Probably alot of people gonna disagree, but the Allies started the war. Ferdinand was Axis, shot dead by a Serbian(Which if I am right, Serbia is Allies), thus sparking the war.
[QUOTE=Falkok15;43128400]Probably alot of people gonna disagree, but the Allies started the war. Ferdinand was Axis, shot dead by a Serbian(Which if I am right, Serbia is Allies), thus sparking the war.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but Austria was like "Oh, you didn't like one small part of our Ultimatium, Serbia? Germany, where's that Blanque Cheque? Yes, yes war time!"
[QUOTE=Falkok15;43128400]Probably alot of people gonna disagree, but the Allies started the war. Ferdinand was Axis, shot dead by a Serbian(Which if I am right, Serbia is Allies), thus sparking the war.[/QUOTE]
"The Allies" didn't exist before the war. Before that, there was the Entente against the Central Powers. There was no "axis" nor was Ferdinand a part of "the Axis". The Allies were made when England joined the Entente that was composed of France and Russia.
There are a huge number of causes to to the war that dwarf the "whomever shot first is the guilty one" to the point that saying Serbia (and thus "the allies") are to blame is pointless to talk about.
Well the world was a Mousetrap, with Cheese in it. Someone moved the cheese, the war started. But I know mostly of why WWII happened.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43126371]Except, Turkey and the Habsburg Empire weren't at "peak health". Both were wrought with corruption, political turmoil and trying their hardest to keep minor nationalities from boiling to the point of revolution (which eventually did happen throughout the Middle East and Europe during the war). Russia was making a good advance toward the Habsburgs and needed Germany to bail themselves out from the Russian offensives. There was also a great deal of national strife in the Habsburg Empire as you had Polish soldiers in Austria-Hungary fighting Polish soldiers from Russia, and so forth.
Not to mention, England was already in Egypt in 1914 which is where they launched their Palestinian campaign that, with the help of Arab rebels, managed to go as far north as to capture Acre and Damascus. They were also in India where they could sail from to go up the Persian Gulf and march through Mesopotamia (which they did and captured Baghdad)
Neither power should have worried about Italy when war broke out regardless because up until then, Italy was a part of the Central Powers alliance (Turkey was not, but very politically close to Germany whom were pouring money into new Turkish infrastructure and military aid). So at the time, Turkey had only to fear the British in the Middle East while also fearing the Russians through the Caucuses. Not to mention, the war breaking out in the Balkans, they had to worry about what the other Balkan states would do (most of whom had little friendship with the Ottomans).[/QUOTE]
When I say peak of health I meant those nations' capacity to wage war during the first world war. Yes, they were creaking and tottering, that doesn't mean at their initial entrance into the war they weren't a force to be reckoned with.
I don't see why England would be eager to enter the war in 1914 if the war in the west would never have gone into full gear until 1915-1916 (assuming the French would be unable to launch an offensive on the narrow German corridor and given their limited resources). Contrarily, the Turks would probably be far more eager to join in early if they knew the primary concern at the start was the weakening or destruction of the old neighboring enemy.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43130225]"The Allies" didn't exist before the war. Before that, there was the Entente against the Central Powers. There was no "axis" nor was Ferdinand a part of "the Axis". The Allies were made when England joined the Entente that was composed of France and Russia.
There are a huge number of causes to to the war that dwarf the "whomever shot first is the guilty one" to the point that saying Serbia (and thus "the allies") are to blame is pointless to talk about.[/QUOTE]
On top of that they weren't even the 'Axis' during the war. They were the Central Powers...
[QUOTE=bdd458;43135857]On top of that they weren't even the 'Axis' during the war. They were the Central Powers...[/QUOTE]
Forgot about my Central Powers and Axis. WWII is Axis.
I see that it is possible. The problem is that World War I is so absolutely massive that any number of variables could change the outcome, especially because the first 2 years of the war were basically on the edge of a knife.
I think that, had the Schliefflen Plan had succeeded and the invasion of Belgium encountered no resistance, they could have had the chance to knock out France. The extra delays that the weather, the Belgians, and other unforeseen variables brought gave the French just enough time to organize enough resistance. Had the French been taken out early, as with World War II, the Germans would have had a significantly easier time fighting elsewhere, especially on the Eastern Front, which was already a theater of war they handled quite well.
Had the Habsburgs been more competent and the Germans wouldn't have had to cover for them so much, that could have also helped. But I would argue the biggest crushing blow to the Germans was losing the war at sea. They couldn't beat Britain's navy, and Germany had terrible land management for farming and had little agricultural output. They relied on food imports and when the blockades came in, the country was torn apart from the inside. If the Germans won the war at sea versus the Brits, I think they could have turned the war around, especially with Russia dropping out in 1917.
If Italy had stuck to its alliances and aided the Germans, they could have provided a useful distraction and opened up a new front in France, but I don't think they would do much beyond that. Historically, Italy's military has always been massively incompetent.
As for the Ottomans, I don't think any scenario ends with their survival. They were called the "Sick Man of Europe" with good reason. The Ottoman Empire was dying. The Habsburgs probably would have had their empire dissolved in the end to. The Germans had a plan they called "Mittel Europa" that would essentially unite Central Europe into one big powerhouse under German hegemony. This plan would have involved the annexation of Austria and the split of Hungary, what is now the Czech Republic, and the Balkan states. Some useful allies would have been created to act as a buffer between Germany and communist Russia, and to help control their newfangled holdings in the Baltic.
I cannot believe I am saying this, but Socialist revolts aside the mod "Kaiserreich" for Darkest Hour is one of the best representations of a scenario where Germany wins the First World War. It is pretty accurate.
Italy really had no issue with France. Similar cultures and languages and the Habsburgs had Italian-speaking territories that were more appetizing to unite with the Italian motherland than some French territories full of Frenchmen.
Not to mention, the alliance Italy had with the two German states was purely defensive in nature.
I think, though, if the Habsburgs had promised to give Italy their Italian speaking areas (which was really only a little sliver of land compared to the rest of the Austrian empire), Italy could have been persuaded to join the fight on their side, or at the very best, stay neutral.
Since Alsace-Lorraine was shaped like Africa, and they probably already knew that, and Africa has always been... not fully penetrable... I think they had the right spirit from the jump.
[QUOTE=mzathemind;43151324]Since Alsace-Lorraine was shaped like Africa, and they probably already knew that, and Africa has always been... not fully penetrable... I think they had the right spirit from the jump.[/QUOTE]
...what?
Okay like... through the times of Africa's plight there are some countries that were never conquered, and it's a pretty sweet piece of info, so like Africa, Alsace-Lorraine has that hard to kill spirit. Idk I'm rambling.
[QUOTE=mzathemind;43152930]Okay like... through the times of Africa's plight there are some countries that were never conquered, and it's a pretty sweet piece of info, so like Africa, Alsace-Lorraine has that hard to kill spirit. Idk I'm rambling.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43143716]I think, though, if the Habsburgs had promised to give Italy their Italian speaking areas (which was really only a little sliver of land compared to the rest of the Austrian empire), Italy could have been persuaded to join the fight on their side, or at the very best, stay neutral.[/QUOTE]
I think there still would have been contention. The Italians would probably have demanded South Tyrol and Austria would have wanted to hold onto it (seeing as to this very day South Tyrol remains very Austro-German in culture and character).
[QUOTE=mzathemind;43152930]Okay like... through the times of Africa's plight there are some countries that were never conquered, and it's a pretty sweet piece of info, so like Africa, Alsace-Lorraine has that hard to kill spirit. Idk I'm rambling.[/QUOTE]
That's literally something I could only think of if I was smoking the jane.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.