Wwi

Bast

Protector of Cats
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
6,230
Location
Sydney, Australia
If the Central Powers (German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire) had won the war, do you think that it would've stopped the rise of Nazism/Hitler? Do you think WWII would've been prevented?

I don't know. Just asking but my guess is yes?
 
It depends on how the war ended not just who won. Let’s say Germany captured Paris and ended the war by Christmas of 1914.

I imagine they would have taken some land and money like they did in 1871. Germany is certain of their military superiority, France harbors resentment and Britain and Russia remain wary of Germany's power. Yes WWII would still happen.

In this scenario France could have become a facist hotbead rather than Germany.
 
I suggest you search History for this topic. I believe its been debated a few times.
 
Yes, because after the war the allies made germany a democracy. Hitler became Fuhrer through becoming president and chancellor. (I think)
 
Bungholio said:
Yes, because after the war the allies made germany a democracy. Hitler became Fuhrer through becoming president and chancellor. (I think)
I think you are confusing Wars here. Entente did not make Germany a democracy, Germany "did" that herself.
 
To make a long story short: No, as if the Central Powers won (in anyway), Germany would not have suffered off a peace treaty like Versailles --> no chance for Hitler. He would not be acceptable to be appointed as chancellor by the Kaiser or voted by the people, as the political situation would be much more stabile.

Adler
 
Being a "what if?" we can't really know, but Nazism riding to power on the back of the Versailles treaty becomes an impossibility.

Exactly how Imperial Germany would have developed after winning and surviving WWI we can't know.

It could over a few dacades time have evolved into a full parlamentarian democracy with a constitutional monarch. Or there might have been some kind of reactionary political initative to squash such a dvelopment. In which case we could get a revolutionary socialist movement and perhaps a Marxist revolution.

It also depends on what happens outside Germany. There's no reason for either Italy or Spain not to go fascist — unless we assume German political and military dominance means there would be German armies propping up the regimes in these states. For how long? At what cost?
But is the German government good enough democrats to support say the Spanish republic here? Or is it some kind of reactionary clique preferring the phalanhists?

What's happening in Russia? Would there be a revolution? Would a victorious Germany go on fighting one indefinately over in the east if there was? Would it win a conflict like that?

What would happen to the Habsburg empire? The odds for it staying together in the long run weren't good. Would Hungary fight for its independance? To the north the Poles might, involving Germany more directly. If Russia is still in the game I think we can rely in it fanning variuos Slav national independance movements.

Or would Germany come up with some kind of winning formula for turning itself into the guarantee of some kind of new political entity, a kind of EU, where all kinds of regional and national entities could be given enough latitude to not try to break the edifice apart. But that would involve Germany willingly giving up massive amounts of direct political control gained in WWI.

The Ottoman empire would likely splinter in a million pieces in the end anyway. Would Germany involve itself? Or is this where France and Britain makes up for losses?

Does Germany take over French and British colonies? What's the relationship then with Japan and the US? Could there be a WWII involving Germany, Japan and the US (unknown alliances)? Or Britian, which would hardly have been eliminated as a colonial power?

How does Germany treat France? French revanchism is a foregone conclusion, but could there be some kind of cooling down and ideally a meeting of democracies? Or would it be France, perhaps rather than Russia, that went through a socialist revolution?

The world after WWI with Germany defeated didn't become peaceful. There's no real reason to assume it would have been anymore peaceful with a victorious Germany, though it would unarguably have been better for Germany, and in the long run would have had the added boon of no Holocaust.

But then again, how long would the US allow Germany to have things their way?
What if Russia doesn't have a revolution, modernises and industrialises successfully, and in 1939 we get the line up Russia, France, UK, Italy again fighting Germany over European supremacy, but with Russia as the major partner of the alliance holdimg both the manpower and wealth to take on a German dominated Europe?

Let's say Germany stays authoritarian as a result of winning WWI, at least for several decades to come, and the Habsburgs survive propped up by Germany. We have a political order in eastern Europe still based on large empires, but with scores of movements for national independance.

If further east Russia is revving up and hypothetically transforming itself into an industrialised democracy, possibly devolving parts of the empire into friendly allied states like the Ukraine, Finland, a kind of rump-Poland perhaps even.
In a showdown it might then be Russia that rolls in, breaks the German political dominance of Europe after WWI apart and establishes dozens of new independant nations.

Nationalism was an unsettled matter before WWI. The war did provide a kind of resultion, especially in eastern Europe. If Germany wins, this thorny problem would still have to be resolved — either by Germany granting enough independance, or by these movements taking Germany apart on their own, or them doing it with outside aid.
 
Verbose said:
Or would Germany come up with some kind of winning formula for turning itself into the guarantee of some kind of new political entity, a kind of EU, where all kinds of regional and national entities could be given enough latitude to not try to break the edifice apart. But that would involve Germany willingly giving up massive amounts of direct political control gained in WWI.

(...)

Does Germany take over French and British colonies? What's the relationship then with Japan and the US? Could there be a WWII involving Germany, Japan and the US (unknown alliances)? Or Britian, which would hardly have been eliminated as a colonial power?

But then again, how long would the US allow Germany to have things their way?

Well, there would be a serious problem for hegemony.. the British hegemony had long been falling and obviously WWI gave them the final blow (could have taken decades more without the war). Let's assume that with even such a short WWI British hegemony was down, there are two contenders to take over: Germany and the United States. Of course the US was ahead already before WWI, but Germany was still a contender, and I don't think they would have given up their spot that easily.
 
Hi, Verbose asks the right questions here.
However we can answer some questions a bit, I mean we have some hints.
At first Germany became a parlamentarian monarchy in October 1918. In so far I really think that this would have happened even after a German victory.
The next question is Russia. Russia had lost the Baltic states, Belorus, Ukraine, Finland, Armenia, Poland, Georgia and perhaps also Aserbaidschan in the treaty of Brest Litowsk. So it would be roughly in the borders the same (in Europe) like today. These nations were planned by Germany to become a buffer between Russia and Germany as independent but also German allied states. A knd of NATO and EU was here already proposed. And considering the desire of independence, which was threatened by Russia, these states would have agreed.
Also in Russia there was a civil war between the White (monarchists) and the Red (Bolshevics). German troops fought with the White, at least since 1918, against the Bolshevics. So a chance of becoming not communistic was there. In how far that would have worked, is not predictable.
Austria was in a dying condition. But perhaps with a victory 1917/18 this might have taken longer. The Austrian Kaiser attempted everything to hold the nation together. And this was still possible until the last Austrian offensive in Italy. After that failed due to an ill plan, the ties were broken completely. This does not mean he had success, but it means his chances with a victory in the war was much greater.
Italy was only winning because it was allied with the winners. It was until the very last days KOed, when the 12th Isonzo offensive, started by the Austrians, was successful and threatening Venice. They Italians were able to keep it, but for offensive actions they were unable until the last days when they indeed had a last (and only) offensive victory. But at this moment the Austrian army disintegrated already.
So a fascistic revolution was likely to happen though.
France would have lost a few colonies and perhaps the last part of Lorraine, which was still France. Also Verdun would have been scrapped as fortress. But I doubt it would be a Versailles for them.
Britain was still intact, so a defeat of France would not change much for her. She still had the Royal Navy and her mighty colonial empire. Germany would have made everything not hurting her too much. So a kind of fleet treaty à la Washington would have happened. In addition the question of the colonies would have been answered. Germany would have wanted Britain not as further foe, but potential ally.
That also depends on the existance of the Royal Navy. If that was destroyed to large parts in a battle the situation would be another.
At last Belgium would have lost Congo as colony but have restored its souvereignty.
So indeed Hitler had no base. No revenge thoughts, no reparations causing too much problems, no problems of securing the German borders, no one to blame for a defeat, no political chaos, no not accepted democracy. Only wild theories about a Jewish conspiracy. He wouldn't be more than a footnote in a history book about German parties after the Great War. If he went into politics.
But there is too many, which could happen though, so really nothing is certain.

Adler
 
1889 said:
It depends on how the war ended not just who won. Let’s say Germany captured Paris and ended the war by Christmas of 1914.

I imagine they would have taken some land and money like they did in 1871. Germany is certain of their military superiority, France harbors resentment and Britain and Russia remain wary of Germany's power. Yes WWII would still happen.

In this scenario France could have become a facist hotbead rather than Germany.

France already had it's own 'semi-fascist' movements thanks to the Franco-Prussian war completely humiliating France's army before the Great War anyway. Whilst not openly calling themselves fascists like Hitler's Nazi's and Mussolini's Italy, there was a small element of anti-semitism acting in France around the early 20th Century.

As to if World War II was possible, well... the terms of the peace for France after the Franco-Prussian war were almost as damaging as the Versailles treaty were to Germany, hence the huge lash-back at Germany after the Great War. This proved, obviously, to be a bad move considering the world's economic state after the war and heavily contributed to the push of Germany into its fascist state.

It could be debated, in my own opinion, that Germany's victory in the Great War could have resulted in an earlier equivalent of the Second World War battles over Europe assuming similar participants. It is supposedly part of the British foreign policy to never allow one power to hold the entire Channel. That would be dangerous to national security, at the very least.
The effects of a German victory I suspect would have caused the Bolsheviks to fail to rise to supreme power in Russia, due to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk meaning Germany owned most of the Ukraines. America would more than likely return to its isolationist policy due to the significant casualties inflicted by the war upon its army.
France, after being absorbed by Germany, would perhaps move to a role of resistance, especially considering the attitudes after the Franco-Prussian war. Also considering the not-too-old imperial ambitions of France with Napoleon, I do not expect France would have given up so easily.
I expect the Great Depression may have potentially happened still also.
 
AxiomUk said:
France, after being absorbed by Germany, would perhaps move to a role of resistance, especially considering the attitudes after the Franco-Prussian war. Also considering the not-too-old imperial ambitions of France with Napoleon, I do not expect France would have given up so easily.
I strongly doubt Germany would even have attempted to "absorb" France. Take bits and pieces of it yes. Not even Hitler imagined a permanent German occupation and annexation of France.
 
Verbose said:
I strongly doubt Germany would even have attempted to "absorb" France. Take bits and pieces of it yes. Not even Hitler imagined a permanent German occupation and annexation of France.

Yeah. All Germany ever wanted was Alsace and Lorraine.
 
Erm, the peace of Frankfurt of 1871 is perhaps in a bad context here. We should indeed compare it with Versailles- but also with Tilsit 1806. Then we can finally draw conclusions.

1. Peace of Tilsit:
After the catastrophe of Jena and Auerstedt Prussia was nearly dissolved. Only because of the Czar it still existed further, but lost all areas west of the Elbe river, including Magedeburg, had only a restricted army, all provinces and fortresses, except in East Prussia, were French occupied and had to pay so huge ammounts, that a normal fiscal situation could never be achieved. Only due to the reforms made, Prussia still existed.

2. Peace of Frankfurt:
France had to transfer the German speaking Alsace and Lorraine, which they had annexed about 175 years ago. Also a sum of 5.000.000.000 Goldmark had to be paid- in order to weaken France for a few years. No restrictions on the strength of forces was made. Only the fortress of Verdun was occupied until the last Pfennig was paid. Due to an economic uprising France was able to pay it before the adjusted date.

3. Versailles:
Germany lost Alsace- Lorraine, Eupen- Malmédy, North Schleswig, West Prussia, Danzig, Posen and parts of Upper Silesia and the Memelland. Also all of its colonies were lost as well as the fleet. Also there were severe restrictions about the Reichswehr, which was not allowed to have heavy weapons, no planes, no ships over 10.000 ts displacement, no tanks and only 110.000 men (including navy). Also the reparations were (later) to be paid until the 1980s, as France demanded everything up to the pensions for the old soldiers later. And of course the Art. 231, giving the guilt only to Germany.
With that kind of peace treaty the Germans were shocked. the German government indeed asked the Generals to reopen the hostilities, but that was said to be impossible. However Reichskanzler Scheidemann (SPD) resigned, as he did not want to sign that.
This was a huge mortage for the young democracy. Germany was not able to defend the borders really, what is shown by the Lithunian, French, Belgish and Polish invasions until 1923. Also the reparations lead to an economic crise, which was solved by short term loans by the US. Which lead to a catastrophe in 1929... And of course the fact that (mostly) German speaking territories were departed. Austria and the Sudeten were not allowed to (re)join Germany. East Prussia was an exclave- with huge problems to go through the "Corridore".

Adler
 
AxiomUk said:
there was a small element of anti-semitism acting in France around the early 20th Century.
No small amount: the French army was riddled with anti-Semitism. Witness the entire Dreyfus affair at the turn of the century. Indeed, were France to have lost the war, Foch would have become a different version of Ludendorff, and de Gaulle would be France's version of Hitler...

About the comparison of Tilsit...Tilsit was the "peace" of an insane megalomaniac, who had no sense of international politics whatsoever. He basically declared economic war on Great Britain and emasculated all of Germany to carve it up into French states, most of whom had no previous French history other than France had coveted them since the reign of Louis XIII and his son. In contrast, Bismarck carved off a province and a chunk of France which were largely ethnically German anyway. At least Bismarck knew that at least one more war would have to be fought over those lands: that's why he came up with the Triple Alliance and the Alliance of the Three Emperors. Versailles, on the other hand, redrew the map of Europe just like Tilsit did, created states with little or no political basis, divided things up based on cultural bounds that were completely off, and completely ignored the future of Europe altogether, with a mind merely towards keeping Germany from ever getting equal to France again.

Frankfurt's not even close to the indignities France perpetuated with Tilsit and Versailles.
 
Dachspmg said:
No small amount: the French army was riddled with anti-Semitism. Witness the entire Dreyfus affair at the turn of the century. Indeed, were France to have lost the war, Foch would have become a different version of Ludendorff, and de Gaulle would be France's version of Hitler...
Well, the key word here is "different". Everything was different. One might as well say that de Gaulle WAS the French version of Hitler — someone catapulted by circumstances into a position where he was called to lead his country out of the most shameful defeat they had ever suffered; with one man being a republican democrat vs. the other being an Aryan supremacist who despised democracy...

As for the Dreyfus affair, antisemitism alone, pure and simple, can't explain all of it. It comes down just as much to the curious circumstances by which the secular Republic of France was in conflict with the to a considerable degree Catholic and monarchistic army of France.
Dachspmg said:
About the comparison of Tilsit...Tilsit was the "peace" of an insane megalomaniac, who had no sense of international politics whatsoever. He basically declared economic war on Great Britain and emasculated all of Germany to carve it up into French states, most of whom had no previous French history other than France had coveted them since the reign of Louis XIII and his son. In contrast, Bismarck carved off a province and a chunk of France which were largely ethnically German anyway. At least Bismarck knew that at least one more war would have to be fought over those lands: that's why he came up with the Triple Alliance and the Alliance of the Three Emperors. Versailles, on the other hand, redrew the map of Europe just like Tilsit did, created states with little or no political basis, divided things up based on cultural bounds that were completely off, and completely ignored the future of Europe altogether, with a mind merely towards keeping Germany from ever getting equal to France again.
And the fact that all the states, and then some, created after WWI are still around is in no way an indicator of their viability and the reasonableness of creating them? (Including the Alsatians and Lothringians who whenever asked about their preferences have gone French.):confused:
Dachspmg said:
Frankfurt's not even close to the indignities France perpetuated with Tilsit and Versailles.
Except that the intention behind Frankfurt was not exactly benevolent. The intention was to cripple. It just so happened France hit an economic boom in 1870's, and what was intended to be crippling turned out to be a minor nuisence. Good thing for France, but hardly a German intention.
While of course post-WWI Germany got Versailles full in the face with the economy in free-fall. Meaning the French intention to cripple Germany worked even better than anticipated, which was no bloody use anyway as the intent of trying to gut the other guy was wrong-headed in the first place.
 
Erm Verbose, the peace of Frankfurt was not intended to let the French pay until 1946 or so. Also it was left open in Versailles, what sum was to be paid, but later this incredible and ridiculous sums were presented. Even such a boom France had could not pay the sum.

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
Erm Verbose, the peace of Frankfurt was not intended to let the French pay until 1946 or so. Also it was left open in Versailles, what sum was to be paid, but later this incredible and ridiculous sums were presented. Even such a boom France had could not pay the sum.

Adler
Yeah sure, the French intention was to top the demands of Frankfurt by a mile. I wasn't claiming anything different.

My point is that Frankfurt was NOT intended to somehow let France off lightly at the time. The amount demanded back then was thought sufficient to make France limp badly for a very long time. When that failed you got the "Ist Krieg im gesicht?" (Is war in sight?)" crisis.

And that the French decided to make demands of such an order that there would be no chance/risk of Germany pulling out from under them like France had done in the 1870's. But then the post-war recession that hit Germany, alongside everyone else, went deeper than anyone had anticipated. Not that it bothered the French at the time. They at the time unwisely found having dropped Germany in a deeper hole than anticipated a good thing.

Versailles was a throroughly bad idea, but there were macroeconomic aspects of how these demands for compensation actually took France after 1871 and Germany after 1918 that weren't anticipated. The fact that France got off lightly wasn't due to German intentions. The depth of the German post-war recession wasn't entirely of French making.
 
Of course it would have.


That being said, national socialism could have easily sprung up inside one of the allied powers.
 
theimmortal1, do you think Nazism was then taking over the rulership in, for example, France?

Verbose, I think we agree about Versailles as a (main) reason of Hitler. We also agree about the unwise decision of the French. And yes, France should be unable to lead a war for a longer time as it was supposed in Frankfurt ("Ist Krieg in Sicht?"). However it was much more like Tilsit. The intention was not only to make Germany unable to fight offensive wars, but also defensive actions. For the most it was clear, that this dictate was not a peace but a truce. Nearly all German parties from the very left to the very right, were opposing. Also the US made a seperate peace with Germany as they did not want to join that peace. Britain joined, but also thought it was too harsh. Only France was blind for the future. Only relying it would weaken the Germans until the 1980s or so. The intention was simply here hatress and revenge. And then you have to make two graves...
However although we agree the macroeconomic events in the 1870s and 1920s were not predictable, it was predictable, that any crise happen would have catastrophic consequences.

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
The intention was not only to make Germany unable to fight offensive wars, but also defensive actions.
Yup, that was about the size of it.

There was a constant escalation in trying to put the other one down through exorbitant demands, setting things up for the next round of fighting.
 
Back
Top Bottom