Should Germany have Won WW1?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
20,040
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
WW1 was a bit different than WW2 as the Germans weren't exactly evil like the Nazi's were. a German victory likely would have cost France some money and border territories. WW2 either wouldn't have happened or you probably wouldn't have had the racial policies of Nazi Germany and its very unlikely the Nazis would have even been formed.

Thoughts?
 
Ideally the UK should have simply allowed the Central Powers to crush France and Russia. Everyone would've been better off, even the French ironically. But especially the eastern Europeans- no Hitler, no Soviet Union, no collapse of Austria-Hungary. Perhaps the Serbs would have been in a bad position, but meh they didn't do that well historically anyway.
 
It would be very different world from the current one if Germany had won 'The Great War'.

As for 'should ?', well. I dunno - how to measure that? It's problematic since we really don't know the outcome of ''if' compared to what happened.
 
It would be very different world from the current one if Germany had won 'The Great War'.

As for 'should ?', well. I dunno - how to measure that? It's problematic since we really don't know the outcome of ''if' compared to what happened.

What would the likely outcomes have been and would the world be a better place? I'm thinking yes, even though our country fought Germany in the war.
 
Well, it's unlikely that Soviet Union had come to being, or national socialists as you said, along with very different US position since it would not had reaped benefits of the both WW's.

Colonization would have been different and independence battles for colonized countries would have been different (without the WW2 as we know it).

Lots of stuff.. i wonder how Russia / Japan relations had developed under different Russian government and what Japan would have become.
 
Depends on how Germany won. If Germany defeats Russia like in history then theres a big chance there still would be a Soviet Union. And Austria-Hungary was doomed to break up sooner or later anyhow. Hungary wanted total independence sooner and later, and with several nationalistic minorities it could have ended with a bloody civil war, who knows.
 
Ideally the UK should have simply allowed the Central Powers to crush France and Russia. Everyone would've been better off, even the French ironically. But especially the eastern Europeans- no Hitler, no Soviet Union, no collapse of Austria-Hungary. Perhaps the Serbs would have been in a bad position, but meh they didn't do that well historically anyway.
Agreed. The UK's entry in to the war guaranteed it would not be "over before Christmas." Japan, Italy, and the U.S. would not have joined had the UK let Germany go to Paris.


Importantly, another thing that would not have happened -- or would have happened less drastically, or later in history -- is the Great Depression.


As for Austria-Hungary, I think it would have trodded around for a while longer. In the long run, however, the multi-ethnic Empire just wasn't viable. The country that issued it's WW1 mobilisation orders in 15 languages would have eventually broken apart, or morphed into a commonwealth. Of course, my guess is as good as anyone elses.


i wonder how Russia / Japan relations had developed under different Russian government and what Japan would have become.
Good point. Japan would have been the only future Axis power not to have been affected. It's not unlikely that the Japanese would have gone and invaded China.
 
Depends on how Germany won. If Germany defeats Russia like in history then theres a big chance there still would be a Soviet Union. And Austria-Hungary was doomed to break up sooner or later anyhow. Hungary wanted total independence sooner and later, and with several nationalistic minorities it could have ended with a bloody civil war, who knows.

again: depends on how germany wins the war. if austria still exhausts itself at the italian border the empire falls apart just like it did.

and civil war is very unlikely, hungary would have demanded more independence anyway and would have gotten it to avoid civil war, resulting in them becoming a defacto independent state and a dejure one later on.
 
If either side had had competent generals, and stopped making infantry rushes at trenches, the other side would have exhausted itself tot he point of collapse while the defenders remained stronger.

But neither side had generals that smart :p
 
The most likely way I see this happening is Britain not joining, that'd prevent Italy, US and Japan among other joining. If this occured its likely Germany would have won. Of course given British policy at the time, trying to keep the balance of powers so no 1 nation could threaten Britain, its difficult to see how this would have occured. Perhaps Belgium allows German troops through and Britain decides given its 2 great powers on 2 great powers that they could sit this 1 out. In such a circumstance I'd say German victory would come in 1916 or 1917.

If Germany did win I don't think France would be utterly destroyed, I'd expect some territorial concessions including colonies, repayments and a very damaged economy. Further tension with Britain is likely following this given Germany's enhanced colonial empire. Given the treaty with Russia I can see Germany taken many French colonies rather than French soil itself.

As for Eastern Europe, the Czar abdicated in March 1917, Lenin actually came back to Russia with German help. A German victory means Russia goes Soviet. The coup comes in November 1917 puting Lenin in power. Ukraine breaks away in January 1918, Estonia in February, Russia begins to break ties with the allies. On March 3rd the peace treaty is signed much of the Russian empire is carved up. Under the terms of the treaty Russia surrendered Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Riga and part of Belorussia to Germany while the Ukraine became a German protectorate, while parts of the caucusus is ceded to Turkey. In May Georgia and Armenia declared independence. Alternate history would of yielded much the same results.

Its unlikely that Japan, Britain, the US etc would've sent troops into Russia in 1918 though.

The Austro Hungarian empire likely would've taken Serbia. I'd guess in the long term this would only add to the divisiveness of the empire, its likely it would've broken up eventually.

The Ottoman Empire would remain though its would still be the sick man of Europe. Its questionable how long it could've held its territories, I wouldn't be surprised to see Austria-Hungary or Britain later attempting to take them on, I also wouldn't be surprised to see it disolve in a civil war. Given Britain and France wouldn't have ruled it post WW1 like in real life the borders in the middle east today would be rather different. Israel would never exist. Islamic fundamentalism may not have become as much of a force, without as much Western intervention and no Israel to hate.

I think in the long term a war between Soviet Russia and Germany would be on the cards, the Soviets would be rather pissed off at having their nation ripped apart and post civil war would've sort to rectify it while Germany would be rather iedologically opposed to the Communist nation on its door step. I think Germany would end up defeating Soviet Russia, communism would fail to then be such a big influence in the 20th century, many communist regimes would never have come into existance and certainly no Iron Curtain. It is likely though that some communist uprisings would have occured and suceeded.

Meanwhile a stronger Germany with some new colonial acquisitions would lead to potentially a hostile relationship with Britain. In such a timeline the US is unlikely to be quite so powerful. The world would have 3 super powers, the US a potential super power if it mobilises, Britain and Germany. In such a timeline its probable Japan would follow the same course of action as in real life. This would potentially lead Japan to war with one or all of Britain, Germany (having taken over French colonies, possibly Indo China) and the US.

Further wars and possibly a world war would be likely though probably not on the scale of WW2 and certainly no Jewish genocide. I think imperialism would've lasted substantially longer potentially even to this day.

I can see a nasty civil war embroiling eastern Europe in perhaps the 1930s or 1940s finally bringing about Austria-Hungary collapse. The likely result of this is millions dead. Germany seizing Austria and maybe Czech territory. Perhaps a communist regime or 2 arising.

Fascism would probably still have risen though not in Germany; Portual Spain and Italy would probably establish themselves as Fascists. These fascist regimes would only find themselves at war if siding with Britain or Germany in a much larger war, by themslves they would've lacked the power to take on the major powers. Thus its likely Fascism would survive in these nations for a few decades.
 
I don't see any reason why A-H would collapse if they won the war. Serbia would likely be made a puppet state like Bosnia was shortly before. With Serbia out of the way and strong support from Germany, domestic elements would not be able to topple the Habsburgs. After all, the Hungarians and Austrians would still be strong supporters of the regime and would people like the Croatians or Bosnians really have the ability to fight for independence? This isn't Ireland, and the empire would be able to use overwhelming force.

Second, I'm not sure the Bolsheviks would necessarily take power in a German victory scenario. There's no reason to believe that speedy victory in France and then presumably an even more crushing eastward offensive than in real life would not bring the Tsar to the peace table. The belief that Russia could still win the war and the ties to the Entente is what kept Russia fighting 'til collapse in real life.
With France speedily dispatched and defeat clearly on the cards, either the Tsar or the Prov. Gov. (if we assume the Tsar is still overthrown) would likely make peace, leaving the Bolsheviks with no political ammunition. It's likely the Tsar would still be ousted, but Kerensky would be his successor, not Lenin (assuming the Gerries even let him go East in the first place in this new scenario).

I don't know enough to make predictions about the post-war period, but I think a key issue of speculation would be whether Germany would seek a colonial war with Britain (the inevitable result of continued or accelerated ship building) or accept some sort of naval-colonial peace package to set the British at ease. Another issue to guess at would be whether Germany would go for a Versailles approach to the European settlement, or the plan Wilhelm claimed to support in real life- total domination by Germany via an economic union and system of puppet states.

In Asia, the actions of Japan would likely hinge on relations between the UK & Germany and also on the degree of interest shown by the US. A German-British war would probably lead to the Japs attacking British possessions and later China proper. After all, attacking Germany would alienate a potential ally while leaving the greatest threat to their Chinese ambitons- Britain, intact. I can't see them attacking Russia in this scenario either in WW1 or soon after, since Britain would likely intervene in that case.

EDIT- I think the US would become even more isolationist than before in this scenario, at least as far as I can predict. Predicting beyond 1930 is unwise though since there are so many different routes the world could go depending mainly on the post-war policies of the Germans.
 
again: depends on how germany wins the war. if austria still exhausts itself at the italian border the empire falls apart just like it did.

and civil war is very unlikely, hungary would have demanded more independence anyway and would have gotten it to avoid civil war, resulting in them becoming a defacto independent state and a dejure one later on.

I think Austria sooner or later would have said stop, and Hungary wanted total independence in the long run. Also with all the different minorities and with nationalism on the rise things where doomed to go wrong sooner or later. Maybe not a full scale civil war, but at least some major rebellions that in the end would break up the whole Dual Monarchy thing.
 
Open markets wouldnt have been the looser. America would not have had the industrial boost of WW1, and Germany would have access to colonial markets one way or another. Thus the US would remain isolationist and there would have been no great power denied a market for it's goods. We could well be loking at a world where globalisation doesnt kick off in the same way at all.
 
Germany intended to annex Belgium, is my understanding.
I don't know about that, but the Germans were certainly encouraging the linguistic differences in the country with their "Flamen politik" ("Flemings policy"). For instance, during the war they established the first university in Belgium that only used the Dutch language (in Ghent). (Remember that at that time, the Belgian governement was till almost unilingually French-speaking, although the majority of the population speeks Dutch/Flemish)

The German's goal, as I believe, was to break up the country, and create a Flemish buffer state (not to annex it)
 
I won't take you in the definition of evil but I will say that Germany didn't have a huge chance to win WWI. No side did because of the type of war it was. Germany should have achieved a conditional surrender though.
 
By taking over the losers' one, surely... just like France and Britain did at Versailles.

Yeah, but a German with markets for its industrial goods would be more likely to be peaceful.
 
Top Bottom