Sunday 21 March 2021

IMAGI-NATIONS. PART 38.

 THE OUTBREAK OF WAR WITH THE RUSSIAN GERMAN ALLIANCE


During the final months of 1887 Germany and Russia finalised their strategy for war against the UNION. It was agreed that with substantial German assistance in both the supply of weapons and railway construction materials and expertise  the Russians would invade Ukraine and commence the construction of a railway towards the UNION. It was understood that the UNION would undoubtedly also  start building a railway and the two sides would meet in battle in the centre of Ukraine about six month later. To avoid the UNION being able to concentrate all its forces against each adversary separately the Germans would need to start their invasion of the old Federation just before Russia and the UNION met in Ukraine. This would ensure the UNION had to fight a two front war giving the alliance an over whelming numerical superiority.

 The Russian build up commenced immediately while German ships started to deliver large quantities of weapons, ammunition and railway material. By 4th May 1888 the Russians were ready and on that date some 750,000 Russian troops started to cross into Ukraine together with thousands of railway construction labourers. The UNION was surprised by the Russian invasion. They had no idea of the alliance with Germany and just had not expected Russia to risk another war. However as soon as long range cavalry patrols had confirmed the Russian move was indeed a full scale invasion the 2nd army in Fort Levenworth was instructed to cross the border and establish a defensive line to protect the construction of a UNION railway.

 As the UNION had not expected a Russian assault no preparations had been made to stockpile railway materials but UNION factories went into overdrive to produce the materials needed.  It was a little over 2000 miles from Russia to the UNION border so each side needed to build at least 1000 miles of track. At the usual rate of three miles a day it would be at least six months before the two sides could support combat operations although the UNION army's supply service was capable of far out performing the Russians so the UNION expected to be able to start fighting in September at the latest.

Over the next couple of months both sides rushed to lay track and advance their armies towards each other. There was no fighting until in early July UNION cavalry and horse artillery launched a hit and run attack on the Russian railhead. Although little serious damage was caused both the Russians and Germans were surprised the UNION could reach so far forward. Germany would need to be ready to launch her attack somewhat earlier than expected and therefore commenced a build up in the Rhineland. 

Shortly after this first contact, the British advised the UNION of rumours in diplomatic circles that Germany was in alliance with Russia. Although it was not known if this extended to joint military action, the Germans were certainly supporting the Russians with railway and military supplies. This news caused grave concern in the UNION. Fighting Russia was one thing but fighting Germany as well at the same time was quite another. UNION strategists realised that if such an alliance existed then it was likely that Germany would attack at the same time the UNION came into contact with the main Russian army. 

As that time was still a few months away the question arose as to whether the UNION should launch a  pre-emptive strike against Germany immediately to defeat them before the UNION faced a two front war. The problem was that it was only in March 1887, just 18 months previously, that the UNION had announced a policy of no first strikes. The debate swept through UNION government and military circles. Finally in early August the government decided that as the evidence against Germany was not fully substantiated there would be no first strike however full defensive measures would be taken along the border with Germany.

8 comments:

  1. Tony - it would be fascinating to re-fight your Tian campaigns as a 'Cabinet' wargame (like the ones Wargames Developments often run) with different players reprsenting the different countries, each with their own agendas and briefings...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian.. what a interesting idea. That would certainly spice up things especially if each "nation" had a clear statement of resources etc. As you know I fight my battles on a solo basis in my head but it can be very hard to remain unbiased. I suspect such a "cabinet" game would need to be at a strategic level maybe using "tokens" to represent units rather than figures. A very interesting thought in every way. Regards Tony

    ReplyDelete
  3. They way I was thinking of it might not even need Tokens, though you could use something in the style of Risk, possibly. Instead it would focus on the diplomacy (open and underhand!) and 'political' aspects. So using your last write up, yes, the Germans would like 'payback' for their defeat - but they are using the Russians as a proxy, so how 'deniable' is their involvement? Is it more about using the war to recoup some of their losses by selling arms to the Russians? Could they actually be hoping that the Russians get beaten agian and that they could take the opportunity to make some gains elsewhere in Tian at the Russian's expense? Are there onflicting factions witghin the German Government? (Peace v War?) What do the British stand to gain by tipping off the Union, or are they playing a deeper game here?
    LOTS of opportunity for multiple hidden player briefings, double dealing and general skullduggery!
    If you want inspiration try reading 'The Great Game'by Peter Hopkirk

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ian..What an interesting concept. I rather like the "risk" idea however I personally would still like a military option. I have read that book although sometime ago. A similar story is told in "Dreadnought" by Robert Massie which covers the coming of the Great War and includes huge detail of the personalities involved and the quite nailbiting series of issues that led to the war. Your idea is definitely very interesting. I wonder how it could be brought to life ????

    ReplyDelete
  5. My immediate thought is that you could use the existing narrative to set a strategic scenario, then invite people to take a specific role that isn't directly involved in the immediate conflict (e.g. someone as Emperor of Germany, someone else as British PM) - give them a basic briefing to set the boundaries of what they can/cannot do (e.g. Germany couldn't suddenly offer an alliance with the Union), but then leave it to the players to decide how they want to act. Needs more thought, but I am sure that you will find detals of games like this in either Bob Cordery's blog or on the Wargames Developments site

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ian.. I can see exactly what you mean. It would be comparatively easy to draft up some briefings for the major nations. I have no idea however how such a game could be played eg rules etc. Maybe it needs people with more experience like Wargames Development or Bob to take it forward. I have never had much luck engaging with Bob. If you have, why not bring the idea to him. He might be able to give some pointers at the very least. Regards Tony

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tony - beyond the briefings and a genral set of principles, I am not sure that you need many 'rules' for this. They idea would be that the players control the relationships between the various states and the strategic actions they take (e.g. supplying arms to another nation - or even to both sides!) - then when those actions would result in an actual conflict, they hand over to you to play it as a 'game' (real or virtual). I think it would be quite straightforward to draw up some simple rules that let you play out the results of a battle just on paper. If you want to use a set of pre-existing rules, you could look at something like the 'Bloody Big Battles' rules (http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/) or maybe adapt the free 'Megablitz' rules (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/ww2/). They are designed for WW2, but wouldn't be hard to adapt. If you want to discuss this more, you have my e-mail address, so maybe quicker to message me direct?
    Regards
    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ian.. Ok, I will give this more thought and e mail you. Regards Tony

    ReplyDelete