What if the Germans had won the first world war?

Jawgap

As the article points out, counter factual speculation can be a bit of a parlour game, but isn't Christmas the traditional time for parlour games

People who see a divine hand or the iron laws of dialectical materialism at work in human affairs bridle at the question: "What if things had turned out differently?" To EH Carr, historian of Soviet Russia, to speak of what might have happened in history, as opposed to what did happen, was just a "parlour game". To EP Thompson, author of The Making of the English Working Class, such counterfactual speculation was "unhistorical ****".

Other historians have confessed to being more intrigued. "The historian must constantly put himself at a point in the past at which the known factors will seem to permit different outcomes," wrote Johan Huizinga. It is important to recognise that, at any moment in history, there are real alternatives, argued Hugh Trevor-Roper.

Happily, none of this argument deters the writers of fiction or the public. Germany's possible defeat of Britain in 1940 is by some distance the national treasure trove of might-have-beens. As long ago as 1964, the film It Happened Here by Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo raised the then unthinkable thought that collaboration would have thrived in Hitler's Britain. More recently, a succession of novels, including Robert Harris's Fatherland, Resistance by Owen Sheers and CJ Sansom's Dominion – which imagines a Vichy Britain in 1952 ruled by Lord Beaverbrook and Oswald Mosley – have explored the same theme.

Manach

There are other historians, such as Nial Ferguson who approved of Counter-factualism as a way to better explore the various forces that drive the historical process and a way of introducing a "There but for the Grace of God ..." element.
My 2c - completely based on nothing but my own imagination.

The Zimmerman telegram did not lead to US intervention and the Germans achieved a decisive victory on the Western theatre.
So in 1917/1918
Western powers, France would have faired worst, likely striped of serveral colonies and perhaps territorial loss in the Metreopole.
Given the reach of the UK's navy, it would be difficult for the central powers to threaten them - so no immediate concessions to their powerbase. However the Imperial prestige would have taken a blow and this would have lead to discontent down the line

Turkey - at this stage, might have been too late for that empire and would have slide into a terminal decline with dozens of national revolts.
Austria Hungry - weaken but a still viable empire, with a much more decentralised state to keep in line with promises given during the war for local autonomy.
For Russia, at a guess given the punitive terms of the Bolshevik agreement with Germany, this in the short term would have lead to less powerful Soviet state - but also one that did not face a resurgent Poland that checked its Western advances.
Given the ideological divide between the CCCP and Imperial Germany, then this would have lead to another war a generation latter, perhaps aided by a vengeful France. The UK would likely have mirrored the US and become isolationist.

Ozymandiaz

If Germany won WW1:

British Royal family re-adopts its German name and promotes its own German origins and the Teutonic roots of the English people;

Independence for Ireland with a Sinn Féin government in Dublin trying desperately to contend with Protestant Unionist terrorism on a scale the IRA could only dream of;

Rapid collapse of British Empire as its colonies engage in wars of independence against the hated Bosch;

No World War 2;

No holocaust;

No Hiroshima/Nagasaki;

No UN but a version of it based upon the British Commonwealth, politically centred on the US, dedicated to the reversal of German domination in Europe and the balance of power between it, a federalised German Europe and a rising socialist block under Russia;

No Liebfraumilsch in the 70s;

No World War II popular history media industry;

Unfortunately, we would have a European Central Bank based in Germany and there would be proper regulation except when it suited Germany to ignore it.

kumate_champ07

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

If Germany won WW1:

British Royal family re-adopts its German name and promotes its own German origins and the Teutonic roots of the English people;

Independence for Ireland with a Sinn Féin government in Dublin trying desperately to contend with Protestant Unionist terrorism on a scale the IRA could only dream of;

Rapid collapse of British Empire as its colonies engage in wars of independence against the hated Bosch;

No World War 2;

No holocaust;

No Hiroshima/Nagasaki;

No UN but a version of it based upon the British Commonwealth, politically centred on the US, dedicated to the reversal of German domination in Europe and the balance of power between it, a federalised German Europe and a rising socialist block under Russia;

No Liebfraumilsch in the 70s;

No World War II popular history media industry;

Unfortunately, we would have a European Central Bank based in Germany and there would be proper regulation except when it suited Germany to ignore it.

how so?

I wonder how the Middle East would look

Ozymandiaz

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

how so?

I wonder how the Middle East would look

My ravings are as good as the next man's! How about, instead, Germany win the war but the British resistance falls back on Ireland with US support. Ireland becomes a massive Anglo-American version of Taiwan in Europe?!

Reekwind

Ozymandiaz wrote: »

British Royal family re-adopts its German name and promotes its own German origins and the Teutonic roots of the English people

Elaborate

gobnaitolunacy

The Germans would end up running Europe and we'd have to borrow from them....wait a minute.....

Wurzelbert

ultimately pointless but always interesting…
there are (at least) three ways germany could or would have won the first world war, two certain ones and one debatable:

1. if the british had stayed out of the war, france, russia and the rest would have been defeated rapidly and all would have been home for christmas 1914.

2. if germany had invested more in the army (which was under-strength in 1914) and less in the navy in the years before the war, and thus had a few more divisions and artillery units available at the marne in 1914, they would have wiped the floor with everybody, with or without britain, and all would have been home for christmas 1914 as well.

3. a german victory in 1918 would certainly have been more difficult to achieve, yet even then the german spring offensives came relatively close to dealing the western powers a blow that might have brought them to the negotiating table, only american support saved the entente then…and germany had already won the war in the east and italy was as good as defeated as well…of course the effects of the british naval blockade (widespread starvation and shortage of almost everything) and then the spanish flu and all did not make things any easier for the central powers…

with a german victory in 1914, countless millions would not have died and the “old” europe would have stayed intact…there would have been no 2nd world war, no holocaust, no cold war, no naziism, no stalinism, no maoism, no euro, no financial crisis, no banksters and all in all the world would likely be a better place today…
a german victory in 1918 would certainly have been a messier affair with all the mutual hatred and millions of dead after years of war, but would ultimately have had similar results…probably…
now some will say this is naive nonsense, but think again. the thing is that most people’s idea of imperial (2nd reich) germany is one of a nasty, dark and opressive dictatorship, of an evil empire run by ogers…and nothing could be further from the truth…many folks’ view of the world has been formed and warped by decades of anti-german propaganda and lies, by the version of history written by those who won the two world wars…

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

Elaborate

a look at the windsors‘ family history should enlighten you…and as for the “teutonic roots of the english people”, you might want to read up on the anglo-saxons, sure you have heard of them…though i probably would not have used the term “roots” as there is an older celtic element there as well…but england as such was certainly founded by “teutons”…as was france btw…

Reekwind

Yeah, all that's pretty basic. It's the crazy jump from the English monarchy abandoning its culture and promoting England as 'mini Germany' that I get lost

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah, all that's pretty basic. It's the crazy jump from the English monarchy abandoning its culture and promoting England as 'mini Germany' that I get lost

after all they did change their name to „house of windsor“in 1917 in order to hide their german roots and not risk becoming unpopular with the english…kinda weak i say…so as they did show spineless opportunism with their name, it seems reasonable to assume they might have acted all german after a german victory in order to cosy up to their german relatives who would then have been the ones running the sole european superpower…
as we know, the english and german royal families have always had strong blood ties and the kaiser was a grandson of queen victoria who was herself half german etc…

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

so as they did show spineless opportunism with their name, it seems reasonable to assume they might have acted all german after a german victory in order to cosy up to their german relatives who would then have been the ones running the sole european superpower…

Except that these are completely different scenarios. On the one hand you have an Anglicised elite adopting an English family name to appease the population on whose sufferance they depended on, on the other you have an Anglicised elite offending the same population by fraternising with a foreign power.

Or do people think that anti-German sentiment in England (ie the reason for changing to Windsor) would encourage a reversion to Georgian Germanism by the royals?

Manach

On this month's Military History, there was a book review on "Noble Endeavours: The life of two countries, England and Germany" - which detailed the relationship between the two countries since the 17thC. It was mostly a positive review (marked down on not commenting on working class links) and shows the waxing/waning of those countrys' ties.

Wurzelbert

Manach wrote: »

On this month's Military History, there was a book review on "Noble Endeavours: The life of two countries, England and Germany" - which detailed the relationship between the two countries since the 17thC. It was mostly a positive review (marked down on not commenting on working class links) and shows the waxing/waning of those countrys' ties.

sounds like a potentially interesting book, will check it out…

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

Except that these are completely different scenarios. On the one hand you have an Anglicised elite adopting an English family name to appease the population on whose sufferance they depended on, on the other you have an Anglicised elite offending the same population by fraternising with a foreign power.

Or do people think that anti-German sentiment in England (ie the reason for changing to Windsor) would encourage a reversion to Georgian Germanism by the royals?

yes of course, my main point was that the english royals acted like a bunch of dishonourable losers in ww1…or would you change your family name and thus betray generations of ancestors just so you could hope to remain popular? it just doesn’t feel right…

mickmackey1

Then again if that asteroid had not smacked into Earth 66 million years ago, I suppose the dinosaurs would still be in control

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

or would you change your family name and thus betray generations of ancestors just so you could hope to remain popular?

If I was a national institution concerned with my own survival, I probably would. That's how institutions survive (through evolution). You might as well berate the Windsors for 'renouncing the customs of their forebearers' by speaking English (and generally being English)

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

If I was a national institution concerned with my own survival, I probably would. That's how institutions survive (through evolution). You might as well berate the Windsors for 'renouncing the customs of their forebearers' by speaking English (and generally being English)

ok, i guess you have a point there, given the way this world functions, reality and all...so i’ll let the poor misguided royals off the hook for now...

Boulevardier

If Germany had won WW1, Western Europe would probably now be part of a huge "currency union" with Germany calling all the shots.

Oh wait ...

Fratton Fred

The Nationaux-Socialistes, led by Un Chef de File would have started WWII.

tfitzgerald

Boulevardier wrote: »

If Germany had won WW1, Western Europe would probably now be part of a huge "currency union" with Germany calling all the shots.

Oh wait ...

He's right they lost the war. But by god they are winning the peace

mickmackey1

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

The Germans would end up running Europe and we'd have to borrow from them....wait a minute.....

Boulevardier wrote: »

If Germany had won WW1, Western Europe would probably now be part of a huge "currency union" with Germany calling all the shots.

Oh wait ...

Great minds...:pac:

Boulevardier

Sorry Mick, I sped through the thread and didnt see yours.

Wurzelbert

Boulevardier wrote: »

If Germany had won WW1, Western Europe would probably now be part of a huge "currency union" with Germany calling all the shots.

Oh wait ...

what exactly is it that would make you or anyone think a german victory in 14-18 would have resulted in a european union or a common currency in any way…? the whole situation nowadays is a consequence of the german defeat, of two german defeats in fact…

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

what exactly is it that would make you or anyone think a german victory in 14-18 would have resulted in a european union or a common currency in any way…? the whole situation nowadays is a consequence of the german defeat, of two german defeats in fact…

More a consequence of three Franco/German conflicts in fifty years over the Alsace-Lorraine region I'd have said.

Coal and steel were yesterday's oil!

cerastes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More a consequence of three Franco/German conflicts in fifty years over the Alsace-Lorraine region I'd have said.

Coal and steel were yesterday's oil!

3 conflicts in 50 years?
1870-(1) franco prussian war
1914 WW1 +44 years
1939 ('40) Start WW2 +70 years

Fratton Fred

cerastes wrote: »

3 conflicts in 50 years?
1870-(1) franco prussian war
1914 WW1 +44 years
1939 ('40) Start WW2 +70 years

Ok, 70 years. The point is the same though. The eu was formed essentially to resolve the differences between France and Germany.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More a consequence of three Franco/German conflicts in fifty years over the Alsace-Lorraine region I'd have said.

Coal and steel were yesterday's oil!

the french element in all this is certainly strong...yet which “three franco/german conflicts in fifty years over the alsace-lorraine region” are you referring to? also, there always was a lot more at stake than just alsace-lorraine between germany and france over the centuries…
and after all, the eu is really nothing but a second attempt at the treaty of versailles, this time in slightly more concealed form after the first (more open) attempt at annihilating germany for good after 1918 had failed so miserably…not to mention the euro which was really just a last resort of the western allies (mainly france) after they realised they could not prevent german reunification…or does anyone really think the german taxpayer likes or in any way enjoys paying for other european nations’ greed and economic ****ups?!

Reekwind

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The point is the same though. The eu was formed essentially to resolve the differences between France and Germany.

Via a framework of economic cooperation. A German dominated Europe (in which both Alsace-Lorraine and the Low Countries were annexed by Berlin) would in no way resemble the EU structures of today. A more relevant example for German dominated Europe would be the Warsaw Pact network of client states

cerastes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok, 70 years. The point is the same though. The eu was formed essentially to resolve the differences between France and Germany.

Im not being smart, I wasnt sure if you were referring to some other conflict prior to 1870 with WW1 as the end point, which would have been as far back as Bonaparte, there was some agreement of no french involvement in what became the Austro-Prussian war.

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

Via a framework of economic cooperation. A German dominated Europe (in which both Alsace-Lorraine and the Low Countries were annexed by Berlin) would in no way resemble the EU structures of today. A more relevant example for German dominated Europe would be the Warsaw Pact network of client states

what makes you think so? you seem to presuppose germany was essentially “evil” in some way then, like so many in today’s world who grew up with the post-war winners’ version of history…
you are aware that alsace-lorraine is historically german (just look at the place names) and was first annexed by france when the old german empire was down for good after the 30-years war, right? similar story with the low countries, just a tad more complex and a little different…

Wurzelbert

cerastes wrote: »

3 conflicts in 50 years?
1870-(1) franco prussian war
1914 WW1 +44 years
1939 ('40) Start WW2 +70 years

yes and none of those wars was specifically about alsace-lorraine…

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

what makes you think so? you seem to presuppose germany was essentially “evil” in some way then, like so many in today’s world who grew up with the post-war winners’ version of history…

Because that was the post-war scenario being discussed by the German planners. Make no mistake: Germany's post-war objectives were considerably more extensive than those of any other power, excepting perhaps Russia

you are aware that alsace-lorraine is historically german (just look at the place names) and was first annexed by france when the old german empire was down for good after the 30-years war, right? similar story with the low countries, just a tad more complex and a little different…

Yeah, that makes little sense. In the first place, most of eastern France was at some point or another part of the HRE and part of the Kingdom of Lotharingia and Francia. Calling these lands "historically German" (as if Metz, with its connections stretching back to the Gauls and the Merovingians, was a German city) is deeply disingenuous. Ditto with the Low Countries

Secondly, nationalist delusions aside, the German Empire was not a successor state to the HRE. It's borders were different, its basis of legitimacy and the HRE was never an ethnic nationstate in the same sense as the 'Second Reich'. There was even a gap of almost seven decades between the two!

Finally, all this was centuries before the Franco-Prussian war. By 1870 the region was politically and culturally French, regardless of language. Post-annexation, every single federal election in the region (every one!) returned the pro-French Autonomists as the largest party. Trying to justify Bismarck's cynical border manipulation on the basis of the Thirty Years War is ridiculous

cerastes

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes and none of those wars was specifically about alsace-lorraine…

But it changed hands in each of them.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Wurzelbert I propose a dual alliance to provide mutual aid in the event of attacks by 'cerastes' and 'Reekwind'.

Wurzelbert

Jake Rugby Walrus666 wrote: »

Wurzelbert I propose a dual alliance to provide mutual aid in the event of attacks by 'cerastes' and 'Reekwind'.

haha, yeah

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

Because that was the post-war scenario being discussed by the German planners. Make no mistake: Germany's post-war objectives were considerably more extensive than those of any other power, excepting perhaps Russia

well, even that article speaks of it as “more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy”...many things are discussed, especially in times of war, that’s normal.
in order to understand where these guys were coming from one needs a profound knowledge and understanding of at least 1200 years of european and especially german history and the geo-strategic situation in europe throughout the centuries...and there are no clean cuts in history, historical events and developments linger in the collective memory of peoples and nations.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yeah, that makes little sense. In the first place, most of eastern France was at some point or another part of the HRE and part of the Kingdom of Lotharingia and Francia. Calling these lands "historically German" (as if Metz, with its connections stretching back to the Gauls and the Merovingians, was a German city) is deeply disingenuous. Ditto with the Low Countries

Secondly, nationalist delusions aside, the German Empire was not a successor state to the HRE. It's borders were different, its basis of legitimacy and the HRE was never an ethnic nationstate in the same sense as the 'Second Reich'. There was even a gap of almost seven decades between the two!

Finally, all this was centuries before the Franco-Prussian war. By 1870 the region was politically and culturally French, regardless of language. Post-annexation, every single federal election in the region (every one!) returned the pro-French Autonomists as the largest party. Trying to justify Bismarck's cynical border manipulation on the basis of the Thirty Years War is ridiculous

i think you may be getting a few things mixed up here, gauls, merovingians and all...not like gaul is (historically) a synonym for france and not like the merovingians were gauls, let alone french in today’s meaning of the word. they were franks, and the franks were germans (germanic tribes) who had moved into and conquered parts of gaul after the roman collapse as it was there for the taking.

france and germany as we now know them both really began with charlemagne’s three grandsons and the treaty of verdun in 843.
the middle kingdom quickly fell apart and most of it ended up in the east-frankish kingdom which then became and expanded into the hre (the first german empire) as the imperial crown went with the german kings.
alsace-lorraine officially became part of the german (east-frankish) kingdom in 870 and remained german until 1680 or so, i.e. was german for some 800 years before the french annexed it when they could.

i am aware that modern popular history in many countries finds it fashionable to claim the hre was somehow not german, but that is yet another erroneous tenet in the aforementioned winners’ version of history. like telling people germany did not exist before 1870. have heard it all.

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well, even that article speaks of it as “more of a discussion document and not a formally-adopted government policy”...many things are discussed, especially in times of war, that’s normal

And hence I didn't refer to it as an official set of objectives. The value of the Septemberprogramm lies in illustrating how the German political and military elite were thinking during the war and what direction their ideas for the post-war period were heading. There can be little question that the basic aims expressed in the document (security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time; France must be so weakened as to make her revival as a great power impossible for all time; Russia must be thrust back as far as possible... and her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples broken) was sincere

But if you want an example of what actual German peace looked like, without hypotheticals, then look no further than that inflicted on Russia. Brest-Litovsk was severe enough to make Versailles look generous: the seizure of a vast swathe of eastern territory, containing millions of souls, to be directly annexed or populated by German vassal kingdoms. Now that was a harsh peace.

in order to understand where these guys were coming from one needs a profound knowledge and understanding of at least 1200 years of european and especially german history and the geo-strategic situation in europe throughout the centuries...and there are no clean cuts in history, historical events and developments linger in the collective memory of peoples and nations.

Meaning what?

i think you may be getting a few things mixed up here, gauls, merovingians and all...not like gaul is (historically) a synonym for france and not like the merovingians were gauls, let alone french in today’s meaning of the word. they were franks, and the franks were germans (germanic tribes) who had moved into and conquered parts of gaul after the roman collapse as it was there for the taking

This is getting silly. To stick with the example of Metz: Gaul is a synonym for France. The area around Metz was a Gallic settlement long before the arrival of Romans or Franks. When the Franks did arrive Metz lay right in the heartland of the Empire (Francia) for centuries; the Merovingians predominately ruling from and being active in what is now modern France.

That is, this city that you believe was "historically German", has connections going back to France (or at the very least the lands west of the Rhine) millennia before Bismarck decided to bolt it onto the German Empire.

Now none of this is particularly relevant (tracing historical claims through the centuries is a pointless, if entertaining, waste of time) except to rubbish the notion that Germany had some superior right to these lands. It did not.

france and germany as we now know them both really began with charlemagne’s three grandsons and the treaty of verdun in 843.

Yeah, the idea that national or territorial differences suddenly sprung up from 843 is primary school history.

The idea that, for example, the territories of Lotharingia (which was never more than an artificial polity) were German just because the Ottonians won a war is silly. This says absolutely nothing about the ethnic and cultural composition of the region but assumes that because it was ruled by a 'German' Emperor then it was German. Arguing that one automatically follows the other is silly; arguing that this provides grounds for annexation centuries later is just apologism.

I suppose that Bohemia and Italy were also 'historically German' and we're lucky that Bismarck didn't look to incorporate them into the Reich?

i am aware that modern popular history in many countries finds it fashionable to claim the hre was somehow not german, but that is yet another erroneous tenet in the aforementioned winners’ version of history. like telling people germany did not exist before 1870. have heard it all.

Then you'll have to explain how it was that the HRE never considered itself to be an ethnic nationstate. Or are we to believe that the French, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Czechs, Swiss and Poles (with the myriad customs and tongues) are all somehow 'German'? Is it a "winners' history" to believe it ludicrous that all these lands have been 'stolen' from the rightful rule of an entirely different German state?

Somebody should tell Enda Kenny that Ireland is now able to trade its Celtic heritage into governance of all the lands once inhabited by Celts :rolleyes:

Snickers Man

Wurzelbert wrote: »

the kaiser was a grandson of queen victoria who was herself half german etc…

I remember reading somewhere (would appreciate confirmation or refutation) that Victoria von Hannover was a native German speaker and never quite lost her German accent. Although she was born and raised in England, her mother (the parent from whom it is generally accepted children are most likely to adopt their first language) was German as were three of her four grandparents.

True, her father and his father were both born in England but her paternal antecedents before that were all German (or Huguenot) as far back as her great great great great great grandmother Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I.

"Vee are not amused" is probably how she would have pronounced it.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere (would appreciate confirmation or refutation) that Victoria von Hannover was a native German speaker and never quite lost her German accent. Although she was born and raised in England, her mother (the parent from whom it is generally accepted children are most likely to adopt their first language) was German as were three of her four grandparents.

True, her father and his father were both born in England but her paternal antecedents before that were all German (or Huguenot) as far back as her great great great great great grandmother Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I.

"Vee are not amused" is probably how she would have pronounced it.

Her governess was German.

A big deal is made of the royal family's German heritage (usually in Ireland for some reason) but the fact most of the European royal families are of German descent seems to get ignored.

I believe she was cousin to the Tsar as well as grandmother to almost an entire generation of royals around Europe.

Reekwind

Interestingly, as an aside, when the monarchs of Europe wanted to correspond with each other in the lead up to war, they famously did so via English

BuilderPlumber

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

how so?

I wonder how the Middle East would look

Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey.

In Iran, you would see Shah Pahlavi senior expand ties with Germany to counter Soviet expansionism. Pahlavi would rule until his death with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi then ruling until he dies in the 1980s with Reza Pahlavi being the current Shah. There would be no 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini would remain an obscure cleric and there would be no Iran Iraq war.

Saddam would rise up in Iraq but without the cold war, he would probably stay within his Iraqi borders and would still be the leader of Iraq to this day.

Saudi Arabia would be exactly as is. America, Germany and Russia would remain global superpowers with America and Germany being very close allies since the 1930s. Russia would be a sort of rival but not like the cold war.

Israel would probably not exist. British Palestine would probably end up a part of Syria. The Middle East in general would remain very peaceful and prosperous. There would be no violent jihad or 9/11. bin Laden would be just an ordinary developer and Zawahiri would remain a doctor.

Wurzelbert

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey.

In Iran, you would see Shah Pahlavi senior expand ties with Germany to counter Soviet expansionism. Pahlavi would rule until his death with Mohammed Reza Pahlavi then ruling until he dies in the 1980s with Reza Pahlavi being the current Shah. There would be no 1979 revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini would remain an obscure cleric and there would be no Iran Iraq war.

Saddam would rise up in Iraq but without the cold war, he would probably stay within his Iraqi borders and would still be the leader of Iraq to this day.

Saudi Arabia would be exactly as is. America, Germany and Russia would remain global superpowers with America and Germany being very close allies since the 1930s. Russia would be a sort of rival but not like the cold war.

Israel would probably not exist. British Palestine would probably end up a part of Syria. The Middle East in general would remain very peaceful and prosperous. There would be no violent jihad or 9/11. bin Laden would be just an ordinary developer and Zawahiri would remain a doctor.

think that sounds reasonably realistic, given the traditionally good german-arab relations free of colonial resentment. not sure russia woud still be a major power, though due to its sheer size it probably would somehow...
would israel exist or not is an interesting question...maybe the (relatively few) israelis would just live in palestine – in whatever state or territory - peacefully with all other palestinians, the major jewish exodus to palestine certainly would not have taken place and we would not see that extreme level of hatred and all the more recent wars in the region would not have happened...
i think the timing of that hypothetical german victory would also be an important factor in all that...early vs. late in the war, before vs. after the russian revolution, before vs. after active us involvement etc.

gozunda

Very interesting article on Pre-war Berlin

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25635311

...The Kaiser imagined that war would unite his loyal subjects. On the very eve of war - the morning of 4 August 1914 - he announced that from that moment he recognised no political divisions, no political parties. "From this day on, I recognise only Germans," he said.

It is true that the citizenry (or many of them) were ecstatic. Bands played patriotic tunes ceaselessly in the cafes. The actress Tilla Durieux wrote breathlessly, "Every face looks happy. We've got war! One's food gets cold, one's beer gets warm. No matter - we've got war!" The Association of German Jews proclaimed that every German Jew was "ready to sacrifice all the property and blood demanded by duty

That was the atmosphere on the eve of war, exactly 100 years ago. Berlin, this city, seemed like the ebullient capital of a confident nation growing into an imperial power. It was a false impression. Behind that facade were divisions that would crack very quickly.

On 9 November 1911, August Bebel, the Marxist politician who was one of the founders of the Social Democratic Party, rose in the Reichstag and made this speech, warning about the route down which Germany was hurtling: "There will be a catastrophe. Sixteen to 18 million men, the flower of different nations, will march against each other, equipped with lethal weapons.

"I am convinced," he went on, "that this great march will be followed by the great collapse."

At which point, laughter broke out in the chamber. Bebel picked up: "All right, you have laughed about it, but it will come. What will be the result? After this war, we will have mass bankruptcy, mass misery, mass unemployment and great famine."

".

ledgebag1

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes and none of those wars was specifically about alsace-lorraine…

Actually I would question that, Hitler was in part driven by the 'unfair' Treaty of Versailles and the 'November Criminals' who signed it. The re annexation of Alsace Lorraine was part of the Lebensraum expansionist policy and the reversal of the treaty.

Wurzelbert

ledgebag1 wrote: »

Actually I would question that, Hitler was in part driven by the 'unfair' Treaty of Versailles and the 'November Criminals' who signed it. The re annexation of Alsace Lorraine was part of the Lebensraum expansionist policy and the reversal of the treaty.

from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...so the western allies (mainly the french) came up with the eu after ww2 and later with the euro...basically with the same agenda as versailles, just in more covert and outwardly less aggressive and objectionable form...
the alsace-lorraine question was certainly one of many german grievances post ww1, though hitler fully realised that actual “living space” could only ever be found in the east...the alsace was mainly an issue deeply rooted in franco-german history...

Reekwind

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Arab countries were part of the Turkish empire then. This empire would probably not have survived no matter who won as it was in decline. Turkey would grant the region independence and Arab states would rise up and would become German funded entities and would also maintain close ties with Turkey

I'd question this. The Ottoman Empire had been in relative decline for centuries without collapsing. It was a century of increasing meddling from the Great Powers (culminating in Sèvres) that ultimately brought the Empire to an end.

While a Central Powers victory might see some Austrian aggrandisement in the Balkans (although limited by its internal contradictions and German reluctance), I could easily see an Ottoman Empire survive the war intact, albeit as a German client state. A Berlin-Baghdad railway would only increase the strategic importance of the region, facilitating further German interests in the Middle East and beyond and necessitating increased political presence in Istanbul

Wurzelbert wrote:

from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...

What exactly did Germany expect would happen on losing the war? A return to the status quo? A slap on the wrist for devastating northern France? Germany got lucky: it could have been dismembered completely (like the other two eastern empires) or had a third of its population stripped away (like the treaty it inflicted on Russia).

Versailles "backfired" because Britain and, to a lesser degree, France were unwilling to enforce its mechanisms, not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with constraining an expansionist Germany. Doing the latter correctly would have been a much better security against another world war than relying on an unrepentant German elite

ledgebag1

Wurzelbert wrote: »

from a german perspective the treaty was everything but fair and, as history has taught us, it backfired badly...so the western allies (mainly the french) came up with the eu after ww2 and later with the euro...basically with the same agenda as versailles, just in more covert and outwardly less aggressive and objectionable form...
the alsace-lorraine question was certainly one of many german grievances post ww1, though hitler fully realised that actual “living space” could only ever be found in the east...the alsace was mainly an issue deeply rooted in franco-german history...

Hmmm, there are some sweeping statements there, Alsace was most certainly to be part of the German expansion both geographically and economically, the region is rich in minerals, coal etc and there were programmes in place to relocate German citizens there.

I dont think the establishment of the EU or euro were designed or introduced purely to limit Germany, economically or militarily. A different discussion alotgether

gozunda

Taking into fact that Germany lost both the first and second world wars and despite of this has gone on to become one of the strongest and dominant members of the EU is even a bigger ponderible in my opinion. How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....

Fratton Fred

Because as soon as it surrendered, it became a very important ally of the West.

The mistakes of Versailles had also been recognised.

Japan hasn't done too bad.either.

Reekwind

gozunda wrote: »

Taking into fact that Germany lost both the first and second world wars and despite of this has gone on to become one of the strongest and dominant members of the EU is even a bigger ponderible in my opinion. How did Germany manage to maintain so much of its wealth and influence following the effects of both....

The answer is in the question. Germany was in a position to attempt conquest of Europe twice and do well today precisely because it is "one of the strongest and dominant members" in Europe. Since 1870 it has always been one of the most populous, powerful and advanced nations in Europe.

Fundamentally, the root cause of both world wars was the inability of the existing European framework to accommodate an assertive (and occasionally belligerent) unified Germany. Thankfully, by the time of German reunification there existed an institutional framework (ie, the EU) in which Germany could flourish peacefully