Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What if the Germans had won the first world war?
Options
Comments
-
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…0 -
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...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 later0 -
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…0 -
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.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
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"It is a fact that Following WW2 most German cities were devastated with much of necessary Infrastructure destroyed
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.
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 1950sWith 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
2) What countries did not make a "full recovery" until "many decades later"? The general European post-war boom was exactly that: Europe-wide
I wouldn't consider inheriting a large, if outdated, industrial base and skilled workforce of millions to be an economic disasterWurzelbert 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…
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'are you french? etes-vous francais?0 -
[...]
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...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...0 -
Advertisement
-
When it comes to World War One I have always said the wrong side won. I0
-
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.0
-
Nice0
-
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
0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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...0 -
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.?0 -
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.0 -
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 takesRussia is humiliated (again) but it doesn't push them over the line it revolution (the Revolution IRL was incredibly improbable in many ways)
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 warIf 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?0 -
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...0 -
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-upI 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.0 -
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 solutionI know, but "The Soviet Union" was one of the more unlikely outcomes. Something more...French...seemed likely, or possibly a nationalistic break-up
Fair enough. At which point I'd suggest that that would depend largely on the naval questionThe point I was trying to make about 1917 was whether the Germans could have made any kind of damages stick with the British.0 -
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...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...0 -
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.0 -
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...0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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...0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.Fratton Fred wrote:Britain's biggest concern was sea power
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
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 itBuilderPlumber wrote: »Could WW2 have been prevented?0 -
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 WW1/2.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0
Advertisement