• The Sietch will shortly be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance. Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
  • Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!
  • The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

The Kaiser's World: Speculating on a German victory in 1918

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
Where in Britain, or do you mean in the colonies, where it was all too common?
I read that children in Wales was beaten when they speak their language in schools,the same goes for Irealand.That is why everybody speak english now there.
Colonies - compared to what local rulers did before british come,they were nice guys.In Uganda,for example,local kings from time to time massacred suspected people to prevent any uprising.Brits do not did such things.
And thanks to them hindu stopped burning widows,and Kali worshippers stoped their murders.

German,on other side,mostly genocided Herero tribe in Namibia,when they never attacked anybody,only fought for their land.
They never genocided us,poles - althought they beat few children to death for speaking polish in schools.

So,german could be only as bad as british in Eyrope,but worst in colonials.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2020
Reaction score
399
I read that children in Wales was beaten when they speak their language in schools,the same goes for Irealand.That is why everybody speak english now there.
Colonies - compared to what local rulers did before british come,they were nice guys.In Uganda,for example,local kings from time to time massacred suspected people to prevent any uprising.Brits do not did such things.
And thanks to them hindu stopped burning widows,and Kali worshippers stoped their murders.

German,on other side,mostly genocided Herero tribe in Namibia,when they never attacked anybody,only fought for their land.
They never genocided us,poles - althought they beat few children to death for speaking polish in schools.

So,german could be only as bad as british in Eyrope,but worst in colonials.
Thanks for that. I have heard of such things in various places but not sure whether that was a systematic policy or a factor of local decision making.

Not sure that Britain managed to stop all cases of widow burning but think the campaign against the stranglers was very effective from what I've read.

Steve
 

Buba

A total creep
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Reaction score
641
Beating children to death for speaking Polish in school - no. But firing Prussian/German State employees (e.g. Reihsbahn) for speaking Polish - yes.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
Beating children to death for speaking Polish in school - no. But firing Prussian/German State employees (e.g. Reihsbahn) for speaking Polish - yes.
In Września few polish children died after being beaten by german teachers.But usually they survived,so beating them to death was no norm.
We are lucky that we do not get Herero treating.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Reaction score
46
1.In modern war rulers first duty is win with as small casualties as possible.Kaiser could abadonn Prussia and win war till 1916 ruling Europe after that,or fight for that and lost all.Did it helped those prussian in any way ?
Good luck explaining that leaving thousands of German civilians at the mercy of the Russians is "winning with as small casualties as possible"
Besides,East Prussia never produced anything worth keeping anyway.
Got anything to back that up?
2.They were germans rulers,if they win they would not need explain anything,becouse people would serve them anyway.
That is how german people worked from at least 18th century.
Let's keep away from broad generalizations of people, especially from explanations of how groups of people "worked". The Kaiser absolutely had to answer to the people. Look at how after the Daily Telegraph debacle how he retreated from public life and statements for several years.

3.Yes,german Teutonic order build Marbolk - but we hold it since 1466.And those teutonic knights was catholics,which were persecuted by Hohenzollern,so they have no right there.
They had every right to be there because it was German at the time.

And if you thing that german sentiment for some old castle is good reason for loosing war,then you just made germans bunch of idiots.
Please don't resort to ridiculous strawmen.

4.Russian have no capacity of continuing attacking,becouse they made their old mistake - build too small numbers of ammo ammunition.As a result,after first 3 months they practically could not use their excellent artillery.With HMG they could not attack anymore,and quickly lost war.
If the Germans abandon East Prussia, the Russians will not have expended all of their ammunition and supplies as quickly as they did historically. Instead, you'd have a Tannenberg on the Vistula.

5.Bavarian and saxonians were conqered by prussian,not joined becouse of their free will.
Bavaria and Saxony were never conquered by the Prussians. This is one of the reasons why they had their own kingdoms within the German Empire and were not Prussian provinces such as Hannover, Westfalen, Pomerania, etc. They absolutely joined of their own free will in 1871, enthusiastically, in fact.

Catholics was persecuted in Rhineland and other places.
Kulturkampf had been dead for 30 years by the time WW1 started.

If you think that they cared about their conqerors fate,you made them Stokholm syndrome victims.
Of course,When Hohenzollern would win,they would still follow them.
This is absurd.

Besides,russian during WW1 was not worst then german in Belgium.
I have read of atrocities in the east by the Russians but that seems to have been largely against the empire's own Jewish subjects on the way to the front, due in large part to the anti-Semitic tendencies of the regime. Those were by most reports worse than what the Germans did in Belgium.
I'll post it again since no one seems to have read it. The Russians committed atrocities against German civilians in East Prussia which were extremely similar to the German atrocities in Belgium. When reading the total numbers, keep in mind that although they might seem small, the Russians only ever occupied small fragments of East Prussian in the first place, thus the proportionate amount is quite large. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/11072/1/HIS_Watson2014.pdf
The Russian army perpetrated grievous acts of violence against noncombatants during its invasions of East Prussia at the opening of the First World War. By the time of the province’s final liberation in March 1915, 1,491 German civilians had been deliberately killed and hundreds more raped by tsarist troops. Over 13,000, almost half of whom were women and children, had been brutally ripped from their homes and deported into the depths of the tsar’s empire. Only two-thirds of these deportees would survive their wartime captivity. The invasions had been accompanied by widespread looting and devastation. More than 100,000 buildings had been damaged or destroyed, most in heavy fighting but some as a result of military reprisals or after being plundered. East Prussia’s few cities had escaped serious harm, but over one-quarter of its farms and villages and three-fifths of its small towns were scarred or ruined.182
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
Good luck explaining that leaving thousands of German civilians at the mercy of the Russians is "winning with as small casualties as possible"

Got anything to back that up?

Let's keep away from broad generalizations of people, especially from explanations of how groups of people "worked". The Kaiser absolutely had to answer to the people. Look at how after the Daily Telegraph debacle how he retreated from public life and statements for several years.


They had every right to be there because it was German at the time.


Please don't resort to ridiculous strawmen.


If the Germans abandon East Prussia, the Russians will not have expended all of their ammunition and supplies as quickly as they did historically. Instead, you'd have a Tannenberg on the Vistula.


Bavaria and Saxony were never conquered by the Prussians. This is one of the reasons why they had their own kingdoms within the German Empire and were not Prussian provinces such as Hannover, Westfalen, Pomerania, etc. They absolutely joined of their own free will in 1871, enthusiastically, in fact.


Kulturkampf had been dead for 30 years by the time WW1 started.


This is absurd.



I'll post it again since no one seems to have read it. The Russians committed atrocities against German civilians in East Prussia which were extremely similar to the German atrocities in Belgium. When reading the total numbers, keep in mind that although they might seem small, the Russians only ever occupied small fragments of East Prussian in the first place, thus the proportionate amount is quite large. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/11072/1/HIS_Watson2014.pdf
1.Explaining to who? germans rulers who win wars never must explain anything.Frederick almost destroyed his country and lost part of population,but when mad tsar saved him and he win 7th war surviving prussian worshipped him for beating they get thanks to him.

2.No mines,factories,important harbour or good land - it means,that land is useless.

3.After winning war and ruling over Europe no prussian would question him,like no prussian question Frederic.

4.Malbork was built by germans - but by catholic german.When Hohenzollern become protestant,they betrayed Teutonic Order.Those knights could have rights to castle,but not protestanys who betrayed them.

5.German lost war becouse they defended East Prussia.So,their own sentimentalism defeated them.

6.Bavaria fought Prussia in 1866,and Saxony earlier.

7.Kulturkampf was abadonned becouse otherwise prussian would have cyvil war,not becouse they become nice.

8.Bavarian should not care about their nation,not prussians.

9.Let say that russian would kill all german there - for modern politician it is still good price for ruling over Europe.
Honour is for medieval Kings,if Hohenzollern have it they would still be polish vassals.
And yes,in modern world honour would kill you,so i do not blame prussian rulers for abadonning it.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Reaction score
46
1.Explaining to who? germans rulers who win wars never must explain anything.Frederick almost destroyed his country and lost part of population,but when mad tsar saved him and he win 7th war surviving prussian worshipped him for beating they get thanks to him.
You can't really compare 18th Century and 20th Century warfare.

2.No mines,factories,important harbour or good land - it means,that land is useless.
Königsberg was in fact an important harbour and military hub, holding both large supply stores and fortifications. This alone makes East Prussia worth it, let alone the millions of Germans who he Kaiser is sworn to protect (you still have not addressed this).

3.After winning war and ruling over Europe no prussian would question him,like no prussian question Frederic.
Again, there is no guarantee abandoning East Prussia from the outset would lead to any increased chance in German victory, quite the opposite in fact.

4.Malbork was built by germans - but by catholic german.When Hohenzollern become protestant,they betrayed Teutonic Order.Those knights could have rights to castle,but not protestanys who betrayed them.
I'm not sure why you're obsessing over the religious denominations of the Teutonic Order and Hohenzollerns. By 1914 intra-religious differences had all but completely died away in Germany, with ethno-linguistic identity becoming triumphant. Any debate on who has the "right" to Marienburg, especially any weighted with religious arguments, is ridiculous, frankly. The Teutonic Order was a distant memory, what mattered was that Marienburg was German, and it was overwhelmingly so for a over a hundred years. Hell, even in 1919 less than 2% of the population voted to leave Germany and join Poland.

5.German lost war becouse they defended East Prussia.So,their own sentimentalism defeated them.
You have neither shown how abandoning East Prussia would win them the war, nor that sentimentalism is the only reason why they defended it.

6.Bavaria fought Prussia in 1866,and Saxony earlier.
So what? They were not annexed and enthusiastically founded the German Empire with Prussia five years later.

7.Kulturkampf was abadonned becouse otherwise prussian would have cyvil war,not becouse they become nice.
Again, so what?

8.Bavarian should not care about their nation,not prussians.
Bavarians should care about all of Germany, including Prussia(ns) over all foreigners.

9.Let say that russian would kill all german there - for modern politician it is still good price for ruling over Europe.
Honour is for medieval Kings,if Hohenzollern have it they would still be polish vassals.
And yes,in modern world honour would kill you,so i do not blame prussian rulers for abadonning it.
Again, the real world is not a paradox game where you can play Stalin and offer millions of citizens to the enemy to be raped, plundered, and murdered.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
You can't really compare 18th Century and 20th Century warfare.


Königsberg was in fact an important harbour and military hub, holding both large supply stores and fortifications. This alone makes East Prussia worth it, let alone the millions of Germans who he Kaiser is sworn to protect (you still have not addressed this).


Again, there is no guarantee abandoning East Prussia from the outset would lead to any increased chance in German victory, quite the opposite in fact.


I'm not sure why you're obsessing over the religious denominations of the Teutonic Order and Hohenzollerns. By 1914 intra-religious differences had all but completely died away in Germany, with ethno-linguistic identity becoming triumphant. Any debate on who has the "right" to Marienburg, especially any weighted with religious arguments, is ridiculous, frankly. The Teutonic Order was a distant memory, what mattered was that Marienburg was German, and it was overwhelmingly so for a over a hundred years. Hell, even in 1919 less than 2% of the population voted to leave Germany and join Poland.


You have neither shown how abandoning East Prussia would win them the war, nor that sentimentalism is the only reason why they defended it.


So what? They were not annexed and enthusiastically founded the German Empire with Prussia five years later.


Again, so what?


Bavarians should care about all of Germany, including Prussia(ns) over all foreigners.


Again, the real world is not a paradox game where you can play Stalin and offer millions of citizens to the enemy to be raped, plundered, and murdered.
1.Noot warfare - mindset.Prussian would worshipp any king who gave them victory,not matter how many of them was sacrifised.They defied Hohenzollern in 1918 only becouse they sacifised them and lost.

2.Królewiec is harbour - but Germany do not really need it.And medieval kings protected its people,from 17th century Hohenzollern and others sacrifised them for victory.
Modern politics.

3.If Germans do not send few dyvision to Prussia from France and change Schielffien plan,France would fall in 1914.Which mean defeated Russia in 1915 and victory in 1916.
And german Europe,in which nobody in germany would blame victorious german generals for anything.

4.Not religion,but law.Malborg belonged first to Teutonic knights,later to Poland.Hohenzollern have no any right to castle becouse they betrayed first Teutonic order,and later Poland.

5.Keeping Schielffien plan mean victory and german Europe.Germans abodonned victory becouse of poor land and old castles which they lost anyway.

6,7,8,9.Bavarians should care about bavarians first.
What rape of millions ? you are treating WW1 russians as soviets,which is as stupid as treating WW2 germans as Kaiser soldiers.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Reaction score
251
1.Noot warfare - mindset.Prussian would worshipp any king who gave them victory,not matter how many of them was sacrifised.They defied Hohenzollern in 1918 only becouse they sacifised them and lost.
That is so wildly wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
That is so wildly wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
Fact A:
Prussian worshipped and their remains still worshipp Frederic who lead them to suicidal war,but win thanks to mad tsar sarrifising many of them.He started war, used them as cannonfodder,but win,so he is hero.
Fact B:
And they fought against Kaiser Willy when he lead them to war,and lost becouse there were no mad tsar to save him.Those who made uprising in Berlin? they were prussian,fighting Kaiser becouse he he started war ,used them as cannonfodder,and lost

That is why even if russian from WW1 was soviet and killed all prussian there,remaining prussian would still worshipp Kaiser Willy after his victory and creating german Europe.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
5,445
ATP, your increasingly obvious anti-German and anti-Protestant feelings rather count against your advice on what would have been a better war policy for the German Kaiser and his government.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Reaction score
251
Fact A:
Prussian worshipped and their remains still worshipp Frederic who lead them to suicidal war,but win thanks to mad tsar sarrifising many of them.He started war, used them as cannonfodder,but win,so he is hero.
I'd love to see your source on that.
You seem to be confusing national myths about old 'war heroes' with worship of a religious figure. Every nation has national mythos about surviving tough times, including Poland.

Fact B:
And they fought against Kaiser Willy when he lead them to war,and lost becouse there were no mad tsar to save him.Those who made uprising in Berlin? they were prussian,fighting Kaiser becouse he he started war ,used them as cannonfodder,and lost
They didn't fight him at all. He stepped down when told he had lost the support of the nation. The German civil war was between the communists and post-Kaiser government in a battle to see who would be able to control the country in the power vacuum abdication created. Berlin has long be a working class/communist friendly city and since it was only exempted workers left in the city after all the other fighting age men were sent to the front they rose up when organized by anti-war communist politicians trying to fulfill their ideological faith in revolution of the proletariate, just as the Bolsheviks had.

If anything the average German wanted peace at nearly any price and thought that since Wilson had offered the 14 points they could get out of the war with a white peace deal.

That is why even if russian from WW1 was soviet and killed all prussian there,remaining prussian would still worshipp Kaiser Willy after his victory and creating german Europe.
You've got some pretty twisted views.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
ATP, your increasingly obvious anti-German and anti-Protestant feelings rather count against your advice on what would have been a better war policy for the German Kaiser and his government.
Not anti-german or anti-protestant,but anti-prussian.That is difference - germany lead by any other german nation would not go on conqest beliving that miracle always would save them.
It is not about morality,but efficiency - you could be bad of good,but if you start conqest beliving that miracle always gave you victory you are destined to die.
It is strange,that nobody finished Prussia before 1945.

I do not blame prussian for stealing somebody else land,becouse it is human norm,but for beliving that God would help them every time their victims start winning.
It was as stupid as our polish uprising when we belived that God would help us keep our freedom against superior enemy.But we,at least,do not invade anybody.

I do not wish for German Europe,but germans in 1914 practically win - and fucked up by their own stupidity.
And when i could stomach stupidity of weak victims,stupidity of strong opressors is something revolting.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
i forget one important thing - both Russia and Germany lied to their allies.Germany lied that they would send most of their armies to fight Russians,that is why A-H was so brave in 1914,and Russia lied that they would attack Germany first,when in reality they always planned to go for A-H and send only 2 armies to East Prussia.

Which mean that East Prussia was never in any danger - those 2 armies would be stopped even if Hindenburg not destroyed them.
 

SpicyJuan

Active member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Reaction score
46
If Germans do not send few dyvision to Prussia from France and change Schielffien plan,France would fall in 1914.Which mean defeated Russia in 1915 and victory in 1916.
Those divisions didn't arrive until after Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes anyways by which time the Russian invasion was already defeated. You're trying to come up with an impossible what if to keep those divisions in France which is entirely unnecessary in the first place. You can keep those divisions in France without endangering the eastern front.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
1,527
Those divisions didn't arrive until after Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes anyways by which time the Russian invasion was already defeated. You're trying to come up with an impossible what if to keep those divisions in France which is entirely unnecessary in the first place. You can keep those divisions in France without endangering the eastern front.
Say that to prussian generals,that was their mistake.
And i acknowledged fact that East Prussia were never in real danger,becouse russians would not send more then those 2 armies - even if they were never destroyed they could not take over East Prussia.

Which made german HQ even more stupid - they lost war,becouse they try prevent danger which never existed.
French mad attack gave them occasion to finish France in 1914 - but they fucked it,becouse....well,there were no real reasons,but they still fucked it.
 
Top Bottom