On This Day The Battle of the Somme 100 years ago 1st July 1916.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Yes, the German offer was laughable and not serious in my opinion as well. But as opposed to the Allies, at least they made an effort.

warspite1

That makes no sense whatsoever. You say 'At least they made an effort' and by definition that makes the Germans better than the Allies as a result - but then admit that that effort was laughable and not serious. How does that work? If it was laughable and not serious then how is that making an effort? There was no effort.

[Jagdtiger14]

warspite1 That makes no sense whatsoever. You say 'At least they made an effort' and by definition that makes the Germans better than the Allies as a result - but then admit that that effort was laughable and not serious. How does that work? If it was laughable and not serious then how is that making an effort? There was no effort.

Warspite, can I guess you are not a businessman? In making any offer you begin by staking out a position that is much greater (or far below depending on which side of the table you are on).

As it was, the Allied non-response indicates they are not interested in anything other than a continuation of the conflict. If the Allies had come back with an offer of any kind at all...their own laughable and non-serious, at least that would indicate they are willing to discuss the end of the war. Then, through subsequent negotiations through a third party also interested in peace (Wilson/USA) perhaps a common ground could have been found or close to one where the calculation of further lost resources/manpower no longer makes sense.

As for the Germans "better as a result" for making the offer, I would say it was very poor for the Allies not to have responded with something, even if it were laughable. All successful negotiations have a starting point, and many of those began as laughable and viewed as not serious. I think it makes the Allies look bad. They also spurned Wilson's efforts...and the US was working with the Allies and seen as one of them by both sides.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

warspite1 That makes no sense whatsoever. You say 'At least they made an effort' and by definition that makes the Germans better than the Allies as a result - but then admit that that effort was laughable and not serious. How does that work? If it was laughable and not serious then how is that making an effort? There was no effort.

Warspite, can I guess you are not a businessman? In making any offer you begin by staking out a position that is much greater (or far below depending on which side of the table you are on).

As it was, the Allied non-response indicates they are not interested in anything other than a continuation of the conflict. If the Allies had come back with an offer of any kind at all...their own laughable and non-serious, at least that would indicate they are willing to discuss the end of the war. Then, through subsequent negotiations through a third party also interested in peace (Wilson/USA) perhaps a common ground could have been found or close to one where the calculation of further lost resources/manpower no longer makes sense.

As for the Germans "better as a result" for making the offer, I would say it was very poor for the Allies not to have responded with something, even if it were laughable. All successful negotiations have a starting point, and many of those began as laughable and viewed as not serious. I think it makes the Allies look bad. They also spurned Wilson's efforts...and the US was working with the Allies and seen as one of them by both sides.

warspite1

Okay, this will get us nowhere. I have been in 'business' my whole working life thank-you and I do happen to know that whilst one shouldn't come up with their best offer as an opener, it kind of misses the point if one's opening offer is such a **** take that the other side walks off in disgust because its quite clear there is no will to find a solution.

So lets look at this another way shall we? If you are going to play the blame game, try back-solving the problem. By 1916 I don't know how many dead there are on either side - but its millions. Plus all the material damage. Both sides know they are in the right. Both sides know the other side started it. Both sides are afraid of the other and what the future might hold. Right. With that in mind what do you think would have been acceptable to Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy? Seriously, what was this golden opportunity that would have ended the war had politicians only been sensible enough to take it?

Just to recap what you are saying:

So in order not to 'look bad' the Allies now counter with their own offer: "Okay Germany, how about you get the hell out of our countries and a) pay us an indemnity and b) give up your African and Asian possessions".

Right there we go. Under your interpretation of events - both sides have now 'made and effort' and as a result history will judge neither side as 'bad'. Now, in the real world where do they go from here?

[Orm]

I have just been pondering on how many lives would have been saved if status quo ante bellum could have been agreed on when the leadership realized that this would not be a short war.

Totally unrealistic, of course, since they wanted to earn from what it had cost so far.

[ezzler]

I don't hold too much with the Lions and Donkeys idea.

One third of the total force involved at Gettysburg became casualties. Meade had 28% casualties on the defensive. Lee had 37%.
I can't recall anyone ever saying Lee or Grant were Donkeys leading Lions.
At Waterloo the wounded and dead for the french was around 30% of the total force.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I have just been pondering on how many lives would have been saved if status quo ante bellum could have been agreed on when the leadership realized that this would not be a short war.

Totally unrealistic, of course, since they wanted to earn from what it had cost so far.

warspite1

Indeed - and its not just about "earning" from the war. It's of course about the fact that none of the rising tensions, the fears, the mist-trust, that led to the war, have gone away. France fears Germany. The German attack in 1914 and what it cost the French will only go to confirm those fears (why does anyone think Versailles sought to ensure Germany couldn't do that to the French again?). The Germans remain fearful because they are isolated. They have only one ally - Austria-Hungary with an Empire literally falling apart at the seems. Any peace deal needs to resolve the Balkan mess without AH losing face.

And let's not forget the fact that governments have to sell this 'fantastic deal' to their people. You know, the same people they told to fight the war - and die in their thousands; well not the same people obviously, as many of them are aleady dead, having died for nothing. So at a time when the fear of Socialism/Revolution is ever greater, governments of the world have to convince their people that they are the right people to govern. Yeah right - no chance of revolution there then.....

As you say, totally unrealistic once the war had started and people - lots of people - began dying. Sadly the time to stop the war (or at least keep it regional) was before it started. Once it began, only the defeat and surrender of one side or the other was going to end it. To think otherwise is imo fantasy.

[Jagdtiger14]

So lets look at this another way shall we? If you are going to play the blame game, try back-solving the problem. By 1916 I don't know how many dead there are on either side - but its millions. Plus all the material damage. Both sides know they are in the right. Both sides know the other side started it. Both sides are afraid of the other and what the future might hold. Right. With that in mind what do you think would have been acceptable to Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy? Seriously, what was this golden opportunity that would have ended the war had politicians only been sensible enough to take it? Just to recap what you are saying: So in order not to 'look bad' the Allies now counter with their own offer: "Okay Germany, how about you get the hell out of our countries and a) pay us an indemnity and b) give up your African and Asian possessions". Right there we go. Under your interpretation of events - both sides have now 'made and effort' and as a result history will judge neither side as 'bad'. Now, in the real world where do they go from here?

First off, I was discussing the 1914 German and Wilson attempts (post #14). Obviously the longer the war goes on the more difficult negotiations become as you point out above.

You are role-playing the Allies...ok...and if they had replied to Germany more or less what you wrote, that would have been fantastic!!! Not for the substance of it, but for the indication that the Allies were interested in peace and ending the war. As for the substance of what you wrote (the Kaiser was an arrogant ass, so not sure how the Germans would have negotiated, but lets say the Kaiser appoints a reasonable person (me[:)])). First, I request someone the Allies trust to act as a good faith 3rd party intermediary that is also interested in peace, and that would be Wilson/US. Before I announce the next round(s) offer(s), I bounce it/them off of Wilson and get his input which adds to the sincerity of subsequent offers, and if the Allies are being unreasonable I could perhaps persuade the US to use its considerable "influence" that I think they have and are not using (resources and loans, and willingness to accept the British blockade)). Now in the second round I come down from the crazy offer, but still above what you are willing to settle for. So lets skip the in between and speed it up:

Obviously the Germans have to get the hell out of France and Belgium. That is not even negotiable, and in fact logical to any deal. The initial offers were that the Germans wanted more colonies, the Allies(you) wanted Germany to have none. The middle ground there would be status quo. Middle ground reparations would be zero as well...however if reparations would be a sticking point, then perhaps a reduction in German colonies would be warranted (frankly its my personal 2016 opinion that Germany doesn't need any colonies, but I'm sure the Kaiser would not agree). I read somewhere that most colonies were actually a financial drag...the total German output from its colonies was about 6 million British pounds per year. Not sure if that's accurate since I'm having trouble multiple sourcing it. If that happens to be accurate, then Germany has the colonies more out of national pride than national production.

[warspite1]

Well its a shame you didn't have the ear of the Kaiser in 1914-18 [:)]

Personally I do not believe a peace was possible on the basis of the status quo ante bellum. If the US takes a different road, then that may allow some tiny possibility of success, but frankly I think its all a bit pie in the sky.

status quo ante bellum is a nice thought because it saves so much misery, so much death that we know for certain comes about. But even if it were possible, what does it actually achieve? It solves nothing. It simply kicks the war can down the road - and does not kick it very far - and the politicians know this.

But on a more immediate and practical point, what do the troops do once there is a whiff of peace in the air? Carry on fighting as though nothing is happening? Being asked to go over the top into a hail of machine gun fire when, so the rumours go, they will all be going home tomorrow? I think there is more chance of revolution than an end to the war and I cannot see the Kaiser surviving such a 'peace'....

[Capt. Harlock]

Obviously the Germans have to get the hell out of France and Belgium. That is not even negotiable, and in fact logical to any deal.

Define "France".

No, I am not being a pedantic jerk. The French government was insistent about recovering Alsace and Lorraine, which Germany would not have agreed to.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Obviously the Germans have to get the hell out of France and Belgium. That is not even negotiable, and in fact logical to any deal.

Define "France".

No, I am not being a pedantic jerk. The French government was insistent about recovering Alsace and Lorraine, which Germany would not have agreed to.

warspite1

No need. For the purposes of this discussion the status quo ante bellum was mentioned by Orm, and Jagdtiger agreed (certainly in regard to financial reparations).

I cannot see even a remote possibility of either side agreeing to end the war - a war they have not lost and, in their eyes have not started - if they are going to lose territory or suffer financial penalties. A re-arrangement of borders resulting in the Germans losing Alsace Lorraine or anywhere else (whilst, unlike the French they are occupying enemy soil) makes no sense. The status quo ante bellum means just that - borders as per 3rd August 1914.

The point you raise though is pertinent because it shows just how difficult any negotiations were likely to be. There were all sorts of grievances and irritations that each side could raise about previous wars and lost territories that would simply lessen further any chance of a settlement.

But as I said above, I think this is all fanciful anyway so I will let Jagdtiger pick up that point if he wishes to do so.