If Germany Had Won World War I - Page 3 - 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.
User avatar
By ludikundera
#1288742
Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War sounds like a somewhat related read. From Amazon's description:

If someone less distinguished than Jesus College, Oxford, fellow Niall Ferguson had written The Pity of War, you could be forgiven for thinking the book was out for a few cheap headlines by contradicting almost every accepted orthodoxy about the First World War. Ferguson argues that Britain was as much to blame for the start of the war as Germany, and that, had Britain sacrificed Belgium to Germany, the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution would never have happened. Germany, he continues, would have created a united European state, and Britain could have remained a superpower. He also contends that there was little enthusiasm for the war in Britain in 1914; on the other hand, he claims the war was prolonged not by clever manipulation of the media, but by British soldiers' taking pleasure in combat. If that isn't enough, he further maintains that it wasn't the severity of the conditions imposed on Germany at Versailles in 1919 that led inexorably to World War II, and blames instead the comparative leniency and the failure to collect reparations in full.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1290576
The Question is dependant on whether the victory was at the the beginning or the end of the war.

A quick victory leading France to sue for peace would probably not have had such extensive territorial changes in Europe.

Probably a great deal of French colonial territory would have been taken, but European France would have been left intact, and Belgium wouldn't have been annexed in order to ensure that Britain would agree to peace.

The Balkans may have significant change, Serbia likely being reduced to the benefit of its Balkan neighbors.

If Russia remained in the war longer than France and had to be subdued it would have lost some territory to the Ottoman Empire and it's share of Poland.

As for Naziism, it developed in Germany because of it's defeated status and the absence of surviving conser (Monarchy, military, clergy etc.) or without a bolshevik threat which givern an early German victory might not have emerged in Russia as it did.
User avatar
By Looter
#1290864
We would have much better Cheese, Sausage and Beer as well as more Freedom.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#1291153
First, I'm not sure that the scenario for winning the Spring Offensive would have won the war. Even if they were to have captured Paris, they would need to control it, and though England was pretty war-fatigued, they were in no danger of being toppled, and the Americans were still there to push on.

A more likely scenario for victory, in my opinion, would be any number of ways in which the US may have joined Germany in the war. Wilson loses the election, England continues executions in Ireland, something like that which would further inflame the (already at the time) rabidly anti-English feeling Stateside.

But were Germany to have won, it would have been a pretty half-hearted victory for the establishment. As it already was, there were tons of labour strikes and pro-communist movements that had to be put down. Had Germany been forced to, even temporarily, occupy France and make a blow to England they would have been fairly open to the socialist propaganda at the time.

The Soviet Union would have certainly have certainly aided such efforts for revolution - they themselves at the time believed that the revolution could well have hinged on internationalizing it.

Here exists several different scenarios. The most crass, non-ideological jingoists in the white movement may have well put on red hats in an attempt to thwart Germany while its back was turned, thus depriving the White elite of their footsoldiers and severely limiting a Russian Civil War. Or, the German workers and soldiers could have looked at their conditions, seen they had accomplished nothing for themselves, and marched on Berlin in the same way the Russian workers had. Or a combination of both.

It's unlikely that Lloyd George's government would have survived in England. They lost the war, lost (in theory) supremacy of the seas, almost certainly lost the UK as it's likely that some kind of deal was chartered out for Ireland - it's unlikely anyone would have followed that. I would predict Civil War here. Quite possibly more akin to Germany after the collapse of the Widmer Republic.

France, I suspect, would also go red. There was a movement for it in place already, and even if Germany was able to stave off hungery mobs of workers and returned soldiers that now had an ineffective and unsympathetic infrastructure in place, the Soviets would be naturally attractive for France as a potential liberator.

Things would hinge on Lenin and what he was able to do with what he had, and the United States. The United States would have backed a nation counter to its economic interests (as early as 1914 Connolly was predicting the US would join England as they had been trading - trades that England couldn't pay back if they had lost the war) and quite possibly suffered some kind of depression. It might also have tried to stay in Europe and counter the red tide, which would have been an interesting scenario that goes too far out there to even speculate on.

Anyway, the above are musings more than hard, concrete fact - as all counterfactuals are - but I tend to think that the communist movement would have been greatly strengthened and perhaps succeeded in the revolution at that point.

-TIG :rockon:
User avatar
By Batko
#1291192
The British Summer Offensive of the same year similarly breached the German lines, but did a much better job of exploiting the breakthrough than the Germans had done a few months earlier. General Luddendorf panicked and demanded that the government seek an armistice.


It's a highly amusing way to present things, giving intentionally the deceptive impression that this successful and decisive offensive was only "British".
Reality is that it was lead under French commandment (Marshall Foch) and that the troops engaged were half French and half British (around 400,000 on each side).

The two nations that can definitively claim they beat Germany are Britain and France. France held the Germans back in 1914/1915/early 1916 while the British got their act together and deployed larger conscript armies. They were then able to take the burden off the collapsing French and win the war.


It's right to say that France and Britain won the war, thus it should not be forget that France suffered 1/4 of the total losses of WWI, which means 10% of its male population, a sacrifice that never any other country in History has ever accepted to pay for a victory.
And it's false to claim that the French were "collapsing" early 1916, as they won the horrific battle of VERDUN in december 1916 despite a massive firepower superiority of the Germans.
By Torwan
#1291215
It's right to say that France and Britain won the war, (...)


And the US and the many other countries that deployed soldiers in the european theater. Without them, the allied lines would've crumbled.

And it's false to claim that the French were "collapsing" early 1916, as they won the horrific battle of VERDUN in december 1916 despite a massive firepower superiority of the Germans.


Well, the French were nearly collapsing in 1916/1917. Whole battaillions were refusing orders and refusing to charge. You should read "The second World War" of Janusz Piekalkiewicz or watch "Paths of Glory" to get a glimpse of the condition of the French and to get a better view of the Verdun-battle.

I don't say that the Germans were in any better shape, but victory and defeat were much closer than one could imagine. And I'd call the Verdun-battle a draw. In the end, the lines were similar to the beginning and both sides suffered almost an equal amount of casualties. To call that a victory for either side is ... not really true.
User avatar
By Batko
#1291249
You should read "The second World War" of Janusz Piekalkiewicz


The problem is that we are actually disscussing of the First World War. :lol:


or watch "Paths of Glory" to get a glimpse of the condition of the French and to get a better view of the Verdun-battle.


This Hollywood movie is full of innacuracies that it would be far too long to detail. I don't consider Stanley Kubrick as an Historian, anyway.

I don't say that the Germans were in any better shape, but victory and defeat were much closer than one could imagine.


The Germans weren't, as you say yourself, in any better shape than the French, nevertheless they weren't collapsing which leads to the conclusion that the French weren't collapsing neither.

Now, about Verdun, let me say that I totally disagree with your claim about a supposed "draw".
When the battle begins in February 1916, the French have 175-180 pieces or artillery on the front of Verdun, the Germans have more than 1.200. The intentions of the Kronprinz, which orders the 5th Army, are known; they are directly inspired by the chief of staff, the general Falkenhayn, who directly informed of it the Kaizer by a letter of December 25, 1915, known as “the memo of Christmas”. The intentions was simply to stab to death litterally the French army, to destroy it completely and then to return all the German forces against the British.
Despite their massive bombings of the French lines, they failed.
The motto of the French "poilus" was ":They will not pass!", and effectively the Germans did not pass.
It was not a draw at all, but an heroic French victory that changed the course of WWI.

Now back to the real topic, you said about this John J.Reilly theory :

This is an utterly unrealistic scenario.


On this, I agree totally with you.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1291299
as they won the horrific battle of VERDUN in december 1916 despite a massive firepower superiority of the Germans.


The French didn't win the battle of Verdun. :roll:

As the Germans planned the battle from the very beginning on a strategy of attrition, it would have been a modest success for them to have inflicted equal causalties (hard enough in offensives)

As it happend the French took considerably more causalties, though not as many as the Germans would have liked.
User avatar
By Batko
#1291319
Mr "Truthseeker", I'm not going to discuss with you just for the pleasure of repeating what I already said above. It's useless and off-topic. Your baseless opinion is not of any value for me anyway.


The French didn't win the battle of Verdun. Roll eyes


Then, instead of stupidly rolling your eyes you should send a mess to Wiki to tell them they're wrong and that you know better.

Wikipedia wrote:Date 21 February – 18 December 1916
Location Verdun-sur-Meuse, France
Result French victory and return to stalemate
Last edited by Batko on 10 Aug 2007 15:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By alyster
#1291323
Intresting, but Wikipedia isn't a source, it's fast food.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1291326
instead of stupidly rolling your eyes


I suppose you blew right past that actual arguement?

It's very childish to dispute something by simply contending you are right. :roll:

you should send a mess to Wiki to tell them they're wrong


IIRC they locked the article.
User avatar
By Batko
#1291337
It's very childish to dispute something by simply contending you are right. Roll eyes


I already stated my arguments previously.
...And sorry to be rude but I find it particularly insulting to roll your eyes on the sacrifice of 500,000 young men, some of them from my own family.

Tuesday - 19 December The German army Command reaches the conclusion that at Verdun a complete defeat had been suffered. More than 11,000 German soldiers and officers have surrendered; they often did not even come out of their shelters to fight anymore. At that date the German army is definitively thrown back in its original positions. The Battle of Verdun has come to an end.
[url=http://www.wereldoorlog1418.nl/battleverdun/battleverdun66/index.htm]The Battle of Verdun 1916 - the greatest battle ever
[/url]


You should invent a time machine to get back in 1916 and tell to the German Army Command that their conclusion is wrong and that you know better.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1291341
...And sorry to be rude but I find it particularly insulting to roll your eyes on the sacrifice of 500,000 young men


I did no such thing. And it's more like 900,000

You should invent a time machine to get back in 1916 and tell to the German Army Command that their conclusion is wrong and that you know better.


I don't speak German (among other technical issues :lol: ), I do notice that that part of the site isn't one of the direct quotes, and I'm skeptical of a anything source that considers it "the greatest battle ever"'
User avatar
By Batko
#1291364
I did no such thing.


From my pov, you did it.

And it's more like 900,000


If you're including the Germans, yes.

don't speak German (among other technical issues Laugh out loud ), I do notice that that part of the site isn't one of the direct quotes, and I'm skeptical of a anything source that considers it "the greatest battle ever"'


Briefly resumed you don't have anything to say and the discussion is finished.
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1292216
I believe that even the most passionate of German nationalists would admit that France won the Battle of Verdun. The French Army prevented a devastating German assault from proving victorious. Those who consider it a stalemate are as militarily ignorant as those "historians" who label the Korean War a stalemate.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1293337
The French Army prevented a devastating German assault from proving victorious


Isn't that what a draw is?
User avatar
By Far-Right Sage
#1293346
Isn't that what a draw is?


If someone attempts to break into my house and I manage to fight them off, who is the victor? If an aggressor launches an attack and fails to achieve his primary goal(s), the defender wins by default.
User avatar
By NewEra
#1293392
If someone attempts to break into my house and I manage to fight them off, who is the victor? If an aggressor launches an attack and fails to achieve his primary goal(s), the defender wins by default.


So by using your logic,

North Korea: Decisive Loss
South Korea: Decisive Victory
United States: Victory over N. Korea, USSR; Loss over China
China: Decisive Victory

Soviet Union, same as DPRK.
United Nations, same as United States.
User avatar
By Truthseeker
#1293406
If someone attempts to break into my house and I manage to fight them off, who is the victor?


Of course, but the battle of Verdun didn't end with the German expulsion from France or their surrender.

It was a battle they hoped was decisive but turned out not to be. Like most battles in the war. The Germans didn't make much progress, they only made a little. That doesn't make it a French victory, they merely dodged a major defeat.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#1293420
Continuing with FRS's metaphor, the burgler's attempt to B&E has been thwarted, yet the burgler is still on the front lawn. That the burgler was successful in tresspassing onto the front lawn, as the Germans were successful in getting a foot hold in France and belgium, does not change the fact that the B&E, like the German offensive, was thwarted.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
The Evolution Fraud

Thanks for doing the homework for me. So you are […]

EU-BREXIT

^ Rich is a stealth white nationalist. The EU is[…]

No one cares because it doesn't fit people's polit[…]

The Popular Vote...

It bores me I agree. In fact, I remember callin[…]