Ok, here's the scenario...

Poeple come up with ways in which they would break through the western front :bugeye: in the era of around 1916-1917 right in the middle of the eara where the bloodiest battles of recent history took place.

So post your plans for desposing of either the german or english opposition here for us to have a look at and comment on flaws and or way to make the plan better, oh and if we think its perfect your greatness will be recognised. :D

My solution to reducing the needless carnage of a needless war would be implemented much earlier: The U.S. should have stayed the frell out of it. Woodrow Wilson, the lying, conniving bastard, manipulated American sentiment by secretly loading armaments onto the British passenger ship Lusitania, in violation of an agreement that had been painstakingly worked out by cooler heads in America and Germany. They agreed not to fire on any non-military ship carrying American civilians, if we agreed to make sure those ships did not carry military cargo.

The S.O.B. didn't even tell the passengers. He just let them board the ship in order to sacrifice their lives so he could have the glory of leading the U.S. into one of Europe's endless series of incomprehensible wars.

I believe that the war would have been much shorter, with many fewer casualties, without our participation. Sure Germany would have won, but a victorious Germany would never have brought Hitler to power. Without Hitler, Stalin would never have turned the USSR into a military machine at the sacrifice of the civilian economy. France, in defeat, would not have been able to hang onto its colonies in Indochina which would therefore not have turned to communism in desperation. Britain, in defeat, would not have had the power to redraw the maps of the Middle East and Africa, which resulted in the squalor and ethnic violence that we are now dealing with. WWII would never have happened so Japan would not have been driven out of China, and Mao would be a farmer.

The entire course of the 20th century would be different. No Hiroshima, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no Little Red Book, no Perestroika, no 9/11.

Yeah, a whole lot of lives would have been saved indeed.

well a novel solution, but still, doesn't sadly answer the question, the issue is about how you solve o the issue of the trenches using any ingenious plan you care to thing of. but still nice thaught... But how sure are you that the germans would have won? i beleive the armistice would have still happened but only as a response to huge casualties and massive destruction. i imagine a withdrawl to pree war positions would have occurred and an uneasy peace would have reigned for many years.

The answer would have been to solve the problems befor they escalated into a war in the first place. That could have been done if the right people were trying to resolve the impasse.

without seeming to be rude... this thread was designed to see how other poeple would have planned a military battle to get around the problem of the trenches. its wasn't intended to be a political solution.

I'm no ,ilitary historian, but 2 ways round the trenches occur to me:
1) Dont bother trying, sack the british generals in charge, ( who as far as I could see had ideas of mass warfare about 70 years out of date) and starve them out.
2) Use tanks properly, as people LIke General J F C Fuller were suggesting. In mass, with proper support, fuel, and tens of thousands of troops ready to rush through the gap created, and they did create some big gaps, you could have rolled the germans back over a few weeks or months.

The S.O.B. didn't even tell the passengers. He just let them board the ship in order to sacrifice their lives so he could have the glory of leading the U.S. into one of Europe's endless series of incomprehensible wars.

But it's an extreme strectch to say that the sinking of the Lusitania was the excuse to get the US into the war, especially considering that the Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 and the US didn't declare war on Germany until April 1917, 2 years later! The Germans announced the Arabic Pledge in September 1915 after sinking the British liner Arabic, promising not to sink liners. Berlin extended that with the Sussex Pledge in 1916, but insisted that Britain obey international neutrality laws as well. It was following Jutland, when the High Seas Fleet never put to sea again that Germany growing desperate, believed her only chance was to starve Britain into submission, so she announced unrestriced u-boat warfare in January 1917. In February Britain intercepted the Zimmerman Message, which infuriated Wilson, and the American public when it was leaked to the press, and Wilson, who was growing weary of his efforts to negotiate a peace, asked Congress to declare war. While Wilson was a prick, it would be wrong to blame America's entry on any under-handed efforts by him. As a progressive, he genuinely, if not naively, believed for the first two years of the war that America should remain neutral and above the conflicts of Europe. He envisioned taking American progressivism to the world stage, as was later reflected in his 14 points.

2) Use tanks properly, as people LIke General J F C Fuller were suggesting. In mass, with proper support, fuel, and tens of thousands of troops ready to rush through the gap created, and they did create some big gaps, you could have rolled the germans back over a few weeks or months.

Problem was, the first few months the tanks had little success because they proved unreliable, breaking down, not clearing the trenches, or simply getting bogged down. And finally when they begin working the kinks out they found that too often there either weren't enough troops to exploit the break, or the troops had so much trouble moving up that it was easier for the Germans to move reserves up and create new lines. Had armor been introduced a year or so earlier they might have made a bigger difference than they actually did. The British and French broke the German lines a few times, but were simply never able to exploit their successes. I think the blitzkrieg of the 2nd ww showed that they learned from the mistakes of the first ww. Rather than have an inflexible chain of command, where operations are controlled from the rear, you have to have a more flexible command, allowing field commanders along the front, utilizing integrated, coordinated, rapidly moving forces, to exploit weak spots that have been probed. Read Heinz Guderian's Achtung! Panzer; you should be able to find an English print copy. Like everyone else, he recognized the problems with trench warfare and prepared tactics to prevent the next war becoming bogged down again. He broke German battlefield tactics down into 3 parts: break-in, breakthrough, and exploitation. The first was the intitial breach, the second was achieved when your force reached the point where it had advanced past the static defenses, and the 3rd was doing something positive from that point, which was to advance rapidly enough to disrupt the enemy command system so that resistance fell apart or could be flanked. Guderian had seen the British and French achieve break-in with their armor, but not be able to achieve the other two, mainly because armor couldn't do it alone. You needed to exploit with rapidly moving infantry as well, hence the need not just for infantry, but a mechanized infantry that could advance as rapidly as the armor.

but still nobody has come up with a campaign plan! thats the point of my thread, to see what pople come up with to get round the lines or through or under, it doesn't matter, just make a plan write it down here for us to discuss it.

Well, ok, I would have used Guderians tactics. Problem was, in 1918, armor wasn't that rapid, there was no mechanized infantry, and infantry was in short supply as nearly a generation of Brits, Frenchmen, and Germans had been wiped out already, so exploiting breaks in the lines wasn't possible. I suppose if I had a super-duper ultra secret mega-death laser death ray I could have simply burned gaping holes through the lines, but alas, I didn't.

Or in other words, there was no technological or industrial possibility for a great breakthrough. WW2 had the nuclear bomb, WW1 didnt have anything. Even stuff like gas, although hideously effective in small areas, had its own trouble.

Hey Spyke, did Guderian study in the UK? I understand that Fuller and others in the UK put together the basics of Blitzkreig soon after WW1, and then during peacetime a lot of army exchanges and trips etc went on, so the germans came over and learnt what the British had put together, and improved upon it.

What about the massive gun the germans had built?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbertha.htm
If they had built enough they could of knocked out the enemy's conventional artillary it would of given them a definite advantage, if they could build enough of the big guns quickly and concentrate their firing on targets. If nothing else the troop moral of the enemy would of fallen quickly when they realized they could be blasted and not blast back.

Hey Spyke, did Guderian study in the UK? I understand that Fuller and others in the UK put together the basics of Blitzkreig soon after WW1, and then during peacetime a lot of army exchanges and trips etc went on, so the germans came over and learnt what the British had put together, and improved upon it.

I don't think Guderian ever visited England, at least not that I'm aware of, but he definitely read both Fuller and Liddell-Hart. He was fluent in English, and French for that matter, and later translated those two British military theorists' works into German for other staff officers to read.

whoa ive just fallen in love with fraggle rocker, off to san fran! :eek: :m:

The problem with big guns is - aiming, keeping them supplied with ammo, and probably, though I dont know for certain, the difficulties of manufacture and their probably limited barrel life. It likely turned out much cheaper to throw cannon fodder with rifles into the mincing machine.

Thanks Spike. Heres a little problem i heard a couple of friends talking over, was Rommel better than Guderian or not? Which was the better general?

If the USA hadn't joined ww1 Germany would still have LOST

One way to of cut casulaties would have been to allowed british soldiers to run and take cover instead of "walking" into machine gun fire

The problem with big guns is - aiming, keeping them supplied with ammo, and probably, though I dont know for certain, the difficulties of manufacture and their probably limited barrel life. It likely turned out much cheaper to throw cannon fodder with rifles into the mincing machine.


Good points but it would of been money well spent if it achieved victory or saved a few lives.
How about a tactical change? Train a regiment of sharpshooters and work artillary in shifts. Artillary was most likely inaccurate back then so walk the artillary on to targets during the day then fire for effect at night so the enemy can't sleep. Meanwhile march most of your artillary personnel away from the front during the day so they can sleep somewhere quiet. Sharpshooters could hot rack it with the artillary, Snipe during the day and retreat from the front and sleep somewhere quiet at night. The regular infantry guarding the front would also need to be replaced often because I doubt they could take the punishment for to long. Sleep depriving the enemy might give an advantage that sheer numbers can't supply.
After the area has been succesfully "softened" regular troops should be given wooden targets shaped like soldiers in uniform to raise above the trenches before they attack. I think the French did something like this. The amount of fire the targets take would give the commander knowledge of the enemy's remaining capabilities so they can call off the attack if the area hasn't been softened enough. Attacks would be conducted during the day so the sharpshooters can throw precision rounds at the enemy while the regular infantry are charging.

Thanks Spike. Heres a little problem i heard a couple of friends talking over, was Rommel better than Guderian or not? Which was the better general?

Tough one. I think Rommel usually gets the nod in most debates mainly because we are more familiar with him because he fought in the Western theater and our history books give him more print, and while I do think he was brilliant, I'm kind of partial to Guderian, but both were brilliant. However, Erich von Manstein may very well have been the best of the Germans. He was outstanding on the Eastern Front against superior forces, and seems to have been Hitler's favorite. From what I've read, Allied generals picked his brain pretty thoroughly after the war.

HHmm, I can sort of see your suggestions working, ron Volk, as long as the enemy didnt launch their own assault into the trenches emptied of troops when the bombardment happens, or onto the sleep deprived allied troops. Plus I dont think it would necesarily lead to much greater battles. But worth trying. You know how no plan survives contant with the enemy. Or so Ive been told.

Spyke- my friends I think plumped for Guderian, after a long and complex discussion, on the basis that he was better all round, rommel was fine on offense, but less so on defence. But this was last year, so dont take my word for it.

I personally don't believe there was really a way to avoid the stalemate that was the trench warfare in Europe. I think that the allied war effort would have been better if the Russians and the Western allies had really coordinated offensives against the Germans, seriously straining German resolve. The reason why it was not possible imo not to have a trench war is because the tech was not advanced enough, the machines were there, but they were not even up to par. Everything in that war was slow and a blitzkrieg was impossible to achieve.

Politically the Germans should have just given up after the surrender of Russian forces, if they got that there would have been no Hitler at least, German "living space" would have been achieved:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32867

Guthrie, undoubtably the enemy would try to adapt but if the key to the plan would be not just the increase of numbers on the front but an increase in skills.

Undecided, the way the British implemented their Tanks leads me to believe that the tactics in the command staff weren't up to par, at least not up to par enough to understand new weapons could give massive advantages.

The tanks of the era were not reliable at all, slow, and were dangerous to their crews. It was a primitive and new technology; sure we now can complain and bitch in hindsight about the inability of the British commanders to use these "wonder weapons". But do we really expect them to do something intelligent with them if they were never used before? The British commanders did not have these things in 1913 to practice in peacetime so they can tailor the tactics to suit the strengths and avoid the weaknesses of the tank. Also the tank was every expensive and Britain couldn't afford too many. The war itself should have been contained to a Austrian-Serbian conflict. Austria was on her death bed anyways, it was only a matter of time.

I agree with you there everythings 20/20 in hindsight but I think the propaganda of the day stood in the way of their development, earlier if either side had wanted, the technology to create them (More primitive version) was in existance. I expect the commanders should of been able to adapt and use a new situation (technology) to their advantage, being able to do so is the basis for most strategies. "Adapt and overcome" like we used to say in the corps.
As far as the politics, I tend to think war between the big powers was inevitable. War is like Sh1t, its unpleasent but it happens.
Just for kicks
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2003/09/25ky/met-4-tank09250-4114.html

I think the propaganda of the day stood in the way of their development

How so? They were being depicted to the best of my knowledge as wonder weapons. Explain?

I expect the commanders should of been able to adapt and use a new situation (technology) to their advantage, being able to do so is the basis for most strategies. "Adapt and overcome" like we used to say in the corps.


But realistically what could they have done different to change the actual outcome of war? I think WWI was more a war of psychology then numbers. Since you were in the "corps" I guess you could shed some light on what tactics (which were feasible in 1917) they could have used to significantly improve the importance of tanks?

War, or more correctly battles, are a matter of fluidity - being able to adapt to given situations and modify any strategy or tactic accordingly. "The Great War" was an event in which fluidity had been forgotten in preference to set plays and manouveres gained through past experience, when both sides neglected to take into account that the other also had that experience. this led to static lines and trench warfare, setting the scene for a stalemate.

Given a commander with a flexible mind, this war could have been won by either side long before the USA had sufficient resolution to enter the war at all. As an example, at the battle of Mons in 1914, German general Von Kluck was ordered not to attempt to outflank the BEF due to the possibility of him losing contact with the German 2nd army under Von Bulow. Had he been permitted to do so, the "race to the coast" of 1914-15 might have been avoided and an eventual German strategic advantage was lost. Instead, the BEF was encountered head on. Rather than retreating to the coast, the BEF set up "lines" along the Marne river, linking with French forces. Another mistake. Had they done otherwise, the German forces could not have advanced further into France without the possibility of having to fight the French on one side and the British on another.

Has anyone noticed that the plans for the German Blitzkreig of WW1 were almost identical to those of WW2, differing only in the technology used to implement them?

The war itself should have been contained to a Austrian-Serbian conflict. Austria was on her death bed anyways, it was only a matter of time.

All those Bismarckian alliances made it impossible to confine the war to an Austro-Serbian conflict.

I agree with you there everythings 20/20 in hindsight but I think the propaganda of the day stood in the way of their development,

The militaries themselves stood in the way of their development. The military branches of a great power are always monolithic institutions and the upper hierarchy of each are always reactionary to innovations in technology. Admirals of all navies fiercely resisted the aircraft carrier, because air power would mean the death of almost 400 years of the ships of the line navies. Ideas about armor prior to WWI were intensely resisted by army brass because it would replace the horse cavalry, which represented hundreds of years of tradition of the cavalry being the lance thrust of the attack. And because no one envisioned trench warfare on the scope that it developed.

I guess you could shed some light on what tactics (which were feasible in 1917) they could have used to significantly improve the importance of tanks?

http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Tank_history.html
Basically use large groups of them at the same time and follow them with anything including mounted calvary.
Undecided, After further researching it probably the commanders not propaganda that stood in the way of their development.

the upper hierarchy of each are always reactionary to innovations in technology.
Not always, The Roman Legions were quite adaptable not to mention Japan in World War Two. At that point in history though it seems like the commanders were anti-technology, anti-innovation.

Not always, The Roman Legions were quite adaptable not to mention Japan in World War Two. At that point in history though it seems like the commanders were anti-technology, anti-innovation.

True, but the legions were almost always at war, and Japan was at war from 1932-1945, and it is always easier for admirals and generals to accept innovative changes during war than in peacetime.

All those Bismarckian alliances made it impossible to confine the war to an Austro-Serbian conflict.

I used to agree with this line of argumentations, but the Germans did try to stop the war from starting did they not? It was the other nations which were hell bent on war. So imo if there was actual co-operation WWI could have been prevented.

I used to agree with this line of argumentations, but the Germans did try to stop the war from starting did they not? It was the other nations which were hell bent on war. So imo if there was actual co-operation WWI could have been prevented.


No, they did not. Following the assassination, Germany issued Austria the 'blank check', not only offering its support, but also encouraging Austria to pressure Serbia. Austria responded by issuing several demands it new the Serbs would not accept. At the same time Russia was encouraging its slavic brothers and assuring them that Russia would back them.

True, but the legions were almost always at war, and Japan was at war from 1932-1945, and it is always easier for admirals and generals to accept innovative changes during war than in peacetime.

I'm curious as to promotion speed in those two militaries, not to mention what was expected of unit comanders. If younger more adaptable leaders were expieriencing combat firsthand then using those expieriences to make decisions as they climbed rank that would of made them potentionally better commanders. "Hands on" training.

I'm curious as to promotion speed in those two militaries, not to mention what was expected of unit comanders. If younger more adaptable leaders were expieriencing combat firsthand then using those expieriences to make decisions as they climbed rank that would of made them potentionally better commanders. "Hands on" training.

Good questions. I really have no idea about the Japanese, either the army or the navy, but in the legions I know promotion was a mixed bag. There was a chance of promotion through the ranks based on merit up until a point. Centurions general led the cohorts, and were second in command of the cohorts, and you could move your way up through the ranks from the 10th Cohort all the way to the 1st Cohort, which was the elite unit. However, some centurians were also appointed because of political connections as well. But the highest rank you could achieve through promotion was that of praefectus castrorum of the Legion, which would I suppose be the equivalent of a sergeant major today, as he was usually an old veteran. But he could eventually retire in wealth and comfort. But the top two positions of each Legion came from civilian ranks, the top spot usually being a new senator, a former tribune, and the number two spot being filled by a tribune. This was at least the way it was done in the classic legion, after the reforms of Augustus.

Tanks ddidn't work too well when they were first used, but Haig wanted as many as possible as soon as possible. The only way to learn was to use them and improve them from experience.
The British and French strategy was dominated by the fact that Germany held nearly all of Belgium and some of the economically most productive areas of France: it was a strong pressure to get the Germans out of these areas from politicians in both countries. If the British and French had adopted a defensive strategy, the Germans could have evaded the blockade by forcing Russia to defeat and settling down for a one-front war in the west, holding all the advantages.
The cost of fighting the war was far greater than the cost of giving up to all their enemies' demands before it began, but the only way to avoid that cost was not to start it at all- a matter for the politicians.

i have a way, educate the fricking generals
no more charge of the light brigade style
horses were useful in 1400, not 19 watever
also, america could have nuked germany and Japan at the same time (before either had surrendered)

also, america could have nuked germany and Japan at the same time (before either had surrendered)Really? In 1918?

no more charge of the light brigade style
horses were useful in 1400, not 19 watever

*Cough*
http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Tank_history.html
"In fact, horse cavalry doctrine in World War I was to "follow up a breakthrough with harassing attacks in the rear", but there were no breakthroughs on the Western Front until the tanks came along."
*Cough*

Nowadays, before the actual war, we secretely send covert ops for sabotaging bridges and blow up fuel depots, sniping commanders etc, I think both germany or the allies could have made a breakthrough if a large sleeping cel was behind enemy lines and activated to suddenly disrupt the supply at adesignated point in conjunction with a large frontal attack.

Tanks were the answer to the stalemate of the western front. The problem is that the horrific casulty figures were acceptable in those days. If modern concepts were used, the commanders would have insisted on a defensive posture until a decent aggressive and offensive stratagy which would mimimise casulties eas adopted. Maybe the battle of Cambrai could have been fought in 1916 instead of 1917 and victory instead of a draw would have resulted.

It would be impossible to cut the casualties in half. The best minds were thinking about it for 4 years of WWI and failed. Technology was not there at the time. During WWI, troops could be quickly transported for 100s miles by railroad. However, on the battlefield troop's mobility was about the same as that during Napoleon's wars, or even less (considering that the use of cavalry was quite limited). Combine slow movement of attackers with heavy artillery, trenches and machine guns of defenders and you'll get carnage. Boost to the local mobility of attacking troops (tanks, personal carriers, trucks) would have cut casualties provided some skills. Soviet WWII generals loved sending waves after waves of ill trained infantry and tank crews on the German lines. As a result, Soviets suffered horrendous casualties which makes WWI look as a friendly fight.
What could have been done in practical terms considering available technology at the time? I think Germans circa 1918 solved casualty puzzle by using extremely successful storm trooper tactics (individual well trained units were sneaking through enemy lines to hold hedgehog defence of key points while the main force will arrive. Well defended positions were not attacked, they were left behind. It's kind of mini-blitzkrieg). Unfortunately (for Germans), it was too late. They did not have neither man power nor arm/food supplies to exploit their tactical break through. Another casualty decreasing tool was "heavy" WWI era bombers appearing at the end of WWI. Storm troopers + bombing of artillery positions and reserve troops would have cut casualties significantly.

Increase the battleship blockade on Germany, knock Turkey and Austria Hungary out of the war earlier (this wouldnt be difficult, Austria in particular was an anachronistic throwback to the nineteenth century) and try even harder to starve Germany out of the war. Towards the end, subsidise German or Swiss Communists to cause even more trouble amongst the German workers (there was an attempted revolution in 1919). Make a focused effort to destroy the war effort from the inside, because even in 1918 the German army was a viable fighting machine, at least defensively.

And like alot of other people have said, make use of new technology an tactics like Storm Troopers and gas.

Are you Lloyd George? That's what he saidIncrease the battleship blockade on Germany, Wouldn't do much good. The neutral states were only allowed to import enough for their own needs. No doubt a little got through, but not enough to make much odds. knock Turkey and Austria Hungary out of the war earlier (this wouldnt be difficult, Austria in particular was an anachronistic throwback to the nineteenth century) They tried. That's how and why Italy came into the war, and why persistent attempts were made to get Greece and other Central European powers involved. Didn't do much good. and try even harder to starve Germany out of the war. How? The blockade was about as effective as it could be. Towards the end, subsidise German or Swiss Communists to cause even more trouble amongst the German workers (there was an attempted revolution in 1919).How far was the revolution a result of defeat? It didn't happen- for all their fears- in Britain or France. Certainly the High Seas Fleet mutinied when their commanders tried to take them out for one desperate effort, but the army remained solid almost to the end. Make a focused effort to destroy the war effort from the inside, because even in 1918 the German army was a viable fighting machine, at least defensively. It was defeated militarily after March. They were retreating steadily and sometimes were suffering complete local defeats. The armistice came because the German army would soon be broken.And like alot of other people have said, make use of new technology an tactics like Storm Troopers and gas.New technology, to be really effective, would have had to be introduced before the war to give time to make and use it properly. There are some surprising things- that no-one introduced the smg, even though it took months to properly train a rifleman, that no-one looked at the use of aircraft as offensive weapons before the war, but given what the armies had in 1914, and the first months of war, what followed was predictable.
Poison gas didn't make a breakthrough. Even stormtroopers only succeeded the once and only temporarily- with the fortuitous aid of fog and because- thanks to LG- they were attacking an overextended and undermanned army.

Like others have said, I think to be on the way to cutting the death toll came down to basic infantry tactics, even down to platoon size. Seem to remember reading up about the first day of the Somme: A commander in the north ignored Haigs idiotic order to work across No Mans Land with full pack and actually broke the line but he had no support as the rest of the front followed his order, thus eventually failed after German counter attacks.

Having adaptable, not blind idealistic leaders stuck in the past, would help. Not goons like Haig who placed more merit on the calvarly than a machine gun.

By not starting the war to begin with, or not entering the war after it was started.

Russian were suckers of WWI. Had no big (or even medium) reasons to enter the war, had nothing to fight for. Result - total collapse of the Army and society.

Americans were suckers too. 100 something thousands died essentially for nothing. It would have been better for all of us if the USA would have stayed away from WWI.

Romanians were suckers too but at least they had something (big piece of Hungary) to fight for. >50% of Romanian troops were KIA. It's all time record. Even WWII era soviet troops have not "achieved" 50% KIA.

My solution to reducing the needless carnage of a needless war would be implemented much earlier: The U.S. should have stayed the frell out of it. Woodrow Wilson, the lying, conniving bastard, manipulated American sentiment by secretly loading armaments onto the British passenger ship Lusitania, in violation of an agreement that had been painstakingly worked out by cooler heads in America and Germany. They agreed not to fire on any non-military ship carrying American civilians, if we agreed to make sure those ships did not carry military cargo.

The S.O.B. didn't even tell the passengers. He just let them board the ship in order to sacrifice their lives so he could have the glory of leading the U.S. into one of Europe's endless series of incomprehensible wars.

I believe that the war would have been much shorter, with many fewer casualties, without our participation. Sure Germany would have won, but a victorious Germany would never have brought Hitler to power. Without Hitler, Stalin would never have turned the USSR into a military machine at the sacrifice of the civilian economy. France, in defeat, would not have been able to hang onto its colonies in Indochina which would therefore not have turned to communism in desperation. Britain, in defeat, would not have had the power to redraw the maps of the Middle East and Africa, which resulted in the squalor and ethnic violence that we are now dealing with. WWII would never have happened so Japan would not have been driven out of China, and Mao would be a farmer.

The entire course of the 20th century would be different. No Hiroshima, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no Little Red Book, no Perestroika, no 9/11.

Yeah, a whole lot of lives would have been saved indeed.





frell yeah i agree :m:

Better airplanes, if we could drop more/bigger bombs we would have economically devastated them and they would have been broken due to lack of supplies instead of lack of soldiers. Casualties on both sides would be lessoned.

Use everything they have all at once. Deceive the Germans into thinking a major attack is coming in another part of the line than it actually is. Take the most feared shock troops on the western front and move them to a part in the line where the Allies could drag heavy chains behind tractors in order to simulate the sound of tanks. The shock troops would be allowed to be viewed by the Germans who will as usual prepare for an attack. Then under cover of darkness move the troops to another part of the line and hide them in the forest during the day. Open the attack with a barrage that slowly goes farther and farther into the German lines. Follow the barrage with the shock troops who would be experienced and skilled in modern warfare tactics supported by hundreds of tanks. Use all the planes available to support the offensive and follow up with armoured cars with machine guns for rapid advance and deep penetration of the enemy positions leaving strong points to be dealt with by following mop up units. Cover the flanks of the main spearhead with huge armies on both the left and right flanks. This powerful main thrust provided by the shock troops and (blitzkrieg) could start a momentum which would cause the left and right lines to follow and flow resulting in the Germans falling back along a large front and possibly farther back than any time in the war. Shift the main shock troops to another part of the line to again catch the enemy by surprise and repeat attacks keeping up the pressure and breaking through of all the German defensive lines with the continual gaining of territory, prisoners and war equipment all the while followed by the left and right flanks steadily following the momentum of the powerful main spearhead and fighting back the Boche. If troops are available a skirmish could be fought far from the main advance in the lines to pester the enemy. The massive loss to the Germans of this huge offensive by the Allies could result in returning back to even where the war began in 1914 and could only persuade the Germans to acknowledge that the war is lost. All would be home by Christmas 1917 therefore avoiding all the war deaths of 1918 and the deadly influenza that was spread around the world at that time.

Launch a D-Day style invasion of the Pomeranian coast (the Baltic coast of Poland/Prussia as it was then) and land 250-500,000 men on Germany's back doorstep, forcing the collapse of the eastern and western fronts as German troops are pulled back into Germany to support the motherland. Alternatively, land on the coast near Hamburg, directly on German territory, presenting an immediate threat to the Ruhr industrial complex. Wermacht troops would have to have been pulled back into Germany to counter the threat of a march on Berlin or any of the major cities of the northeast.

"believe that the war would have been much shorter, with many fewer casualties, without our participation. Sure Germany would have won, but a victorious Germany would never have brought Hitler to power. Without Hitler, Stalin would never have turned the USSR into a military machine at the sacrifice of the civilian economy. France, in defeat, would not have been able to hang onto its colonies in Indochina which would therefore not have turned to communism in desperation. Britain, in defeat, would not have had the power to redraw the maps of the Middle East and Africa, which resulted in the squalor and ethnic violence that we are now dealing with."

Piss off :mad: ... In victory Germany would have then gone on to fuck things up in the Middle east just as much as we all did and with twice the mustard gas.
And America not getting involved wouldn't definitely mean a German victory, the fresh american troops were more like the straw that broke the donkeys back in the case of WWI, with out the involment of the US the war was still anyones to win.

Any way the best way to have speeded up the war would have been more tunnel bombs, the lazer guided missile of their time, instead of the small scale use that gave away the surprize element, there should have been a plan to blow a path all the way to Berlin in one fell-swoop.

If tanks weren't available to me I'd use on a massive scale good 'ol fashioned catapults with enchanted range and filled with burning petrol and oil, and toast the trenches with everything in and around them.

I'd also apply the 'ol Mongolian method and put bodies of those dead from plague and other nasty illnesses on those catapults and scatter them all over the enemy lines.
Infections would soon spread making the enemy battle incapable and/or dead.

p.s. The Mongolian armies in the middle ages did so with cities they had sieged.

Russian were suckers of WWI. Had no big (or even medium) reasons to enter the war, had nothing to fight for. Result - total collapse of the Army and society.

Americans were suckers too. 100 something thousands died essentially for nothing. It would have been better for all of us if the USA would have stayed away from WWI.

Romanians were suckers too but at least they had something (big piece of Hungary) to fight for. >50% of Romanian troops were KIA. It's all time record. Even WWII era soviet troops have not "achieved" 50% KIA.

Do you even know anything about WW1 or just everything that your highschool history teachers want you to think?

First off, the Russians had to attack in order to prevent a future invasion of Russia courtesy of the Germans. Germany had long wanted to drive towards the east and expand Prussia, but Russia knew this was coming and made the appropriate call. And if you wanna call a revolution a "breakdown in society", well....

Secondly, America didn't become a superpower by remaining isolationist. Maybe you should stop contradicting what was best for America, because you obviosly don't know the mechanics of your own nation.

Thirdly, Romania was retaking land from Austria-Hungary that it had lost centuries before. Suckers? Shutup.

Any way the best way to have speeded up the war would have been more tunnel bombs, the lazer guided missile of their time, instead of the small scale use that gave away the surprize element, there should have been a plan to blow a path all the way to Berlin in one fell-swoop.

LOL, yeah.. because the Chunnel was dug in several years with high-tech machinery, they could definetly have dug under Germany all the way to Berlin in WW1.

Of course, everyone should have just pissed off back home after the Christmas Truce of 1914--that would've solved a few problems and saved a few million lives. ;)

Launch a D-Day style invasion of the Pomeranian coast (the Baltic coast of Poland/Prussia as it was then) and land 250-500,000 men on Germany's back doorstep, forcing the collapse of the eastern and western fronts as German troops are pulled back into Germany to support the motherland. Alternatively, land on the coast near Hamburg, directly on German territory, presenting an immediate threat to the Ruhr industrial complex. Wermacht troops would have to have been pulled back into Germany to counter the threat of a march on Berlin or any of the major cities of the northeast.

The Allies may have thought of that also. The Germans still had their navy and U boats to protect the coast and landing and supplying 250,000 or more men might have been a logistic impossibility in WW1. Gallipoli was a real sore spot. A third front sounds like a good idea but on German soil it may have failed or resulted in another trench warfare front.

In my opinion Xylene’s ideas are the best ones in this thread and sound like a good strategy if they were possible to carry out. (Not that my opinion counts for anything.)
But.
I still think the way I said in my earlier post would have shortened the war. We all know how successful blitzkrieg was in WW2 and everything was available to the Allies in WW1.

My solution to reducing the needless carnage of a needless war would be implemented much earlier: The U.S. should have stayed the frell out of it. Woodrow Wilson, the lying, conniving bastard, manipulated American sentiment by secretly loading armaments onto the British passenger ship Lusitania, in violation of an agreement that had been painstakingly worked out by cooler heads in America and Germany. They agreed not to fire on any non-military ship carrying American civilians, if we agreed to make sure those ships did not carry military cargo.

The S.O.B. didn't even tell the passengers. He just let them board the ship in order to sacrifice their lives so he could have the glory of leading the U.S. into one of Europe's endless series of incomprehensible wars.

I believe that the war would have been much shorter, with many fewer casualties, without our participation. Sure Germany would have won, but a victorious Germany would never have brought Hitler to power. Without Hitler, Stalin would never have turned the USSR into a military machine at the sacrifice of the civilian economy. France, in defeat, would not have been able to hang onto its colonies in Indochina which would therefore not have turned to communism in desperation. Britain, in defeat, would not have had the power to redraw the maps of the Middle East and Africa, which resulted in the squalor and ethnic violence that we are now dealing with. WWII would never have happened so Japan would not have been driven out of China, and Mao would be a farmer.

The entire course of the 20th century would be different. No Hiroshima, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no Little Red Book, no Perestroika, no 9/11.

Yeah, a whole lot of lives would have been saved indeed.

Sorry but this is yet another yank with the stupid and completely incorrect view that "The US won WWI"....that is a load of crap. The British (and its Commonwealth, particularly the ANZAC) and the French sacrificed millions of lives bringing that war to an end. The British invented the tank for crying out loud. The yanks just came along at the end with their stupid hats to claim all the glory. Even Canada probably did more.

I am sick of this crap.

Thank you, Fistface, for your confidence in my strategic abilities, even if their implementation was before their time. ;) Another idea occurred to me--that if the British et.al. had sent convoys up around the scandinavian coast to Arkangel like they did in WW2, and supplied the Russians with guns and troops, they could have pushed into Germany via the back door. :cool:
Therefore, no Russian Revolution--not then, anyway--and Germany gets taken out of the war from behind. Not to say that the English et. al. would've any more intelligent tactics on the eastern front than on the western trenches. If you want to know how bad the war was, read John Terraines book on the subject--it's just called 'the Great War'.

Thank you, Fistface, for your confidence in my strategic abilities, even if their implementation was before their time. ;) Another idea occurred to me--that if the British et.al. had sent convoys up around the scandinavian coast to Arkangel like they did in WW2, and supplied the Russians with guns and troops, they could have pushed into Germany via the back door. :cool:
Therefore, no Russian Revolution--not then, anyway--and Germany gets taken out of the war from behind. Not to say that the English et. al. would've any more intelligent tactics on the eastern front than on the western trenches. If you want to know how bad the war was, read John Terraines book on the subject--it's just called 'the Great War'.
That sounds like a good strategy Xyelene. Another idea of yours or are you cheating?


There were convoys sent to Russia in WW1. The stockpiles of war material in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk were piling up in 1917 after Russia pulled out of the war. Troops from Britain and the Commonwealth, France and the US were sent to prevent the supplies from falling into the hands of the Germans as well as rally a Czech army wondering around Russia and the anti Reds to fight against Germany via the back door. The Allies first had to fight the Bolsheviks, who as a consequence to the Allies supplying Russia against Germany were fighting with the same US made guns that the other side had.

It’s anyones guess if sending more troops earlier to Russia wouild have prevented the revolution. I also wonder if the Russian revolution would have been prevented if it wasn’t funded from America.

Not to say that the English et. al. would've any more intelligent tactics on the eastern front than on the western trenches.

Why are people always so hard on the British. What about American tactics? There are people who think of Belleau Woods as some kind of great victory. It was a battle that did not need to be fought with 8500 US troops who made many unsuccessful attempts to remove about 1200 Germans from their place in the woods. Casualties were high, planning was piss poor and attacks were launched without any artillery shelling of the woods, something that was done later with the proper results. (something the other Allies always did) After the battle for the wood was over they discovered the many dead US troops in front of all the German machinegun nests. Other Allied armies by that time and earlier were practicing their troops to attack machinegun nests where some would lay down a covering fire while others would move around and attack the machineguns on the flanks. It wasn’t until much later after Belleau Wood that Pershing finally issued the order for US troops to stop rushing machinegun nests.
Later the Meuse Argonne offensive nearly ended in disaster because of US tactics and a major screwup.
WW1 was a war where modern tactics had to be learned the hard way. By 1918 the Allies had already learnt many lessons. Unfortunately the inexperienced Americans who came in at the end of the war had much to learn and a lot of catching up to do.

No one doubts that the British were lacking in tactics which resulted in a high death rate it’s just that the Americans were no different.

Sorry but this is yet another yank with the stupid and completely incorrect view that "The US won WWI"....that is a load of crap. The British (and its Commonwealth, particularly the ANZAC) and the French sacrificed millions of lives bringing that war to an end. The British invented the tank for crying out loud. The yanks just came along at the end with their stupid hats to claim all the glory. Even Canada probably did more.

I am sick of this crap.

Even Canada probably did more?

At the end of the war there was a victory parade in France. The US paraded their troops through the streets behind a big sign that some of them had made up that read “WE WON THE WAR” The US troops were followed by the Troops from Canada who made up their own little sign which read “WE HELPED” The humour and irony of that statement has been lost through the generations of the past but at that time the people who were there knew the score.

I sometimes think that if doughboys had the reputation of Canadian troops in WWI and the role that they had in the last 100 days of the war then we all would be hearing a lot more of the “America won the war crap.”



The Canadians had such a reputation in WW1 that it made a lasting impression.

Winston Curchill once said “Give me an army with British officers, Canadian soldiers and American equipment.”

Although the Canadians in WW2 had big boots to fill from WW1 and they did live up to that reputation its pretty safe to say that Churchill made the statement with the history of WW1 in mind.

During WWII Goebbels made a radio broadcast saying that if the Allies really wanted to capture Berlin, they would give each Canadian a motorcycle and a bottle of whiskey, and declare Berlin to be off limits to Canadian troops, and they would be there in 48 hours.

That’s not because they were undisciplined and drunks but because Canadians were known everywhere to consist of shock troops second to none on the western front and were frequently used as the spearhead with which to pierce particularly tough parts of the enemy defenses. The enemy said that the Canadians fought like devils as well as being their toughest opponents in the war and when a Canadian attack was sounded they would say their goodbyes to each other.




The victories at Ypres, Passchendaele, the Somme and Vimy Ridge gave Canadian soldiers an early reputation as a formidable fighting force that was able to overcome the most difficult obstacles. Canadian troops and their officers gained not only experience, but pride in their fighting ability, and glory from the recognition by other countries that they were the best storm troops for leading attacks.

At Ypres they were battered by shrapnel and machine-gun fire, hampered by rifles which often jammed solid, and violently ill from gas and gasping for air through mud-soaked handkerchiefs or for those who had the good fortune of hearing some advice from a Canadian officer who just happened to be a chemist in his previous life, pissed on their handkerchiefs to neutralize the effects of the gas. Their lines were destroyed but they held on until reinforcements arrived.

The Somme had cost Canada 24,029 casualties, but it was here that the Canadians confirmed their reputation as hard-hitting shock troops. "The Canadians", wrote Lloyd George, "played a part of such distinction that thenceforward they were marked out as storm troops; for the remainder of the way they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst."


Many historians and writers consider the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge a defining moment for Canada, when the country emerged from under the shadow of Britain and felt capable of greatness. Canadian troops confirmed their reputation as formidable, effective troops because of the stunning success that was made possible from rehearsing the attack before the battle and the innovative tactics that they used, many of which were developed by the two greatest Generals of World war I. An Australian, General Monash and a Canadian, General Curry.
British military historian Sir Basil Liddell Hart would later call the Canadians "matchless attacking troops" he also said “Regarding them as storm troops the enemy tended to greet their appearance as an omen of a coming attack."

The beginning of the last Allied offensive August 8-11 1918 was the battle of Amiens. For Amiens it was more important to conceal from the enemy the intentions of the Canadian Corps than any other formation. The Germans were used to anticipating where the attack would be launched based upon where the Canadians were located.

The Germans were deceived into thinking that the Canadians, who had shown themselves, had moved to one part of the line further North of Arras. The Allies dragged heavy chains around to simulate the sound and dust created by a large tank concentration. Fake wireless traffic was also used as they knew the Germans were able to listen in. While the Germans were preparing for an attack the Canadians were secretly moved farther south to Amiens.

Amiens was the fist battle to use the power of combined-arms warfare with infantry and artillery, machine-guns, tanks, aircraft and armoured cars. British historians have said that the innovative Canadian tactics for rapid attack and this use of combined arms influenced the Blitzkrieg tactics that Germany used in WW2.
The Canadians spearheaded this attack with the Australians, who were also known as shock troops, on their left flank. On the Canadian right was the French army and on the Australian left was the British.
The Allied forces won a major victory. The 4 Canadian divisions defeated parts of 15 German divisions, routing 4, at a cost of some 9000 casualties. Sir Julian Byng, a British general, said that the Canadian performance at Amiens was “the finest operation of the war.”

In the first day at Amiens the Canadians gained 13 kilometres, the Australians 11, the French 8 and the British 3. I should say here that the Americans also had a part in the beginning of this last great offensive. Unfortunately some US battalions who were attached to Australian divisions to gain experience were taken out of the line by Pershing who thought that they were not yet ready to be committed to a battle. Another US unit attached to a British reserve division did see action. But as so many times later in WW2 and so happens to this day with the US military it was a friendly fire action. A handful of Australians assisted by some British took a hill and had already captured German prisoners and were leading them down when the doughboys opened up on them. The prisoners fled and the Aussies hit the dirt. Some things never change.

The Germans lost 27,000 men and 400 guns as well as hundreds of mortars and machine-guns on that first day. The Canadian’s penetration of the enemy line was unequalled: no other engagement on the Western Front up to that time had achieved this kind of success as the result of a single day’s fighting.
The German General Ludendorff, said that August 8, 1918 was “the blackest day of the German Army in the history of the war.”

This Allied success initiated the "hundred days" which threw the Germans back all along the Western Front, The Canadians had more casualties then any other British or Commonwealth army but their morale was high and they continued to fight as the Allies spearhead almost continuously all the way to the end of the war. Taking up the attack again on August 23 and onto the Queant-Drocourt line on September 3 and 4 which was considered the most difficult of the Hindenburg defensive lines by both Allies and enemy alike. They continued to push the enemy farther back through many battles with the Allied armies until from October 26th to November 2d the Canadians had the signal honor of capturing Valenciennes being the first troops to break through the fourth and last Hindenburg line.

On the last day of fighting the Canadians were in the city of Mons on November 11 1918, the city where the British started their war in 1914.





http://www.collectionscanada.ca/firstworldwar/051806/0518060601_e.html
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume4/160-161.html
http://www.lermuseum.org/ler/cof/sacrifice/wwi/canadas100days.html

Old thread, but this caught my attention:
My solution to reducing the needless carnage of a needless war would be implemented much earlier: The U.S. should have stayed the frell out of it. Woodrow Wilson, the lying, conniving bastard, manipulated American sentiment by secretly loading armaments onto the British passenger ship Lusitania, in violation of an agreement that had been painstakingly worked out by cooler heads in America and Germany. They agreed not to fire on any non-military ship carrying American civilians, if we agreed to make sure those ships did not carry military cargo.

The S.O.B. didn't even tell the passengers. He just let them board the ship in order to sacrifice their lives so he could have the glory of leading the U.S. into one of Europe's endless series of incomprehensible wars.

I believe that the war would have been much shorter, with many fewer casualties, without our participation. Sure Germany would have won, but a victorious Germany would never have brought Hitler to power. Without Hitler, Stalin would never have turned the USSR into a military machine at the sacrifice of the civilian economy. France, in defeat, would not have been able to hang onto its colonies in Indochina which would therefore not have turned to communism in desperation. Britain, in defeat, would not have had the power to redraw the maps of the Middle East and Africa, which resulted in the squalor and ethnic violence that we are now dealing with. WWII would never have happened so Japan would not have been driven out of China, and Mao would be a farmer.

The entire course of the 20th century would be different. No Hiroshima, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no Little Red Book, no Perestroika, no 9/11.

Yeah, a whole lot of lives would have been saved indeed.

From what I understood in history class, America played a relatively small part in WWI. We only entered in the last year of the war, and only serious numbers of American troops arriving in the last 6 months.

who agrees that the war was caused by Germany as the treaty of versaille demanded that Germans take the blame for ww1 when that is entirely false. It was the arms race between England and Germany. Not only was this happening but Austria-Hungary owned almost all of eastern europe. This upsetted the serbians and all that was needed was a spark to ignite the war. The spark that I Believe started the war is the assasination of Archduke Franz Fernidand. In which Gavrillo Princip executed. Doesn't anyone agree with me?

who agrees that the war was caused by Germany as the treaty of versaille demanded that Germans take the blame for ww1 when that is entirely false. It was the arms race between England and Germany. Not only was this happening but Austria-Hungary owned almost all of eastern Europe. This upsetted the Serbians and all that was needed was a spark to ignite the war. The spark that I Believe started the war is the assassination of Archduke Franz Fernidand. In which Gavrillo Princip executed. Doesn't anyone agree with me.

The dreadnought race was petering out several years before the war. The British had come through the most dangerous 'window' of vulnerability, and were increasingly confident of permanent superiority based on both numbers and the formidable quality of their pending Q and R class 15" bruisers.

The Serbs seemed to have a problem with quite a few nations and ethnic groups before the war. Croats, Albanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Italians. It wasn't so much that the Serbs were "upset" by Austria-Hungary, for they had ambitions along multiple avenues of advance. Rather, it was the fact that the Entente powers were willing to back Serbian ambitions towards Austria-Hungary, while giving the cold shoulder to Serbia when she advanced in other directions - vs Albania.

As for Princip's actions creating the "spark": The Serbian army murdering the no. 2 man in the Austrian Empire on any day between 1890 and 1914 would have caused a war between Serbia and Austria, more or less instantly. So yes, this was the origin of the conflict.

From what I understood in history class, America played a relatively small part in WWI. We only entered in the last year of the war, and only serious numbers of American troops arriving in the last 6 months.

American finance was crucial to Entente morale and staying power. In the latter half of 1918, more than 2 million Doughboys were in France. The effect this had on the German army was to gravely undermine its will to fight, since it was perceived that the war was lost.

On the last day of fighting the Canadians were in the city of Moons on November 11 1918, the city where the British started their war in 1914.

Yes, we rock.

The Allies may have thought of that also. The Germans still had their navy and UP boats to protect the coast and landing and supplying 250,000 or more men might have been a logistic impossibility in WW1. Gallipoli was a real sore spot. A third front sounds like a good idea but on German soil it may have failed or resulted in another trench warfare front.

Proper Entente strategy, generally speaking, was to increase the fighting frontage of the German and Austrian armies, such that Central Powers resources were spread more thinly, thus facilitating Entente offensives and hindering the massing of reserves for C.P. counterattacks (which tended to be more effective affairs).

This leads to the problem of access - fighting front was difficult to increase because of communications in north and southwest Europe (the prime candidates for an expansion of the front). I see two potential solutions to the problem: in the Baltic, and in the Black Sea.

Black Sea: Entente strategy was greatly hindered by the fact that it was an offensive alliance. Russian ambitions in violation of Turkish sovereignty precluded any possibility of the most effective solution to the dilemma posed by the original poster. Should the Entente have successfully wooed the Ottoman Empire onside as a friendly belligerent, then the position of the Central Powers would have been gravely weakened. In all probability, the ability of French and British forces to deploy directly into the Ukraine and Rumania by way of the Straights, in conjunction with the fielding of Turkey's not-inconsiderable army, would have swung both Rumania and Bulgaria into the Entente camp. This in turn would have prevented the 1915 collapse of the Entente position in the east when Serbia was overrun and Russia fell back to the east.

Baltic Sea: A poor second choice to the Ottoman Empire. As noted by another poster, the Royal Navy fondled its Baltic scheme with the insatiable regularity of a porn-crazed teenager. The problems were twofold: First, German rail communications and the improbability of capturing really good ports on the Pomeranian coast meant that any landing in Prussia would probably be "Galipolied" in its infancy. Second, it was possible that the Germans would "slam the door" behind the British by invading Denmark and blocking the Belts. Should the Royal Navy be committed in strength in the Baltic at that moment, the result would have been an unmitigated disaster.

If the Entente had invaded Denmark, it might have been beneficial to their cause. The Danish had mobilized something around 50,000 men, concentrated mainly around Copenhagen. The rest of the country was fairly open to invasion. The Germans would have had to send reinforcements to cover the narrow neck of the Danish-German border (presumably Entente forces would try to push for the Kiel Canal by way of Denmark), and HSF forces to contest the Belts. But with the capture of at least one nautical passage into the Baltic by the Entente, it should have been possible for the RN to isolate Copenhagen and force a Danish surrender.

Simply by possessing Denmark, the Entente would force Germany to permanently disperse considerable forces along her long Baltic coastline to guard against an invasion. From Copenhagen, the Allies could achieve the second of the original poster's visions and increase the effectiveness of the blockade; this by interdicting Swedish and Norwegian communications with Germany. Finally, an option would exist for the French and the British to land expeditionary forces in the Baltic. Not necessarily in Pomeriania (too dangerous, best to leave this threat unblown), but in Russia proper. 10 or 20 Entente divisions on the Eastern front would provide the Russians much needed elite shock troops to spearhead their offensives. Not to mention a division or two of sturdy BEF boys in St. Petersburg maybe causing a slightly different course in 1917...

Central Powers strategy to reduce casualties was probably more realistic, more attainable than for the Entente; the CP had to keep other countries from joining the war against them. The list of potential "converts" from the Entente camp included Russia, Japan, Italy, United States:

Russia: Bethmann-Hollweg wakes up and smells the coffee. Germany begins to back Russian ambitions against the Ottoman Empire, tacitly encouraging the Russians to take the lead in the game to partition the old girl. If the opportunity subsequently presented itself, Germany should gladly have fought anyone that Russia was willing to fight on the road to Constantinople.

Japan: The happiest thing the Germans could possibly have seen in the Pacific Ocean was a Japanese flag flying over Rabaul, a Russian flag at Tsingtao, and an American flag at Truk. Some combination of change, at any rate. The empire (undefendable) should have been raffled for the purpose of causing untold mischief, and oooohhhh what mischief there was for the offering....

Italy: It was important to keep Italy neutral and friendly as a method to break the blockade, and to reduce pressure on Austria. This could have been accomplished by dropping the obsession with the Western Front and making certain that Serbia was done like a TV dinner by the end of 1914. When the Schlieffen Plan failed, the GGS should have reverted to the defensive in the west and sent the reserves expended in the October offensives to the Balkans to knock Serbia out of the war. Bulgaria then comes in earlier, and Italy is probably deterred into remaining neutral in 1915. When Russia collapses in 1915, Italy stays neutral, perhaps into 1917 or beyond.

United States: Pretty obvious, I should think.

I wonder if the war would have ended quicker with the use of nukes. Just like it did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It might have even prevented furthur casualties.

I also believe that the treaty of Versailles was too harsh . The terms pissed Hitler off so much that it just burned up his anger quicker towards war. Who would want to take blame for a war that wasn't even their fault. You can't forget the land they gave up to Poland, France and especially the use of their coal mines for a period of time. If the terms were harsher WWII could have been avoided . This would Germany with more cash so that people won't be desperate enough to listen to Hitler at bars and speeches. It's all the treaty of Versailles fault that started the worst world war in history.

My plan, would be simple and effective.
Considering trench warfare is brutal to your army and almost ineffective on a completley mobilized war. I would start massive fires, smoke the germans out, and have at them with machine gunners. To solve the issue of out of control burns, i would suggest gas line fires, which use gases that ignite when in air. After this is accomplished. turn the gas lines off, and wait. Only thing is that this technology didn't happen until ww2. So that blows my idea out of the water. Not to mention setting up gas lines under enemy fire.

Still, fire, fire and fire.

yes we brits antagonised the germans for years before the outbreak of world war 1, we outdid them in everything and that pissed them off. we built more ships than them and more land than them yet we didnt realise just how good their armoury was, i mean come on you dont plan on invading the rest of europe with without armoury to match. so maybe a way to cut down the death toll would have been not to have underestimated the germans as much as we did

Germans have more land than the brits.

Germans have more land than the brits.



Well considering the time of events, the brits owned India, and owned other countries, which ultimatly meant they had more land.

If the terms were harsher WWII could have been avoided .
You mean "less harsh"? :p

Germans have more land than the brits.

wah, dude at the time we owned more land than ANYONE in the world, even france and belguim owned more land than the germans for gods sake, that was one of the reasons for the war, THEY WANTED MORE LAND

No I think if you do some reasearch you will find that if we had used a Marshal type plan and help re-established a stable Germany, Hitle may never had the right mix of desperation and hopelesness that helped bring him to power?

A thoughtful topic.

One way to cut the death toll at least in half would have been to stop news censorship on both sides. An honestly reported war is usually an unpopular one. When young men decide that it isn't after all quite so fitting and proper to 'pro patria mori', and the average citizen determines that the hazy national interests are not worth the absurd sacrifices, then the 'war to end all wars' would have itself been forced to an earlier and less tragic conclusion. This scenario may well have ended in Germany's favour, but probably more along the lines of a biased truce than anything like an unconditional surrender on part of the Allies. And France would not have lost an entire generation of young men.

Floating a dirigible over the Kaiser one evening around dinner-time and dropping a big fat bomb would have hastened things along, too.

Interesting Debate so far. But the most important topic has been missed.

The Difference between Attrition and Manouvre warfare. Back in the "Good Old Days", War was still a gentlemans thing. A fair fight. The idea behind Attrition being you hit the enemies strong points with your strong points, essentially like a boxing match. I will admit that there were manouvrerest elements happening during WW1 but they were no where near the advancement of WW2.

My idea to cut the amount of casualties on both sides:

War is fluid and thus should be treated so. Allow commanders from the highest level, to the simple platoon commander to make decisions based on the Mission Directive principle. When giving your subordinates orders, give them a general idea of what is happening around them aswell, allow them to come up with their own plan and as long as it fits with the Bigger picture (usually two command levels up) then its all good. Give them the power to make tactical decisions based on the orders they have recieved which allows them more freedom of movement. One of the important factors of this would be to come up with Mission essential tasks (tasks that have to be done to acheive the mission) and Mission Implied tasks (tasks that aren't set by orders but are implied, which help achieve the mission). In an example, say a platoon commander was told to clear the enemy from a particular area. Right, mission essential - Clear the enemy, mission implied - conduct aggressive patrolling techniques through the area.

In WW1 they had, i believe its called, command directive, in other words what your boss says, goes. Sort of like micromanagement. This doesn't work because it doesn't allow fluidity of battle.

You can all argue that this couldn't be possible because of the training Officers recieved, however if the doctrine were in place before WW1, if the commanders of the early 1900's were able to see the evolution of war, then it would have been possible.

Unfortunately it didn't, and we are left here today with the memory of millions of soldiers who never returned.

Lest we forget

My apologies I am not exactly familiar with WW1 but thank God I took the class. I believe it was Germany, Austria-Hungry, and Ottoman empire (turkey, Bulgaria) Vs France, Britain, Russia, and Italy. Here's my brief war plan:

Germany was the most powerful nation at that time so I would have focused its might against France, hoping to win the war quickly and then immediately prepare for the British.

*Austria-Hungary and the Turks can handle the Russians as to avoid a two front war by the Germans. The preliminary battles against the British would be largely Naval as to keep them busy while Germany deals with the French. Germany should have invaded France directly and quickly "shock and awe style" The Von shlieffen plan was okay but involving neutrals only creates unnecessary problems and stretches the troops, it also gives time for the French to prepare and mount a very good defense.

*The most important and pivotal battle for the central powers was the French-German battle, it determines the entire direction of the rest of the war; Germany needs France as a leverage ground against Britain and Italy. All Germany had to do in the war was capture France and its Navy, use its Navy entirely against the British and then meet Italy from the North West while the Austrians meet them from the North East, creating a two front war for the Italians and ultimately defeating them.

*With Italy and France out the way the central powers can now focus on Russia, the key is remember here is to prevent the British from crossing the English channel by fortifying the seas with naval ships, that should keep them busy. The Turks should have done a good number on the Russians by now and with a little help the Russians are out of the picture, with the Russians out you can defeat the British by diplomacy.

Kevlar and oxygen tanks.

yup just need to go back in time and invent those before the war started

yup just need to go back in time and invent those before the war started

Well, if you've already gone back to take part in WWI, a little bit further back in time shouldn't be too much of a problem. :p