What if the Germans had won the first world war?

gozunda

Reekwind wrote: »

The answer is in the question. Germany was in a position to attempt conquest of Europe twice and do well today precisely because it is "one of the strongest and dominant members" in Europe. Since 1870 it has always been one of the most populous, powerful and advanced nations in Europe.

Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully

Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars. As a country it lost practically all the advances it had made. After WWW2 I agree that Germany made huge economic advances with the help of allied money that promoted post war reconstruction however it remains that Germany lost two world wars within a very short historical period. It's perhaps not imaginable if they had won either war.

ledgebag1

Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully[/QUOTE]

I say this with the greatest of respect, honestly but that's a very simplified view in its entirety. I dont place the blame at the feet of Germany for the outbreak of the first world war. Austria had a huge hand to play and were encouraged 'lets say' by Germany to invade Serbia after the assassination of the Archduke. The often mistreatment of non Austrian subjects within the Austrian dominion for decades helped flourish an animosity towards them and no less from Serbia. There were many nations who had a hand to play in the outbreak of the First World War. Imperilaism and the promotion of nations, through expansion and subjugation was as great a factor for the outbreak.

Wurzelbert

gozunda wrote: »

[...]How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....

maintained and (much of it) rebuilt...and with wealth and the largest population come a certain power and influence almost automatically...not just after ww2...

like they said after 1871, germany had an awkward size, too large to be but one among equals in europe yet not big enough for true european hegemony either...that’s really what caused all the fuss in the past 100 years and in fact the past dozen or so centuries in a number of ways...when germany began to overtake britain in economic output around 1900, the alarm bells rang in london and elsewhere as the „balance of power“ was shifting and that had to be prevented at all cost...

numerous attempts have been made at cutting germany down to size and many have succeeded, and they are still working on it, or to quote john f. kennedy (in the 30s) “the germans are really too good - that’s why people conspire against them”... or as henry kissinger put it in 1994 “ultimately two world wars were fought in order to prevent a dominant role of germany in europe”...and some here might remember how people like mrs. thatcher and mr. mitterand fought tooth and nail to prevent german reunification some 25 years ago, west germany was just the right size for them both to control...only after the euro had been agreed on did they reluctantly acquiesce to what they saw they could not prevent anyway...

Wurzelbert

gozunda wrote: »

Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars. As a country it lost practically all the advances it had made.

yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...

gozunda wrote: »

After WWW2 I agree that Germany made huge economic advances with the help of allied money that promoted post war reconstruction [...]

true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?

gozunda

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...




true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?

Perhaps not that so much went wrong but that much more of Germany's economic wealth generated during the wars remained in individual and corporate hands than has ever been credited. The industrialists and and indeed most of the population knew the writing was on the wall in 1944/45. There was of course all the war booty that had been gathered across Europe during the drive for German expansion. How much of this has really been accounted for? It remains somewhat of an enigma

ledgebag1

This is a fairly insightful book on German economic recovery, doesn't answer all your questions but gives an insight into the rebuilding of the Germany economy pre the Second World War

http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Recovery-1932-1938-Studies-History/dp/0521557674/ref=pd_sim_b_3/185-6456618-0300957

Wurzelbert

gozunda wrote: »

Perhaps not that so much went wrong but that much more of Germany's economic wealth generated during the wars remained in individual and corporate hands than has ever been credited. The industrialists and and indeed most of the population knew the writing was on the wall in 1944/45. There was of course all the war booty that had been gathered across Europe during the drive for German expansion. How much of this has really been accounted for? It remains somewhat of an enigma

well, germany was economically strong and wealthy at the beginning of the 20th century already…and i am sure that compared to the destruction and plundering of germany, to the cost of rebuilding almost all its major cities, infrastructure, factories and everything, and the wiping-out of the german economy, currency and all, any “war booty” that might still somehow be unaccounted for in german hands is negligible…impossible to get accurate numbers, unfortunately…and there are always some who profit in wars, no question…

Reekwind

gozunda wrote: »

Yet Germany experienced economic collapse, widespread and near total infrastructural collapse and collateral damage and the need to rebuild the economy after both wars

Let's not overstate things: German capital stock was relatively unscathed after WWI - it suffered less direct damage than, say, France and was immensely better off than Russia. Even after WWII, the destruction of capital stock was far from total - IIRC West Germany lost less than 20% of its industrial assets. The mass dismantling of industry by the Allies never happened on the scale first proposed, outside of East Germany.

With capital stock preserved, it was matter of rebuilding using the technology, institutions and skilled workers that modern Germany has always possessed. And it's always easier to rebuild than build from scratch. That's universal - northeast France (which surely suffered more than any one German region) was rebuilt in a decade following 1918; the Soviet Union had largely recovered from its own shocking losses by 1950 (plus the WWI recovery).

So economic shocks and disasters are just that: shocks. Once the basics of the economy are preserved then they can eventually be rebounded from. That's very different from a long decline or stagnation

Wurzelbert wrote:

true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?

Went wrong? Both enjoyed decades of outstanding economic growth following the war. They don't call them the les Trente Glorieuses for nothing...

cerastes

Wurzelbert wrote: »

maintained and (much of it) rebuilt...and with wealth and the largest population come a certain power and influence almost automatically...not just after ww2...

like they said after 1871, germany had an awkward size, too large to be but one among equals in europe yet not big enough for true european hegemony either...that’s really what caused all the fuss in the past 100 years and in fact the past dozen or so centuries in a number of ways...when germany began to overtake britain in economic output around 1900, the alarm bells rang in london and elsewhere as the „balance of power“ was shifting and that had to be prevented at all cost...

numerous attempts have been made at cutting germany down to size and many have succeeded, and they are still working on it, or to quote john f. kennedy (in the 30s) “the germans are really too good - that’s why people conspire against them”... or as henry kissinger put it in 1994 “ultimately two world wars were fought in order to prevent a dominant role of germany in europe”...and some here might remember how people like mrs. thatcher and mr. mitterand fought tooth and nail to prevent german reunification some 25 years ago, west germany was just the right size for them both to control...only after the euro had been agreed on did they reluctantly acquiesce to what they saw they could not prevent anyway...

I read somewhere, it was to do with germany's geographical location, maritime trade had to pass through a narrow few points, which could be controlled or affected by the royal navy, landlocked in a manner of speaking, without some independantly controlled outlet to resources or trade outside its immediate borders Germany could be affected by a trade blockade.
Im not sure why they didnt take a more aggresive military stance with their surface naval forces during WW1 or a more combined effort (with aircraft and subsurface craft) in world war 2. Im sure there were constraints and its easy to look back and question why things turned out certain ways or what if there was some other outcome.

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, much of it, basically all patents and foreign assets among other things...besides the actual destruction in germany proper...

true, are you aware that some other countries received more of that allied (i.e. american) money after ww2 than germany? britain and france for example...what went wrong there economically?

maybe it was the mindset, Britain had not been defeated militarily, even if it might have been on its own, although it did posess strengths superior to Nazi Germany militarily. In the face of their own possible military defeat Britain was able to pull out all the stops to hold off a potentially victorious adversary, in the same view, Germany which had been defeated had to take a new view at meeting challenges and building anew after the war, not something necessarily seen as essential in Great Britain post war, which may have led to them undermining their own advantages? even if they were economically in hock to others.

Wurzelbert

cerastes wrote: »

I read somewhere, it was to do with germany's geographical location,[...]

yes of course, its geographical location has always been germany’s main weakness…always surrounded by potential enemies…

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

And hence I didn't refer to it as an official set of objectives. The value of the Septemberprogramm lies in illustrating how the German political and military elite were thinking during the war and what direction their ideas for the post-war period were heading. There can be little question that the basic aims expressed in the document (security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time; France must be so weakened as to make her revival as a great power impossible for all time; Russia must be thrust back as far as possible... and her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples broken) was sincere

But if you want an example of what actual German peace looked like, without hypotheticals, then look no further than that inflicted on Russia. Brest-Litovsk was severe enough to make Versailles look generous: the seizure of a vast swathe of eastern territory, containing millions of souls, to be directly annexed or populated by German vassal kingdoms. Now that was a harsh peace.

Meaning what?

This is getting silly. To stick with the example of Metz: Gaul is a synonym for France. The area around Metz was a Gallic settlement long before the arrival of Romans or Franks. When the Franks did arrive Metz lay right in the heartland of the Empire (Francia) for centuries; the Merovingians predominately ruling from and being active in what is now modern France.

That is, this city that you believe was "historically German", has connections going back to France (or at the very least the lands west of the Rhine) millennia before Bismarck decided to bolt it onto the German Empire.

Now none of this is particularly relevant (tracing historical claims through the centuries is a pointless, if entertaining, waste of time) except to rubbish the notion that Germany had some superior right to these lands. It did not.

Yeah, the idea that national or territorial differences suddenly sprung up from 843 is primary school history.

The idea that, for example, the territories of Lotharingia (which was never more than an artificial polity) were German just because the Ottonians won a war is silly. This says absolutely nothing about the ethnic and cultural composition of the region but assumes that because it was ruled by a 'German' Emperor then it was German. Arguing that one automatically follows the other is silly; arguing that this provides grounds for annexation centuries later is just apologism.

I suppose that Bohemia and Italy were also 'historically German' and we're lucky that Bismarck didn't look to incorporate them into the Reich?

Then you'll have to explain how it was that the HRE never considered itself to be an ethnic nationstate. Or are we to believe that the French, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Czechs, Swiss and Poles (with the myriad customs and tongues) are all somehow 'German'? Is it a "winners' history" to believe it ludicrous that all these lands have been 'stolen' from the rightful rule of an entirely different German state?

Somebody should tell Enda Kenny that Ireland is now able to trade its Celtic heritage into governance of all the lands once inhabited by Celts :rolleyes:

are you french? etes-vous francais? you probably also think charles the great was a frenchman…

gozunda

Reekwind wrote: »

Let's not overstate things: German capital stock was relatively unscathed after WWI - it suffered less direct damage than, say, France and was immensely better off than Russia.

Direct damage perhaps however much of German industry was thrown into chaos by loss of former skilled workforce and massive inflation resulting in further unemployment and economic downturn.Then of course Germany was made liable for war reparations of which the final payment was only made in 2010.

Reekwind wrote: »

..Even after WWII, the destruction of capital stock was far from total - IIRC West Germany lost less than 20% of its industrial assets. The mass dismantling of industry by the Allies never happened on the scale first proposed, outside of East Germany.

With capital stock preserved, it was matter of rebuilding using the technology,
institutions and skilled workers that modern Germany has always possessed. And it's always easier to rebuild than build from scratch. That's universal - northeast France (which surely suffered more than any one German region) was rebuilt in a decade following 1918; the Soviet Union had largely recovered from its own shocking losses by 1950 (plus the WWI recovery).

It is a fact that Following WW2 most German cities were devastated with much of necessary Infrastructure destroyed. Economic Wealth built up during the interwar years had been spent on Germany's war within Europe and Russia. Over 7 million people were dead and agricultural production reduced to about a third of pre war levels. Much of Germany's technological expertise was expatriated by the US

The wealth garnered by Germany during WW2 was huge, much of which remained unaccounted for at the end of the war. With the huge inputs under the Marshal plan ensured that Germany was to make a
Full recovery by the 1950's. Something many other countries could only achieve many decades later

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

The answer is in the question. Germany was in a position to attempt conquest of Europe twice and do well today precisely because it is "one of the strongest and dominant members" in Europe. Since 1870 it has always been one of the most populous, powerful and advanced nations in Europe.

Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully

speaking of reunification…to consider that just 45 years after the end of ww2 yet another absolutely major and basically unparalleled economic blow hit germany within less than 80 years…even though for a positive reason this time around…would be interesting to compare that to the economic impact of the two world wars…

Reekwind

gozunda wrote: »

Direct damage perhaps however much of German industry was thrown into chaos by loss of former skilled workforce and massive inflation resulting in further unemployment and economic downturn.Then of course Germany was made liable for war reparations of which the final payment was only made in 2010

Again: economic shocks are recoverable from. Once the underlying economic base is sound then a crisis will be recovered from. The real damage from the shock of the early and late 1920s was political in nature: in both cases the economy had recovered within a few years.

It is a fact that Following WW2 most German cities were devastated with much of necessary Infrastructure destroyed

That's not a fact. According to Voyno (The Economics of Wartime Destruction and Postwar Dislocation): "In contrast to popular beliefs, only 17.4 per cent of industrial fixed assets on the territory of the later West German state was destroyed as a consequence of aerial bombardment or ground fighting, and a mere 6.5 per cent of all machinery and equipment suffered significant damage"

Germany suffered grievous damage during the war but there was nothing like the complete devastation than some would suggest. More than enough remained to bounce back. And again: this is not unusual. European Russia arguably suffered as much, if not more, to occupation/bombing and yet had returned to pre-war economic levels by 1950.

With the huge inputs under the Marshal plan ensured that Germany was to make a Full recovery by the 1950's. Something many other countries could only achieve many decades later

1) Germany received considerably less Marshall aid than comparable countries (ie France and Britain) and it received it late: the German economic recovery was underway by the early 1950s

2) What countries did not make a "full recovery" until "many decades later"? The general European post-war boom was exactly that: Europe-wide

Wurzelbert wrote:

speaking of reunification…to consider that just 45 years after the end of ww2 yet another absolutely major and basically unparalleled economic blow hit germany within less than 80 years…even though for a positive reason this time around…would be interesting to compare that to the economic impact of the two world wars…

I wouldn't consider inheriting a large, if outdated, industrial base and skilled workforce of millions to be an economic disaster

are you french? etes-vous francais?

No. Although I am using your logic to petition the Irish government to violently invade and annex France. This is on the basis that it, and the rest of Europe, are 'historically Celtic'

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

[...]
I wouldn't consider inheriting a large, if outdated, industrial base and skilled workforce of millions to be an economic disaster

yes, the issue was certainly underestimated by politicians back in 89/90 who also thought it’s not too bad, like you said “a large, if outdated, industrial base and skilled workforce of millions” and all...only later did everybody fully realise the extent of the rot...basically all (!) infrastructure and industry had to be pulled down and (where deemed viable) rebuilt, practically none of it was in any way competitive or up to any western (productivity, quality, health&safety, environmental and other) standards...and the social burden was and still is immense as well...incorporating a few million pensioners into the (west) german social system overnight who had never contributed a penny to it (different system in gdr) and loads of unemployed who had been “hidden” in some state-funded bogus jobs in east germany and naturally ended up unemployed in a western market economy...factors like that should never be underestimated...not to mention many east germans’ attitudes and ways of thinking after some 40 years of socialism...initially hard for many to cope in a different world...but as i said, i think in the case of reunification it’s all worth it and germany has been through much worse...

Reekwind wrote: »

No. Although I am using your logic to petition the Irish government to violently invade and annex France. This is on the basis that it, and the rest of Europe, are 'historically Celtic'

that basically brings us back to central europe, the heartland of celtic culture in its heyday long b.c. before the germans, the germanic people moved in...the celts of today in ireland, scotland, wales etc. are really just what’s left of celtic europe and have survived on the periphery...
so, using your logic, maybe they should send some officials from southern germany to claim ireland, scotland and the rest as parts of a once great celtic europe...or even better some guys from france where celtic heritage and genes are certainly stronger than in germany nowadays as only parts of the north and northeast were ever really “germanised” by the franks, the rest is still largely inhabited by the descendants of the gauls with only the ruling elite traditionally frankish, back then anyway...speaking of rulers, did you know that even during the french revolution in 1789 there were calls to “get rid of the franks”...? ancient gaul still alive in the souls of the french masses somewhere...and just for the sake of completeness, here and here are two basic maps showing where the franks came from and how the frankish empire and later france (as opposed to ancient gaul) came about, sure you know anyway...

Dracula88

When it comes to World War One I have always said the wrong side won. I

Dracula88

When it comes to World War One I have always said the wrong side won. I would have supported the Germans because I would have wanted the British empire to collapse and be harshly treated and subjected to foreign rule just as the British subjected one sixth of the world to her rule . My favourite leader has unfortunately been subjected to biased history caused by the victors of The Great War. That leader is none other than the great KAISER WILHELM II. Long live the Kaiser and the Hohenzollerns.

ledgebag1

Nice

GideonMcGrane

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

If Germany won WW1:

British Royal family re-adopts its German name and promotes its own German origins and the Teutonic roots of the English people;

Independence for Ireland with a Sinn Féin government in Dublin trying desperately to contend with Protestant Unionist terrorism on a scale the IRA could only dream of;

Rapid collapse of British Empire as its colonies engage in wars of independence against the hated Bosch;

No World War 2;

No holocaust;

No Hiroshima/Nagasaki;

No UN but a version of it based upon the British Commonwealth, politically centred on the US, dedicated to the reversal of German domination in Europe and the balance of power between it, a federalised German Europe and a rising socialist block under Russia;

No Liebfraumilsch in the 70s;

No World War II popular history media industry;

Unfortunately, we would have a European Central Bank based in Germany and there would be proper regulation except when it suited Germany to ignore it.

Sounds great, what a pity

Fratton Fred

The British and empire wouldn't have collapsed, they would have become part of the new German empire.

As would the French and Belgian empires.

Someone who has just worked hard for something isn't going to give it up easily, so Irish independence is unlikely. The same goes for India, north Africa and large parts of the Caribbean.

But hey, at least it won't be "da Brits" anymore.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British and empire wouldn't have collapsed, they would have become part of the new German empire.

As would the French and Belgian empires.

Someone who has just worked hard for something isn't going to give it up easily, so Irish independence is unlikely. The same goes for India, north Africa and large parts of the Caribbean.
[...]

you think so? a lot would certainly have depended on when and under what circumstances the war would have ended with that hypothetical german victory...

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

you think so? a lot would certainly have depended on when and under what circumstances the war would have ended with that hypothetical german victory...

I've no doubt the Germans would have taken as much of Africa as possible and at least managed large amounts of the French and British empires as plebiscites,

Also, would they have allowed a communist country to exist on their eastern border? Would it not have been simply a matter of time before they invaded Russia? Remember, eastern Europe would have looked vastly different.?

dpe

Back to the original question; kind of depends how the Germans won, e.g:
1914, UK doesn't enter the war; quick win for Germany. Transfer of French (and Belgian) colonies to Germany, resurgence of Austrian power (although eventual internal fracture is probably inevitable unless the Germans shore them up). Russia is humiliated (again) but it doesn't push them over the line it revolution (the Revolution IRL was incredibly improbable in many ways). The Ottoman slow disintegration would continue for decades (no Young Turks, no British and French landgrab in the ME), and may ultimately have ended up with more ethnically representative borders.

The British and Germans would effectively be in a stand-off; a Cold War situation, but Germany is definitely in the ascendency. Then it can go a couple of ways; rapprochement and "spheres of influence" which could prop both empires up for a generation or two; or more likely, clashes along the colonial faultlines of the two Empires (Africa, South-East Asia in particular) leading to wider conflict, which would then depend on whether Russia got its **** together and the roles of the US and Japan, just like IRL. Different actors maybe but I doubt there would be an enduring peace so long as the British Empire remained intact.

On the plus side, maybe no Holocaust (although I'm enough of a pessimist to assume someone was going to try industrial genocide somewhere along the line), but independence movements and decolonisation could have taken generations longer to achieve.

If the Germans had won in 1917, they would certainly have imposed punitive measures against France (just as they did in 1871 - which people forget; The Treaty of Frankfurt was as onerous as The Treaty of Versailles), but would they have had the leverage to impose such measures on the British? Unless the Germans carried on the war with an invasion of Britain (which in 1917-18 would have been incredibly difficult), a separate peace with Britain (without penalty) would have been bad for France I could certainly imagine such a scenario.

Reekwind

dpe wrote: »

Russia is humiliated (again) but it doesn't push them over the line it revolution (the Revolution IRL was incredibly improbable in many ways)

Russia was tottering towards revolution long before 1917. Any timeline post-1906 should assume that the Tsardom's lifespan is measured in years, not decades. The question is what form that upheaval takes

If the Germans had won in 1917, they would certainly have imposed punitive measures against France (just as they did in 1871 - which people forget; The Treaty of Frankfurt was as onerous as The Treaty of Versailles), but would they have had the leverage to impose such measures on the British?

I don't see this as being dependant on the timing. Any decisive victory over France would have led to annexations - at a minimum of the Low Countries and probably including chunks of the industrial north-east. Remember that the September Programme, which explicitly called for such divisions, was formulated in the early weeks of the war, when it was assumed that it would be a quick war

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've no doubt the Germans would have taken as much of Africa as possible and at least managed large amounts of the French and British empires as plebiscites,

Also, would they have allowed a communist country to exist on their eastern border? Would it not have been simply a matter of time before they invaded Russia? Remember, eastern Europe would have looked vastly different.?

well, yes, some colonies probably would have changed hands, as did happen after the war when germany lost all its colonies...and many other things (e.g. the balkans, poland and the middle east) were royally screwed by the entente to unwittingly pave the way for future conflicts...
as for russia, presuming a full german victory in or after 1917, there certainly would have been some sort conflict with the bolsheviks sooner or later, and there even was one with the entente intervening militarily (unsuccessfully) in the russian civil war against the bolsheviks after ww1...the big one had to be fought out by someone sooner or later and the rest is history...

dpe

Reekwind wrote: »

Russia was tottering towards revolution long before 1917. Any timeline post-1906 should assume that the Tsardom's lifespan is measured in years, not decades. The question is what form that upheaval takes

I know, but "The Soviet Union" was one of the more unlikely outcomes. Something more...French...seemed likely, or possibly a nationalistic break-up

Reekwind wrote: »

I don't see this as being dependant on the timing. Any decisive victory over France would have led to annexations - at a minimum of the Low Countries and probably including chunks of the industrial north-east. Remember that the September Programme, which explicitly called for such divisions, was formulated in the early weeks of the war, when it was assumed that it would be a quick war

Which I flagged in the 1914 scenario; Belgium would be in trouble because the Germans would have wanted Antwerp. At a minimum the Germans would have annexed the Congo (which would have been an improvement for the Congolese) Holland was neutral and Germany respected its neutrality in WWI, so who knows what they'd have done. The point I was trying to make about 1917 was whether the Germans could have made any kind of damages stick with the British.

Reekwind

dpe wrote: »

I know, but "The Soviet Union" was one of the more unlikely outcomes. Something more...French...seemed likely, or possibly a nationalistic break-up

A Balkanisation of Russia was probably the most likely outcome (although I believe that this would go far beyond breaking down purely on nationalist lines) but after 1906 the liberals had forfeited any popular appeal. The Provisional Government's startlingly lack of popularity, and subsequently power, in 1917 was a product of the failures of the liberal movement, not the conditions of war. It's hard to look beyond the socialists (be they Mensheviks, Bolsheviks or SRs) for a post-revolution solution

The point I was trying to make about 1917 was whether the Germans could have made any kind of damages stick with the British.

Fair enough. At which point I'd suggest that that would depend largely on the naval question

Wurzelbert

dpe wrote: »

I know, but "The Soviet Union" was one of the more unlikely outcomes. Something more...French...seemed likely, or possibly a nationalistic break-up

i think a break-up of the russian empire would have been the most likely outcome, sort of like what we saw after the collapse of the soviet union decades later...the ussr would have been shut down in its infancy by a victorious germany...

dpe wrote: »

Which I flagged in the 1914 scenario; Belgium would be in trouble because the Germans would have wanted Antwerp. At a minimum the Germans would have annexed the Congo (which would have been an improvement for the Congolese) Holland was neutral and Germany respected its neutrality in WWI, so who knows what they'd have done. The point I was trying to make about 1917 was whether the Germans could have made any kind of damages stick with the British.

as for the british, don’t think they would have accepted reparations or anything like that unless they had really been on their last legs and starving, which only a new and even more massive german u-boat campaign could possibly have achieved...given both countries’ war-weariness i imagine the whole german-english thing would have petered out in a prolonged armistice somehow with some sort of rapprochement a few years later...from a british perspective the balance of power in europe would have shifted for good, just what they had gone to war to prevent in the first place in 1914...

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

Which I flagged in the 1914 scenario; Belgium would be in trouble because the Germans would have wanted Antwerp. At a minimum the Germans would have annexed the Congo (which would have been an improvement for the Congolese) Holland was neutral and Germany respected its neutrality in WWI, so who knows what they'd have done. The point I was trying to make about 1917 was whether the Germans could have made any kind of damages stick with the British.

Britain's biggest concern was sea power. A war where Germany and France slugged it out wasn't really of concern to Britain, but Germany defeating France and getting hold of its fleet was unthinkable.

If that had happened, Germany would have ruled the waves and not only would Britain have had difficulty defending its colonies, it could have threatened Britain itself.

A swift victory by Germany in 1914 would have meant a very strong negotiating position with Britain.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain's biggest concern was sea power. [...]

that and its overall place as europe’s most powerful and wealthiest nation (with the prestige and security that came with that) since the defeat of france in 1815 and until a few years prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914...nobody would be allowed to disturb the “balance of power” (i.e. britain’s top position) and every nation aspiring to a greater future would end up in a war with the brits, like so many before...

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

that and its overall place as europe’s most powerful and wealthiest nation (with the prestige and security that came with that) since the defeat of france in 1815 and until a few years prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914...nobody would be allowed to disturb the “balance of power” (i.e. britain’s top position) and every nation aspiring to a greater future would end up in a war with the brits, like so many before...

And?

Germany wasn't looking to end the world's suffering, it wanted a taste of the riches for itself.

The "Maji Maji" people found that out first hand.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And?

and? and the world was plunged into war...

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Germany wasn't looking to end the world's suffering, it wanted a taste of the riches for itself.
[...]

of course, and why not...

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and? and the world was plunged into war.....

Oh, so the whole "Germany invading Belgium and France" thing had nothing to do with it then, it was all Britain's fault.

BuilderPlumber

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And?

Germany wasn't looking to end the world's suffering, it wanted a taste of the riches for itself.

The "Maji Maji" people found that out first hand.

WW1 was inevitable and was the outcome of years of the buildup of powerful empires. Circa 1914, Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey and Russia all had empires, some all in the one place, some dispersed around the world. Germany was not a major empire at the time but more of a powerful, industrialised state. However, it wanted in on the action and had some colonies like German Togoland (Togo), Cameroon, part of New Guinea and German East Africa (Tanzania).

Germany saw the Brits and the French doing extremely well off of offshore empires that straddled Africa. What is more is that Britain and France were even now allies (which was in sharp contradiction to their past rivalry which ended with the defeat of Napoleon). Germany's allies were primarily Turkey and Austria, while Britain, Russia, and France had come together on the other side. Both sets of powerful empires had to clash and WW1 was the result.

Could WW2 have been prevented? Probably not. It seemed the same forces more or less rose up again then with Britain, France and Russia on one side and Germany (reunified with Austria and taking over much of the old Habsburg empire as client states. eg. Slovakia). The rise of fascism and nazism was too powerful a tide to stop and Hitler's insatiable appetite for taking over most of central Europe was something France, Britain, Russia and others were not going to tolerate.

If the Nazis won, I'd say we'd have a strange world order in the 1940s and 1950s. The Middle East would be a client region of Germany and there would of course be no Israel. The Nazis would inherit the British and French colonies and who knows what they'd do here? Return of the slave trade quite possibly. Europe would definitely enter a very dark period akin to the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Bad dictators would rise up in many places, all fascist and all clients of the Nazis.

Eventually, it would all come crashing down because any system based purely on hatred and racism does not last. You could see this in two ways: a war or revolution overthrows the system or a moderate regime insider rises to power and starts to normalise things.

dpe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain's biggest concern was sea power. A war where Germany and France slugged it out wasn't really of concern to Britain, but Germany defeating France and getting hold of its fleet was unthinkable.

If that had happened, Germany would have ruled the waves and not only would Britain have had difficulty defending its colonies, it could have threatened Britain itself.

A swift victory by Germany in 1914 would have meant a very strong negotiating position with Britain.

Actually even in combination, the French and German fleets would still have only been 2/3 the size of the RN; the only area where they would have been about at parity would have been submarines. France had actually reduced its fleet considerably from the 1870s and was a distant fourth behind The UK, Germany and Russia(?) (either Russia or the US, I can't remember), and Britain had a policy of the RN being larger than the next two largest navies, that they held on to until the end of WWI.

A combined Franco-German fleet would also have lacked anything in terms of ability to force a naval landing on British soil (amphibious warfare in the D-Day sense was barely a theory in 1914), just as the Nazis faced a quarter of a century later.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh, so the whole "Germany invading Belgium and France" thing had nothing to do with it then, it was all Britain's fault.

i didn‘t say that…but what would you have done in germany’s place in august 1914?

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

Actually even in combination, the French and German fleets would still have only been 2/3 the size of the RN; the only area where they would have been about at parity would have been submarines. France had actually reduced its fleet considerably from the 1870s and was a distant fourth behind The UK, Germany and Russia(?) (either Russia or the US, I can't remember), and Britain had a policy of the RN being larger than the next two largest navies, that they held on to until the end of WWI.

A combined Franco-German fleet would also have lacked anything in terms of ability to force a naval landing on British soil (amphibious warfare in the D-Day sense was barely a theory in 1914), just as the Nazis faced a quarter of a century later.

By the outbreak of WWI though, numbers became pretty irrelevant. The Dreadnaught and super Dreadnaughts made everything else obsolete. In terms of capital ships, Britain only marginally outnumbered the Germans and Germany's allies were also building them.

At the outbreak of war, British shipyards were building two battle ships for Turkey, which were commandeered by the RN, causing immense tension. Germany gifted two battleships to Turkey and secured their support going forward.

Reekwind

Fratton Fred wrote:

Britain's biggest concern was sea power

Personally I think that's a bit too reductionist. The naval race was the most visible sign of the growing tension between the two but can be overstated. There was plenty of other 'declinist' angst in Britain in the decades prior to the war as unease at Germany's economic growth (witness Joseph Chamberlain's opposition to 'Made in Germany') and Berlin's increasingly erratic behaviour on the world stage.

Ultimately by 1914 Britain, having largely settled its grievances with France, was keen to uphold the status quo. The emergence of a new belligerent European superpower was fundamentally at odds with continued Anglo-French hegemony

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Could WW2 have been prevented?

Yes. To argue otherwise is to whitewash the failed efforts of European politicians over the years preceding the war. The cause of WWII was not Versailles but the failure of Western governments to abide by it

cerastes

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Could WW2 have been prevented? Probably not. It seemed the same forces more or less rose up again then with Britain, France and Russia on one side and Germany (reunified with Austria and taking over much of the old Habsburg empire as client states. eg. Slovakia). The rise of fascism and nazism was too powerful a tide to stop and Hitler's insatiable appetite for taking over most of central Europe was something France, Britain, Russia and others were not going to tolerate.

If the Nazis won, I'd say we'd have a strange world order in the 1940s and 1950s. The Middle East would be a client region of Germany and there would of course be no Israel. The Nazis would inherit the British and French colonies and who knows what they'd do here? Return of the slave trade quite possibly. Europe would definitely enter a very dark period akin to the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Bad dictators would rise up in many places, all fascist and all clients of the Nazis.

Eventually, it would all come crashing down because any system based purely on hatred and racism does not last. You could see this in two ways: a war or revolution overthrows the system or a moderate regime insider rises to power and starts to normalise things.

Could WW2 have been prevented, well yes if Germany had won WW1 which is what the thread is,
Germany and Japan had been on opposing sides in WW1, so possibly no future alliance there, possibly the Japanese still would have taken the course they did anyway or may even have been emboldened by a British defeat as a vacuum might exist if Germany didnt have the capacity to take over British colonies, the US may not have been involved in any European conflict, maybe a regional war with Japan? or remain isolationist.
There would have been no requirement for Germany to take the course it did, unless Britain had attempted to undermine German control of Europe after their defeat, thats assuming Germany maintained control (occupation) anything like occurred in WW2 or simply became the preminent nation in European affairs.
But no requirement for Nazism to rise as the conditions didnt exist, maybe a rise of Facism in Britain though? if it took the route Germany actually did in reality, maybe a change of circumstances of the royal family? like Germany in reality.
Germany may well have been the dominant european nation over the middle east, but I cant see why you might imagine the slave trade might increase, or why it would be akin to the Spanish inquisition, Germany was at the time a quite elightened country too and after a victory in WW1 may have become more economically powerful like the US after WW1/2.

dpe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

By the outbreak of WWI though, numbers became pretty irrelevant. The Dreadnaught and super Dreadnaughts made everything else obsolete. In terms of capital ships, Britain only marginally outnumbered the Germans and Germany's allies were also building them.

Even accounting for that, the combined French & German fleet was still smaller than the RN. Besides, as it turns out the importance of Dreadnoughts was a mirage; a direct clash of capital ships was so risky for everyone that Jutland was the only time it was tried and ended up a stalemate, The real work was done in the blockade by the ridiculous numbers of destroyers, cruisers and submarines (more than the Germans had) that the RN fielded.

BuilderPlumber

cerastes wrote: »

Could WW2 have been prevented, well yes if Germany had won WW1 which is what the thread is,
Germany and Japan had been on opposing sides in WW1, so possibly no future alliance there, possibly the Japanese still would have taken the course they did anyway or may even have been emboldened by a British defeat as a vacuum might exist if Germany didnt have the capacity to take over British colonies, the US may not have been involved in any European conflict, maybe a regional war with Japan? or remain isolationist.
There would have been no requirement for Germany to take the course it did, unless Britain had attempted to undermine German control of Europe after their defeat, thats assuming Germany maintained control (occupation) anything like occurred in WW2 or simply became the preminent nation in European affairs.
But no requirement for Nazism to rise as the conditions didnt exist, maybe a rise of Facism in Britain though? if it took the route Germany actually did in reality, maybe a change of circumstances of the royal family? like Germany in reality.
Germany may well have been the dominant european nation over the middle east, but I cant see why you might imagine the slave trade might increase, or why it would be akin to the Spanish inquisition, Germany was at the time a quite elightened country too and after a victory in WW1 may have become more economically powerful like the US after WW1/2.

These things would happen if Nazi Germany won. Not Kaiser Germany. The Nazi's ideology of superior race meant that they not only approved of slavery but all other peoples could potentially be slaves for the Nazis. The concentration camps showed the Nazis' attitude to the use of slave labour and I'm sure that would have been continued.

The Nazis were a very dark and embittered lot. Hitler's manic depressive make up spoke to the nation at a time when all of Germany was feeling depressed. Plus add into the mix such organised crime bosses as Goering. The combination of all these lead to a very dangerous regime taking hold. If they had won the war, they'd take over all the British and French colonies and would plunder every resource including slaves in these.

cerastes

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

These things would happen if Nazi Germany won. Not Kaiser Germany. The Nazi's ideology of superior race meant that they not only approved of slavery but all other peoples could potentially be slaves for the Nazis. The concentration camps showed the Nazis' attitude to the use of slave labour and I'm sure that would have been continued.

The Nazis were a very dark and embittered lot. Hitler's manic depressive make up spoke to the nation at a time when all of Germany was feeling depressed. Plus add into the mix such organised crime bosses as Goering. The combination of all these lead to a very dangerous regime taking hold. If they had won the war, they'd take over all the British and French colonies and would plunder every resource including slaves in these.

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

Manach

cerastes wrote: »

or why it would be akin to the Spanish inquisition, .

An organisation whose actual victims was vastly increased by elements prejudicial to it and number of reported victims numbering a relatively small historical gunpower era battle?

BuilderPlumber

cerastes wrote: »

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

That is true. My point was if WW1 happened as it did and WW2 was won by the Nazis. If WW1 had been won by Germany, Hitler would be some none entity suffering from depression and would probably spend most of his time in and out of some mental hospital. I would not bank on his death being all that different though: he definitely had a suicidal tendency in his psyche and was also an obsessive risk taker.

cerastes

Manach wrote: »

An organisation whose actual victims was vastly increased by elements prejudicial to it and number of reported victims numbering a relatively small historical gunpower era battle?

eh? what?
are you agreeing with me, it seems like it?

Im just wondering why it came up at all?
but
NOBODY expects the Spanish inquisition!

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

Even accounting for that, the combined French & German fleet was still smaller than the RN. Besides, as it turns out the importance of Dreadnoughts was a mirage; a direct clash of capital ships was so risky for everyone that Jutland was the only time it was tried and ended up a stalemate, The real work was done in the blockade by the ridiculous numbers of destroyers, cruisers and submarines (more than the Germans had) that the RN fielded.

As it turned out, yes, but that was in hindsight.

The Admiralty's policy was to keep a ratio of 2:1 over its nearest rival, but German construction of capital ships meant that on Dreadnaughts, that was only 12:10.

Fratton Fred

Reekwind wrote: »

Personally I think that's a bit too reductionist. The naval race was the most visible sign of the growing tension between the two but can be overstated. There was plenty of other 'declinist' angst in Britain in the decades prior to the war as unease at Germany's economic growth (witness Joseph Chamberlain's opposition to 'Made in Germany') and Berlin's increasingly erratic behaviour on the world stage.

Ultimately by 1914 Britain, having largely settled its grievances with France, was keen to uphold the status quo. The emergence of a new belligerent European superpower was fundamentally at odds with continued Anglo-French hegemonyt

I appreciate that, the imperial rivalry was the general underlying grievance between all the belligerents, sea power was Britain's unique gripe, just as borders was France's.

Jawgap

dpe wrote: »

Even accounting for that, the combined French & German fleet was still smaller than the RN. Besides, as it turns out the importance of Dreadnoughts was a mirage; a direct clash of capital ships was so risky for everyone that Jutland was the only time it was tried and ended up a stalemate, The real work was done in the blockade by the ridiculous numbers of destroyers, cruisers and submarines (more than the Germans had) that the RN fielded.

Not quite a mirage - the prime purpose of the RN was to maintain a 'fleet in being' to deter conflict. The dreadnoughts were the atomic weapons of their age.

There was also a clash of naval cultures at Jutland - the Germans prided themselves on accuracy, even it meant slow rates of fire. There are loads of examples of German ships straddling enemy ships with their first salvos.

The RN in the best traditions of the Nelsonian navy prided themselves on being able to maintain a high rate and weight of fire, at the expense of accuracy, and aggressive maneuvering by their fleet and ship commanders. That caused crews to take a lot of shortcuts and contributed to the destruction of a number of ships at Jutland because powder charges were stored in corridors and magazine doors were propped open.

Reekwind

cerastes wrote: »

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

Arguably. Most of the elite elements that came to support the Nazi programme (the military, business, landowners, judiciary, etc) would have emerged from a victorious Great War with their positions enhanced and, in the East, effectively ruling a settler state. Imperial Germany was not the most liberal state in the world and those progressive elements (eg the SPD) would have been increasingly marginalised post-war

The radicalism of the Nazis might have been avoided but I'd expect a triumphant Germany to be an unpleasant state to live for the millions of Slavs brought within its borders. Ultimately in Eastern Europe you'd get either an apartheid system or a series of client colonial states. Basically Nazi hegemonic dreams but without the genocide

Wurzelbert

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

[...]
Could WW2 have been prevented? Probably not. It seemed the same forces more or less rose up again then with Britain, France and Russia on one side and Germany (reunified with Austria and taking over much of the old Habsburg empire as client states. eg. Slovakia). The rise of fascism and nazism was too powerful a tide to stop and Hitler's insatiable appetite for taking over most of central Europe was something France, Britain, Russia and others were not going to tolerate.

If the Nazis won, I'd say we'd have a strange world order in the 1940s and 1950s. The Middle East would be a client region of Germany and there would of course be no Israel. The Nazis would inherit the British and French colonies and who knows what they'd do here? Return of the slave trade quite possibly. Europe would definitely enter a very dark period akin to the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Bad dictators would rise up in many places, all fascist and all clients of the Nazis.
[...]

i wonder what makes you think naziism would have arisen in germany without the german defeat in ww1...maybe you need to read up on what went on in germany after ww1, and i mean in real history, and what caused it all to happen the way it did.
whether ww2 would have happened in some way is a different question. i think a victorious (ww1) germany would have been too strong for the western powers to even think of another war against it and would certainly have been less aggressive itself with no or fewer grievances and scores to settle, territorial and other.
how you came up with a connection between the third reich and slave trade is anybody’s guess...there is no connection. and as for the idea of a “very dark period akin to the time of the spanish inquisition” after a nazi-german ww2 victory, that’s a different discussion, but as it was after 45 all of eastern europe entered a new dark age while the entire world was living under the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades...