Did Britain miss an obvious way to quickly end the war? Just send lots of troops and supplies to Denmark (secretly of course), and then invade Germany from Denmark. Coordinate the invasion to coincide with a major French offensive on the Western Front coupled with a Russian offensive on the Eastern Front, all starting on the same date. Occupy the city of Hamburg, and then press forward to Berlin. This plan has several obvious benefits, the most important being the element of surprise. Germany won't be expecting an invasion from the north. They won't know about the invasion force until it is already too late, and even if they do figure it out, they can't do anything about it because they'll be too busy fighting off France and Russia from both sides.
Winning WW1 sooner than 1918
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
'secretly'
>implying germany wouldn't sink the ships on sight
>durr launch a massive naval invasion into a neutral country (there is no chance you make this secret you retard) and then have them march 440km in enemy territory
the only reason they joined the war was because germany went through belgium(neutral) in the first place
if they had done the same and went through denmark(neutral) the worlds view on the allied forces would be skewed
Denmark would be paid to keep it a secret.
I honestly can't tell if you guys are this oblivious.
>naval invasion just north of g*rmany's main naval base
What if the Brits had just hidden a division of soliders inside a container ship and sail into Hamburg? They could have flagged it as a swedish vessel to get past the German pickets.
holy shit op you're right and here's the kicker, it doesn't even matter if there's no element of surprise. There's no way Germany would be able to hold off a simultaneously three pronged trrident attack from west north and east.
Dude the allies didn't give a fuck about neutrality Greece was also neutral they didn't give a fuck
If Denmark refuses to play ball then yeah, you might have violate Denmark's neutrality but it would be worth it.
England entered the war officially because Germany violated Belgiums neutrality, stupid.
and the Allies violated Greece's neutrality, what's your point?
Even if Denmark had played ball, you can't feasibly move that many people and that many supplies in secret. The logistics of that would have been impossible.
Is that really what you believe?
The fucking German people would resist like fuck retard. It's near the start of the war so morale is still high. Plus, the Allies were just about holding the Western front even with British troops there. If the Brits fucked off to Denmark the Germans would almost definitely have broken through to Paris
>Not Landing in Hannover
>Not doing the same in WW2
Okay, so Denmark might have to defend itself for a bit while the British soldiers get unloaded and such. It's not a big deal. Remember, the Germany army is going to be tied up fighting on two fronts. They aren't going to have any extra troops available to go after Denmark.
Im not familiar with that but im sure its more complicated than that. Point being, the UK cant violate Denmarks neutrality.
Notice i said officially.
What if Denmark joins the central powers instead?
>yeah dude just open up another front making our supply lines that much farther and attacking the Germans in their lane rather than purging Belgium and France
You did see the fuck ups in Greece and Arabia, and that was with friendly locals
If they had just built a shitload of tanks from the start of the war, they could have steamrolled Germany some time in 1915 after Germany had spent up its initial attack forces.
Umm... it would have been easy for the Germans to just set up some defense lines on the narrow neck that links Denmark to the rest of continental Europe. If the Allies had a hard time punching through long defense lines until the last few months of the war, I'm pretty sure they would have had even more trouble with a short one.
>what if britain just opened up another front, but also a really narrow one?
untenable.
and near unrestricted access to the Mediterranean, too.
>people responding seriously to this thread
You're probably talking to the creator of the sailing to Sardinia and Rome trading with itself threads
>What is the Gallipolli campaign?
untenable.
it didn't really work out well for them in the end
Lol there is any easier way to end the war quickly than all that nonsense you just typed - the City of London banks just had to stop extending loans to all the governments involved in the war. No credit=no extended war and no mechanized slaughter.
Why the fuck would Denmark compromise its neutrality when it would make enemies of the strongest land power in Europe right accross its border?
t. the armchair strategist
Worked out great for the British Empire actually. Dardanelles campaign was a ruse by Churchill to keep Russia in the war. Britain said "Russia if you keep attacking Germany, we Brits and our puppet colonial armies will capture Constantinople for you" The campaign was not meant to succeed as Britain wanted the oil-rich land of the Ottoman Empire for itself, not for Russia.
A failure
British people should be wiped out all white peoples should!
>A failure
Nonsense dude see
>but denmark was neutral
just bribe them with schleswig-holstein to get them to join the entente
What did he mean by this?
A fuckfest that Churchill himself cried over
Either the invasion would be so tiny as to not be useful or it would be large enough to both be discovered and weaken the British on some other front.
>falling for the Belgium meme
youtube.com
That the allies gladly invaded Greece when it was neutral pre-1917
Interesting. Can you recommend a source on that?
You just relocated the Battle of the Somme in Schleswig-Holstein.
>Did Britain miss an obvious way to quickly end the war? Just send lots of troops and supplies to Normandy (secretly of course), and then invade Germany from Denmark. Coordinate the invasion to coincide with a major American offensive on the Western Front coupled with a Soviet offensive on the Eastern Front, all starting on the same date. Occupy the city of Hamburg, and then press forward to Berlin. This plan has several obvious benefits, the most important being the element of surprise. Germany won't be expecting an invasion from the north. They won't know about the invasion force until it is already too late, and even if they do figure it out, they can't do anything about it because they'll be too busy fighting off the WAllies and the USSR from both sides.
I guess there's potential
Hours of wanking shall now ensue
So sexy user
Post more
And get cut off from all their colonial imports by British blockade?
Greece.
>Denmark marches on Berlin during the Romania campaign
If only the Romanians prepared for war better
>colonial imports of the American Virgin Islands
If they had coordinated with Brusilov they could have knocked AH out of the war and drastically shortened the war.
>Implying they wouldn't be arrested the second they arrive.
That's actually really interesting if it's true. But I've never heard that before. Got a source?
If the British Army landed in Europe, I'd get the Belgian police to arrest them.
>not performing a naval assault in Bavria
>what are spies
>what are roumors
shit thread, sage
Guys, I think I just noticed something that could have ended ww1 way faster.
Why didn't the French just attack the Germans?
France literally borders Germany.
Why didn't the French just send their army to Germany and make the Germans surrender?
Seems really simple and obvious, but why didn't they do it, since it would have been so easy?
It is possible if done by a genius tough
>Point being, the UK cant violate Denmarks neutrality.
Oh, you mean like they did in WWII when they mined the Skagerak sea?
This plan would have likely have made the Battle of Jutland a full on confrontation
I bet this post was made by an American.