EE Victory Conditions: What If WE Loses?

[fred zeppelin]

My post was about the resolve of the British, the Nazis being Nihilist and prone to exterminate the populations considered as inferior. You have the same resolve by the Obama speach indicating that the Djihadist doesn't have their place in our century.

The German army of 1914 is better than the army of 1939 for sure. The french did a good fighting retreat but this is the aviation reco who save france when Klück army presented his flank and Gallieni which understood the error and benefited from this german mistake.

I'm certain there are plenty of military historians who would diagree with you on the relative quality of the German armies of 1914 and 1940 - it's certainly not clear-cut as you suggest.

Plus, whatever their relative strengths generally, the 1940 army was much better equipped to accomplish the task we're talking about - the complete territorial conquest of Russia. Far easier to say you're going to walk to St. Petersburg and Moscow than to actually do it. Even as it was, the German Army of WWI didn't seriously penetrate Russia proper until 1917. Heck, it took the Imperial Army nearly three years to cover the ground the Nazis covered in a few weeks. Even if the WWII army wasn't generally "better," it was much more mobile.

As to your point about Russian resolve, I think history has shown repeatedly that it's generally easier to predict the performance of armies than the resolve of peoples. We can't be sure at all how the Russian people would have reacted had the Czar adopted a different strategy.

Finally, and this is the real point, it would be great fun to be able to play through all of these possibilities in the game. From that perspective, this game is less robust than WWI Gold in its strategic elements (though it certainly has other advantages).

[ERISS]

Actually, the "what if" isn't that far-fetched.
Germans split BEF and French forces before they can link up (BEF is a little slower, Germans a little faster, Belgians a little less resolute or French a little weaker - any one of which easily could've happened). Germans march into Paris with BEF pinned against the channel ports protected by the guns of the Royal Navy. BEF is evacuated and Britain fights on, unwilling to accede to German hegemony in Europe. The USA, shocked out of its complaisant neutrality by the same fear, joins the war in support of the British and Russians.
The Russians, meanwhile, fight poorly in the early days of "the Czar's War." But once isolated and invaded, the outrage of an enemy army desecrating the sacred soil of the Motherland sparks the deep well of national pride that resides in the heart of every Russian and unleashes the one great Russian asset - the Russian people - to heights of patriotic heroism and sacrifice previously thought impossible in such a backward and fractured society. Trading space for time, the Russians lure the overconfident Germans deeper into the Russian wastes, until lack of supply and General Winter begin to turn the tide. Etc, etc.
It happened barely 25 years later.

I follow you.

I'd think some people here just like need to study more history before making stupid comments here (but perhaps they make stupid comments just to get the attention "they" want or even need, but in any way I'm just a teacher and not a psychologist...).

Teachers often don't like being contradicted, even more by argued tellings. See a RUS modder (even dev', I think) teacher heavily insulting others and then going away from Ageod forum back in his white tower...

we reached a consensus that the russians wouldn't keep fighting alone and this is IMO a very realistic aproach.

Sure, but even when Russia has no diplomacy, other countries can send men and materials to help: see Russian Civil War and the help for the Whites. USA at least could still send help. Even when loosing, if the game is fun it should not prevent from playing.

[HerrDan]

Teachers (at least I'm talking about myself) just don't like to waste time with people who talk about things they don't understand (I.E people that don't want to learn/study before discussing something). There's nothing worse than seeing people talking about what they have no knowledge. At least in forums like this we often don't expect people to make stupid comments like the ones I saw here. Germany was in NO WAY prepared for a war in 1939, very differently from in 1914. But I'll say it again, this game is about 1914, it's about the first world war and not the second, so you guys should try to keep this in mind.

[fred zeppelin]

Teachers (at least I'm talking about myself) just don't like to waste time with people who talk about things they don't understand (I.E people that don't want to learn/study before discussing something). There's nothing worse than seeing people talking about what they have no knowledge.

True. But a close second is listening to people who insist that the historical outcome was the only possible, or even plausible, outcome. Some teachers are content to reward simple recitation of facts; others encourage critical thought.

But I'll say it again, this game is about 1914, it's about the first world war and not the second, so you guys should try to keep this in mind.

True again. Hence the point above about the historical fact that, in three full years of war, the German Imperial Army advanced only a bit beyond the borders of Poland. And the observation that, again talking about WWI, it was far from guaranteed that Germany could have marched victoriously all the way to St. Petersburg and Moscow if Russia had adopted a more traditional space-for-time strategy.

[Owl]

Germany was prepared in 1914 and in 1939 in that sense that German militarism twice tried to subjugate Europe under its iron fist and luckily failed twice.

As for the opening post, there should be a way to perhaps continue fighting beyond ignoring the "Defeat" message, perhaps one that also transfers the diplomatic options of the WE to the EE in that case so the player can conduct diplomacy. This would bother me in general if playing EE in a solo game to be honest, as you would be forced to either do the complete turn for both the WE and EE if you wanted to conduct diplomacy or let the AI handle decisions that might well decide whether you have to commit troops to, say, the Ottoman front.

[vonRocko]

Thanks for the lecture teach! You're right, this forum is for the intellectuals. How dare these peasants!

[fred zeppelin]

As for the opening post, there should be a way to perhaps continue fighting beyond ignoring the "Defeat" message, perhaps one that also transfers the diplomatic options of the WE to the EE in that case so the player can conduct diplomacy. This would bother me in general if playing EE in a solo game to be honest, as you would be forced to either do the complete turn for both the WE and EE if you wanted to conduct diplomacy or let the AI handle decisions that might well decide whether you have to commit troops to, say, the Ottoman front.

The fact is you can play the WE and kinda play the EE. I understand the explanation for why they did it this way - and I even accept it as being the "historical' setup - but I think it would be a better game had they made a different decision. Better because it would offer more strategic choices. And, more importably, better because it would let the human who bought the game be the one gets to make the decisions instead of turning many of the most interesting strategic choices over to the AI. This is a game, after all.

[Shri]

Yeah, that's why they won the war.
Oh... Wait...

Ya. Cut. Copy and Paste.

Have a sense and perspective before you do it.

Let's say you do a fistfight with an opponent but you have 2 of your friends as seconds backing you up and the opponent has no seconds, what happens? in round 2/3 both are tired, you have your seconds coming to the fight, the opponent- oh yeah that guy has no seconds, he loses. That doesn't make you a better fighter, just luckier geographically or more astute diplomatically.

[Owl]

The fact is you can play the WE and kinda play the EE. I understand the explanation for why they did it this way - and I even accept it as being the "historical' setup - but I think it would be a better game had they made a different decision. Better because it would offer more strategic choices. And, more importably, better because it would let the human who bought the game be the one gets to make the decisions instead of turning many of the most interesting strategic choices over to the AI. This is a game, after all.

You still can't actually decide strategic movements on the eastern front as a WE player though. There could probably be a decision for the EE at the beginning of the game where the player can pick whether he is playing this as a solo game or with another human playing the other Entente faction. If the player choses the single player option, the diplomatic game could be moved over to the EE. Or he could leave it to the WE by picking the other option if he doesn't want to bother with the diplomatic aspects for gameplay and/or realism reasons.

[Shri]

They lost because they were beaten. Their marvelous warplan failed, their so-called best army in the world screw up its advance. They were beaten at La Marne (twice), at Verdun, at Amiens.
German army was no superhuman. A good army, of course. As almost all great powers.

Ya. Lets analyse the War deeper from the Western Front-
There was the Russian Front,
The Serbian Front
Italian Front
Colonial Front
Romanian Front
Balkan (Salonika )Front
Gallipoli/Istanbul Front
Sinai Front
Caucasus Front
Mesopotamian Front.

Now, your army is split up and trying to defend so many fronts, of course it cannot win easily.
BTW- Verdun and Somme though they ended up breaking the back of the Pre-War German Army by severely depleting the trained pool of Officers and NCO's as also Veterans; they provoked a Mutiny in France and a near panic in UK.
As for Russia-
Russia faced about 1/3rd of the German Army at any given time no more than 1/3, often (eg: Verdun, Somme, 3rd Ypres) 1/4 of the German Army; yet Russia struggled and did not win a single significant battle against the Germans.

Why did this happen? Von Moltke Sr. and his system are to be thanked by that imbecile Kaiser for the superb performance of his field armies. By 1917-
Russia was knocked out
Serbia and Romania, Belgium etc. Knocked out
Italy was prostrate (post caporetto, near full scale mutiny had broken out and British Troops were sent urgently as a second line of reserves to quell the panic)
France was in mutiny post Nivelle Offensive failure
and UK alone stood strong.

Quite an achievement when you have allies like-
Austria
Turkey and
Bulgaria

[fred zeppelin]

There could probably be a decision for the EE at the beginning of the game where the player can pick whether he is playing this as a solo game or with another human playing the other Entente faction. If the player choses the single player option, the diplomatic game could be moved over to the EE. Or he could leave it to the WE by picking the other option if he doesn't want to bother with the diplomatic aspects for gameplay and/or realism reasons.

That's how I assumed the game would work when I bought it. I knew you could play either the WE or EE (but not both), but I didn't expect that playing the EE would mean playing less of the game.

[fred zeppelin]

France was in mutiny post Nivelle Offensive failure
and UK alone stood strong.

Small point, but this is a bit of an over-simplification. The French contributed half the troops involved in the final Hundred Days Offensive that ended the war. I'm a huge Anglophile, but France certainly stood pretty strong to the end too.

[HerrDan]

True. But a close second is listening to people who insist that the historical outcome was the only possible, or even plausible, outcome. Some teachers are content to reward simple recitation of facts; others encourage critical thought.



True again. Hence the point above about the historical fact that, in three full years of war, the German Imperial Army advanced only a bit beyond the borders of Poland. And the observation that, again talking about WWI, it was far from guaranteed that Germany could have marched victoriously all the way to St. Petersburg and Moscow if Russia had adopted a more traditional space-for-time strategy.

The russians were elliminated as an active force in the war after the Brusilov offensive was stalled and their losses couldn't really be replaced anymore. The gemans were fighting in many other fronts and still by 1917, specially after operation albion and the fall of Riga and the russian baltic islands, St.Petersburg was far from safe and that's the main reason the russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Remember, 1914 isn't 1812, I really doubt that such a "space-for-time strategy" could ever be implemented in a modern war.

[Shri]

Germany was prepared in 1914 and in 1939 in that sense that German militarism twice tried to subjugate Europe under its iron fist and luckily failed twice.

As for the opening post, there should be a way to perhaps continue fighting beyond ignoring the "Defeat" message, perhaps one that also transfers the diplomatic options of the WE to the EE in that case so the player can conduct diplomacy. This would bother me in general if playing EE in a solo game to be honest, as you would be forced to either do the complete turn for both the WE and EE if you wanted to conduct diplomacy or let the AI handle decisions that might well decide whether you have to commit troops to, say, the Ottoman front.

No more militaristic than Napoleonic Wars of 1789-1815 or Crimean War etc. For 1914 i post this, not 1939.

[Shri]

Small point, but this is a bit of an over-simplification. The French contributed half the troops involved in the final Hundred Days Offensive that ended the war. I'm a huge Anglophile, but France certainly stood pretty strong to the end too.

You are right.

My point was if in mid-late 1917 Ludendorff had all his divisions in the West, there would be Operation Michael in late 1917 instead of 1918; by this time number of USA troops were less than 0.25 Million, the French part of the front would have been breached and a negotiated peace would have followed.
By UK stood strong, i mean- UK never had such severe issues though they did have BOER issues, Irish issues and tensions in British-India but nothing so close.

[fred zeppelin]

By UK stood strong, i mean- UK never had such severe issues though they did have BOER issues, Irish issues and tensions in British-India but nothing so close.

Britain always had the luxury of being the one European power that could afford to lose the war on the ground and still survive strategically.

On the other hand, as Churchill said, Jellicoe was "the only man on either side who could lose the war in a single afternoon."

[HerrDan]

Germany was prepared in 1914 and in 1939 in that sense that German militarism twice tried to subjugate Europe under its iron fist and luckily failed twice.

As for the opening post, there should be a way to perhaps continue fighting beyond ignoring the "Defeat" message, perhaps one that also transfers the diplomatic options of the WE to the EE in that case so the player can conduct diplomacy. This would bother me in general if playing EE in a solo game to be honest, as you would be forced to either do the complete turn for both the WE and EE if you wanted to conduct diplomacy or let the AI handle decisions that might well decide whether you have to commit troops to, say, the Ottoman front.

You can say that Hitler wanted a war, but not really "prepared" in the sense that the Germany of 1939 was comparatively much weaker than that of 1914. Don't blame the germans for WW1, it's really absurd to say that they were the only ones responsible for the war, I'd say the Tsar (i.e the russians) was perhaps the main responsible there.

[fred zeppelin]

The russians were elliminated as an active force in the war after the Brusilov offensive was stalled and their losses couldn't really be replaced anymore. The gemans were fighting in many other fronts and still by 1917, specially after operation albion and the fall of Riga and the russian baltic islands, St.Petersburg was far from safe....

All true. But after three years of fighting, the German army was still about 300 miles from St. Petersburg and Kiev and at least 500 miles from Moscow. That's still a lot of marching and fighting left.

....and that's the main reason the russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Actually, the main reason probably was the fact that the Bolsheviks had seized the government and needed to be freed from the war to consolidate their fragile position at home.

Remember, 1914 isn't 1812, I really doubt that such a "space-for-time strategy" could ever be implemented in a modern war.

And, of course, neither the Kaiser nor any of his generals was Napoleon. I agree it might have been a closer call, but I think the element of "modernity" that was still lacking in WWI was the mobility that became available only a generation later. Distance was still a great equalizer in the post-Victorian age.

In the end, neither of us is demonstrably right. Which is why we have games.

[Shri]

See, Gen. Joffre of France is the right example to answer your query about Russians fighting.


Gen Joffre in August 1914 told the French leaders told- That- As long as the field army is not beaten, France is alive even if Reims falls, even if Paris falls.
Similarly, once the Field Armies were defeated in the 'fields' - Russia signed the treaty as there was no 'Stalin' to keep putting fresh armies in the field, if the Kaiser was no Napoleon, then Tsar Nicholas II was certainly not Tsar Alexander I.

[fred zeppelin]

Don't blame the germans for WW1, it's really absurd to say that they were the only ones responsible for the war, I'd say the Tsar (i.e the russians) was perhaps the main responsible there.

That's a bit simplistic, I think. And it depends on whether you focus exclusively on the crisis of July-August 1914 or more generally at the longer period preceding the war.

In the Serbian crisis, it is certainly true that the Tsar's pledge to back Serbia and promote Slavic nationalism only inflamed the situation. But so, too, did the Kaiser's pledge to support Austria unconditionally in its handling of the crisis. Then, again, France's pledge to support its ally Russia turned an essentially local crisis into a European one. And, finally, Germany's invasion of Belgium, coupled with Britain's intervention, made it a global one. There were many strategic blunders - not the least of which was the general miscalculation about what the war would cost in lives - but it's hard to pick any one thread as being the one that unraveled the whole fabric.

Looking at the longer term, the two decades or so preceding the war, however, it is clear that of all the major European powers, Germany was the one that most often threatened war to achieve its diplomatic objectives. Germany was quick to threaten war in both the First and Second Moroccan Crises, for example, which only resulted in driving Britain closer to France and its ally, Russia. While Germany could rightly boast throughout these years that it had an army more powerful than all the other major European armies combined, its repeated use of its military might as a blunt instrument in its peacetime diplomacy only guaranteed that it would face all the other major European armies combined when war actually came.

[HerrDan]

That's a bit simplistic, I think. And it depends on whether you focus exclusively on the crisis of July-August 1914 or more generally at the longer period preceding the war.

In the Serbian crisis, it is certainly true that the Tsar's pledge to back Serbia and promote Slavic nationalism only inflamed the situation. But so, too, did the Kaiser's pledge to support Austria unconditionally in its handling of the crisis. Then, again, France's pledge to support its ally Russia turned an essentially local crisis into a European one. And, finally, Germany's invasion of Belgium, coupled with Britain's intervention, made it a global one. There were many strategic blunders - not the least of which was the general miscalculation about what the war would cost in lives - but it's hard to pick any one thread as being the one that unrivaled the whole fabric.

Looking at the longer term, the two decades or so preceding the war, however, it is clear that of all the major European powers, Germany was the one that most often threatened war to achieve its diplomatic objectives. Germany was quick to threaten war in both the First and Second Moroccan Crises, for example, which only resulted in driving Britain closer to France and its ally, Russia. While Germany could rightly boast throughout these years that it had an army more powerful than all the other major European armies combined, its repeated use of its military might as a blunt instrument in its peacetime diplomacy only guaranteed that it would face all the other major European armies combined when war actually came.

I know what I said was very simplistic, I just wanted to address another simplistic statement. The causes for the actual war were many and all of them very complex in nature, I think a good read on this topic is the Christopher Clark's work: The Sleepwalkers. What you say is true to a point, that german diplomacy post-Bismarck was very agressive indeed, but specially because Germany came a "little late" to the scramble for Africa and the fact that the french made clear that they wanted back their Alsace-Lorraine and even went as far as to sign an alliance with the russians, thus basically surrounding Germany certainly didn't help. Then we also have the russian Pan-Slavism and other factors, anyway here is perhaps not the right place to discuss it.

Cheers.

[fred zeppelin]

I know what I said was very simplistic, I just wanted to address another simplistic statement. The causes for the actual war were many and all of them very complex in nature, I think a good read on this topic is the Christopher Clark's work: The Sleepwalkers. What you say is true to a point, that german diplomacy post-Bismarck was very agressive indeed, but specially because Germany came a "little late" to the scramble for Africa and the fact that the french made clear that they wanted back their Alsace-Lorraine and even went as far as to sign an alliance with the russians, thus basically surrounding Germany certainly didn't help. Then we also have the russian Pan-Slavism and other factors, anyway here is perhaps not the right place to discuss it.

Cheers.

And, in fairness, Germany tried to get a commitment from Britain at the 11th hour that it would encourage France to fight a purely defensive war - in essence, to limit the fighting to Germany-Austria and Russia (which might have limited the whole conflict more locally) - but Britain refused.

I'm rereading Dreadnaught, by Robert K. Massie, which does a very good job of describing all the many miscalculations, on all sides, in the 50 years or so leading up to the Great War. The political reasons were many and varied, but the central problem, across the board, was that all of Europe spent half a century preparing for war without really understanding what that would mean in the modern era. The whole thing reads like a Greek tragedy in slow motion.

[Ace]

When I said Russia would make peace if Western Entente backed out of war, was not because I think Germans would drive the Russians to Petrograd. It was because both side would realize it is in their best interest to accept white peace.
If France was not ally of Russia pre-war, do you think they would unconditionally support Serbia. I don't think so, and if France and Britain were out of war, they would have nothing to gain by prolonged fighting. Germany would be free of blockade, and all they would have to do is to hold the line. They would not have to press toward Russian Siberia and more. Russia would be economically down and would sue for peace.
The other possibility (if Britain remained in the war), would be a different story because of the Navy. No one mentiones the Navy. The stories of war time hunger in Croatia because of the blockade(part of A-H at the time) are absolutely horrendous. The price of kilo of bread was equal to the price of 1/10 kilo of gold. It was that that broke the Armies will to fight. I presume in other parts of Germany and A-H, the situation was similar.

[Shri]

Yes, as per official German documents some 750000 people died due to the the blockade, that is a very large number seen against the 2 million + dead German soldiers in the war.

NAVY is a very handy thing to have but geography dictates it more than economics.

[Owl]

You can say that Hitler wanted a war, but not really "prepared" in the sense that the Germany of 1939 was comparatively much weaker than that of 1914. Don't blame the germans for WW1, it's really absurd to say that they were the only ones responsible for the war, I'd say the Tsar (i.e the russians) was perhaps the main responsible there.

That's a difference between intention and ability to actually successfully execute those intentions indeed, but to think that the German government in '39 was not "prepared" to wage war isn't true, because Hitler had been prepared/willing to wage war even earlier. (NB I think that reducing WW2 issues to Hitler and shifting away blame from other sectors of German society and government is extremely problematic, but that is a more general problem and probably a topic for another discussion.)

As for 1914, I think fred zeppelin already elaborated many points. Generally I hold closer to Fritz Fischer's point of view, although I evidently don't wish to imply a single cause or other simplistic approaches in any way. I'm just not partial to a narrative emerging in recent years that potentially absolves Imperial Germany of its responsibilities as part of greater meta-currents in popular historiography.

As there seems to be some interest in this topic but this discussion is increasingly moving away from the original topic of the thread, perhaps a separate thread should be opened? I just noticed that EAW doesn't have its own history subforum yet, now would be a good time to create one.

[fred zeppelin]

I just noticed that EAW doesn't have its own history subforum yet, now would be a good time to create one.

Good idea. Better that we all show off there.

[fred zeppelin]

The other possibility (if Britain remained in the war), would be a different story because of the Navy. No one mentiones the Navy. The stories of war time hunger in Croatia because of the blockade(part of A-H at the time) are absolutely horrendous. The price of kilo of bread was equal to the price of 1/10 kilo of gold. It was that that broke the Armies will to fight. I presume in other parts of Germany and A-H, the situation was similar.

That's the scenario I contemplated. Much would depend, of course, on the condition of both GB and Russia when France surrendered - the earlier the German victory, perhaps the greater likelihood of continued Anglo-Russian resistance. And, probably even more importantly, much would depend on how aggressive Germany might have been in its peace demands.

[minipol]

Serbia and Romania, Belgium etc. Knocked out

Belgium knocked out by 1917? Not in a long shot. Almost knocked after the opening months, but behind the Yser they recovered and participated in a big offensive at the end of the war.
They send troops to help Russia out, and were active in Africa. Also, Willy Coppens ruled as balloon buster (34 balloons and 3 aircraft destroyed).
Hardly knocked out. As for Serbia and Romania, I can't comment on that as I lack knowledge of their WWI history.

[Ace]

That's the scenario I contemplated. Much would depend, of course, on the condition of both GB and Russia when France surrendered - the earlier the German victory, perhaps the greater likelihood of continued Anglo-Russian resistance. And, probably even more importantly, much would depend on how aggressive Germany might have been in its peace demands.

Actually, if we want to model that, higher threshold for WE defeat would be better. The British still representing WE even with France signing an Armistice. But, if both Brits and French opted out, Russia would have to follow in peace settlement. The best they could do from that point is to avoid defeat, not outright victory.

Serbians were not defeated as well. They fought alongside French at Salonika front up to the end of the war. They even added themselves Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia territories into postwar Kingdom of Serbia, Croats and Slovenians, under Serbian domination.

[HerrDan]

That's a difference between intention and ability to actually successfully execute those intentions indeed, but to think that the German government in '39 was not "prepared" to wage war isn't true, because Hitler had been prepared/willing to wage war even earlier. (NB I think that reducing WW2 issues to Hitler and shifting away blame from other sectors of German society and government is extremely problematic, but that is a more general problem and probably a topic for another discussion.)

As for 1914, I think fred zeppelin already elaborated many points. Generally I hold closer to Fritz Fischer's point of view, although I evidently don't wish to imply a single cause or other simplistic approaches in any way. I'm just not partial to a narrative emerging in recent years that potentially absolves Imperial Germany of its responsibilities as part of greater meta-currents in popular historiography.

As there seems to be some interest in this topic but this discussion is increasingly moving away from the original topic of the thread, perhaps a separate thread should be opened? I just noticed that EAW doesn't have its own history subforum yet, now would be a good time to create one.

How on earth can anyone in the 21th century takes Fritz Fischer seriously? I give up discussing here, if you want to belive in a fairy tale where the german society was dominated by monsters who wanted to dominate the world, while Great Britain, France and company were part of the "Justice League" fighting against evil and injustice in the world, then I think we won't ever reach a reasonable consensus here