Talk:Timeline (1914 Incident)

There is no way on earth that the Central Powers could advance to Moscow that fast, even with Russia as their only enemy. Too blasted far. Lordganon 18:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for saying. Where would be realistic? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:31, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, should I move the start of the offensive backward in time? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:41, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

No, that's pretty well the earliest it could possibly start.

Well, in WWII, with far more mechanized and faster armies, it took the Germans, attacking on a broad front with about the same numbers, etc. scheme as would be available to them here, five months to get near Moscow.

In WWI, even with the Russians in near-collapse, the Germans failed to advance all that far, not getting past the western borders of the Ukraine until the now-Soviets surrendered in 1917.

Napoleon, attacking on a very narrow front, and ignoring a lot of things that made him fail, advanced from Ducal Prussia to Moscow over a period of three months. As I said, however, not on a broad front, and a similarly fast attack in this atl would fail, getting cut off and killed.

In the given timeframe, I expect somewhere around Minsk. No further than Smolensk. Also to about Riga in the north, and at most Kiev in the south. In that era, this would be more than enough to force a peace.

Also, the Germans would take slightly more than that. Only taking the land you note would leave a large "needle" of Russian territory in between Austria and Germany. The Germans would annex pretty well all of "Congress Poland."

And, there was entirely no need for that post on my page, lol.

Lordganon 19:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for posting on your talk, but I've replied before on article talk pages and never gotten a reply back. It was just to make sure. ;) Back on topic, I'll just move it backward a couple weeks and have Russia surrender at Smolensk. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:42, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the part about the annexation. The needle of Russian territory would only be slightly more acute than in 1913, so I don't really see a problem, since the war was short and Germany would be less, well, mean. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:59, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Much better with the front.

No slightly about it, lol. Have at look at the map here. The purple lines are the same as the 1914 borders, and the lightish green in the northwest of Poland is the areas Prussia received from the partitions. The spurt is rather worse if you take those out, and I really can't see Germany not taking all of Poland.

Lordganon 07:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Look at this map. I was going to have Prussia take the territory it ceded in 1815. I don't think Russia would give up that much land (as in all of Poland) without going further into war. It wasn't a horrible war at all, so I think Germany would rather try to take less territory than more, to minimize the resent among the Russian government. Edit: With Galicia instead of Austria-Hungary to the south of the needle, it would not be as acute either.

Also, would you look at the rest of the timeline, please? I'm trying to get some critique on whether it's plausible--especially the France-Britain alliance sever. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:13, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Errrr...... that map you're showing me is useless in this context, for all it shows in that region is land that Prussia regained from the Duchy of Warsaw in 1815. Doesn't show anything that they ceded in 1815, at all.

Russian Poland is a pretty small area for them to take, and pretty reasonable, imo. It was also one of their goals, overall. And Galicia, going by your timeline, is a year and half later - and very unexpected. It's still really acute when the peace is going on. In effect, the Russians are transferring control over one of their "sub-kingdoms" to the Germans. Very minor, and removes what is an eyesore from their control.

....The French and British were never actually allied, imo. The French and Russians, sure. But not the Brits and anybody, the Japanese aside. All they ever had with the Russians or French was a series of understandings. And those are things outside Europe, so such events in Europe would have no effect on them.

Lordganon 14:26, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't show anything it ceded in 1815, then how come there is a region that says "ceded in 1815 to Russia"? :P And I know, but a year and a half is a short time to be annoyed by a needle of territory, and an austro-hungarian collapse was expected. Also, I thought the British and French had the "entente cordiale"? I suppose that that wasn't an actual alliance, though, now that I think about it. Thanks, again! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)