Message from @Mr. Nessel
Discord ID: 685463207175127040
Nobody had amphibious tanks at that point
as if pontoon bridges could not be developed
So you think pontoon bridges would be enough if Germany had built static dfences on its side of the Rhine?
Even with tanks and mass assaults they had a hard time breaking the Hindenburg line
Nvm Germany would concentrate artillery on the river if pontoon bridges would be deployed
they would pound them with artillery. static defences were getting obsolete by 1918 and era of moblie warfare
Static defences became less effective because they made trenches wider because of tanks
Had the German navy tried to go through the Channel, Britain would have definitely joined. I'd recommend just using the navy in the Baltic.
Since tanks are a minimal factor when crossing a river like the Rhine the defences would be even more formidable
Since trenches would be less wide and therefore less susceptible to artillery
i think even if lusitania never occured USA would join the war because of submarine warfare and zimer tellegram
As faras America is concerned I don't think they would be invested enough to tolerate heavy casualties
If the Rhine were to hold, which it definitely would for years imo they would need to either go through the Alps, Greece or the Zagros mountains
I don't think Americans would take suicide charges into mountains as well as Italians did
also never forget that entete had bottomless suplies of Guano for gunpowder production. germs had to use expensive sythetic gunpowder they made it at a loss and it was crippling their battered economy
It's not that expensive to make nitrogen using the Haber Bosch technique since after the war it replaced Guano across the world
And became the source for Nitrogen in fertilizer etc.
yes because it was made cheaper by then.
Germany's economy wasn't going to be its end. Not after gaining that many trade partners in the east
They would continue printing bonds and whatnot
A lot of ore and coal deposits there
And industry, though that could be relocated in part
Though abandoning the Rhineland would not be without an economic upside since it's very urban and feeding it would then be an issue for the Entente, not Germany
as if entete would even give them anything beyon starvation rations lol
I somehow doubt Americans and Brits would be fine with that
Don't replace Falkenhayn. H&L gutted the German economy, announced unrestricted submarine warfare, and launced the Spring Offensive
Yet no one ever talks about Falkenhayn
anyways to conclude Austro hungary was on verge of collapse by 1918.after thy implode entete would launch a lightning invasion of austria and then push into german lowlands from there
so no not even the rhine defence would save germany 8n this scenario
That's ignoring the reasons for Austria Hungaries "collapse"
First of all food shortages which would be adressed through eastern gains and the loss of the Rhineland
Beat Italy on the Piave, take Venice, and knock them out of the war. That helps you right there
Secondly military pressure from the Entente in Greece and Romania
Which can be handled if Germany sent more men freed up through a better defensive line in the west and no spring offensive
Come to think of it, Italy never entering the war helps the CP in huge ways
I don't know if they could manage to outright defeat Greece but they could stabilize the front since the Balkans are one huge ass series of easily defendable terrain
Beating Italy would be hard to do because of the mountainous terrain of the Alps
Then taking Venice might not make them capitulate, at least I don't think so
And Venice and its surroundings are much harder to dfened because tanks could be effectively deployed by the Entente
Unless the central powers at that point build some tanks too giving them more of an offensive capability