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…