Should Germany Have Won WW1?

[nonconformist]

If you are talking about Germany during World War I, I would hadly call it an "evil", Archer.

 

[Sims2789]

it may have been better, but imagine what the world would have been like with thew Monarchists in power. Austria-Hungary would probably have bitten off another chunk of Italy as well as possibly completely annexing Serbia and Montenegro. WW2 never would have happened, unless there would have been a French Hitler that rose to power. but i believe that the USSR would have formed, but it would just have been delayed. it probably would have been without Lenin.

 

[Gladi]

Bright Day

It seems to me that everybody here want to get rid of WWII. Yes it was horror, but thanks to it, it is not proper today to throw rocks at Jews and burn their homes. It is not proper to say one race is superior to other. Imperialism got it final bow.

Back to topic.
If Germans won in 1914, presumably everything would go fine for you, if you were German that is. French cannot mount large scale attack, nor do Brittish, Italy goes to hell. Austria-Hungary would eventualy be incorporated into Reich. Russia have its own problems.
If it was later than everything would not be roses. I am not speaking about Brittish, French or Itals. You may call me too patriotic but I believe the slavic minorities of Austria-Hungary would be problem. During war many troops from these minorities were formed to fight for allies (eastern Czech Legion being probably most known, be assured there was Czech Legion on West front and in Italy too beside many other forces) this lead to greater discrimination and resitance cells were formed. Also many people who emigrated commited themselves for the cause of their people back home ( in some czech stats I saw as much as several ten thousands Czech Legion volunteers from America who were in the end incorporated in American Expeditionary Force (officila name please). With Central powers victorius after some war, Austria-Hungary would be ticking bomb. Karl was good kid, but his empire would go down in fire. Slavs would of course ask "Big Brother" for help. And even severaly crippled Big Brother would be interesting plus who knows who alse would join in...
This is what I see wholly German Europe or Communist Europe, not very nice pictures for Europe. Of course a lot of it is pure guess-work .

May all your days be bright.

Post Scriptum: This is my longest post in forum, ever in any forum.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Gladi

It seems to me that everybody here want to get rid of WWII. Yes it was horror, but thanks to it, it is not proper today to throw rocks at Jews and burn their homes. It is not proper to say one race is superior to other. Imperialism got it final bow.

Yes, we humans learnt so much from ww2 didn't we? Just last night there was a show on about Rwanda and the Balkans during the 90s. Nothing has changed Gladi, except picking on Jews is frowned upon nowadays.

 

[Androrc]

Yes, it would be better if Germany won. 1) The USA wouldn't be so awfully imperialistic. 2) Europe would be plus united, therefore stronger.

As for Russia, I would say there wouldn't be too many conflicts with it. And hopefully USA wouldn't have used the Talibans in Afghanistan to attack the government there, and the Russians wouldn't have to intervene, and USRR wouldn't have ended(the 10-year war of Afghanistan was what really killed USSR, since the war stagnated the economy).

 

[Gladi]

Originally posted by rilnator


Yes, we humans learnt so much from ww2 didn't we? Just last night there was a show on about Rwanda and the Balkans during the 90s. Nothing has changed Gladi, except picking on Jews is frowned upon nowadays.

Bright day rilnator.
Never have I said these things do not happen anymore. But even that you have seen them last night on tv and they were refused by you as barbaric is progress, of sorts. Less then century ago evrybody knew these people are half-apes and that it is duty of civilizied beings to take them in their protection. I do not say concantration camps did not occur in communist Russia nor that they cannot possibly occur anywhere in the world today. But, correct me if I am wrong, have not Brittish invented concentration camps during second Boer War? Do you know of any concetration camps operated by Britain today? You say people do not learn, I say you do, this argument cannot be won by either of us, so please forgive me for my arguments.

May all your days be brught.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Zardnaar
Maybe its a remainder of the "German=badguy" syndrome from school- thanks to the Nazis but the Germans of 1914-18 didn't seem to be any better or worse than any other European power.

Actually, the Imperial German grand plan was pretty similar to the Nazis grand plan. Like the Nazis, the Kaiser and his cronies were rather keen to carve an empire out of Eastern Europe and the more 'germanic' parts of Western Europe, and almost achieved this following the Russian collapse in 1917, with the Ukraine being for all intents and purposes annexed to Germany. The key difference here between Hitler and the Kaiser was that the Kaiser 'just' wanted to lord it over the Ukrainians, while Hitler wanted to kill every last one of them.

It should also be noted that, whatever their flaws, Britain and France were far more democratic and much less militaristic then Imperial Germany. Furthermore, Germany was the agressor while the Entente were the victims.

As such, Germany's defeat was probably for the best. Had Germany won, she would have been a massive militaristic dictatorship with a craving for further expansion. That kind of thing always leads to trouble

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Case
Actually, the Imperial German grand plan was pretty similar to the Nazis grand plan.

B******* !
Sorry - but I'm pretty disgusted by this "demonisation" of Germany.
As somebody pointed previously - in 1914 German Reich was nor "the absolute evil" nor very bad comparing with others power in conflict. Germany had a good social system ( in fact if I'm correctly remember they was the first which introduce somekind of "social assistence" ), the Parlament wasn't a simple "pupets gallery" like in Nazi Germany and so on ...

And the outcome of the war and the "good behavior" of the Antanta Powers after the war I would link to something totally different and independent to their initial intention - the horrific loses during the 4 years of "trench warfare" which IMHO drastically reduce the "appetit for imperialism" ... at least for some years ...

It should also be noted that, whatever their flaws, Britain and France were far more democratic and much less militaristic then Imperial Germany.

"Democratic" is a flawed term - in sens that from 10 men questioned about it, probably will exist 5-6 opinion ... I'm very skeptical at this one.

Furthermore, Germany was the agressor while the Entente were the victims.

Very debatable point ...

As such, Germany's defeat was probably for the best. Had Germany won, she would have been a massive militaristic dictatorship with a craving for further expansion.

The problem would be, that Germany craving for expansion in "no-usual" areas ... if they want or had the possibility to extend just in Africa, Asia or Latin America, probably the "pacifist" feelings wouldn't be so intense ...

Personally I want to tell that for my country the defeat of Germany and especially of the Austro-Hungarian was the best option ( also combined with the colapse of Tsarist Empire ). But the previous opinion are wrote because that kind of arguments sounds very ... "political" for me ...

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ... I hope that is possible to understand my point of view.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Gladi
You say people do not learn, I say you do, this argument cannot be won by either of us, so please forgive me for my arguments.

May all your days be brught.

You have a good point about people learning from history and also a good point about agreeing to disagree. You are right, if 2 people don't see eye to eye on something arguing is pointless.
Bright day to you too Gladi!
Nothing to forgive you for.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

IMHO the discussion is badly focused on "ideological" terms which confused the people and had the disadvantage to introduce "fake vaiants" in the scenario ...

I will said that probably exist 3 posible scenarios for a Geman victory :

1. A quick victory on France in 1914, followed by a massive engagement in late 1914-1915 on Eastern Front. The war with Englan ended in stelmate after some relatively "minor periferical engagement". USA, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria did not enter in war.
Here may be two different "sub-scenarios" :
a) a stelmate also occured on Eastern front after Germany & Austro-Hungary repulse initial russian assault and occupied a part of Ukraine and Belarus.
b) the war on East lasted - mainly beacause "discret help" of England.

2. The victory occured on French front in 1916. England retreat it's troops - but is awaiting for the right moment to counter-strike and especially is firmly determined to defend it's colonies. USA still didn't enter the war ...

3 The victory occured on French fron on early 1918, after the colapse of Russian Empire, but before sufficient US reinforcements arrive ... probably in this case the Austro-Hungary still is near "self-destruction" ...
This sound for me like the most "unstable" scenario, because even a cease-fire or temporary peace would be signed it would not lasted for long time ... the french government retreated in Northen Africa point out to the weakeness and heavy loses of the Germany ( where some major turmoil is verry possible ). The ostilities is re-opened in 1922 when the German Kaiser or some of the glorious commander are killed in a "terrorist" atack, during a visit in occupied Paris ...

What's your opinion ? Are this valid scenarios ? Should "refined" them ?
Are there more "alternatives" ( something like US joining to ... Germany ) ?

Regards

 

[Patroklos]

I can only start with a after reading most of this thread.

All the Germay deamonizers out there or just spouting their indocritnated Democracy=Good/Everything Else=Bad slogans. Then they throw in a little Imperial=Nazi idiocy as icing on their high school grasp of history cake.

Three things to remember about 1914 Germay:

1) Most powerful and successful economy in Europe.(British more powerful overall because of their worldwide economy)

2) Most educated population in WORLD.

3) A very content and social progressive population. This talk about "Nazi's" and "antiquited" government is total BS. Once again, people assuming their way of doing things is the only way.

Basically what you had was Germany moving to a constitutional monarchy, but one that would have had a much more powerful central government. Granted, you probobly would have had to wait a decade or two for this to happen but remember when Germany formed. It was a young nation going through its growing pains (in a much more civilized fashion than France or England) and a monarchist period was appropriate. Hell, looking at the performance of every aspect of Germany from 1870-1914 they put the "free" democracies of the West to shame.

Nazism and dictatorship of the sort some of you are are implying would be an imposibility. Something like that relies on two things 1) a vast power vacuum and 2) widespread and deep discontent in the citizenry. Niether would have existed. You may be able to suggest the second, as both England and France had widespread social upheavel post war, but that is mostly due to their cultural mentality and the nature of the "victory" they achieved (ie attrition, that left them with millions of casualties and bankrupt). If we are discussing a 1914 German victory this would not be the case.

As to the suggestion that Germany had turned into a military dictatorship during the war and would have stayed that way, once again BS. The German aristocracy never lost contrrol of the nation by any stretch of the imagination. The only major combatant that had a god honest military takeover was France, that beacon of free democracy you people are holding over the huns. Once again historic revisionism on your parts.

You are correct about the territory grab, but once again wrong in your characterization of it. It is very unlikey that the map of Western Europe would have changed apreciably. Remember the Germans had already slaped Fance silly in 1871 and only taken two small provinces for their effort, basically as prestige place holders. And that was when Bismark was around. A continental victory on the Western Front would have led to a defeat of France only, and after the Schliefen plan failed only in part. Britian would have holed up in its island fortress. It had no terrotory on the continet proper, it still controled the sea which was it's power base anyways. Germany would have asked for peace (on its terms obviously) as the German position against England would be hardly as powerful as the its sway over France. England would have secured the freedom of Belgium in returm for peace and the reopening of the North Sea, which Germany needed desperatly. The Netherlands were still free. Italy was an Axis ally up to 1916 so would remain intact. Eastern Europe and the Balkans would have remained a fluid situation, as it was before. Remeber the borders and political entities the Allies set up were just as arbitrary as the ones the Central powers operated on. We accept them as legitimate becasue we made them, and we have perpetuated them long enough for them to now mean something. Britian would have kept their colonies, France would have lost theirs.

Well that is enough for now.

 

[Vrylakas]

I don't know what is meant by "Should Germany have won World War I?", but it certainly was capable of winning World War I. There are several points during the struggle which others have already mentioned at which victory was within German grasp.

There is a big qualitative difference between the Kaiser's Germany and Hitler's Germany; while expansionist and militaristic, the Kaiser's Germany merely wanted what it perceived Britain and France to already had. Germany had been trying to expand along British and French colonial lines with acquisitions in Africa and the South Pacific. In the Spanish-American War, when the U.S. fleet steamed into Manila Bay it found a German fleet already there and Admiral Dewey (the U.S. commander) had to stare them down and sneak a landing party into Manila before the Germans relented and steamed off. (Interesting article here on the legacy of German imperialism in Africa.) Germany also used the two Morocco crises and the Venezuela crisis as attempts to secure a foothold in a colonial world it felt locked out of. In this Germany behaved arrogently and often atrociously, but no more so than other colonial powers of the say. If you could ask someone in 1913 who they thought the worst imperial power was, they would likely have answered Belgium, and Germany would probably figure fairly low on their list simply because Germany had a small overseas empire. Germany's colonial ambitions could best be characterized by its enthusiastic participation in the 1900 suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China; given the values of the day, Germany was eager to be in the colonial empires club but as a late-comer could only fight for scraps from the table, and as such behaved little differently than other imperial powers.

There were also important geo-strategic motives behind Germany's war, most notably a showdown with Russia. While Britain wringed its hands over the challenge of the growth of German power through its expanding navy and economy, Germany itself was wringing its hands over what it saw as the growth of Russia's land military capabilities, and indeed intelligence reports in Berlin from 1910 onwards sounded increasingly alarmist about Russian capabilities. Germany and Austria had spent most of the last two decades of the 19th century and the decade and a half of the 20th boxing Russia out of the Balkans, and now Berlin feared a "The Empire Strikes Back" scenario.

This was a driving force behind Germany's decision to support Vienna in June-July 1914. This made Germany the critical focal point for transforming a local war into a Continental-wide war; it was the last link in the chain of events that summer that could have stopped the war. Berlin knew this but decided it wanted the war, and it fully understood the implications of its decision - i.e., that this would mean a confrontation with France and possibly Britain as well as Russia. Germany's thought was that such a war was likely to occur anyway sometime soon, so it was better to get it going while Germany still held (according to its intelligence estimates) a military edge over its enemies. Austria-Hungary's failure to launch a war against the Serbs for four weeks after the assassination created the time that allowed the Great Powers to mull over how they would react, and most critically gave Russia time to think out its decision to support Serbia (its last reliable ally in the Balkans). That escalated the war from a small, local affair to a potentially larger conflict. France wavered at first as to whether it would support Russia, as indeed so did Berlin over whether it would support Vienna. The first week of the crisis saw Berlin advising caution to Vienna. By July however Germany had decided it wanted this war, and advising the Austro-Hungarians to get moving on their attack. Germany's much-romanticized Schlieffen Plan laid out the course of the war but in reality this was a war decades in the making, as the final vestiges of the 1815 peace and attempts to coordinate Great Power relations on the Continent disintegrated. The Allies trumpeted "Prussian militarism" but in reality most of Europe had succumbed to militarism by 1914.

In the conduct of the war itself, with the exception of the opening campaigns in Belgium in August-September 1914 (when most German troops were raw, "green" inexperienced troops prone to panic), the Reichswehr did not commit attrocities against civilians or captured POWs. Fighting in the Balkans was fierce and involved much that we would today call war crimes but the instigators could be found in nearly all participating armies: Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Serbian, Albanian irregulars, Greek, Ottoman, Bulgarian, etc. The Reichswehr, unlike its World War II successor the Wehrmacht, did not as policy target civilians or purposely mistreat prisoners. There were some exceptions of course - the utterly senseless burning of the medieval library at Louvain in 1918 by the retreating German forces - but in general the Reichswehr was fairly well-behaved, or as well as a conscript army can be anyway.

From a Polish perspective, there is a vast difference in the Germans' behavior in the two World Wars; in the Second the Germans would murder almost a quarter of the Polish population but in the First the Germans paid barely any attention to Poles, despite occupying their country. After refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the Kaiser, the Polish military leader Pilsudski was arrested and imprisoned in Germany, but while he indeed was imprisoned he was allowed to go for walks unescorted in the local town during the day (returning to the prison at night) and even took to dining at a restaurant in the town regularly. When it was apparent the war was lost and Germany teetered on the brink of revolution, German authorities put Pilsudski and his fellow Polish prisoners on a special train back to Warsaw.

That all said, I must emphasize that I believe Europe was a better place with an Allied rather than a German victory. There was also a qualitative difference between Germany in 1914 and the Allies. Though quite flawed, they were indeed functional democracies, while Germany began the war as a royal dictatorship (and ended the war as a military dictatorship). The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that the Hindenburg-Ludendorf duo imposed on Russia was indicative of the kind of peace Germany (by 1918) envisioned; an imperial peace with Germany dominating the Continent. Yes, the Versailles treaties were flawed, but their basic intent was a restoration of European sovereignty. Secret deals like the Sykes-Picot agreement (the consequences of which the U.S. is currently saddled with) undermined much of the West's credibility, but all indications are that a German victory peace would have been far worse.

 

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan

I'm pretty disgusted by this "demonisation" of Germany.
As somebody pointed previously - in 1914 German Reich was nor "the absolute evil" nor very bad comparing with others power in conflict.


Mitiu Ioan I agree perfectly. It is not a case of Allies=good, Gemany=bad. Remember Great Britain shot hundreds, thousands, maybe more of young men who were afraid, who ran, refused to kill, who could not stand it in the trenches any longer, sleeping at their post(in theory), even under direct orders. This disgusts me. Shooting people from your own side because of their fear is shameful. The government has never apologised. I remember people being shot,because their officer was wounded in a crater and ordered soldiers to warn the people down the trench. As the Gemrans were close behind, he jammed his rifle in the trench to create a barrier, slowing the Germans down. He reached the trench and was later shot for running away, and letting his weapon fall into the hands of the enemy. Absolutely disgusting in my opinion, to shoot someone because of fear, let alone under orders to return to the trench. To my knowledge they have never been pardoned. Also remember that this was a government that used poison gas. This is not at all a case of good versus evil, and it should never be regarded as this simplistic view.

 

[Patroklos]

*Applaud goes to Vrylakas.

Very well put, though I disagree with you about the peace terms. The whole point of the Schliefen plan was to encircle and trap the French Army in the north. They knew that if they only defeated it would fall back into southern Fance and continue the war. They didn't even count the capture of Paris as a killing blow. And of course there was no question of breaking England.

German may have been able to impose a treaty on France similar to what was imposed on them, but never on England. And I simply don't think that Germany was looking for large territorial aquisition in the West. They would have demanded official recognition of their gains in the East, but at most France would have lost maybe one more province as a prestige holder, just as before.

And remember the character of the peace would depend on the length of the war. Germany's best chances of winning were in the early years. If the war had ended with several million fewer casualties the demand the various sides would want in victory would be less stringent.

Whatever European instability you might want to blame on an enlightned monarchist rule hardly outway the instability the pathetic slave form of democracy the Allies imposed on Germany for a decade and the rise and call of Nazism, with all its trapings, created.

Then there is that whole WWII thing.

 

[Ukraineboy]

Maybe if Germany "won" it would've allow an independant Ukraine...

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by nonconformist
If you are talking about Germany during World War I, I would hadly call it an "evil", Archer.

I was meanting that war was the evil, not Germany.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Patroklos
As to the suggestion that Germany had turned into a military dictatorship during the war and would have stayed that way, once again BS. The German aristocracy never lost contrrol of the nation by any stretch of the imagination.

Not true. Like France, by 1918 the German military was, for all intents and purposes, running the country.

It is very unlikey that the map of Western Europe would have changed apreciably.

Actually, it would have. The war aims offically announced by the German government called for taking a small-ish chunk out France and annexing the Germanic half of Belgium, and possibly Rotterdam. Martin Gilbert's Atlas of World War One has an interesting map showing what Europe would have looked like if Germany had won.

 

[Adler17]

I think the worl would have been much better if Germany would have won WW1. But first, why ww1 happened. There is much said so only a small summerization of the reasons:
1. France: France was shocked and ashamed loosing the Franco- German war of 1870/71 against the Germans, which they played for centuries. They lost two provinces. But both were of German origin annexed by France in 1700. Although Germany tried much to normalize the situation this was neglected by the French government. When the crisi of July 1914 was getting hotter the mobilized for war before the Germans did. They never tried to find a diplomatic solution but they wanted to go for war.
2. Austria: Austria was the only German ally. Italy was not trustworthy. It was thretened by Serbia which wanted a great Serbia. So it was a danger for Austria with the many minorities. Nevertheless the war was not programmed. They made an Ultimatum to Serbia, which was neglected. Then they mobilized.
3. Serbia: Serbia was isolated by his ultra nationalistic course. Only Russia was supporting them because of the Russian interests on the Balcan. The Serbian government knew about the plans of shhoting the Archduke. Nevertheless they didn´t do anything! Were they not able or unwilling is difficult to prove but either situation is fatal.
4. Russia: Russia supported Serbia. They were once Germany´s ally but felt betrayed in the conference of Berlin 1880 when Bismarck was able to prevent a world war. They hoped to get a big peace of the cake Balcan but they were not able to get ot. So it was only a question of time when Russia turned the side. Even if Bismarck wasn´t fired by Wilhelm II. he wouldn´t be able to bind Russia for long. Wilhelm tried to prevent the war by speaking with his cousin Nicolai II. as cousin but invain. Russia wanted the war.
5. UK: When Russia allied with France they did everything possible to isolate Germany. They built a fleet together to blockade the Germans. This was countered by the Germans. But the UK were not switching the sides. Queen Victoria´s darling grandson was Wilhelm. She even died in his arms! She knew the situation and still was on the German side. But the situation changed dramatically when her son became king. He hated Wilhelm as well as he hated his uncle. So it came to an arms race. Germany was in a deadly spirale. The British tried even to blame the Germans as war mongers when an ambassador came to Germany to negotiate about the fleet race. He had no plan for such an agreement, but he didn´t expect the following situation: The Germans were eager to negotiate. Even Tirpitz the head of the fleet was willing. Germany hoped to make the UK at least neutral. So the ambassador had to stop the negotiations and return to London. However in 1914 the relation between Germany and UK was bettern than before. A solution concerning the fleet was near. The British ambassador was at Wilhelm when he got the news of the murder. Both were shocked. And although Britain was togetzher with Germany the only ones who tried to stop it both were caught in their alliances.
6. Belgium: Belgium is ever seen as poor victim of the eveil Germans but is that correct? Belgium was asked by Paris and Berlin if they were allowed to send troops to their territory. The French request was granted the German not. Although a state can reamin neutral under this situation in my opinion this gives the other nation a casus belli. So Belgium wasn´t neutral in my eyes.
7. Germany: Germany was the biggest power in Europe havein the best army and the 2nd strongest navy of the world. It was a constitutional monarchy but de facto a parlamentary one since the Kaiser only chose chancellors with majority in the Reichstag. And because of the situation even if Germany would be a democracy the Reichstag would have voted for war. Nevertheless there were many generals who wanted the war fearing in a few years Germany wouldn´t possible be able to win a war. Nevertheless Germany tried to prevent the war but was also caught in the net of the spider war.
Wilhelm made big mistakes in his career, but he didn´t want the war. The colonies were only one aspect. But in contrast to many other colonial powers the Germans were a bit better. Waterberg and the death of 30000 Hereros was much more an accident: Trotha the German commander wanted to encircle them and then forcing them to surrender, but the Hereros broke out of the encirclement into the desert where they died. Trotha was incompetent fearing about the consequences he said this was his strategy. The Reichstag was furious about such a behaviour and stopped the budget for German Southwest Africa and forced Trotha to return home. Although there were some other atrocities the British and French were worse. The worstest power was Belgium. They were the crulest by killing or hurting thousands of inhabitants. In German East africa there were only a few white settlers. The black could do what they want: farms or hunting everything was possible. Over 1000 schools were built to bring the children education, much more than in any British African colony (excluding south africa). The warriors of the war tribes were incorporated into the Askaris. They should only be a kind of police. But when the war came they became the best soldiers in Africa... Nevertheless when Paul von Lettow- Vorbeck revisited Tansania years later he was recognized as a friend and fired. Whne Togo became independent from France they asked the last German govenor for help because they didn´t trust the French...
So in my opinion Germany was the best colonial power although atrocites happened.
But that´s another theme. back to the roots. What if Germany won the Marne battle in 1914? Paris would have fallen and forcing France asking for peace. Without France UK was isolated on the islands. Russia would also sued for peace a few years later at least loosing big territories a line of states like the Ukraine or Lithunia or Finland would have evolved as a puffer and within a German lead European union. This would be at first German dominated but after the time it would have evolved a similar structure of the EU of today. France would have lost a province or two and a few colonies but still remained intact. The Germans would have become a parlamentary monarchy like in late 1918 and so the EU would have been a superpower like the US and Russia in which the communism would have been victorious but weakend because of the lost war.
WW2 would have never happened unless France and Italy became fascistic and wanted revenge. The axis Rome- Paris- Moscow...
So I think it would have been the best way for the world if Germany would have won ww1.

Adler

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Then there is that whole WWII thing.

First of all - hat off for Mr. Vrylakas.
Even at some points I disagree his conclusions he have a verrry good way to presents the facts and also an almost enciclopedical knowledge.

As I previously said - my country and I personally I'm pretty glad about the outcome of WW I.
BUT !!! - for a "global" perspective - I belive that a "partial" victory of Germany in WWI ( as you already said, England and more less US was totally unprobable to be seriously weakened ) may, somewhat, help in establishing a more "equilibrated" world - and this probably a better choice for small & medium country.

Regards

 

[Patroklos]

Actually, it would have. The war aims offically announced by the German government called for taking a small-ish chunk out France and annexing the Germanic half of Belgium, and possibly Rotterdam. Martin Gilbert's Atlas of World War One has an interesting map showing what Europe would have looked like if Germany had won.

In other words....

It is very unlikey that the map of Western Europe would have changed apreciably.

-------------

Not true. Like France, by 1918 the German military was, for all intents and purposes, running the country.

While I do not agree with this (I think you are mixing up the fact that by 1918 most of the aristocracy WAS the military) however if the point is that the military dictatorship of Germany would somehow institure a new dark age for Europe, then France would have done the same thing. And remember Germany only became that way because it was losing. France was winning, so what is it's excuse? No matter how you put it, Germany was no worse European government wise than the corrupt "democracies" of the time.

As I previously said - my country and I personally I'm pretty glad about the outcome of WW I.
BUT !!! - for a "global" perspective - I belive that a "partial" victory of Germany in WWI ( as you already said, England and more less US was totally unprobable to be seriously weakened ) may, somewhat, help in establishing a more "equilibrated" world - and this probably a better choice for small & medium country.

Very ture, I think we get caught up in the total victory scenario because thecharacter of the peae would be vastly different depending on the year our fictional victory took place.