by playing defense in the West and aiming to expand up to the Daugava-Dnieper Line in the East and then playing defense there and insisting on converting the existing front lines into permanent national borders. But the Germans might also overestimate Russia's strength before any major war, so ...

 

[sillygoose]

Might Britain be more interested in a German alliance if Russia is looking scarier in 1920 and beyond, though? Back in 1900, Russia didn't actually look anywhere near as scary, did it?

If they get expansionist in sensitive spots potentially yes. 1905 when they cut a deal with Britain no.

But Yeah, having Germany give weapons to the IRA seems like a good idea if Britain cannot be won over to the German side. A neutral Britain is the next best thing for Germany, and after that a Britain that still goes to war against Germany but also cannot send many or even any of its own troops to Europe due to it being very busy dealing with the crisis in Ireland.

Britain was never really neutral. They refused to even sign a pledge to stay so if Germany wasn't an aggressor in any war in Europe.

Germany could of course also aim to support various revolutionary movements in Russia with the goal of destabilizing the Russian state, but that's also a risky strategy since it could subsequently blow up in Germany's face.

Indeed, plus Wilhelm didn't want retaliation in Polish part of Prussia.

Liquidating the Junker estates would probably be politically unfeasible.

Eventually it would happen, it was just a matter of when.

Would Germany be willing to militarily resist any additional Russian encroachments on Ottoman territory? What about Austria-Hungary being willing to militarily resist this?

Yes. A-H wouldn't really be needed, they needed to figure out their internal issues.

Interestingly enough, the Germans could put themselves in quite a favorable position in a war of attrition by playing defense in the West and aiming to expand up to the Daugava-Dnieper Line in the East and then playing defense there and insisting on converting the existing front lines into permanent national borders. But the Germans might also overestimate Russia's strength before any major war, so ...

Problem is the air war which was going to evolve into city bombing and did in WW1. Germany knew that was very shortly a technical capability. During WW1 the French even considered using bio-weapons against German cities in the Rhineland.

 

[WolfBear]

Eventually it would happen, it was just a matter of when.


Yes. A-H wouldn't really be needed, they needed to figure out their internal issues.


Problem is the air war which was going to evolve into city bombing and did in WW1. Germany knew that was very shortly a technical capability. During WW1 the French even considered using bio-weapons against German cities in the Rhineland.

But a surving German monachy will be Junker-friendly, no?

A-H's troops would still be nice to have if they're available. Else, Germany would have to fight the Franco-Russians alone.

Both sides can play the city bombing game, no?

 

[sillygoose]

But a surving German monachy will be Junker-friendly, no?

Germany was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament that was going to become more democratic in time due to reforms coming to the voting system. So the Junkers will be outvoted and that is that.

A-H's troops would still be nice to have if they're available. Else, Germany would have to fight the Franco-Russians alone.

For sure, but equipment is more important. The Ottomans have enough troops.

Both sides can play the city bombing game, no?

Yes, but why play? It's like MAD.

 

[WolfBear]

Germany was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament that was going to become more democratic in time due to reforms coming to the voting system. So the Junkers will be outvoted and that is that.


For sure, but equipment is more important. The Ottomans have enough troops.


Yes, but why play? It's like MAD.

Yeah, possibly. Unless they could stage some sort of reactionary counter-coup with the Kaiser's consent or something. We saw with the rise of the Bolsheviks and Nazis just how easily democratic gains can be reversed in moments of crisis, after all. But such moments would presumably be less likely without the World Wars.

Their troops alone didn't prevent them from losing to Russia in 1877-1878. Germany wouldn't want them to have a second loss at Russia's hands, most likely. 1912-1913 was different because it involved the Ottomans losing to small Balkan states, albeit those who were backed by Russia. But even then, in 1912-1913, the situation did get pretty tense in real life.

Fair point. This is why, for instance, there were no direct superpower wars during the Cold War.

BTW, why wasn't the issue of aerial bombardment considered in 1914? Or was it considered but the Germans believed that they would win the war quickly?

 

[stevep]

Yeah, possibly. Unless they could stage some sort of reactionary counter-coup with the Kaiser's consent or something. We saw with the rise of the Bolsheviks and Nazis just how easily democratic gains can be reversed in moments of crisis, after all. But such moments would presumably be less likely without the World Wars.

Their troops alone didn't prevent them from losing to Russia in 1877-1878. Germany wouldn't want them to have a second loss at Russia's hands, most likely. 1912-1913 was different because it involved the Ottomans losing to small Balkan states, albeit those who were backed by Russia. But even then, in 1912-1913, the situation did get pretty tense in real life.

Fair point. This is why, for instance, there were no direct superpower wars during the Cold War.

BTW, why wasn't the issue of aerial bombardment considered in 1914? Or was it considered but the Germans believed that they would win the war quickly?

WolfBear

On the last point I think because the capacity was totally lacking and also social values would have rejected the idea. It was a shock when the Germans breached international agreements to use poison gas OTL, or USW or their level of looting and forced labour in occupied territories.

I think the issue of whether the German parliament can wrestle power from the military and the establishment that Bismarck set up to leave the the Prussian and later the Imperial Parliament largely powerless in terms of restraining military plans and spending would be a huge issue. Can it be done without a military coup attempt and if so who wins?

Britain might be more willing for a defensive alliance with Germany if Russia looks more powerful. That's the basis of the balance of power system. However you need two to tango and as long as Germany is continuing to threaten Britain and demanding a free hand on the continent that's pretty much impossible. More likely if Germany and Russia got into a war with the latter gradually winning Britain would probably wait until Germany was in serious difficulties then seeking to arrange a peace that doesn't make Russia too powerful. With the aim that such a defeated Germany would be more rational - or at least its simply no longer capable of building a fleet capable of threatening the UK.

Actually supporting some IRA equivalent is the sort of bloody stupid thing that imperial Germany would try and do. IIRC they actually did try and send arms to Irish 'nationalists' but they were intercepted. At this point and without the problems WWI caused any extremist group trying to seize power in Ireland would not only get slapped down as they did historically but their going to continue to be considered murderous idiots by the bulk of the Irish Catholic population. It was only really the heavy handed approach to the coupist trial and execution, which wouldn't occur in peacetime that turned a lot of the Catholic population against the union, especially while the government is still pushing Home Rule. Not to mention that German aid for such a cause - let along the rebels boasting about it - would mean the latter would be seen as not just violent thugs but traitors by the bulk of the Irish population.

Deterrent with nukes is a very stable system but bloody disastrous if because of error or insanity someone does something stupid.

Steve

 

[WolfBear]

WolfBear

On the last point I think because the capacity was totally lacking and also social values would have rejected the idea. It was a shock when the Germans breached international agreements to use poison gas OTL, or USW or their level of looting and forced labour in occupied territories.

I think the issue of whether the German parliament can wrestle power from the military and the establishment that Bismarck set up to leave the the Prussian and later the Imperial Parliament largely powerless in terms of restraining military plans and spending would be a huge issue. Can it be done without a military coup attempt and if so who wins?

Britain might be more willing for a defensive alliance with Germany if Russia looks more powerful. That's the basis of the balance of power system. However you need two to tango and as long as Germany is continuing to threaten Britain and demanding a free hand on the continent that's pretty much impossible. More likely if Germany and Russia got into a war with the latter gradually winning Britain would probably wait until Germany was in serious difficulties then seeking to arrange a peace that doesn't make Russia too powerful. With the aim that such a defeated Germany would be more rational - or at least its simply no longer capable of building a fleet capable of threatening the UK.

Actually supporting some IRA equivalent is the sort of bloody stupid thing that imperial Germany would try and do. IIRC they actually did try and send arms to Irish 'nationalists' but they were intercepted. At this point and without the problems WWI caused any extremist group trying to seize power in Ireland would not only get slapped down as they did historically but their going to continue to be considered murderous idiots by the bulk of the Irish Catholic population. It was only really the heavy handed approach to the coupist trial and execution, which wouldn't occur in peacetime that turned a lot of the Catholic population against the union, especially while the government is still pushing Home Rule. Not to mention that German aid for such a cause - let along the rebels boasting about it - would mean the latter would be seen as not just violent thugs but traitors by the bulk of the Irish population.

Deterrent with nukes is a very stable system but bloody disastrous if because of error or insanity someone does something stupid.

Steve

Wasn't the Anglo-German naval arms race essentially over by 1912 with a British victory, though?

Otherwise, excellent analysis, Steve!

BTW, can you please respond to this thread of mine? :

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/a-russo-ottoman-war-in-the-1920s-without-world-war-i.7214/

Thank you.

 

[sillygoose]

On the last point I think because the capacity was totally lacking and also social values would have rejected the idea. It was a shock when the Germans breached international agreements to use poison gas OTL, or USW or their level of looting and forced labour in occupied territories.

The French had already used gas in 1914, the German use of it technically conformed to the letter of the international agreements just not the spirit (the law said no gas projectiles like the French did in 1914 but nothing about releasing them from canisters and letting the wind carry them into enemy lines as happened at Ypres), and the British had already grossly violated international agreements by using a distant total blockade which mean USW was hardly the shocking breach propaganda claimed.

 

[stevep]

The French had already used gas in 1914, the German use of it technically conformed to the letter of the international agreements just not the spirit (the law said no gas projectiles like the French did in 1914 but nothing about releasing them from canisters and letting the wind carry them into enemy lines as happened at Ypres), and the British had already grossly violated international agreements by using a distant total blockade which mean USW was hardly the shocking breach propaganda claimed.

Evidence or just another claim? I've never seen any evidence of France using lethal gases and Germany only used the gas canisters because that was all they were initially capable of.

Plus a distant blockade had historical prescedent unlikely [at least in modern history] indiscriminate murder of merchant shipping.

 

[sillygoose]

Evidence or just another claim? I've never seen any evidence of France using lethal gases and Germany only used the gas canisters because that was all they were initially capable of.

Plus a distant blockade had historical prescedent unlikely [at least in modern history] indiscriminate murder of merchant shipping.

History of chemical warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The French were the first to use chemical weapons during the First World War, using the tear gases ethyl bromoacetate and chloroacetone. They likely did not realize that effects might be more serious under wartime conditions than in riot control. It is also likely that their use of tear gas escalated to the use of poisonous gases.[15]

The Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention of 1907 prohibit the firing of any projectiles "the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."[14] Germany exploited this loophole by opening canisters filled with poison gas into the wind and letting it carry it towards the enemy lines, instead of launching it in artillery rounds.

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British, with their overwhelming sea power, established a naval blockade of Germany immediately on the outbreak of war in August 1914, by issuing a comprehensive list of contraband that all but prohibited American trade with the Central Powers and in early November 1914 by declaring the North Sea to be a war zone, with any ships entering the North Sea doing so at their own risk.[7] The blockade was unusually restrictive in that even foodstuffs were considered "contraband of war". There were complaints about breaches of international law, but most neutral merchant vessels agreed to dock at British ports to be inspected and then escorted, less any "illegal" cargo destined for Germany, through the British minefields to their destinations.[8]

The British bought off anyone objecting despite the violations of law:

https://gizmodo.com/was-britains-wwi-blockade-the-first-atrocity-of-the-20t-1665227466

Though largely forgotten by history, the actions of the British were in contravention of international law. According to the 1856 Declaration of Paris (still in force in 1914), blockades were permitted, but only if they were so-called "effective" blockades — meaning that blockades should only take on the form of a cordon of ships off an enemy port or coast. Blockades 'from a distance' were strictly prohibited.

USW was retaliation for that and the Q-ships (another illegal method of warfare) and really no different from what Britain did in terms of declaring warzones. That had plenty of precedent given British piracy hundreds of years before, but no actual international agreement prohibiting the use of USW since the 1909 Declaration of London was never ratified.

 

[WolfBear]

History of chemical warfare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British bought off anyone objecting despite the violations of law:

https://gizmodo.com/was-britains-wwi-blockade-the-first-atrocity-of-the-20t-1665227466

USW was retaliation for that and the Q-ships (another illegal method of warfare) and really no different from what Britain did in terms of declaring warzones. That had plenty of precedent given British piracy hundreds of years before, but no actual international agreement prohibiting the use of USW since the 1909 Declaration of London was never ratified.

You might be interested in this US Senator's speech in 1917 in relation to Britain, Germany, the blockade, USW, and US entry into WWI:

1917 speech by Senator George Norris in opposition to American entry (article) | Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

 

[sillygoose]

You might be interested in this US Senator's speech in 1917 in relation to Britain, Germany, the blockade, USW, and US entry into WWI:

1917 speech by Senator George Norris in opposition to American entry (article) | Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

Funny how you don't see that in school history books.

 

[WolfBear]

Funny how you don't see that in school history books.

Yeah, in school history books, there might be a desire to have a more simplistic version of history--as in, the US good, Imperial Germany bad, et cetera. Though even "the US good" part might be changing as more and more schoolchildren are being taught that our country is incorrigibly racist.

 

[WolfBear]

@sillygoose I have a question for you: If Franz Ferdinand isn't assassinated in 1914 and if none of the Great Powers will militarily intervene in A-H during the subsequent 1917 Ausgleich crisis, just how long do you think that WWI will be delayed by? Do you think that WWI is likely to be completely outright prevented in such a scenario?

 

[sillygoose]

@sillygoose I have a question for you: If Franz Ferdinand isn't assassinated in 1914 and if none of the Great Powers will militarily intervene in A-H during the subsequent 1917 Ausgleich crisis, just how long do you think that WWI will be delayed by? Do you think that WWI is likely to be completely outright prevented in such a scenario?

As long as the Russians don't attack I think they could prevent war entirely. Russia would be the issue given that the Germans would consider fighting a war after 1916 unwinnable due to Russian military expansion; it would be hard to predict how they would evolve internally by 1917 and beyond. Frankly though I think the Russians would trying to engineer a reason for intervention during an Ausgleich crisis to 'help their Slavic brothers' and help Serb expansion. Romania would be much more Entente favorable by 1917 due to the monarch and Austria quite weak, so even without France Russia will still have an edge. Though it may come down to how Britain feels about the situation. If they say that they will not support it the Russians even with their military expansion might back off.

A lot is going to comes down to how is in charge in Britain in 1917 and how they feel about the balance of power at that time. Germany would have long abandoned naval build up and have fallen behind in the army build up race, while Austria is getting more unstable. Even with the Ottoman/Middle East friction with Germany Britain as a whole would not really be anti-German by 1917 and might well look at the Russians at the problem, especially if Grey isn't in charge any more.

 

[WolfBear]

As long as the Russians don't attack I think they could prevent war entirely. Russia would be the issue given that the Germans would consider fighting a war after 1916 unwinnable due to Russian military expansion; it would be hard to predict how they would evolve internally by 1917 and beyond. Frankly though I think the Russians would trying to engineer a reason for intervention during an Ausgleich crisis to 'help their Slavic brothers' and help Serb expansion. Romania would be much more Entente favorable by 1917 due to the monarch and Austria quite weak, so even without France Russia will still have an edge. Though it may come down to how Britain feels about the situation. If they say that they will not support it the Russians even with their military expansion might back off.

A lot is going to comes down to how is in charge in Britain in 1917 and how they feel about the balance of power at that time. Germany would have long abandoned naval build up and have fallen behind in the army build up race, while Austria is getting more unstable. Even with the Ottoman/Middle East friction with Germany Britain as a whole would not really be anti-German by 1917 and might well look at the Russians at the problem, especially if Grey isn't in charge any more.

Reasonable analysis. And re: 1917 Ausgleich: I think that it's much more likely to see Serbia/Romania/Italy spark something there and then see Russia militarily intervene than to have Russia spark something there simply because Russia's abilities to spark a separatist movement in A-H are considerably more limited. And I doubt that A-H would do something blatantly stupid such as arrest Russophile political activists in Galicia or whatever.

 

[WolfBear]

And FWIW, in a 1917 alt-WWI, I suspect that the CPs will aim for status quo ante bellum borders if this is the necessary price to keep France out of the war. It would be rather hard for France to argue that it must enter this war when the CPs only want to restore their own countries' territorial integrity rather than to expand further at anyone else's expense. And the CPs won't be declaring war on France either, so France has to declare war on the CPs first.

I really don't see how exactly having the CPs restore their territorial integrity would actually threaten France in any way. In 1914 in real life, the CPs wanted to impose regime change in Serbia or something like that, which the Entente could quite plausibly argue was more threatening than a simple desire to retain the status quo ante bellum would have been. And of course in this 1917 alt-WWI, the Russians and their Little Entente allies would have been the clear aggressors against the CPs.

French entry in this 1917 alt-WWI only makes sense if they expect a quick Entente victory--but what if that expectation will turn out to be misguided? Then what?

 

[stevep]

If Germany does start a war prior to 1916/17, after which its army thought it would be too late to wage an offensive war against the Franco-Russian alliance I suspect that, bar some random trigger the latter would probably wait a few more years before they might feel comfortable starting a war themselves. Assuming of course Russia continues to develop as many people expected. Doubly so if the UK is friendly to Germany, which is quite possible with a different German stance and the perceived growth of Russian power.

At some point, say from ~1920 onward war might be more likely as Russia is likely to want to exert influence [i.e. control] over Slavic states and reach towards the Turkish straits and France will want to regain Alsace-Lorraine. However unless there's some sudden crisis that makers people on both sides confident they can/must fight it would probably not be until the end of the decade and possibly later.