Quite a good update. I think this AAR is so unique for the academic tone it takes, so we get the historiography of the events portrayed and not just the events themselves. Looking forwards to that continuing here.
Thanks. The history part of my degree does occasionally come in useful.
An amazing conception, really, seeing as if your century has been anything like our own, Britain was probably in fact at war somewhere or other all the time.
Funny way to go about it…
Glad to see we move swiftly on. And without even stopping to change threads, no less. Good stuff.
The part you bolded is very much doing the heavy lifting. Much like OTL Britain in the 19th Century (and the US in the latter half of the 20th), despite the almost constant campaigns and commitments somewhere or other, were it not for the occasional triumph or reversal abroad dominating news coverage for a moment, the average person could be forgiven for thinking the military had become a purely symbolic insitution for all the effect its operation has on their daily life.
This comes down to the purpose of the powers' respective armies. Are they merely tools of the state, used for the defence of the nation's interests, or are they intrinsic parts of the nation, and their interests are the nation's? The massive hypocrisy of the Entente powers when it comes to use of the military outside of Europe notwithstanding, Britain and the US lean far more towards the former, while Imperial Germany is vey much a proponent of the latter. France, having developed something of a siege mentality ITTL compared to the 'mere' revanchism of OTL is somewhere in the middle.
Yes, I considered switching threads, but the advent of threadmarks and the ability to edit the thread title led me to think that it would be better if people could find it all in one place.
Ooo. Why do you hurt us with these lies?
See?
Hmm. How did Antarctica fare with the Entente United and ready to split the world up? One third each or just acceptance of each others claims and nobody else's? Or the strange neutrality that sort of pervades otl to this day?
Much like the biblical calender, year zero is in fact anywhere in a decade.
Hmm! No armistice for them then. That's probably for the best, avoiding the failure of otl in not making it clear to the central powers they were wholly beaten. Then again, with no Italy to serve as a backdoor until they smash it down, the war will last at least a little bit longer fight wise, to the detriment of everyone on the continent.
Still looking forward to the food and rationing bit. Its going to be grim reading though.
I like to keep you on your toes. That's why.
I hadn't given it much thought, but it would certainly make sense that the Root-Chamberlain Treaty (and some sort of similar accord to bring France in) included a mutual recognition of each other's claims.
Hhehhe.
Well, part of the problem with the peace IOTL was also that the victors would not, or could not, enforce it long-term. Whether they can ITTL remains to be seen.
Grim indeed.
Enticing titbits all around, this is going to be a fascinating war and I am curious about what the Empire will look like when it comes out the other end.
That and the peace negotiations: with Rome and Madrid occupied and Russia fallen, what is to be of Berlin and its allies?
A gentleman never tells (mostly because he hasn't figured it out yet).
The scene is well and truly set, the frames of reference clear.
The board is set. The pieces are moving. We come to it at last; the great battle of our time.
Deep breath before the plunge, everyone.
That does explain why the war took so long. The more British leaders insist on faffing about on Land and ignoring Britain's actual strength at Sea and in the Littoral, the worse things go. Sadly it appears they have strayed far from wisdom and the Empire will pay the price.
Well Germany has to be held back in Europe.
Britian can spend most of her time and effort (at least, if they fight intelligently) taking down the oversea empires and then figuring out a way to take out the ottomans without a bloodbath (presumably, several well planned and executed naval landings and a land attack through the middle east).
The french drew the short straw and have to defend their homeland. Hopefully the Amercians show up and help them out. Otherwise the british really will have to throw down on the continent...
The keystone of this arch is France: without France, the Great Entente will have to invade Europe rather than debark there. Large-scale invasions with WW1 technology did not, historically, go well. We have already been told that Russia will go down in Revolution, so it seems likely to me that without French troops and manpower the scales are tilted too far against the Entente for victory. Sooner or later, a war must be won by the poor bloody infantry advancing to take ground, and the Entente is going to need some whopping great armies to do it, armies that can best (perhaps only) be effectively employed in France.
Seapower is valuable for commerce and for mobility in wartime. But it is a soft power - a blockade will take years to have effect, and a sufficiently large land power in WW1 will be able to mitigate the effects by railroad. Germany suffered in WW1 but the blockade effects were amplified by German decisions to pull all available manpower in for service in 1918 without regard to economic consequences. WW1 showed that in modern war economic effects are somewhat like gravity: they can be ignored for a short time but the final impact may be severe.
If Germany in this timeline is able to overrun France and break Russia, a blockade and the loss of overseas possessions may injure but not defeat her, especially so as Victoria pretty much ignores blockade effects. In the Napoleonic Wars and in OTL WW1, large allied armies were required and I think it will be true in this timeline as well.
So: I believe that Britain and the US must raise vast armies and get them into France at the earliest opportunity as the first priority. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "I hope God is on my side, but I must have France.”
This is the crux of the matter. Unlike in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain cannot wait out a Germany victorious on land. Not only will there be no Russia to the rescue, but those nations Germany defeats are unlikely to be allowed the autonomy or armies to form new coalitions with Britain. Even if a Germany in control of the European coastline is unable to build a navy to challenge the Anglo-American fleets and threaten to starve Britain, the logistics of attempting D-Day some three decades early, with most of Germany's forces concentrated on them instead of bogged down in Russia are... not favourable to the would-be liberators.
And
@Director, what perfect timing. When I refreshed the forum in order to start writing this reply post, your's was exactly one minute old.