If Germany Had Won World War I - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By dktekno
From a historian's point of view, how would the world be today if Germany won WW1?

How would the world develop, if the Kaiser defeated France and Britain?

I often wonder about this, because if Germany won, there would be no need for a "new strong leader" like Hitler, because then Germany would've been very strong, and there would be no reason to have Hitler at all.

Hitler came to power because Germany lost WW1 and because they lost, Germany had to pay for the cost of the war. This caused a lot of angry germans, and Germany had to give up alot of its military and soverignity of many things. But if Germany had won, there would be no high inflation and no high unemployment rate or "unfairness" for the germans, and thus no reason for being desperate and hire an insane person as the dictator of their country. Hitler only got the power because the people were desperate for changes, and Hitler could promise them that, and they were desperate, so they ignored his insanity.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
Versailles isn't to blame for the Depression. That still might have occured, not necessarily leading to a Hitler, but certainly to plenty of instability.
User avatar
By alyster
Germany won the war atlist on the eastern front. The Treaty of Brest shows that Germany used the same winner takes/say/does it all tactic as allies in the west. That gives us no reason to think that the peace terms wouldn't have been as harsh on France and England as they were on Germany. I didn't mention Belgium cause I don't think Germans would want to collect reparations from their new colony.

Also as already said by someone German victory wouldn't have eliminate the cause of the big depression therefor we shouldn't think that it won't happen. So we could possibly face facism in France due to that. The risk was even with the original history.

I'm just wondering what would happen with Brtish Empire and in colonies. Germany wanted colonies but they don't have the strencght to conquer them in WW1. They could have taken Moscow or paris but not India or African colonies probably due to Royal Navy's strength.

The German victory would most likely put France and Russia out of the big world politics.
User avatar
By stannis
Versailles isn't to blame for the Depression.

Versailles reparations + Depression = WW2?

If Germany had won WW1... as unlikely as that ultimately would have been... one could envision a Kaiser-dominated European commonwealth that would either ally with or become an enemy of imperial Britain.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
What kind of "win" ?

The same kind of win the allies had over Germany?
Or a victory more phyric then the allied one in real life?

The kind of victory would determine what kind of outcome Germany and the world would be in.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
The Russian revolution would have still happened. It is likely that the Spartikans would have still had a rising, and Italy would have still had to keep a thumb on a wakening working class as would Irish socialists allied with the IRB that would have had British radical sympathies; and France would have probably have had a large socialist rising per 1871.

There would have, thus, still been a reactionary movement that would have risen up to stamp out socialism in any form, and this is more than likely to have taken the form of fascism.

It may have been a French or British guy trying to put it down this time around; but probably Germany as it bordered the Soviet Union.

So I don't think it would have been that different at the end of the day.

-TIG :rockon:
User avatar
By MB.
how would the world be today if Germany won WW1?

If Germany "won" WWI in the same sense that the Allies "won" WWI, there would be a Nazi France.
By Shade2
I have a comprehensive scholary analysis of German plans in case of victory in WW1 by Immanuel Geiss, a German historian.
I know several aspects of plans towards Europe by Germany.
The key concept of German planning was the so called "Mitteleurope"- an hegemony of Germany towards countries of Central Europe.
Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania would become vassal states, with their economies, military and industry in German hands and for German exploitation. There would be a Baltic Duchy made from Livonia-or Latvia and Estonia as they are called. Germans would be the ruling class in Baltic Duchy and this would become one of areas of planned German colonisation in the East.
You see Germans believed they have too little area to feed and allow growth of their state so they wanted to gain "living space"-Lebensraum-the theory was developed and influenced German politics well before Hitler.

Germans also wanted to take circa 30,000 square km from Congress Poland and expell some 2 milion Poles and Jews to make room for German colonists(20 years later Hitler copyied the plans in Warthagau plan).
Poland itself would be made a puppet state with a German noble as its king. It was forseen that it would be exploited in terms of economy and its military would be under German control.
Germans generally were opposed to Austro-Polish solution-that is the linking of Congress Poland to Austro-Hungary as third kingdom.
From what I know West Galicia would be seperated from Austro-Hungary, with AH hoping to get Romania as third kingdom. West Galicia would be linked to Poland.
Poland itself it was believed in time would become Germanised, some military hawks wanted to hunger Polish population in order to reduce its numbers.

Generally the Mitteleuropa plan was made to allow Germany industrial growth on scale allowing succesfull competition with Great Britain and USA on world stage.

You can read the base ideas here :
What else:
*Luxemburg becomes German state
*Belgium becomes a puppet state

annexation of mine areas in France
By Shade2
Now that I have shown German plans let us think what would happen.

I doubt France would become Nazi. Rather a self-centered country, with perhaps a monarchist-fascist coup in future.
But war wouldn't come from its side.

I believe that Britain with diplomatic and financial means would undermine German hegemony on the Continent. It would fund movements opposing German rule.
Where would such movements come from ?
I believe Balts and Slavic peoples would be resentfull towards German rule. Germans viewed them as inferior, their countries were seen as source of cheap labour and raw materials. All business would be in hands of Germans. Before the war there was already a neoslavophile movement advocating an alliance with Russia against German expansion.
In view of this, neoslavophiles would make base of resistance towards German rule. It could become a fascist movement with communist attitude towards work and worker rights.
Russia wouldn't fall for communism as monarchistic Germany wouldn't allow it.
Instead it would remain a puppet monarchy. In time Wrengel or somebody like him, would gain support of masses or military and establish a coup with support of Britain.
I would say Russia would become more fascist.It would also be allied with Britain and start influencing people in Central Europe against Germany with the idea of Panslavic Confederation.
However before that I believe Russia, which would be much more stronger thanks to avoiding Civil War, would become interested in China and its resource. It would also become rival of Japan, that would due to its culture naturally be attracted to militaristic Germany.
Japan and Germany would contest both Russia and Britain.
In Europe a depression would likely occur due to militaristic aproach to economy by Germany. Slavic people would be put to blame and repressed, with blame on all worries towards "Polish terrorists", "Czech sabotours" etc.
The end ?
War would start over China, between Japan and Russia. Germany would declare war on Russia, face uprisings in Poland, Bohemia, Belarus, Livonia. Ukraine's a difficult case, Germans could make it prosper and have part of them on their side.
After Germany would invade Russia, Britain and France would make war on Germany, Ottoman Empire on France and Britain and Russia. Japan in turn would declare war on France and Britain. Then after it gains ground on British positions, USA would decide to intervene.
I believe AH would face civil war and disintegration similiar to Ottoman Empire.
In the end Russia and its allies would win.
Czechoslovakia would be formed, Yugoslavia also. Baltic states would be Russia's puppet states, with Lithuania being annexed just like Ukraine and Belarus. Poland would become a puppet state, closely linked Russia.
Most of countries in Central Europe would be either monarchies or fascist countries.
Germany would be divided into several small states.
Overall the winner would be Russia-it would have much more symphathy in Central and Eastern Europe and would have stronger industry, greater population.
In 20,30 years after the WW2 Russia would be far more closer to capitalist China and riots in Central Europe perahps would lead to more democratisation.
Overall the world would be richer and more prosperous, but much more authoritarian.
By Shade2
Oh and the world would certainly be grim. Expect organised famines in German controled Poland, military rule, and concentration camps similiar to the ones in Africa(but likely not as those made by Nazis).Still I would bet milions would die in ethnic cleansing made by Germans(remember that they historically planed to do it already in WW1).
And of course in the end-no Germans in Central and Eastern Europe.
Ah and short summary of goals:
The declining expectations of future trade contributed to the pervasive sense of general decline felt by the German leadership in July 1914. Extensive evidence shows that German leaders brought on world war for "preventive" motives, namely to forestall the rise of powers such as Russia.(61) Economic factors reinforced these motives. If France and Russia could be defeated, valuable areas in Europe would be incorporated under German tutelage, guaranteeing the raw materials and markets needed for future German economic power and therefore security; without major war, the economic policies of German adversaries would push Germany further into decline over the long term.

These aims were revealed in the so-called "September Program," which was finalized by Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg on September 9. The plan stated that the "general aim of the war" was "security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time." Russia "must be thrust back as far as possible," while France would become "economically dependent on Germany, secur[ing] the French market for our exports." France's "ore-field of Briey, which is necessary for the supply of ore for our industry, [would] be ceded," and a "central European economic association," including central Europe, France, Poland, and "perhaps Italy, Sweden, and Norway," would be formed. And while members would be "formally equal," "in practice [the association! will be under German leadership and must stabilize Germany's economic dominance over Mitteleuropa."(62)

This blunt programme for German economic hegemony in Europe was clearly consistent with the pre-war call for a Mitteleuropa, and it reflected the work of Bethmann and his associates through the months of July and August 1914. Rathenau, now in charge of raw materials for the Reich, was particularly influential. On August 1, 1914, he submitted to Bethmann a long memorandum arguing that "only a Germany reinforced by 'Mitteleuropa' would be in a position to maintain herself as an equal world power between the world powers of Britain and the United States on the one side and Russia on the other," and war, if necessary, would help to achieve this "essential objective."(63) The date shows that the report must have been prepared during the height of the July crisis, demonstrating that the September program reflected pre-war objectives, rather than a post-
hoc scramble to justify the reality of war.
By imagicnation
@ Shade2
WHOA! Well firstly you have to look at the way in which Germany wins. The first option is the first Battle of the Marne. If Germany wins this, then they knock France out of the war, as planned. They then shift the war effort to Russia so by 1915 the war with Russia has ended. Britain would still probably blockade Germany for awhile but would quickly sign a peace treaty after fall of Russia. Eastern Europe would shift to Germany's control while France would see similar humiliating treaties imposed like the Franco-Prussian war several decades earlier. Some social change would be seen especially in Eastern Europe with German control as well as famines in Russia, but not to the same extent.
If it's the second battle of the Marne that succeeds. Well, Germany would still encounter revolution, same in Russia, Italy would already be in the war (which it would lose, same fascist feelings), Austro-Hungarian Empire would still collapse, Ottoman Empire would be rocked by revolution. Germany, under pressure of war weariness, would quickly call a peace treaty to try stabilise the situation in it's new found European Empire and end blockades. It still would have lost most of it's overseas territories, but with over a quarter of Russia's coal in their hands, they'd been pretty well off.
By Shade2
Yes, my scenario was rather towards early German victory.
However even later victory wouldn't change much. It could mean victory for Communists in Russia. But in end-Russia will regain strenght, and both France and Britain would try to undermine German hegemony. Germany hasn't got the power to occupy Russia nor to extend its reach into Asia.
In the end-not much would be changed-there still will be resistance to German hegemony, and Germans still will be arrogant enough to treat badly Central Europe.
The only card Germany would have would be Ukraine, 50 milion people, and very big potential. It could be Germany's most valued ally, responsible for keeping the German dominance in Central-Eastern Europe. But's lets face-Russia will want it back, Poles will revolt, Britain and France will interfere.War will be inevitable. Communists would likely exploit bad conditions imposed by Germans towards Central European people with slogans of "worker's rights etc), historically they used Slavic slogans in WW2 too, so that part is also possible.
Germany alone is too weak to be ruling in Europe, it needs allies, Austria is too small and weak, rest are unloyal really, the only one they could have created would be Ukraine.But as experience shows German feelings of suprority and desire to gain quick benefits stands in the way.

Also remeber that Germany already had already culture traits that allowed Hitler. However Hitler being a socialist, likely wouldn't happen. I would count on more militaristic dictatorship with industrial circles combined.
Oh btw:read this interesting piece:
By imagicnation
However even later victory wouldn't change much.

Of course it would. The calls for Democracy in the Bundestag, strikes of hundreds of thousands of workers, the mutiny of an entire fleet, hunger, famine, crop failures, communist uprisings...all things that happend in the later stages of the war. If Germany had won a long war, she still would have had to adopt far more Democratic policies. Further, the advisors to the Kaiser would see giving democracy to people in Eastern Europe as a way to pacify the people. Although Germany might not have adopted Democracy to the same extent as France or Britain, she still would head in that direction.
By Shade2
The calls for Democracy in the Bundestag, strikes of hundreds of thousands of workers, the mutiny of an entire fleet, hunger, famine, crop failures, communist uprisings...all things that happend in the later stages of the war. If Germany had won a long war, she still would have had to adopt far more Democratic policies.

That means little to international situation. Germans maybe wanted to be more democratic, but were driven by nationalism. Germany would still want to control Central Europe, still would be exploiting it, and still would pursue ethnic cleansing and discrimination towards Slavic people. It would compete with Russia, which in the long term wouldn't accept loss of Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Baltic States.
And democratisation not always is the tool rulers use, did Stalin use democratisation ? Germany might as well become a full military-industrial dictatorship, sending dissidents to colonise swamps in Belarus.

the advisors to the Kaiser would see giving democracy to people in Eastern Europe as a way to pacify the people

Oddly that never happened to minds of any German ruler, even when they country was collapsing. And giving democracy to people of Eastern Europe means giving green light to resistance, because Germany occupied several territories that were taken from Czechs and Poles, and its bussiness would be in control of their economies.
Untill Germany gets ruined and defeated like in WW2 there is no peace in Europe. And Germany is unable conquer Europe.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
My understanding of the Mitteleurope concept is that it was similar to the EU, in the purely economic aspects.
By Shade2
Not really, the basic idea was that the countries wouldn't have independent economies. For example all railways and natural resources were to be given under German control, it was also connected to plans of settlement.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
Where would Austria sit in this MItteleurpe plan?

Especially if its a quick win by Germany
By Shade2
Where would Austria sit in this MItteleurpe plan?

Especially if its a quick win by Germany

1-There were proposals to create States of Austria, with more autonomy.
2-Austria wanted to abandon Poland, it gave too much trouble. If Austria would get to annex territory of Poland then Poles would be as numerous as Germans. Hungarians were fearing losing power and opposed creating Poland as third kingdom-but who knows what would happen.
3-If Austria was to let go of Galicia-it would either be split to Ukraine and Poland or to Poland. Depends who would be in stronger position. In exchange Romania was to be united with Austro-Hungary.
4-There was option of Austria becoming a triple-monarchy, with Poland as third element.
5-Or we could guess that AH would disintigrate anyway and Austrians would join Germany. It could become another mess for Germans.
However AH was marginalised in WW1 and dominated by Germany, its plans were very weak.
Here are a few usefull links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... er_Austria

Occupation zones in Congress Poland

I had memoirs of AH diplomat but I lost them :(
User avatar
By Zel
Well the last Austrian Emperor was quite opposed to his German allies as seen in the Sixtus affair. But at this stage even if they could have turned the tide he would have had an extremly hard time to defend against German claims and/or keep Austria/Hungary from disintegrating. AH was FUBAR since it couldnt reform in the 1890ties or 1900s by 1910 it was probably too late to do anything meaningfull to keep it together.
By imagicnation
Why couldn't Germany have annexed Austria and made Austria's empire there vassal states. Germany would have been oh so much more powerful. Austria would probably also have had a larger population the it's current 7 million. Plus, with the Austrian army under the same disciplined training of the German army, Germany may have had more success in the war, not to mention being able to barter cetain territories with Italy in return for an alliance.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

My employer can only see what I give them access t[…]

@Sivad Demonstrates time and time again, the log[…]

@Rich Yes, you're a racist piece of shit. You do[…]

And yet, the sad reality is that they make way mor[…]