Thank you.
👍👍
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Question
-
What’s your thoughts? The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was hundred years ago.
-
I’d probably go with what happened historically, send them to the western front, but since I have until 2045 to cast my ballot, I think I’ll ponder it a while. : )
-
I’d probably go with what happened historically, send them to the western front, but since I have until 2045 to cast my ballot, I think I’ll ponder it a while. : )
I wanted to give folks plenty of time to discuss.
-
Mmmm!
Attacking in the West before the USA arrives seems most likely to deliver a quick CP victory, but this is what happened and it failed. Might G have pursued this strategy more effectively than it did?
Attacking in the Balkans is attractive. There is a view that the allies should have used British naval supremacy to pursue a broad Balkan strategy, instead of throwing ever more men into the blood and death of disastrous attacks on the western front. In effect that Gallipoli was the right idea badly executed. As I remember it, Ludendorff resigned as a result of allied progress in the Balkans late in the war? So throwing the allies out of the Balkans had some importance, but it would not have ended the war.
Similarly Italy, I think, even had that allied power surrendered.
Leaving me with adopting a defensive posture … so I voted for that. But G’s ability to keep fighting was being squeezed out of it by the economic blockade. Yet G may have gained a better peace from losing the war by this approach?
-
I remember reading somewhere that not as many troops were transferred from east to west than is actually commonly assumed.
Thus the “peace bump” in western front troop numbers was not as significant. The troops that were transferred were just elite stormtroopers and not so many regular infantry.
I could be wrong about this. I will see if I can’t locate the source.
-
600,000 were moved East to West. This gave the Germans a 11 division advantage over Allies, and a 2000 artillery advantage.
-
@ABWorsham:
600,000 were moved East to West. This gave the Germans a 11 division advantage over Allies, and a 2000 artillery advantage.
…and yet, they did not win…
-
@ABWorsham:
600,000 were moved East to West. This gave the Germans a 11 division advantage over Allies, and a 2000 artillery advantage.
yeah, that’s what you hear… I will see if I can’t find out where I am getting my assertion from… maybe apocryphal…
-
Understandably, as an Italian, I like teh idea of helping te Austrians push into the rich, industrial, North of Italy. I am sure the loss of Milan and Turin and a few other Northern cities would have caused a peace convention to be called in Italy. This might have helped the CPs prepare for the arrival of the US forces, freeing up more men to hold the Western Front.
-
@ABWorsham:
600,000 were moved East to West. This gave the Germans a 11 division advantage over Allies, and a 2000 artillery advantage.
…and yet, they did not win…
OPERATION Michael broke the British Fifth Army lines. The human toll was enormous. Germany lost 40,000 men on the the first day.
-
one clip from the Gen. Ludendorff article mentions that the desire to gobble up as much Russian territory in the treaty as possible required ~1MM of their troops to occupy it, implying that if they’d given up what they couldn’t keep anyways, the bump would have been bigger…
Suggested Topics
