Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What if the Germans had won the first world war?
Options
Comments
-
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
Provide one post in this thread where I have suggested any of this. It's a complete strawman
just trying to put things into perspective here…sorry if it doesn't all fit into your “entente” view of the world…just try to understand that times were different then and at least try to see the big picture, historically and geopolitically…at least give it a try and maybe things will become clearer to you at some stage…otherwise never mind, the world will keep on turning, whether we agree or not…0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »The British and empire wouldn't have collapsed, they would have become part of the new German empire.
As would the French and Belgian empires.
Someone who has just worked hard for something isn't going to give it up easily, so Irish independence is unlikely. The same goes for India, north Africa and large parts of the Caribbean.
But hey, at least it won't be "da Brits" anymore.
Thats certainly a positive.0 -
GideonMcGrane wrote: »Thats certainly a positive.
In what way? Chances are it would have been a negative.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »In what way? Chances are it would have been a negative.
I dont think so.
Would have been a change :cool:0 -
My views from the above and further immediate issues if Germany won WW1:
-The colonies: clearly, Germany would take all the British and French ones. Or try to. Chances are uprisings would occur in some of them and rebellions would take advantage of the new situation. Germany would unlikely be able to control all and would let many go but would protect and retain the most valuable. India, resource rich parts of Africa. It would help Turkey maintain the Arab world and its oil. It would form close ties with Persia (Iran).
-Eastern Europe: There would be no such place as Poland. That would be German territory. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary would remain Austrian and Germany would help Austria. Yugoslavia divided between Austria and Turkey, same with Romania. Bulgaria part of Turkey. There would be attempt to de-Slavify, etc. all of these and try to Germanify or Turkify them. No genocide but incentives given to go along with German policies. Rebellions would not be tolerated. Austria and Turkey may break up and if so, German client states would take their place.
-UK/France: weak and Germany would try and keep them that way much the same as how they kept Germany weak. A reverse situation may arise with a 'Hitler' rising in these instead of Germany and a 'Churchill' arising in Germany.
-US: if not initially, then definitely in the medium term a strong ally of Germany.
-Russia: a powerful enemy of Germany and the only real threat to them. The cold war between Russia and USA (and Germany) would begin sooner. Likely that the Bolshevik revolution would have gone ahead and Lenin and Stalin would lead. Ironically, Stalin may well find his soulmate in France or UK to fight Germany as happened in WW2 but with the German side the 'good side'.
Hitler: a depressive non-entity not needed in a prosperous Germany.
The German monarchy: most likely to survive and prosper.
UK monarchy: likely to fall and be replaced with either a fascist or a communist/near communist state.
France: A Napoleon type could rise there, this time ironically allied to Britain against Germany.
Ireland: Could end up a client state of Germany. The Germans would likely grant it independence with a condition it remains a German ally. The Germans would not attempt to occupy it and make an enemy they need to monitor closely when they could be gaining oil and gold elsewhere.
Commonwealth nations like Australia, Canada and NZ. Hard to tell. Canada could well merge with the US. Australia may become rather ironically a German and Irish co-venture. New Zealand could become similar.
Scotland: could well become an independent entity. German policy may be to break up the UK.
Southern Europe: Franco and Mussolini probably would still rise in both. Franco's Spain stayed neutral would follow suit and Mussolini may as well and last longer as leader.
WW2: as said, it still would happen but in reverse. UK, France and Russia against Germany and USA. You could have a German-US cold war followup instead of US/USSR one!
Afterwards, ??? Maybe no capitalist v communist issues, maybe no militant 'voodoo Islam' (a made in the West response to Soviet invasions of Afghanistan and meddling in Iran), maybe no Israel or Palestine issue. Thus, no 9/11. Peaceful middle east. However, we could instead see wars elsewhere. Tribalist conflict in Africa (inevitably colonialism would still come to an end) would remain inevitable but Europe could still see major wars and divides with a France/Germany flashpoint remaining and radical regimes in the UK, Russia and some others lasting for decades. Eastern Europe would probably be dominated by someone and that would be most likely Germany.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's probably fair to say if Germany had won and imposed sanctions like those of the Versailles treaty on Britain, France and Germany that all three countries would have attacked Germany directly or indirectly at a later stage. Funding guerrilla groups in the colonies for example. Also if Germanys victory had affected United States trade or the economy this might also have triggered some form of conflict too. All hypothetical as is most of this thread.0
-
GideonMcGrane wrote: »I dont think so.
Would have been a change :cool:
Then maybe you should stop trolling, read about the rape of Belgium and work out for yourself how Collins and co would have fared trying to get independence in a German occupied Ireland.0 -
It's probably fair to say if Germany had won and imposed sanctions like those of the Versailles treaty on Britain, France and Germany that all three countries would have attacked Germany directly or indirectly at a later stage. Funding guerrilla groups in the colonies for example. Also if Germanys victory had affected United States trade or the economy this might also have triggered some form of conflict too. All hypothetical as is most of this thread.
A German dominated Europe could well have led to a three way cold war with Russia and the US.0 -
Maybe, but IMO it is more likely that another absolute/ Total war would have occurred. Dropping a nuclear bomb in Europe not only destroys your opponent but a lot more and you run the risk of impacting your own environment and resources.
Putting aside 'Germany's assimilation of various nations' fundamentally all the mentioned nations would have suffered on a major economic scale, and this in turn would have triggered either a conflict or as I mentioned these nations funding militias, allying together and assembling vast armies with the goal of regaining their trading routes and colonies. Is it worth considering, if Germany had won the war, having such a vast control of colonies, countries etc, would they run the risk of being spread far too thin0 -
LONG LIVE THE ALMIGHTY GERMAN GOD KAISER WILHELM II0
-
Advertisement
-
Fair play to ye you biy the caps locks wont help with the trolling ��0
-
It's probably fair to say if Germany had won and imposed sanctions like those of the Versailles treaty on Britain, France and Germany that all three countries would have attacked Germany directly or indirectly at a later stage. Funding guerrilla groups in the colonies for example. Also if Germanys victory had affected United States trade or the economy this might also have triggered some form of conflict too. All hypothetical as is most of this thread.
Actually we've got historical evidence to suggest otherwise; The Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871 imposed sanctions at least as financially punitive against France as Versailles was against Germany. The French paid them. In full and early. People tend to forget that Versailles, for the French, wasn't just about screwing Germany for WWI, it was also about the 1870 war, and in those terms, wasn't actually that unreasonable. And Germany could have easily paid for Versailles but chose to sabotage its own economy instead.0 -
Well the treaty of Frankfurt differed a lot to Versailles. I will let you look into those, but there were trade agreements derived between France and Germany for example. 132 billion repayments compared to 5 billion. The most significant part of my point which you really haven't addressed is the economic impact Germany's victory would have had upon America, Russia and Britain, this would have ensure Germany coming from increasing pressure in its colonies and across Europe.0
-
Well the treaty of Frankfurt differed a lot to Versailles. I will let you look into those, but there were trade agreements derived between France and Germany for example. 132 billion repayments compared to 5 billion. The most significant part of my point which you really haven't addressed is the economic impact Germany's victory would have had upon America, Russia and Britain, this would have ensure Germany coming from increasing pressure in its colonies and across Europe.
Er, no. It was 132bn Gold Marks, but in reality it was only 50bn Gold Marks (the rest was PR inflation for the domestic French and British press and was never "real"), which was about US$12.5bn. The Treaty of Frankfurt was 5bn Gold Francs, which was about US$10bn in 1870 dollars. Plus France lost 20% of its coal and steel capacity.
In terms of the economic effects on the UK, France & the US, I addressed the UK in an earlier post; it would depend on Germany's ability to enforce sanctions. Assuming a 1914 or 1917 victory, France is of course screwed, as the Germans would be "on the ground" to enforce payment.
In the case of Russia, the Russians had agreed to give the Germans 6 billion Marks in reparations which was repudiated by the Soviets in 1918. If the Germans had won in the West, we can assume some kind of military adventure in the East, with whatever consequences that would have had for the Russian civil war (maybe Belarus and Ukraine in the German sphere? Difficult to tell).
In the case of Britain and America, even if they'd lost the ground war, I really don't see how Germany could enforce reparations against either of them given the RN would have been intact and still qualitatively and quantitatively larger than the Imperial Fleet (even with the addition of the French) and the Germans probably couldn't have forced an invasion of the UK (certainly not in 1917-18). The problem for Britain would have been internal; the loss of prestige would certainly have helped accelerate the dissolution of the Empire, both from the Dominions and the Colonies, and I can imagine a lot of time and treasure spent fighting that, far more than was spent post-WWII when public opinion had largely moved away from the idea of Empire and the Americans had started to pull the strings.
As for the Americans, a more emphatic return to isolationism than happened anyway, that would have been harder for a future President to break when the inevitable next round of European hostilities started.0 -
Good points there i agree with a lot of it0
-
Er, no. It was 132bn Gold Marks, but in reality it was only 50bn Gold Marks (the rest was PR inflation for the domestic French and British press and was never "real"), which was about US$12.5bn. The Treaty of Frankfurt was 5bn Gold Francs, which was about US$10bn in 1870 dollars. Plus France lost 20% of its coal and steel capacity.
In terms of the economic effects on the UK, France & the US, I addressed the UK in an earlier post; it would depend on Germany's ability to enforce sanctions. Assuming a 1914 or 1917 victory, France is of course screwed, as the Germans would be "on the ground" to enforce payment.
In the case of Russia, the Russians had agreed to give the Germans 6 billion Marks in reparations which was repudiated by the Soviets in 1918. If the Germans had won in the West, we can assume some kind of military adventure in the East, with whatever consequences that would have had for the Russian civil war (maybe Belarus and Ukraine in the German sphere? Difficult to tell).
In the case of Britain and America, even if they'd lost the ground war, I really don't see how Germany could enforce reparations against either of them given the RN would have been intact and still qualitatively and quantitatively larger than the Imperial Fleet (even with the addition of the French) and the Germans probably couldn't have forced an invasion of the UK (certainly not in 1917-18). The problem for Britain would have been internal; the loss of prestige would certainly have helped accelerate the dissolution of the Empire, both from the Dominions and the Colonies, and I can imagine a lot of time and treasure spent fighting that, far more than was spent post-WWII when public opinion had largely moved away from the idea of Empire and the Americans had started to pull the strings.
As for the Americans, a more emphatic return to isolationism than happened anyway, that would have been harder for a future President to break when the inevitable next round of European hostilities started.
good post…as you said, sanctions against the uk could not have been enforced by germany so the brits would not have paid anything…i reckon that would have ended in some sort of prolonged armistice with a later rapprochement…an actual invasion of britain was militarily out of the question and also never really planned or a war aim of germany anyway. similar story with the usa…
there would have been some rearrangement regarding the colonies, yet i do not think germany would have taken over india or anything like that or even seriously considered it, not least because britain would have fought to the death over it and would still have been a serious foe even after a defeat on the continent, with intact navy and all…and as you said, the dissolution of the british empire would probably have been accelerated dramatically…
in the east, belarus, the ukraine, poland and the baltic states, mostly annexed by russia at some stage before the war, had already been occupied by german troops in 1918, and all would probably have ended up as semi-independent states in a larger german sphere of influence (except belarus maybe)…that was basically the german idea anyway and also foreshadowed how and why german troops were initially greeted as liberators in the ukraine and parts of the baltic in ww2…a development sort of similar to what we saw (sans the german influence) after the collapse of the soviet union decades later…independence for russia’s european colonies…
as for the russian civil war, not sure but i think that would probably have been ended by germany directly or indirectly through support for the white movement, german leadership certainly did not want a communist power next door and had only supported lenin out of sheer desperation and pure necessity…
russia proper would have remained intact and a major power (simply by its sheer size), possibly even on good terms with germany, depending on how the whole revolutionary mess would have been solved and who would have ended up in power in russia…
addendum: as said before, the timing of that hypothetical german victory would have made a huge difference...a quick “clean” victory in 1914 would have had very different consequences from a much messier victory in 1918...0 -
-
It would be exactly like this but without the UK moaning about Europe.
Plus there would be no WII and about 70 million lives would have been saved. Makes me proud now we did mention our German allies in the proclamation.0 -
It would be exactly like this but without the UK moaning about Europe.
Plus there would be no WII and about 70 million lives would have been saved. Makes me proud now we did mention our German allies in the proclamation.
The people of Belgium who suffered extensively under German occupation would beg to differ.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Then maybe you should stop trolling, read about the rape of Belgium and work out for yourself how Collins and co would have fared trying to get independence in a German occupied Ireland.
weren't these falsified stories, to whip up the population? propaganda?Fratton Fred wrote: »The people of Belgium who suffered extensively under German occupation would beg to differ.
Do you mean "Brave little Belgium"? that Belgium?
One imperialist nation fighting another, hardly any worse than what the Belgians (King) perpetrated on the populace of their prized colony?0 -
Advertisement
-
Wurzelbert wrote: »good post…as you said, sanctions against the uk could not have been enforced by germany so the brits would not have paid anything…i reckon that would have ended in some sort of prolonged armistice with a later rapprochement…an actual invasion of britain was militarily out of the question and also never really planned or a war aim of germany anyway. similar story with the usa…
there would have been some rearrangement regarding the colonies, yet i do not think germany would have taken over india or anything like that or even seriously considered it, not least because britain would have fought to the death over it and would still have been a serious foe even after a defeat on the continent, with intact navy and all…and as you said, the dissolution of the british empire would probably have been accelerated dramatically…
in the east, belarus, the ukraine, poland and the baltic states, mostly annexed by russia at some stage before the war, had already been occupied by german troops in 1918, and all would probably have ended up as semi-independent states in a larger german sphere of influence (except belarus maybe)…that was basically the german idea anyway and also foreshadowed how and why german troops were initially greeted as liberators in the ukraine and parts of the baltic in ww2…a development sort of similar to what we saw (sans the german influence) after the collapse of the soviet union decades later…independence for russia’s european colonies…
as for the russian civil war, not sure but i think that would probably have been ended by germany directly or indirectly through support for the white movement, german leadership certainly did not want a communist power next door and had only supported lenin out of sheer desperation and pure necessity…
russia proper would have remained intact and a major power (simply by its sheer size), possibly even on good terms with germany, depending on how the whole revolutionary mess would have been solved and who would have ended up in power in russia…
addendum: as said before, the timing of that hypothetical german victory would have made a huge difference...a quick “clean” victory in 1914 would have had very different consequences from a much messier victory in 1918...
Biggest colonial change would have been in the Middle East; instead of the British/French carve-up of former Ottoman colonies, things could have been rather more complicated. Assuming a 1917/18 defeat, the British would still have "won" in the Trans-Jordan and Arabia, but might have been forced to give them up (or face a German/Ottoman response). The one thing that definitely wouldn't have happened is the artificial border-drawing that gave us modern Syria, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. But what would have ended up in its place? A German victory would also have propped up the Ottomans (at least for a while) and the Austro-Hungarians, which would mean the Balkans in particular would look very different.
I think both of the those empires would have collapsed eventually anyway (but who knows? They could have had another 50 years or longer in them), but whether you end up with modern states in their place or the Germans sweep them up is open to debate.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »The people of Belgium who suffered extensively under German occupation would beg to differ.
about belgium...belgium happened to be in the way of the schlieffen plan so the german armies had to march through belgium in 1914 if they were to have any hope of encircling and defeating the french and english quickly, simply dictated by geography and the overall strategic situation.
passage through belgium, without fighting, was requested by germany yet denied by belgium, naturally, as a sovereign nation would not just let a foreign army march through and they knew they had the entente on their side. the german plan was to quickly march through belgium into france, defeat the western powers on french soil, then turn around and defeat the russians in the east and be done with the war. and not a single belgian would have been harmed.
what became known as the “rape of belgium” is mostly allied propaganda as the atrocities that really did happen were blown up out of proportion to give the impression the germans were a horde of bloodthirsty ogers who had invaded belgium specifically in order to crucify nuns, rape babies and cut off little girls’ hands...and who of course had to be destroyed at any cost.
now, as said, “atrocities” did happen after german troops came under fire from belgian civilians or what they thought were civilians, and there certainly were excesses here and there as an army of millions will always have its share of sadists etc. in its ranks and there was a brutal war ongoing, though to think the german military went in with the specific order to “rape” belgium is nonsense. an occupation in wartime will always be tough, stuff will get destroyed and people will suffer, that’s the sad reality of war and history is full of examples. though denmark in ww2 is an example of how things can go as long as the local civilian population keeps quiet. for civilians to take up arms against an occupying force is not only against the rules and the hague conventions and whatever, it will also almost automatically make the occupiers nervous and trigger-happy and lead to more needless suffering...0 -
weren't these falsified stories, to whip up the population? propaganda?
Do you mean "Brave little Belgium"? that Belgium?
One imperialist nation fighting another, hardly any worse than what the Belgians (King) perpetrated on the populace of their prized colony?
Exaggerated maybe, but certainly not falsified.
Considering I was responding to a poster who is proud that Germany was mentioned in the 1916 declaration, I'm not sure the argument of they got what they deserved is really appropriate, especially when you consider that Germany were every bit as brutal with their own colonies.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »[...] especially when you consider that Germany were every bit as brutal with their own colonies.
not so sure...the quelling of bloody revolts should not be seen as exemplary of how germany ran its colonies...everyday colonial life should...0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Exaggerated maybe, but certainly not falsified.
Considering I was responding to a poster who is proud that Germany was mentioned in the 1916 declaration, I'm not sure the argument of they got what they deserved is really appropriate, especially when you consider that Germany were every bit as brutal with their own colonies.
Belgium's running of the Congo is probably the most brutal colonisation in modern history. And Germany was touted in the declaration as a case of "My enemy's enemy...", much like we were fond of the Bruces, the Spanish and French at other stages of history.0
Advertisement