Should Germany Have Won WW1?

However, without WWI, and WWII, war would probably not be hated as much and seen as a futile and wasteful thing to wage.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. I've thought about WWII before and the more I think about it the more it almost seemed bad but necessary.

At the time, terrible, but in the long run perhaps it was for the best.

Look at all the new technology developed in WWII, like rockets. It broke up the empires (or didn't WWI do that a bit already...) or at least broke up the British empire, and you know, maybe it was good to get all that racism out.

Maybe without all the racism and racist killings the Nazis did, racism wouldn't be frowned upon so much and racists wouldn't be compared to Nazis not to mention how horrific it was, hopefully the world learned a lesson from it. Though World War I should've done that before.

Hmmm... either way, given a time machine, I'd be careful what I'd erase, you never know what going back in a chronosphere to erase Hitler would cause. Like Russia invading Europe like in Command and Conquer Red Alert.

If Hitler died in WW1 the Nazis never had a chance to take over the power. The guys there were Junkies (Göring, Morphium) and other scum mostly. They were only a minority. No the Weimar republic would perhaps exist even today. Nevertheless the Versailles treaty and most of the consequences would have been solved peacefully in the 30s under another chancellor (Adenauer?). There we are at another thread. Versailles lead to Hitler. But without Hitler there would no WW2. Or? Not in this extend. Germany had the Locarno treaty. This treaty gave Germany the membership in the League of Nations, war was not accepted for NEW disputes. Older ones however were excluded. This would have given Germany the ability to regain the Polish territories which were lost 1919 without fearing France and Britain. Hitler solved this treaty...
But if he died Germany would have gained the power they had. And Russia? Perhaps C&C Red Alert.

Adler

Maybe if Hitler died today Germany would be a poorer country... and maybe the USSR wouldn't have fallen, since they fell because of stagnation because of a 10-year war with Afghanistan. I believe they wouldn't pursue their police of satellite-states if they hadn't gained eastern europe countries(save Turkey and Greece) as satellite-states.

Originally posted by RagingBarbarian


I don't think the swiss were armed to the teeth, If they were they would have partcipated in the fighting and joined one of the alliances. They stayed neutral because there army was small, and there was no need in joining in the war, they wouldn't benefit from it. The other countries didn't attack it, because they used it as a sort of nuetral terriotory, they kept money in its banks. Switzerland was almost like a agreed apon non-aggression zone. The powers would benefit more if Switzerland remained neutral.

Click to expand...

Well Swizterland declared their Neutrality in like 1812, also for 3 weeks a year, once you turn 18 a Swiss citizen gets military training. It's probably a combination of mountainous terrain, being bad for attacking and little gain, trained military and a nice place for bank accounts.

Had Germany won the war, the world would be inconceivably different...


1. Ottomon Empire (Turkey) would dominate the world. With over 70% of the world's oil reserves, Turkish oil would account for 5% of the world's GDP even if it did not use its monopoly leverage. BUT it would have. Using other similar cases, by 2000, the price of a barrel would be up around $500, and, reinvesting this would put Turkey at around 40% of world GDP, so, with that sort of leverage...

- Turkish in Arabic script not English in Roman script would be the world"s foremost language.
- The Turkish flag would have been planted on the Moon by about 1940.
- Izmirwood film celebrities are splashed across all the tabloids which are of course in Turkish with the latest CGI flick based on HG Wells War of the Worlds staring Muhammed Cruise subtittled badly in English dominating the box office whilst the Americans run out out a couple of low budget art film dramas about life in the Bronx with wobbly scenery a couple of times a year.
- CNN (Constantinople News Network) is the biggest news channel, but if you want English programmes, you can sometimes get them on the speciality stations for minority channels at about 3am in the morning.

2. Mexico - Before 1930, US occupied Mexico became the 49th state of the Union. Had Germany looked as if it were going to win, offered assistance by Germany, Mexico would have joined Germany's side. Result? No matter how many guns the Germans could have given the Marines would ahve been in Mexico City in under a month, and caring nothing about the Mexicans, the Germans would have happily sold the Mexicans down the river to secure a great peace settlement for themselves.

3. Sweden and Spain would have been on the winning side. Spain was keen to join Germany's side and Sweden missed joining Germany by only the narrowest of margins. Concern that Germany was not obviously winning held them back. Had Germany slowly, obviously ground down France early on, Spain would have stormed into southern France and Sweden taken Finland. Result? A rump France at the end of the war, with a new buffer Basque state cut out of southern France. Also, with Spain taking much of French African possessions, most West Africans today would be speaking Spanish.= and Finland would just be a province of Sweden.

4. Belgium - At best cut into a couple of pieces, dominated by Germany, but the longer the victory would have taken, the more likely total takeover by Germany.

5. Russia - With a French collapse, and Germany scooping the pool there, there would have been no need to allow Lenin to cross to Russia and no need to strip Russia of every nickel to fund its war effort. WIth a quicker collapse of the Tsar who just would not give up, the Provisional Government would have turned Russia into a modern, but poor democracy, accepting the loss of Poland to Germany.

6. Israel - With Turkey as strong as an ox, Britain would have gone ahead with "Plan B" for creation of Israel which is well documented. The star of David would now be fluttering over Nairobi, Israel would have fought various wars for survival against it beligerant neighbours of the Congo and Ethiopia and the world would wag its finger at Israel's treatment of its Kenyan minority groups on the Occupied Ugandan Territories on the East Bank of Lake Victoria.

7. Britain does not like to lose, so it would have done a deal on keeping the overseas territories it took off Germany early in the war, kept a rump Belgium in existence as part of the deal and then left France to be swallowed alive by Germany, blaming "French Intransigence" for Frances demise, saying that it achieved what it sought to in the war, but was not there to aid a "French Vendetta" against Germany.

8. USA - With an apparent deafest, USA becomes extremely isolationist. Unexpectedly, losing the creates a boom. WIth skyrocketing Turkish oil prices driving up Texas light crude, and Mexico in its back pocket to become a new state of the Union, American experience record low unemployment and fabulous lifestyles by the 1930's as a result of bilateral trade with the Ottomon Empire.

9. Germany - A bitter sweet victory. Gaining Poland and most of Belguim, soaring oil prices and the cost of bringing Poland and Belgium into the 20th Century weigh heavily on Germany. it feels as if it lost the war. There is no outright recession, but a persistent low growth and a feeling that its leaders have provided a county "not fit for heroes". Anger grows with the Ottomon Empire as Germany feels it suffered the heavy loss of life, yet it is the Turkish "Economic Miracle" where life is good. Flooded with German immigrants, Turkey imposes strict quotas to keep out unwanted German illegal immigrants.

10. France - Crushed and with much of the south ceded to Spain and huge war reparations to pay, France becomes a banana republic. With thousands of starving French fleeing to the USA, by the 1930's, pandering to the French Vote has come to dominate US Politics and unless you have a French sounding name, you have no hope of being elected to Senate, Congress of President in the USA.

I'm the biggest Turcophile on the forums and even I think that's ridiculous.

I had pretty much one of my best laughs ever when he said that Turkey could plant a flag on moon in the 1940s! Even r16 cannot beat that!

Quelquechose said:

1. Ottomon Empire (Turkey) would dominate the world. With over 70% of the world's oil reserves, Turkish oil would account for 5% of the world's GDP even if it did not use its monopoly leverage. BUT it would have. Using other similar cases, by 2000, the price of a barrel would be up around $500, and, reinvesting this would put Turkey at around 40% of world GDP, so, with that sort of leverage...

- Turkish in Arabic script not English in Roman script would be the world"s foremost language.
- The Turkish flag would have been planted on the Moon by about 1940.
- Izmirwood film celebrities are splashed across all the tabloids which are of course in Turkish with the latest CGI flick based on HG Wells War of the Worlds staring Muhammed Cruise subtittled badly in English dominating the box office whilst the Americans run out out a couple of low budget art film dramas about life in the Bronx with wobbly scenery a couple of times a year.
- CNN (Constantinople News Network) is the biggest news channel, but if you want English programmes, you can sometimes get them on the speciality stations for minority channels at about 3am in the morning.

(...)

9. Germany - A bitter sweet victory. Gaining Poland and most of Belguim, soaring oil prices and the cost of bringing Poland and Belgium into the 20th Century weigh heavily on Germany. (...)

Click to expand...

But who would bring Turkey into the 20th Century first of all ???

I don't think Turkey would be able to dominate the world as long as it was stuck in the 19th Century.

Or perhaps Turkey was even in the 18th Century (considering that you claim, that Poland and Belgium were in the 19th)...

One small step for man, one giant leap for kebab!

Seriously, mods, please kill this thread with fire, I cannot stand its very existence any longer.

Had Germany won WW1, we probably would be spared the evil of WW2 the way we knew it. Even if France had gone Fascist, they would have been a lot closer to Italy than Germany. They also would have no chance at defeating Germany in conventional warfare, even if they did manage to develop blitzkrieg tactics. Let's face it, after losing two world wars Germany today is still more powerful than France.

Decolonization would probably still have happened, though much less rapidly and hopefully with better results. Germany probably couldn't have overtaken Britain's economic status, and eventually the United States would become a massive player on the world stage. Russia would probably still be Communist.

The exact extent of the power of the United States depends on whether or not Japan decides to attack them. There is no alternate history where Japan isn't crushed.

In general, the world would be much more multipolar. If Japan attacks the United States, then the US is still the preeminent power in the world due to their massive influence in Asia. If Japan doesn't attack the US then the world is divided between American, British, German, Communist (Russian) and Japanese spheres. If Japan does attack the US, then the United States is much more powerful, and China is likely an emerging power similar to their status today.

We probably would also be blessed/cursed with a nuclear free world (at least for a much longer time period), which means petty wars and nationalism are still the norm.

Kaiserguard said:

I had pretty much one of my best laughs ever when he said that Turkey could plant a flag on moon in the 1940s! Even r16 cannot beat that!

Click to expand...

hah, try me ... Though the modding bug is on the rampage in me once again . In case everything goes right after 1453 , or even 1700s . Oh , the fun to have with Americans holding us responsible for Pearl Harbour -just as we were talking about sending up the first batch of mining troops up .

we do support oil prices under 100$ and all kinds of Green development at the same time .

Kaiserguard said:

I had pretty much one of my best laughs ever when he said that Turkey could plant a flag on moon in the 1940s! Even r16 cannot beat that!

Click to expand...

Ottomanball cannot into space

stuff tends to happen . Was hopin' for real fun when people in a scale modelling forum came up -very solemnly- that North Vietnam fielded F4Us in 1970 . Certainly well read about the country in a way , though ı would seriously object Izmir having the best lookin' gals . Even if ı have been there only once , didn't have a single moment of an hung jaw ... Who's Muhammed Cruise anyhow ?

Ceoladir said:

We probably would also be blessed/cursed with a nuclear free world (at least for a much longer time period), which means petty wars and nationalism are still the norm.

Click to expand...

The question is whether that would actually be a good thing. We had a total of two of the earliest generation of nukes used in combat. If that doesn't happen, who says that we don't end up with a full nuclear war or at least with far more powerful weapons being used for the first few drops?

Polandball would have a hard time regaining Germanyball's territory in such case.

So good that Germanyball lost WBW1 (good for my ball = good for me, ah this nationballism!).

And without WBW2, Polandball does not gain further Germanyball's territory.

Suicidal Germanyball behaviour (i.e. waging and losing two WBWs*) = expansion of its Neighbourball territories.

Vive la Franceball, Vive la Polandball, Vive la Ententeball and Alliesballs.

==========================

*WBW = World Ball War

==========================

Such a joke:

Question: How to lose the results of 800 years of gradual expansion in just 30 years and two suicidal wars ???

Answer: You must be a Germanyball loser, who elect leaders for nice moustache not for brain content. Hahahaha!

===========================

As for the question raised in this thread - no, Germany not only should not, but also could not win both WW1 and WW2 - it had too many enemies:



During WW2, the Soviet Union actually was never close to defeat, considering that they could keep over 30-40 divisions in the Far East all the time:

David Glantz said:

"When Barbarrossa started strength in Far East stood at 32 divisional equivalents. Between July and November 1941, the STAVKA recalled 12 divisions westward from Far East and Trans-Baikal Districts, nevertheless the massive ongoing mobilization still kept Red Army strength in the Far East at a level of 39 division equivalents. Despite transferring an additional 23 divisions and 19 brigades westward in 1942 the STAVKA increased Red Army strength in the Far East to 46 division equivalents by 19 November 1942."

Click to expand...

So claim that the Soviet Union had thrown all of its forces vs Germany, while Germany had to divide its forces - is not exactly true. In fact, the SU also did not throw all of its forces vs Germany - it had as many divisions outside of the front, in the Far East, as Germany in all of occupied European countries.

Japan was no longer a threat in 1942, so keeping those divisions in the Far East was quite pointless - apparently they didn't need them on the front.

The Ottoman Empire would probably have collapsed either way. If anything Germany and Britain would have taken it apart.

Was there sufficient ideological upheaval within the Ottoman Empire for it to collapse into revolution like Russia did, given time and a lack of being carved up by the Allies? I suppose if a Turkish Stalin were to rise up and drag the Ottomans kicking and screaming into the modern era a strong Turkish state could be possible. I think it would probably just be puppeted by Germany, though.

It'd probably just be killed by Arab Nationalism eventually. Also, being on the winning side of a war doesn't necessarily mean a state will benefit. See Britain after WW2.

almost the single reason London supported an Arab rebellion was the thing that the Arab Nationalists were in total readiness for Kaiser's gift of "independence" . Talk of pre-emptive strike ...