What would you have done differently to make sure the Kaiserreich wins the Great War and takes it's place in the sun, thus avoiding ww2, unless it's against the USSR and the holocaust.
With WW1 tech it was pretty much impossible to win against a similarly powerful force that can also blockade the shit out of you AND will get American help a few years in.
Avoid a general European war in the first place so that the western world doesn't go into decline?
>>601491
Shoot von Moltke, avoid provoking the United States under any circumstances.
>>601502
The western world saw unprecedented economic and technological growth in the half century following the world wars. There was no decline.
>>601509
there was some decline, but not for the US
There was absolutely no profitable reason for Germany to go to war
they led in science, industry, economics and education, it was just going on great
Britain was rich as shit
France was doing pretty a ok
Russia was modernizing
all this was disturbed by ww1
The Great War was definitely a massive set back for the western world
>>601491
Use Lisle Rose's plan.
never ever ever a start a war on 2 fronts no matter how much you fap to your fantasies of knocking one side out fast before dealing with the other
>>601502
That means that the Islamic Caliphate don't collapse.
We can't have that. We need the war.
>>601530
You know that if Belgium had only said yes to letting Germany pass through, Germany would have won the war with the plan.
It's just Von Moltke being a complete idiot sending 200,000 soldiers to the eastern front where none was necessary and diverting form the master plan when he ordered the south army to attack
>>601523
All those countries experienced unprecedented economic growths after the war. I don't know what definition of "decline" you are using but I don't think there is one that fits the history as it happened.
>>601523
this is obviously not true
germans were boxed in, with few and marginal colonies
they wanted in on that
>>601549
>none was necessary
the A-H armies were fighting on home soil after a few months, without german help that front collapses
>>601549
>200,000 soldiers to the eastern front where none was necessary
nigga you what ?
Russian armies would have just marched to Berlin and taken it while the German armies where fucking around in France
Win the war as quickly as possible. Germany has never had the resources to fight a prolonged war.
Completely ignore France and Belgium, focus completely on Eastern Europe. Not ignore as in "concentrate operations in the East", ignore as in "don't even bother declaring war on them, just keep troops stationed along the border". Force the French and the British to make a first move instead.
>>601509
I'm more talking about it losing its soul.
>>601530
Hitler did pretty well with his war on two fronts from 39-40 until he made one front a whole lot bigger
>>601491
Schlieffen's Plan could have succeeded, had the Bavarians read the manual. If the Bavarian forces had withdrawn from the French forces, letting them advance rather than putting them to halt, then Joffre couldn't have relocated the armies on time to stop the strong Prussian advance through Belgium.
Other than that, I believe everything humanely possible was done.
In 1915, they had all reasons in the world to negotiate for a separate peace talk, after the Russians were devastatingly beaten in Gorlice-Tarnow and pushed back far, but the Tsar still would not enter negotiations but remain in the war for which he later paid with his life.
Put Bismark back in charge
>>601986
That would've been something to see.
>>601509
That's completely false, though, there was a huge decline. Over the twentieth century, non-european countries began rising to prominence (USA, Japan, China etc.), to the point of rivalling regional and/or global European hegemony. European colonial holdings completely disintegrated by mid-century; the single largest and quickest lose of territory this world has ever known (it being voluntary or not is irrelevant). The rest of the world's population boomed while Europe has experienced (relatively) little growth, and their total percentage of the world's population has shrank significantly. Economically, while European economies are still some of the best, they have been challenged in relative size and influence by newly developing markets; it used to be European economies completely and totally outclassed all others. Militarily, it is the same situation as the on regarding the economy.
Decline is a relative term; just because Europe is still doing well for itself doesn't mean it hasn't decline in power and influence compared to the rest of the world. When facing the evidence, to deny the decline, which has its origins with WWI, is simple idiocy.
>>602068
>Over the twentieth century, non-european countries began rising to prominence (USA, Japan, China etc.)
USA was economically more powerful than European countries by mid-19th century. Japan and China suffered worse than Europe from the war. Japan got fucking nuked.
>European colonial holdings completely disintegrated by mid-century
This was not due to the war.
>The rest of the world's population boomed while Europe has experienced (relatively) little growth
That's because Europe reaped the benefits of population boom from lower infant mortality and better medicine and food earlier.
>Economically, while European economies are still some of the best, they have been challenged in relative size and influence by newly developing markets; it used to be European economies completely and totally outclassed all others. Militarily, it is the same situation as the on regarding the economy.
This has little to do with Europe's decline but the rise of other regions. Europe itself experienced a fantastic, unprecedented growth in economy and standard of living.
Then again, you have such a retardedly simplistic view of the world that I don't think it makes any sense to continue discussing anything with you.
>>602092
>USA was economically more powerful than European countries by mid-19th century.
Completely false. Late 19th, yes, but not mid. And there is more to power than industry, the US had no ability to project power like European powers did until after WWI.
>Japan and China suffered worse than Europe from the war.
Irrelevant; they would gain power over the rest of the century to the point of Europe being completely replaced as the dominant power in the region.
>Japan got fucking nuked.
Complete irrelevant to the topic at hand.
>This was not due to the war.
First: how they lost it is irrelevant, they lost it and that's what matters. Secondly: the world wars directly caused such rapid de-colonialism as Britain and France could neither afford to nor had the will to keep these areas under their thumb following both wars.
>That's because Europe reaped the benefits of population boom from lower infant mortality and better medicine and food earlier.
Now you're just talking out your ass.
>This has little to do with Europe's decline but the rise of other regions.
Remember how I said decline is a relative term? If regions outside of Europe rise in influence, that equates to a decline in European influence comparatively. This is not a hard concept.
>Then again, you have such a retardedly simplistic view of the world that I don't think it makes any sense to continue discussing anything with you.
You're projecting.
>>601491
Was there ever any doubt about who was gonna win?
>>601491
Unite the European mainland by pointing out Anglo perfidy throughout the centuries. Propose a proto EU as a counterbalance to the English Empire, giving France a leading role. Foster irridentist native movements in the Anglosphere.
>>602199
>Completely false. Late 19th, yes, but not mid.
No, mid.
>And there is more to power than industry, the US had no ability to project power like European powers did until after WWI.
Yes it did. In fact its ability to project power was greater than any country not named Great Britain.
>Irrelevant; they would gain power over the rest of the century to the point of Europe being completely replaced as the dominant power in the region.
Yeah, interesting how the world wars caused decline in Europe yet didn't do anything to those two. I guess your stupid idea is wrong or something.
>Complete irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Are you daft? It kind of epitomizes the degree to which Japan got fucked in the wars.
>First: how they lost it is irrelevant, they lost it and that's what matters
No it kind of matters because your whole retarded point is that the two world wars caused some kind of a decline, and that the loss of the colonies was a part of this decline.
> Secondly: the world wars directly caused such rapid de-colonialism as Britain and France could neither afford to nor had the will to keep these areas under their thumb following both wars.
Independence movements were afoot long before the world wars and in any case the French held on to their colonies for a whole fucking decade after the war. That sounds like they had the will and could afford it during the worst of the post-war era.
>Now you're just talking out your ass.
Are you seriously disputing that Europe had better medicine and nutrition than its colonies? How desperate are you to win an internet argument?
>Remember how I said decline is a relative term?
>If regions outside of Europe rise in influence, that equates to a decline in European influence comparatively.
Decline is not measured in terms of influence alone. What is indisputable is that Europe became wealthier and Europeans' lives became better to a degree unseen before the world wars.
Honestly just kill yourself.
>>601491
In shorts, you have to win the war quickly, 1916 at the very most.
Allow von Kluck to do as he wishes and attack the BEF at Mons on both flanks, then assault the retreating French 5th army.
The Germans reach the Marne and faces only Joffrey's fresh 6th army and what is left of the 5th, Paris fell in September.
>>602425
>Decline is not measured in terms of influence alone. What is indisputable is that Europe became wealthier and Europeans' lives became better to a degree unseen before the world wars.
>Honestly just kill yourself.
Yes Europe would become wealthier after the wars, but they could have been even wealthier had the war NEVER happened.
It's blindingly easy to understand that WW1 exhausted the european powers, the economic growth that followed could just as easily happened anyway, it was coming no matter what.
Annex France in 1871. The history of Germany is a history of idealism gone wrong.
>>601491
>>601491
Of course the Schlieffen Plan no longer exists, so its easy to argue about. The copy in the General Staff archives did not survive WWII. I tend to agree with those who argue that Schleffen was not seriously proposing his end sweep around the French, as the logistics were simply no there. Even had the Germans seized the Belgian railways without a hitch, there was no way to supply the armies beyond a certain point. Others may disagree, but accounts written by German survivors tend to paint a picture of an army on the verge of exhaustion.
>>601775
There was a defensive pact between west and Russia
>>601491
Resurrect Bismarck and lobotomize Wilhelm II.
Shoot Arthur Zimmerman.
>>601491
Without the Great reapproachment Of Theodore Roosevelt America wouldn't have tolerated the Blockade Policy of The British simply for being "Civilised" and thus the war would have likely ended up in a german Victory
Don't get caught up in a pipe dream of matching the Brits at sea and try to build an alliance with them.
Also don't antagonize the Americans and don't fucking commit war crimes all over Belgium.
>>601529
What is this?
>>605352
Not him, but I don't believe he's too worried about that. You end up at war with the same great powers anyway, and with the benefit of hindsight, we know that Russia, not France, is the weaker of the two powers.
Beat the snot out of Russia, force a seperate peace with them, and even if you don't advance a foot on the Western Front, that's probably a win.
>>605570
so you basically have the same scenario (or at least the conclusion) as ww1 until about 1917... except you have not inflicted any casualties on the western allies, and you have not advanced into france, and you have not dealt a huge blow to french industry and economy by the lack of the above
how exactly will that help germany?
>>601775
Have fun with the Russian army retreating ever backwards into the vast expanses of the Russian interior, while continually overstretching your supply lines and having a repeat of Napoleon's invasion, meanwhile the undamaged and modernizing French army is waiting to strike into Alsace-Lorraine.
What I want to know is what was Germany's plans for Russia. After all, the whole war was started to take Russia down a peg and neutralize them as a threat.
How were the germans going to do this, by dissolving their empire?
>>603505
yeah sure Germany could just annex a nation bigger than them and keep on going like nothing happened
>>605658
they did, just they weren't around to keep the commies from rebuilding it
>>605670
Fair enough, but I assume they didn't idealize a communist rebellion before they declared war, right? What was the original plan?
>>605719
they sent Lenin themselves senpai, though probably more of a desperation move
if they won they'd probably maintain states such as baltics, ukraine, belarus and poland as puppets and buffers against russia instead of letting commies retake them
>>605602
Because you've knocked Russia out even sooner, and you haven't wasted the millions in manpower in offensives on the Western Front that ultimately went nowhere.
You haven't invaded Belgium, which keeps your image at least somewhat better, and probably delays (I doubt it would prevent it entirely) the entry of Britain into the war. With a narrow front, it will be enormously difficult for France to mount any kind of meaningful counteroffensive.
You have secured a lot of resources, especially farmland, that will ameliorate the British blockade, and done much to prevent the collapse of Austria-Hungary.
Your position is enormously superior to how it would have been historically, where knocking out Russia was an ad-hoc measure, and not a plan of action.
>>605658
This reminds me
Appearantly the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk would have stopped Russia from becoming a Superpower
Does this mean that Russia's superpower status depended more on Ukraine/Baltics/Poland than Siberia?
Apologize, give back Alsace-Moselle and supress the cancer that is the dynasty of Hohenzollern and Prussia
>>605745
nigga Siberia has like only 20 million people now, probably much much less than in the first half of the 20th century
>>602321
>Anglos are perfidious!
>yeah, and?
>.....
>LETS GO TO WAR
>no fuck off
>.....
>*german lack of diplomatic skill intensifies*
>>601491
Nope, Germany actually kind of made a great accomplishment lasting 4 years, I kinda even question if they could get themselves out of the war after 28/July/1914.
>>601491
Invest in more u boats and try and bring the swedes into central powers by promising them Finland
>>601549
if your plan can fail due to bloody BELGIUM putting up resistance, its a bad plan
>>601761
That was the plan from the start.
Nobody wants a long drawn out war.
>>606008
The Germans steamrolled through Belgium in days. The problem was the violation of Belgian neutrality which caused the British to join.
>>601491
You really only need to NOT do two things, and then just continue as normal:
1. If you want to avoid the USSR, DO NOT send Lenin back to Russia. Yeah, it'll end the war quicker, but you're gonna win on the eastern front anyways, is communism really worth a couple less months?
2. DO NOT send the Zimmerman telegram. You really don't need a fresh, not war-weary country when you're already 3-years in.
If you follow those instructions the spring offensive will put the allies on the ropes; and with no America to back them up, you can probably get a pretty favorable peace deal out of them.
Also, maybe work on some better tank designs, those things become really useful later.
>>605741
You just wasted millions on Eastern front instead on Western and accomplished nothing. Wester front is frozen like was IRL, only you fight on and ruin your own soil. And resources captured in the East are less substantial than those captured in Belgium a France (ie like half of French coal and steel production)
>>601491
Don't go to war in the first place.
It was all down hill after the Marne in 1914. They never came that close to victory again.
>>606162
>You just wasted millions on Eastern front instead on Western and accomplished nothing.
Aside from knocking out one of your 3 great power enemies, propping up the Austro-Hungarians, and ending the threat of a two front attack.
>Wester front is frozen like was IRL, only you fight on and ruin your own soil.
Are you seriously implying that the French and the British could have sustained any kind of advance in 1914-1916? Especially if they don't attack Belgium to widen the front?
>And resources captured in the East are less substantial than those captured in Belgium a France (ie like half of French coal and steel production)
Now you're just talking out of your ass. Furthermore, the single biggest thing Germany was running behind on was food, especially with the blockade. Accessing what's now Poland solves that problem.
There is literally nothing to be gained in the Western Front, Germany got all the territorial concessions she wanted back in 1871: The only reason Germany struck at France first was the mistaken belief that France was weaker than Russia and therefore needed to be taken out first.
If you crush Russia and hold off the French, you've secured that European hegemony that Germany so desperately craved. You've also very drastically altered the political situation, such that the U.S. might not join the war. You were just backing up your buddy Austria-Hungary: You smacked Russia down hard when she tried to muscle in. You don't have a quarrel with France and Britain, and you're willing for peace as soon as they stop attacking you.
>>606162
millions?
Russia was gonna already caving in against a few hundred thousand german soldiers.
supporting a few independence movements and Russia is ready to peace out.
All you need to do on the wester front is to hold the allies until you're done in the east, which would be super easy since German artillery is already way superior to France's and ww1 warfare favors the defender immensely.
then with the eastern front secure you can just power through the maginot line with artillery and win the war
Like the schlieffen plan but other way around
I would not have invaded Belgium they were the reason that Britain entered the way because they had been sworn to defend them since 1832. Even though they would have had to ignore the easier advance through Belgium in 1914 they could have focused all the men not fighting on the Eastern front along the French border and overrun them easily.
>>606292
That would never work. The Franco-German border of 1914 isn't wide enough to sustain the kind of advance you're envisioning. You'd have troops piling up in columns, unable to advance or engage until the guys in front of them fight and die.
Yes well if you look at the loss of company grade officers in the Ypres salient fiasoco the french border looks like a bloody tea party. ( no pun intended)
>>602206
There was, CP wrecked the allies in 1915, and again in 1917. 1914 was a draw on all sides, 1916, being mostly a draw with minor allied gains. The allies didn't really start beating the CP hard until after the German spring offensive in 1918 exhausted Germany's last real reserves. Before then it looked like the CP might win.
>>606283
>Russia was gonna already caving in against a few hundred thousand german soldiers.
Things I made up: the post.
>>607508
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg
>>606256
Not >>606162 but he is right about half of France's coal and iron producing regions falling under German control. The region of Champagne and areas around it, which came under German occupation in 1914, were the most iron and coal rich of all of France and the heart of much of its industry pre-war, especially in steel production. Not taking it early on would be a huge error as France will now have more material to build heavy artillery, which they sorely lacked. Despite the memes, artillery was hugely effective in the war; it caused the most casualties by far. Light and medium guns, however, failed to effectively destroy enemy defences, you needed heavy guns for that. But for heavy guns you need a LOT of steel, like, too much for you be able to effectively import from overseas. If France had Champagne, with its mines and foundries in tact, they could and would churn out way more heavy guns than they did IRL, which would could very well mean a breakthrough in the West.
>>607508
how about you actually contribute to the thread instead being a dyel faggot.
>>607528
One singular battle in the beginning of the war does not equate to the entire eastern front, you dingus. Tannenburg was one of the biggest cock-ups the Russians had in the whole war, and it was due mostly to tactical incompetence on the Russian generalship. Russia was able to effectively hold of the Germans, fighting on front of literally thousands of miles and millions of men on both side for over three years, and dropped out less from poor military performance (though by 1917 they were clearly losing; just not decisively so), but due to internal instability.
For what it had to work with, Russia performed very well, and if underestimated would have easily won in the east. They almost broke through into the Hungarian plane in 1915, for example; only stopped when a large relief force came to reinforce and counter-attack. The Russians also managed to rally in the North in 1915 and halt the German advance after Poland's fall. They were reasonably competent.
