Ship of Fools: If Germany had won WW1 might the outcome have been better?

Thread: If Germany had won WW1 might the outcome have been better? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027723

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The argument put forth is that 80 million Germans could hardly have treated the rest of Europe as harshly as Germany was at Versailles. That the war was not about German militarism which had enfranchised more of its citizens than England at the time. That it was merely another repetitive European conflict about empire, control and who'd be the most powerful. The main difference between WW1 and the 17th and 18th centuries' wars was the efficiency of killing and the sophistication of weapons. That we have been forced to claim it was about more than prior European wars because so many were killed. Finally that WW2 was made inevitableby the harshness of the peace.

Gwynne Dyer was on CBC promoting a book and expounded about this. He is a well known popular historian. Link.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Well it would have prevented the Cold War and the threat of Communism, not to mention certain struggles in Palestine. [Roll Eyes]

Maybe the answer depends on whether you are German (or Jewish) or not. [Disappointed]

[ 08. August 2014, 17:52: Message edited by: Freddy ]

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I remember reading Fritz Fischer's book during my undergraduate days which addresses this issue in part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany's_Aims_in_the_First_World_War

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Well it would have prevented the Cold War and the threat of Communism, not to mention certain struggles in Palestine.

Maybe the answer depends on whether you are German (or Jewish) or not.

Well, as we're talking about the First World War, I'd have thought that a German victory (no German resentment at a punitive peace treaty/ hyperinflation/ French occupation of the Ruhr, no weak liberal republic with credibility problems, so no anger and fear getting channelled into Nazism) would have been pretty good for German and indeed most European Jews, wouldn't it, compared wioth what actually happened? Lots of drawbacks to a German victory (authoritarian militarism triumphant etc) but on the plus side pretty certainly no Holocaust, eh?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'm not sure German victory would have been a good thing (could Germany have invaded Britain in 1918?) but I'm certain a less punitive Armistice would have been in the longer term interests of just about everyone. Even the French, who would never have accepted it.

Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing?

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
could Germany have invaded Britain in 1918?

Couldn't and wouldn't.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Taking into account how the Germans treated the Belgians they were responsible for under their occupation, I don't think one can have any optimism about the likely fate of the rest of Europe had the Germans won. There were only two points where this was likely. One if if the war had been over by Christmas 1914, and the other was if their spring offensive in 1918 had succeeded. By comparison with 1866, though, a German victory by Christmas 1914 might have been less traumatic for everyone else than one in 1918.

Counterfactuals aren't a very useful exercise. However, 1866 is the last time a civilised country lost a major war without it triggering a more-or-less total internal dislocation. In 1917-18, Russia, Germany, Austro-Hungary and Turkey all disintegrated. In 1870 and 1940, France did. By 1945, Italy had done and Germany and Japan both did. IMHO, although the end result looks like an improvement, that's also the case with Argentina in 1982. Even losing relatively minor foreign wars were fairly internally disruptive for Russia in 1905 and 1989, and the US in 1975.

So, I think we can assume that if Germany had won in 1918, not only would it have imposed a very heavy-handed hegemony over a network of artificial client states in Europe but France and the UK (the latter already being torn apart over Ireland) would have had some sort of internal and, if the experiences of Russia and Germany are anything to go by, fairly horrible revolution.

I can't speak for the US. A German victory in 1914 would hardly have affected it, but I suspect one in 1918 might have shifted the internal world of the US in favour of its immigrants of German origin.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

According to the BBC History Magazine - I can't find the citation I'm afraid - the Kaiser had plans pre-1914 to launch a naval bombardment of New York and Boston harbours (harbors) should it ever prove necessary ...

The idea wouldn't have been to invade or occupy the USA, rather it would have been to show them who was boss ...

Had Germany knocked France out in the early months of the conflict and forced the British to come to terms - I have no doubt that they would have blockaded the Channel or even bombard British coastal towns from the sea - as they did to Hartlepool, Whitby and Scarborough in the first winter of the War.

Given that they had already carried out genocide against native peoples in Namibia in 1904 and that they killed some 6,000 Belgium civilians during their advance in 1914, I would have expected more bastardliness from them had they gained the upper hand.

I don't mean this to sound anti-German but there was something very, very warped in the whole Prussian militaristic psyche.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Gamaliel: Given that they had already carried out genocide against native peoples in Namibia

Is this worse than what other colonial powers did in those days? (Informative question, not taking sides here.)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

There was something warped about British militaristic psyche as well. Considering South Africa, India, China etc. These beligerants were cousins, made of the same fabric.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not suggesting that Britain's Imperial hands were squeaky clean.

Generally speaking though, apart from in Tasmania, we didn't tend to go in for systematic genocide.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Gamaliel: Given that they had already carried out genocide against native peoples in Namibia
Is this worse than what other colonial powers did in those days? (Informative question, not taking sides here.)

The Belgian colonies were particularly horrific if memory serves.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Of course, the poor old Belgians who suffered at the hands of the Germans in 1914 were themselves pretty nasty as a colonial power in the Congo.

I think what did differentiate the German military machine of that time, though, was its ruthless efficiency.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cross-posted with Arethosemyfeet ...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The Belgian colonies were particularly horrific if memory serves.

Or more accurately: the colony of Leopold II.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course, the poor old Belgians who suffered at the hands of the Germans in 1914 were themselves pretty nasty as a colonial power in the Congo.

I think what did differentiate the German military machine of that time, though, was its ruthless efficiency.

I think that conflates policy with machine guns and gas. The ruthlessness is also conflated with aristocratic incompetence.
On all sides. I am in a fog about war aims on all sides. No purposes can be seen.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Well it would have prevented the Cold War and the threat of Communism, not to mention certain struggles in Palestine.

Maybe the answer depends on whether you are German (or Jewish) or not.

As I understand it the Junker class who ruled Prussia and therefore Germany were at least somewhat tolerant of Jews.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... on the plus side pretty certainly no Holocaust, eh?

Unless, of course now I think of it, a defeated France goes through pretty much the same things as Germany did, the Jews are blamed for the defeat, anti-semitism and reactionary Catholicism which were already there before 1914 come to the boil and defeat the socialists and communists... Perhaps mass exile in horrible conditions on Madagascar or somewhere rather than gas chambers, and less attention given to gypsies, gays, and so on, but still pretty unsavoury.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Depends on how and when Germany won the war. Germany winning World War I would not necessarily have prevented World War II from happening. So, Germany neutralizes France. Germany neutralized France in 1940. Germany winning the war leaves the British and Russian Empires in place and a still emerging United States. Had the Germans shelled New York and Boston, the American people would have demanded revenge. See Pearl Harbor 1941. Germany would once again be faced with fighting a two front war against the Brits and Americans on one side and the Russians over the other. The Japanese might have been the real winners if Germany had won World War II.

Speaking of alternate history and Germany winning World War I, Harry Turtledove wrote a 10 book series covering the years from 1861-1945 if the South won the Civil War. In Turtledove's timeline, the South winning the war leads directly to Germany winning World War I. England and France helped the Confederacy win independence. This drives the North/USA into an alliance with Germany. While interesting, the scenario Turtledove is not plausible. I still wonder what would have happened if the British and French aided the Confederacy.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not suggesting that Britain's Imperial hands were squeaky clean.

Generally speaking though, apart from in Tasmania, we didn't tend to go in for systematic genocide.

It's untrue to say that what happened in Tasmania was "systematic genocide" Mistreatment, an horrific believe in Darminism, dispossession etc etc but I don't accept that there was a systematic attempt at murder all the Tasmanian Aborignals. The American settlers giving smallpox infected blankets to the Indigenous Americans comes closer to being systematic.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Arethosemyfeet: The Belgian colonies were particularly horrific if memory serves.
Or more accurately: the colony of Leopold II.

Yup, the Heart of Darkness atrocities occurred when Leopold ruled Congo as his personal fiefdom. Without justifying colonialism, things improved markedly when Belgium took over.

As Gamaliel says above, the German Empire committed genocide in German South-West Africa. In WW1, it brought Europe the Rape of Belgium and a brutal occupation in Northern France. It was allied to the Ottoman Empire, which committed multiple genocides on its own subjects. When it got the chance, it imposed a punishing treaty on Russia.

There's been a century-long campaign to downplay its brutality and culpability, partly from anti-war groups, partly from a fear of xenophobia. (Better overcome by noting internal dissent to Prussian militarism.) The narrative runs something like: Europe sleepwalked into a war, caused by militarism and imperialism on all sides, and then unfairly punished Germany at Versailles. The rise of Nazism was a reaction to this national humiliation.

Fritz Fischer's work, noted by Caissa above, blew this narrative apart by highlighting the continuity in war aims between Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany. It's never been overcome, but it still hasn't entered the public consciousness, where the Guns of August/"lions led by donkeys" myth casts a long shadow.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Nobody distributed small pox infested blankets Native Americans.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Link ain't workin'.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Web link down BA. It was certainly considered. The attitudes were directly expressed, though by British before the Americans rebelled. link

The alleged continuity and evil nature of the Germans, a suggestion that evil nests in the soul of each on the basis of culture doesn't hold in light of parallel attitudes in other nations of the times. Europe was reactionary, conservative and interested in position. I don't see any of the belligerants in a positive light. I had relatives fighting for Canada, Britain, Germany and U. S. A.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
[...] The alleged continuity and evil nature of the Germans, a suggestion that evil nests in the soul of each on the basis of culture doesn't hold in light of parallel attitudes in other nations of the times. Europe was reactionary, conservative and interested in position. I don't see any of the belligerants in a positive light. I had relatives fighting for Canada, Britain, Germany and U. S. A.

I for one don't believe, for a second, that "the Germans" had an "evil nature."

I do believe there's more than sufficient evidence that, by the late 19th century, the German Empire become an aggressive power driven by an ideology of conquest and, increasingly, racial superiority, measurably worse than the ideologies of its surrounding states.

It's not necessary to view them positively to view them as relatively better than Imperial Germany.

Posted by Dogwalker (# 14135) on :

Beeswax Altar's link fixed.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The blithe assumption that things would have been better for European jewry had the Austro-Hungarian/German alliance triumphed in the 1914-18 war is sadly mistaken.

By 1915 the mainstream German press was full of anti-semitic articles blaming 'the jews' for the war and saying that they were profiting from it.

A simple calculation that the evils of the Versailles treaty wouldn't have happened, therefore Europe would have been OK is to ignore what any final settlement have been.

First, if Germany had 'won' then Belgium would have been absorbed into greater Germany. Not only would this have resulted in the disappearance of the state of Belgium, but German treatment of the Belgian civilian population from the earliest days of the war showed just what the remaining Belgians could have expected if the Franco-British side packed up and gone home in 1918. Furthermore, large numbers of French civilians would also have had to remain in German held territory.

Had an armistice been agreed on the 1918 front-line borders, then Germany, although weakened, would have been in a far stronger position vis-a-vis Russia and would likely to pushed into Russian territory, breaking the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and adding more territory to Greater Germany.

There's also the little matter of the fighting that took place in Africa where, if Germany had emerged victorious in Europe, it is fairly likely that the Germans, through their East Africa colony, would have been able to push through the French in Djibouti (the British in Somaliland wouldn't have offered much resistance) and cross onto the Arabian mainland, then up through what is now Yemen and Saudi Arabia to link up with Ottoman troops.

Would all this have resulted in a 'better' outcome? I think there's sufficient evidence available to justify a resounding 'No' to that one.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Ignoring the smallpox thing, there is little doubt that the American "Manifest Destiny" included getting rid of as many of the aboriginal peoples as possible, particularly west of the Appalachians (where they thought it was easier to get away with it)

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The blithe assumption that things would have been better for European jewry had the Austro-Hungarian/German alliance triumphed in the 1914-18 war is sadly mistaken.

By 1915 the mainstream German press was full of anti-semitic articles blaming 'the jews' for the war and saying that they were profiting from it. [...]

Absolutely. The assumption buys into the "Versailles injustice" myth, itself the stabed-in-the-back libel cleaned up for foreign consumption.

It ignores the cultural roots of German antisemitism in the Völkisch movement that fed unification. Although not universal, many popular versions placed German Jews outside the Volk. Dehumanization might not be sufficient for genocide, but it's certainly necessary.

All of this is rooted in the desire to delegitimize WW1 due to its appalling years of blood-soaked stalemate. The emotional reaction, "nothing is worth that," is unpalatable, so it's justified by minimizing the threat. The trenches are such a tangible image of futility that they draw this reaction where WW2 doesn't, even though it had much higher casualties.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Nobody distributed small pox infested blankets Native Americans.

"Nobody"?

quote:
The [written] exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt.

According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763:

quote:
P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine.
On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript:

quote:
P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present.
On July 26 Bouquet wrote back:

quote:
I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed.
We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity.

This is, at the very least, highly suggestive.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
According to the BBC History Magazine - I can't find the citation I'm afraid - the Kaiser had plans pre-1914 to launch a naval bombardment of New York and Boston harbours (harbors) should it ever prove necessary ...

The idea wouldn't have been to invade or occupy the USA, rather it would have been to show them who was boss ...

That would have been a suicide run. The chances of the High Seas Fleet crossing the North Atlantic undetected while having to sail around GB and through the North Atlantic shipping lanes are almost zero. As happened in several of the coastal raids on Britain in WWI somebody would have seen them and radioed in their position.

Then they would have to get past Halifax, the RN/RCN's major North American base (and only 150 nautical miles off the Great Circle route to New York/Boston) while the USN had its formidable Atlantic Fleet based in Norfolk, Virginia.

The result would be a Jutland off Cape Cod, certainly not worth the price for the Germans.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It's untrue to say that what happened in Tasmania was "systematic genocide"

Systematic? Perhaps not but

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

Mistreatment, an horrific believe in Darminism, dispossession etc etc

Puts it a bit light.

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The American (actually Britsh)* settlers giving smallpox infected blankets to the Indigenous Americans comes closer to being systematic.

How about we just say Europeans have been a bit naughty?

*Parentheses and contents mine.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
As Gamaliel says above, the German Empire committed genocide in German South-West Africa. In WW1, it brought Europe the Rape of Belgium and a brutal occupation in Northern France. It was allied to the Ottoman Empire, which committed multiple genocides on its own subjects. When it got the chance, it imposed a punishing treaty on Russia.

I think that it has always been in the interest of every other nation in Europe to keep Russia weak. When The Russians are strong they always start trying to conqour their neigbors. The Treaty of Brest-Litvosk was fully justified for that reason, and the borders to which Russia was reduced to after the fall of the USSR are substantially those envisioned by that treaty.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

One does wonder . But even if Germany had won how long before they & Austro-Hungary fell out. Oh this means the beat the Russians too, occupying even European Russia
would have been a massive task, plus doing the same in the west.
Would it have avoided the clooapse of the economy in the 20's ? The rise of the Nazis
the Holocaust ? One wonders.
If the Versailles treaty had not be so much a document of revenge and blame some of the above could have been avoided.
Of course if a certain frustrated terrorest in Sarajevo in June 1914 had gone the other way the whole mess might have been avoided. Well I could hope couldn't I ?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
One does wonder. But even if Germany had won how long before they & Austro-Hungary fell out. Oh this means the beat the Russians too, occupying even European Russia would have been a massive task, plus doing the same in the west.

Well, this begs the question of what Germany "winning" the war means. Degrading the Allied militaries to the point where they can no longer effectively operate? Occupying large swaths of France and Russia? Outright conquest of the Allied powers? Each of these scenarios (and others) would qualify as "winning", but they're all radically different in terms of long-term consequences.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
[...] If the Versailles treaty had not be so much a document of revenge and blame some of the above [hyper-inflation; Nazi Party; the Holocaust] could have been avoided. [...]

"Document of revenge"? With millions dead in a war of conquest, the Allies aimed to strip the German Empire's successor of the ability to wage further aggressive warfare, and get some degree of compensation for the devastation. Both are perfectly legitimate aims.

By any reasonable historic measure, the Weimar Republic escaped lightly in Versailles. Barring the occupation of the Rhineland (and later the Ruhr), it wasn't invaded, and kept most of its territory. Its treatment got even lighter. After Weimar defaulted repeatedly on its war reparations, they were first renegotiated, then canceled altogether in 1932. In real terms, the Allies may well have ended up paying more into Germany than they ever got back.

Versailles was only viewed as vindictive because many in Weimar didn't think the 1914 government had done anything wrong. It's to modern Germany's eternal credit that WW2 was followed by such a comprehensive national soul-searching. Other nations can learn much from Germany's example, but not by echoing the self-pitying justifications of the Weimar years.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

When we consider modern day Europe, and see Germany at it's centre leading the way towards a Federal United states of Europe, it makes the OP 'What if' scenario somewhat nonsensical .
For if Germany had won WW1 then yes, none of the trauma of WW2 would have occurred, but surely we would not have the EU . We would have a centralised dictatorship whereby any protest or disobedience would be dealt with in a completely undemocratic and authoritarian way.

If we want to go for interpretations of 'better outcome' then I'll go with PaulBC . Better indeed if Europe could have avoided all the conflict that began with a single shot 100 years ago . However life, and the greater scheme of things don't seem to work like that.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I for one don't believe, for a second, that "the Germans" had an "evil nature."

Me neither .

During the area bombing strategy of WW2 Air Marshall Harris was alleged to have made a comment regarding germans and 'black hearts'. I guess he had to believe such in order to do the job required .

The relevant point to the above discussion being that the essential, and key mistake post WW1 was that Germany emerged feeling as though it had *not* been defeated . Second time around the Allies had to make certain sure that it did .
This , as someone pointed out above created Germany's 'soul-searching', and this subsequently when on to make it, and Europe, the better place it is today.

<apologies for double post>

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I was aware of the small-pox blankets thing in the 1760s. I've heard it cited by some US gun-nuts I've met online as proof positive that the ordinary US citizen ought to be allowed to have the same weaponry as the military ... even down to thermo-nuclear devices and chemical or biological weapons ...

You know, just in case someone tries to break into their house ...

These people were from a neighbouring State to yours, Beeswax Altar and they's said they've considered moving to Texas because you guys are about to break-way ...

[Eek!]

As for whether Britain and other European powers would have supported the Confederacy ...

The jury's out on that one. There was certainly some romantic interest in the Confederates in the UK and some diplomatic incidents which annoyed the British authorities for a time. Some 11,000 troops were sent to Canada too, just in case ... but that would have been a precautionary and defensive measure.

It's not as if Canada hasn't been invaded by her southern neighbour at various points ...

Queen Victoria is sometimes portrayed as having Confederate sympathies - but at the same time she - like most British people at the time - had an inveterate hatred of slavery.

Uncle Tom's Cabin was big here.

Heck, many Manchester mill-workers refused to handle Southern cotton and went on strike and were black-listed by employers. Many of them almost starved rather than handle cotton from the slave plantations.

Lincoln wrote to the people of Manchester thanking them for their support and as far as I know, the city is the only UK one to have a statue of him.

As far as genocide goes, nobody has clean hands. Even those lovely, cuddly 'freedom loving' Pilgrim Fathers weren't above massacring Pequod men, women and children in the 1630s and quoting the Book of Joshua to justify their actions.

I'm afraid, Beeswax Altar, that a Confederate victory in the 1860s would rank as much of a no-no in my mind as a German one in WW1.

The idea of a loose conglomeration of racist, fascist knuckle-dragging States stretching below the Mason-Dixon line isn't a palatable one.

But wait ... that's already happened ... [Big Grin]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That was a joke by the way ... I have nothing against the fine Christian folks of the Southern US who rallied round to help in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and in the wake of severe Government failure ...

So that balances out my hyperbolic remarks and, hopefully, renders them less binary ...

[Votive]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

IIRC* the Confederates did have some hopes of enlisting the support of Napoleon III, who already had troops in Mexico, didn't they?

*From reading. I was not there at the time.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Lincoln wrote to the people of Manchester thanking them for their support and as far as I know, the city is the only UK one to have a statue of him.

There's a statue of Lincoln in London in Parliament Square.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Ok - of course - perhaps I'd misremembered and Manchester is the only provincial British city to have a statue of Lincoln.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

OTOH, if Germany had won WWI, one has to wonder if many of the technologies that developed during WWII in attempts to win the war would exist in their current state today: radar, nuclear weapons (and nuclear power), radio control, rocket and satellite technology, precursors of computer technology, synthetic rubber, jet engines, etc.

For all the very true evils of war, it does tend to create periods of very intense technological innovation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Which other massive historical libraries would they have burned?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It would have deferred reality. We'd have learned less through less suffering. And the suffering would have come later and worse. The suffering of revolution, Communism (if the Germans hadn't had to create that through Lenin), Fascism. Or it would have happened next door as Enoch said. In France and Britain.

Lenin would have been active in Western Europe.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
IIRC* the Confederates did have some hopes of enlisting the support of Napoleon III, who already had troops in Mexico, didn't they?

*From reading. I was not there at the time.

One of the assumptions that needed to be true for a viable Confederacy to exist was that they would be able to import industrial products (especially military equipment) from some sympathetic industrialized nation in exchange for their agricultural output (notably cotton). This was the reason one of the first steps taken by Union forces was a naval blockade.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I for one don't believe, for a second, that "the Germans" had an "evil nature."

Me neither .

During the area bombing strategy of WW2 Air Marshall Harris was alleged to have made a comment regarding germans and 'black hearts'. I guess he had to believe such in order to do the job required .

The relevant point to the above discussion being that the essential, and key mistake post WW1 was that Germany emerged feeling as though it had *not* been defeated . Second time around the Allies had to make certain sure that it did .
This , as someone pointed out above created Germany's 'soul-searching', and this subsequently when on to make it, and Europe, the better place it is today.

IRRC that the same argument was applied in the case of Japan (aerial bombing with incendiaries and then A-bombs, and a plan for full invasion followed by unconditional surrender). The "soul-searching" occurred there as well, to the general benefit of all.

It would appear that Russia didn't learn enough from their total defeat in 1917, since the revolution pre-empted that kind of discussion.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the assumptions that needed to be true for a viable Confederacy to exist was that they would be able to import industrial products (especially military equipment) from some sympathetic industrialized nation in exchange for their agricultural output (notably cotton). This was the reason one of the first steps taken by Union forces was a naval blockade.

If the Southern States had won, presumably they would have acquired the Northern ones with their industrial capacity and installed some sort of client administration in each one - though ideologically a bit harder to do consistently if part of your foundation ideology was that each state should be able to decide everything for itself, with a much more minimal central union.

Horseman Bree, I'm not sure what you mean by 'soul searching'? Yes, after 1945, Germany had to come to terms with the realisation of where Nazism had ended up. Horrible things had been done in their name. Russia, though in 1917 hadn't been defeated in the field. The Germans won on the eastern front in 1917 because Russia had collapsed from the inside. It wasn't an all-pervasive ideology in pre-1914 Russia that had got them into a mess. There wasn't one. They had collapsed because their rather creaking state wasn't up to it.

Much more of a problem for modern Russia has been and still is, coming to terms with what their state has done to them since 1917, how much that has to be accepted as for the good of the cause, and which cause, building the socialist paradise or preserving the existence of Russia as a viable nation.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Comment to Croesus: I have read that the Confederacy made a huge mistake by raising the price of cotton. They needed the cash, but they needed European good will more. (Comment ends.)

An interesting question is whether the Holocaust would have occurred (perhaps delayed) if Germany had won the first world war. It seems likely the Depression would have occurred anyway, and it had wide-spread effects. That alone might have been enough to arouse anger and lead to persecution of anyone who was less than popular.

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :

Re: the High Seas Fleet bombarding the US East Coast.

Assuming that the Germans made a breakthrough into the Atlantic (the British maintained a blockade with radio-equipped armed merchant cruisers), and assuming that they burdened their ships with enough coal to make the trip and back, and assuming that they steamed undetected into Massachusetts Bay . . . Well, just too many assumptions, and as Sober Preacher's Kid notes, there was this US battle fleet which, by 1918, had 14 or so dreadnoughts plus numerous pre-dreadnought battleships, armored cruisers and destroyers. Many of the smaller ships were being under a vast 1916 naval program that, I believe, was intended to match the Royal Navy, not the Hun.

Don't think Halifax would have been that big a deal, since the RCN at that time was tiny, and the HSF would have avoided those waters.

Sorry, this one doesn't work.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Assuming that the Depression would have happened also assumes that the Roaring 20s would have happened, along with the collapse of the German economy, both of which were determined by the outcome of the actual War.

The climate thing in the US Midwest would probably have occurred, but not necessarily the Stock Market crash of '29. Too many what ifs....

It is reasonable to expect that the US Navy expansion would have happened anyway, along with the Japanese equivalent, so the Pacific War would probably have happened (quite likely without the A-bomb) but the needed technological advances in aircraft and submarines would have taken longer.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Of course Germany would have retained its Pacific colonies, which were in the event handed over to the UK, Australia, and Japan as League of Nations Mandates (and in the 30s the Japanese fortified some of theirs e.g. in the Marshall Islands and used them as bases).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not saying that a German naval attack on the US would have worked - simply noting that they had plans for such an eventuality - prior to WW1.

I'm simply noting that they had such plans and using it as in indication of the kind of mindset Germany had in the years leading up to the conflict ie. a pretty paranoid one.

Almost anyone and everyone was perceived a potential threat - even the United States.

I'm simply saying that if they were that paranoid about the US which - in the early 1900s was certainly a major power but which posed no obvious threat to German interests - then how much more paranoid would they have been about France and Russia and other European neighbours?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Halifax as an RCN base was, as LADave notes, not much more than negligible (lots of armed trawlers), but the RN used Halifax as its major North Atlantic base during the war. Unless the RN had somehow ceased to exist by then, I imagine that it would have presented the Germans with a challenge at sea.

As far as war plans indicating paranoia, until the 1920s Canada had a war plan for the US, and vice versa. Many European countries drafted war plans against each other for reasons not really clear to me, but at least served to keep general staff planners occupied. Apparently there was an exercise proposed to draft a new US one in the 1950s, but it was nixed.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

A German victory could of course happened in 2 different ways resulting in two different outcomes.
If the initial war plan had worked France would have been occupied in 14 , (probably because Britain did not intervene), then the Kaiser's entire force would have been turned East resulting in a quicker Russian defeat. This outcome may have been better , less destruction for a start , but then who's to say how benevolent this new European Power would have been ?

If OTOH victory had come for the Germans in March 18 , (because America did not intervene), then I agree with what's been said above about the Depression still happening, and all the associated misery that went with it . Oh, and the Spanish flu would have still happened through the sheer exhaustion of it all.

As for alternative endings this is as far as anyone can go . The idea that future conflicts would not have happened in the event of a German WW1 victory is a hopeless form of wishful thinking.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The blockade of Germany would have still worked without US military intervention. Britain would have just got nastier all round. If the Germans were to win it had to have been in 1914.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

One of Byron Farwell's books was about the participation of the U.S. in the first world war. Another was about the war in Africa. One of his comments was that the German army, at the time of the Armistice, was not a defeated army. They did not slink back to Germany; they retreated in good order. The German military establishment felt that they had been sold out by their politicians, and this was part of the resentment that led to the rise of Hitler and later to the next war.

It may be that what was needed was not simply an end to that war but a decisive military victory. By 1918, of course, few had the will power to stick it out.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
One of Byron Farwell's books was about the participation of the U.S. in the first world war. Another was about the war in Africa. One of his comments was that the German army, at the time of the Armistice, was not a defeated army. They did not slink back to Germany; they retreated in good order. The German military establishment felt that they had been sold out by their politicians, and this was part of the resentment that led to the rise of Hitler and later to the next war. ...

That's the famous stab-in-the-back claim. It isn't true. The German army was on the run. That's why its generals asked for an Armistice so they could take it back to Germany in some sort of order before it disintegrated into a rabble.

It did though become part of the mythology Hitler and others used to wage war to reclaim Germany's place in the sun.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0