What if the Germans had won the first world war?

BuilderPlumber

cerastes wrote: »

Could WW2 have been prevented, well yes if Germany had won WW1 which is what the thread is,
Germany and Japan had been on opposing sides in WW1, so possibly no future alliance there, possibly the Japanese still would have taken the course they did anyway or may even have been emboldened by a British defeat as a vacuum might exist if Germany didnt have the capacity to take over British colonies, the US may not have been involved in any European conflict, maybe a regional war with Japan? or remain isolationist.
There would have been no requirement for Germany to take the course it did, unless Britain had attempted to undermine German control of Europe after their defeat, thats assuming Germany maintained control (occupation) anything like occurred in WW2 or simply became the preminent nation in European affairs.
But no requirement for Nazism to rise as the conditions didnt exist, maybe a rise of Facism in Britain though? if it took the route Germany actually did in reality, maybe a change of circumstances of the royal family? like Germany in reality.
Germany may well have been the dominant european nation over the middle east, but I cant see why you might imagine the slave trade might increase, or why it would be akin to the Spanish inquisition, Germany was at the time a quite elightened country too and after a victory in WW1 may have become more economically powerful like the US after WW1/2.

These things would happen if Nazi Germany won. Not Kaiser Germany. The Nazi's ideology of superior race meant that they not only approved of slavery but all other peoples could potentially be slaves for the Nazis. The concentration camps showed the Nazis' attitude to the use of slave labour and I'm sure that would have been continued.

The Nazis were a very dark and embittered lot. Hitler's manic depressive make up spoke to the nation at a time when all of Germany was feeling depressed. Plus add into the mix such organised crime bosses as Goering. The combination of all these lead to a very dangerous regime taking hold. If they had won the war, they'd take over all the British and French colonies and would plunder every resource including slaves in these.

cerastes

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

These things would happen if Nazi Germany won. Not Kaiser Germany. The Nazi's ideology of superior race meant that they not only approved of slavery but all other peoples could potentially be slaves for the Nazis. The concentration camps showed the Nazis' attitude to the use of slave labour and I'm sure that would have been continued.

The Nazis were a very dark and embittered lot. Hitler's manic depressive make up spoke to the nation at a time when all of Germany was feeling depressed. Plus add into the mix such organised crime bosses as Goering. The combination of all these lead to a very dangerous regime taking hold. If they had won the war, they'd take over all the British and French colonies and would plunder every resource including slaves in these.

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

Manach

cerastes wrote: »

or why it would be akin to the Spanish inquisition, .

An organisation whose actual victims was vastly increased by elements prejudicial to it and number of reported victims numbering a relatively small historical gunpower era battle?

BuilderPlumber

cerastes wrote: »

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

That is true. My point was if WW1 happened as it did and WW2 was won by the Nazis. If WW1 had been won by Germany, Hitler would be some none entity suffering from depression and would probably spend most of his time in and out of some mental hospital. I would not bank on his death being all that different though: he definitely had a suicidal tendency in his psyche and was also an obsessive risk taker.

cerastes

Manach wrote: »

An organisation whose actual victims was vastly increased by elements prejudicial to it and number of reported victims numbering a relatively small historical gunpower era battle?

eh? what?
are you agreeing with me, it seems like it?

Im just wondering why it came up at all?
but
NOBODY expects the Spanish inquisition!

Fratton Fred

dpe wrote: »

Even accounting for that, the combined French & German fleet was still smaller than the RN. Besides, as it turns out the importance of Dreadnoughts was a mirage; a direct clash of capital ships was so risky for everyone that Jutland was the only time it was tried and ended up a stalemate, The real work was done in the blockade by the ridiculous numbers of destroyers, cruisers and submarines (more than the Germans had) that the RN fielded.

As it turned out, yes, but that was in hindsight.

The Admiralty's policy was to keep a ratio of 2:1 over its nearest rival, but German construction of capital ships meant that on Dreadnaughts, that was only 12:10.

Fratton Fred

Reekwind wrote: »

Personally I think that's a bit too reductionist. The naval race was the most visible sign of the growing tension between the two but can be overstated. There was plenty of other 'declinist' angst in Britain in the decades prior to the war as unease at Germany's economic growth (witness Joseph Chamberlain's opposition to 'Made in Germany') and Berlin's increasingly erratic behaviour on the world stage.

Ultimately by 1914 Britain, having largely settled its grievances with France, was keen to uphold the status quo. The emergence of a new belligerent European superpower was fundamentally at odds with continued Anglo-French hegemonyt

I appreciate that, the imperial rivalry was the general underlying grievance between all the belligerents, sea power was Britain's unique gripe, just as borders was France's.

Jawgap

dpe wrote: »

Even accounting for that, the combined French & German fleet was still smaller than the RN. Besides, as it turns out the importance of Dreadnoughts was a mirage; a direct clash of capital ships was so risky for everyone that Jutland was the only time it was tried and ended up a stalemate, The real work was done in the blockade by the ridiculous numbers of destroyers, cruisers and submarines (more than the Germans had) that the RN fielded.

Not quite a mirage - the prime purpose of the RN was to maintain a 'fleet in being' to deter conflict. The dreadnoughts were the atomic weapons of their age.

There was also a clash of naval cultures at Jutland - the Germans prided themselves on accuracy, even it meant slow rates of fire. There are loads of examples of German ships straddling enemy ships with their first salvos.

The RN in the best traditions of the Nelsonian navy prided themselves on being able to maintain a high rate and weight of fire, at the expense of accuracy, and aggressive maneuvering by their fleet and ship commanders. That caused crews to take a lot of shortcuts and contributed to the destruction of a number of ships at Jutland because powder charges were stored in corridors and magazine doors were propped open.

Reekwind

cerastes wrote: »

But
if Germany had won WW1, none of the Nazi rise to power is likely to have come to pass.

Arguably. Most of the elite elements that came to support the Nazi programme (the military, business, landowners, judiciary, etc) would have emerged from a victorious Great War with their positions enhanced and, in the East, effectively ruling a settler state. Imperial Germany was not the most liberal state in the world and those progressive elements (eg the SPD) would have been increasingly marginalised post-war

The radicalism of the Nazis might have been avoided but I'd expect a triumphant Germany to be an unpleasant state to live for the millions of Slavs brought within its borders. Ultimately in Eastern Europe you'd get either an apartheid system or a series of client colonial states. Basically Nazi hegemonic dreams but without the genocide

Wurzelbert

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

[...]
Could WW2 have been prevented? Probably not. It seemed the same forces more or less rose up again then with Britain, France and Russia on one side and Germany (reunified with Austria and taking over much of the old Habsburg empire as client states. eg. Slovakia). The rise of fascism and nazism was too powerful a tide to stop and Hitler's insatiable appetite for taking over most of central Europe was something France, Britain, Russia and others were not going to tolerate.

If the Nazis won, I'd say we'd have a strange world order in the 1940s and 1950s. The Middle East would be a client region of Germany and there would of course be no Israel. The Nazis would inherit the British and French colonies and who knows what they'd do here? Return of the slave trade quite possibly. Europe would definitely enter a very dark period akin to the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Bad dictators would rise up in many places, all fascist and all clients of the Nazis.
[...]

i wonder what makes you think naziism would have arisen in germany without the german defeat in ww1...maybe you need to read up on what went on in germany after ww1, and i mean in real history, and what caused it all to happen the way it did.
whether ww2 would have happened in some way is a different question. i think a victorious (ww1) germany would have been too strong for the western powers to even think of another war against it and would certainly have been less aggressive itself with no or fewer grievances and scores to settle, territorial and other.
how you came up with a connection between the third reich and slave trade is anybody’s guess...there is no connection. and as for the idea of a “very dark period akin to the time of the spanish inquisition” after a nazi-german ww2 victory, that’s a different discussion, but as it was after 45 all of eastern europe entered a new dark age while the entire world was living under the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades...

Fratton Fred

Wurzelbert wrote: »

i wonder what makes you think naziism would have arisen in germany without the german defeat in ww1...maybe you need to read up on what went on in germany after ww1, and i mean in real history, and what caused it all to happen the way it did.
whether ww2 would have happened in some way is a different question. i think a victorious (ww1) germany would have been too strong for the western powers to even think of another war against it and would certainly have been less aggressive itself with no or fewer grievances and scores to settle, territorial and other.
how you came up with a connection between the third reich and slave trade is anybody’s guess...there is no connection. and as for the idea of a “very dark period akin to the time of the spanish inquisition” after a nazi-german ww2 victory, that’s a different discussion, but as it was after 45 all of eastern europe entered a new dark age while the entire world was living under the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades...

The British were on the winning side, but saw massive social change post war, including a rebellion in one part of the kingdom.

There's no reason to believe that an equally battered and bruised Germany, with millions of angry shell shocked young men returning from the trenches, would not experience similar social change, but with a very different political model and a very influential military.

I'm not saying Nazism was inevitable, but I believe social change was.

Wurzelbert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The British were on the winning side, but saw massive social change post war, including a rebellion in one part of the kingdom.

There's no reason to believe that an equally battered and bruised Germany, with millions of angry shell shocked young men returning from the trenches, would not experience similar social change, but with a very different political model and a very influential military.

I'm not saying Nazism was inevitable, but I believe social change was.

yes, some sort of social change was likely to happen either way...like women's suffrage and maybe a further weakening of the monarchy...but the rise of the nazis was something altogether different and specific to the situation after defeat...

ledgebag1

Wurzelbert wrote: »

.but the rise of the nazis was something altogether different and specific to the situation after defeat...

I would say that's not really correct, the Nazi party was a fascist party, similar to Mussollini's party, the falagne in Spain. Fascist parties became common in parts of Europe and further afield. How the Nazi party further developed in later years was unique to them, but an anti communist ideology and anti semitic stance was not a rarity.

gobnaitolunacy

Reekwind wrote: »

The radicalism of the Nazis might have been avoided but I'd expect a triumphant Germany to be an unpleasant state to live for the millions of Slavs brought within its borders. Ultimately in Eastern Europe you'd get either an apartheid system or a series of client colonial states. Basically Nazi hegemonic dreams but without the genocide

No Nazis, but genocide all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
And there's some evidence to suggest that there was note-taking by German observers of the Armenian Genocide.

dpe

Jawgap wrote: »

Not quite a mirage - the prime purpose of the RN was to maintain a 'fleet in being' to deter conflict. The dreadnoughts were the atomic weapons of their age.

..and like Atomic weapons, using them proved tactically problematic. Once the war had started their use as a deterrent had obviously failed, and then it turned out they weren't the decisive weapons everybody thought they were (and continued to think until 1943).

This is why I kind of discount the idea that German access to the French fleet would have meant that Germany could have forced Britain into reparations or even an attempted invasion, we know thanks to hindsight that Dreadnoughts were the wrong tool for the job.

Reekwind

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

No Nazis, but genocide all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
And there's some evidence to suggest that there was note-taking by German observers of the Armenian Genocide.

I wouldn't want to suggest that there was something inherently genocidal about the Germans but it is worth noting the degree to which disdain for the Slavs encountered in 1914-18 fed into later Nazi racism. Soldiers returning from the East brought back impressions of 'dirtiness' and 'primitivism' that directly informed the post-war debate about sub-humans and 'hygiene'. It also shaped the discussions of lebensraum (which pre-dates Nazism), with the East being portrayed as a vast empty land of wealth, just waiting for 'civilised' exploitation.

None of which may have led to genocide per se but the German rule certainly would not have been pleasant. I'd predict that the Slavs would have been treated little better than Africans under European rule

Wurzelbert

ledgebag1 wrote: »

I would say that's not really correct, the Nazi party was a fascist party, similar to Mussollini's party, the falagne in Spain. Fascist parties became common in parts of Europe and further afield. How the Nazi party further developed in later years was unique to them, but an anti communist ideology and anti semitic stance was not a rarity.

i think the nazis, while certainly inspired by italian fascism in a number of ways, went far beyond “normal” fascism...and yes, anti-communism and anti-semitism were quite common in most nations, fascist or not, back then and are in some ways intertwined...

Wurzelbert

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

No Nazis, but genocide all the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
And there's some evidence to suggest that there was note-taking by German observers of the Armenian Genocide.

something totally unrelated to ww1...and let’s not start comparing european nations’ colonial “atrocities” here...maybe in a separate thread...

gobnaitolunacy

Wurzelbert wrote: »

something totally unrelated to ww1...and let’s not start comparing european nations’ colonial “atrocities” here...maybe in a separate thread...

Think it may have some bearing as to how a supposed German Empire, had it won WW1, would have behaved.
Obviously no European power came back from colonial exploits with a spotless record.

Wurzelbert

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Think it may have some bearing as to how a supposed German Empire, had it won WW1, would have behaved.
Obviously no European power came back from colonial exploits with a spotless record.

i think it was basically the normal way of dealing with colonial uprisings and stuff like that back then, nothing too uncommon...the notion that it could have meant the risk of widespread genocide in europe after a german victory in ww1 is a bit absurd, to me anyway...

dpe

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Think it may have some bearing as to how a supposed German Empire, had it won WW1, would have behaved.
Obviously no European power came back from colonial exploits with a spotless record.

I don't think discussing a league table of colonial misdeeds is very productive. But then I'm British so I would say that. (For what its worth, Belgians worst, French "best").

Reekwind

To me the key point is that Nazi racism did not come out of nowhere. A triumphant Imperial Germany would not automatically lead to a campaign of genocide (that would be silly) but nor would it consider the populations of Eastern Europe to be equal to Germans.

The increasingly fashionable ideas of racial hygiene and eugenics, along with a disdain for Slavic populations, would not have disappeared with German victory. On the contrary, such a victory would bring Germans into far more contact with non-Germans and lead to tensions that would make Bismarck's anti-Polish Germanisation programme look mild in comparison

Jawgap

dpe wrote: »

..and like Atomic weapons, using them proved tactically problematic. Once the war had started their use as a deterrent had obviously failed, and then it turned out they weren't the decisive weapons everybody thought they were (and continued to think until 1943).

This is why I kind of discount the idea that German access to the French fleet would have meant that Germany could have forced Britain into reparations or even an attempted invasion, we know thanks to hindsight that Dreadnoughts were the wrong tool for the job.

Their purpose, like the purpose of the latter day atomic weapons, was not to deter conflict per se, but to deter the use of the Imperial Germany Navy's surface fleet in a blockading role or in a counter-blockade role.

In that they were modestly successful - the RN proved to be 'better' at keeping the IGN bottled up, than the other way around - limiting them to submarine warfare and occasional shore bombardment of the east coast of the UK - the IGN were not able to use their cruisers and battle cruisers in their intended role, namely, cruising and protecting sealanes and commerce raiding.

If the IGN had been able to slip some units past the RN's Grand Fleet they would have run riot - and we'd definitely know that Corbett's theories were correct - dispersion as opposed to concentration is a better form of naval power disposition.

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

To me the key point is that Nazi racism did not come out of nowhere. A triumphant Imperial Germany would not automatically lead to a campaign of genocide (that would be silly) but nor would it consider the populations of Eastern Europe to be equal to Germans.

The increasingly fashionable ideas of racial hygiene and eugenics, along with a disdain for Slavic populations, would not have disappeared with German victory. On the contrary, such a victory would bring Germans into far more contact with non-Germans and lead to tensions that would make Bismarck's anti-Polish Germanisation programme look mild in comparison

a victorious germany would certainly not have turned into a multi-cultural free-for-all in any way after ww1, yet we would not have seen any of the sort of anti-semitic and racial excesses that later came with the nazis, and genocides really only ever happen in times of war or revolution anyway, like the holocaust only took off for real in the 2nd half of ww2...
and yes, the slavs that did live in eastern germany pre ww1 were certainly not seen as equals by many of the germans in the area, they were just another minority with a long and difficult history, yet they could live in peace and were not exactly persecuted or anything...racism (and anti-semitism) had been around forever and were probably no more prevalent in germany than in most other nations in europe and elsewhere, and the german-slavic relationship goes well beyond racism anyway…the main difference was (and is) that germany has always had a long border and therefore a long history with the slavic world, unlike england or france or any other major european power; those were only ever interested in eastern european countries as (temporary) allies in order to encircle germany anyway…

David762000

if they had won ? then this forum would be in german ;-) und wir wuerden deutsch reden

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

and yes, the slavs that did live in eastern germany pre ww1 were certainly not seen as equals by many of the germans in the area, they were just another minority with a long and difficult history, yet they could live in peace and were not exactly persecuted or anything

State institutions that openly discriminated against Poles and Polish culture (such as the Prussian Settlement Commission) were active right up to 1918, while it had only been a couple of decades prior to that that Poles had been forcibly deported from Prussia. To argue that Poles were not subject to Germanisation or persecution is denialism

It's impossible to credit the idea that this difficult, at best, relationship would have improved, rather than worsened, as millions more Poles (not to mention other Slavs) entered Germany's orbit

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

State institutions that openly discriminated against Poles and Polish culture (such as the Prussian Settlement Commission) were active right up to 1918, while it had only been a couple of decades prior to that that Poles had been forcibly deported from Prussia. To argue that Poles were not subject to Germanisation or persecution is denialism

It's impossible to credit the idea that this difficult, at best, relationship would have improved, rather than worsened, as millions more Poles (not to mention other Slavs) entered Germany's orbit

before 1918 poland did (since some 100 years ago) not exist as a sovereign nation. some poles lived in the german and austrian empires, most (by far) in the russian empire and the historical polish heartland was also under russian rule. poland as a sovereign nation had basically been overtaken by history.
now i am not an expert on the situation of the polish minorities in all the different empires, only know a thing or two about the german situation and would have to do more research, but i would venture to guess that the poles in russia were not a whole lot better off than those in germany or austria, possibly rather worse...correct me if you know better and can back it up...
my point is that some form of discrimination against foreign minorities with different language and cultural backgrounds and, as in the case of the poles, mutual historical animosities is basically normal, almost natural...would and did (and still does) happen everywhere, so is not something i would hold against germany, austria or russia, it ‘s just the way the world works, sad as it may be...

Reekwind

Wurzelbert wrote: »

now i am not an expert on the situation of the polish minorities in all the different empires, only know a thing or two about the german situation and would have to do more research, but i would venture to guess that the poles in russia were not a whole lot better off than those in germany or austria, possibly rather worse...correct me if you know better and can back it up...

How is that at all relevant? No one is arguing for continued Russian oppression of the Poles (those in Galicia were relatively well treated). The question is whether anti-Polish programmes existed in pre-war Germany (they did) and whether they would have continued in the event of a German victory (almost certainly)

No need to indulge in whataboutism

my point is that some form of discrimination against foreign minorities with different language and cultural backgrounds and, as in the case of the poles, mutual historical animosities is basically normal, almost natural...would and did (and still does) happen everywhere, so is not something i would hold against germany, austria or russia, it ‘s just the way the world works, sad as it may be...

Seriously, what is it with you and German apologism? They can invade any land so long as it was "historically German" in the loosest sense and it's fine for them to oppress any national minority they want. What exactly would Imperial Germany have to do for you to criticise it?

The idea that institutional racist discrimination and persecution is "natural", inevitable and not worth criticising is bizarre. And, you know what, I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Wurzelbert

Reekwind wrote: »

How is that at all relevant? No one is arguing for continued Russian oppression of the Poles (those in Galicia were relatively well treated). The question is whether anti-Polish programmes existed in pre-war Germany (they did) and whether they would have continued in the event of a German victory (almost certainly)

No need to indulge in whataboutism

Seriously, what is it with you and German apologism? They can invade any land so long as it was "historically German" in the loosest sense and it's fine for them to oppress any national minority they want. What exactly would Imperial Germany have to do for you to criticise it?

The idea that institutional racist discrimination and persecution is "natural", inevitable and not worth criticising is bizarre. And, you know what, I'm not going to waste my time with it.

don’t know what you’re on about, i was trying to be as objective as possible here...maybe you just need to do away with your basic assumption that germany was intrinsically evil back then and somehow trying to enslave the world...

Reekwind

Imperial Germany persecuted Slavic minorities. Nazi Germany persecuted Slavic minorities. Yet you would have us believe that an Imperial Germany that had conquered most of Eastern Europe would not persecute Slavic minorities.

Moreover, any racial discrimination that Imperial Germany did indulge in is, according to you, perfectly acceptable and "almost natural". Because what could be more natural than deporting minorities and marginalising minority languages/customs through a programme of Germanisation?

There is absolutely nothing "objective" about this

...your basic assumption that germany was intrinsically evil back then and somehow trying to enslave the world...

Provide one post in this thread where I have suggested any of this. It's a complete strawman