# Would the world be a better place if the Germans had won World War I?



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

After hearing people meme about how the wrong side won WWII for years, it finally got me wondering; assuming the war was an inevitability, how would the world be different if the Belgians didn't resist the Germans at the outset of the war? What if Von Schlieffen's Plan had been successful in crushing the French military before they could mobilize and forced the French and British to sue for peace?

I'd argue yes for several reasons:

It would have prevented the appalling casualties incurred by both sides on the Western Front
Britain and France wouldn't have over-expanded their colonial holdings by tearing apart the Ottoman Empire
The Soviet Union is never formed and, arguably, no major world governments end up Communist
Continental Europe would have a clearly dominant power, which would help to ensure stability
The British and French don't have the opportunity to completely cock up the Middle East's borders
The Japanese are not emboldened to continue seizing Chinese territories beyond the ones they grabbed from the Germans
The peace terms would almost certainly be less harsh due to the shorter duration of the conflict
You don't end up with the Treaty of Versailles, which guarantees a Second World War 
Israel doesn't exist because the British and French don't promise Palestine to (((them)))
Thoughts?


----------



## IV 445 (Mar 21, 2019)

We each of us have gone through at least a little trial and tribulation in our lives. Regret is a natural human emotion, it's why time travel is a popular narrative concept for novels and movies.

But in changing the past, don't you invariably change yourself as well? I would think all of the troubles you have gone through have made you the person you are today. And to change the past would be akin to changing yourself.

And I don't think you have to change yourself. Because I like you for who you are, just as you are.


----------



## 1Tonka_Truck (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> I'd argue yes for several reasons:


You forgot 

@Stoneheart wouldn't be such a retard mastubating to bundeswehr videos of Leopards and Pumas


----------



## Stoneheart (Mar 21, 2019)

1Tonka_Truck said:


> You forgot
> 
> @Stoneheart wouldn't be such an exceptional individual mastubating to bundeswehr videos of Leopards and Pumas


I dont! Japanese woman in latex SS uniforms...


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> After hearing people meme about how the wrong side won WWII for years, it finally got me wondering; assuming the war was an inevitability, how would the world be different if the Belgians didn't resist the Germans at the outset of the war? What if Von Schlieffen's Plan had been successful in crushing the French military before they could mobilize and forced the French and British to sue for peace?
> 
> I'd argue yes for several reasons:
> 
> ...



The British wouldn't have quit that easy. No way are they giving up their naval supremacy just because of some losses on the continent and the High Seas Fleet was not strong enough to force a peace on them.
Austria, Russia, and Ottomans were already on borrowed time. This, at best, buys them a bit more time before their collapse.

What we would see is Continental System Mark II until Wilhelm finally admits that he will never be able to beat the RN. But considering his penis envy and inferiority complex (which is basically what led to the war, check out Dreadnought by Robert Massie) I doubt this would happen before he has to face a collapse of his coalition.


----------



## Draza (Mar 21, 2019)

The Treaty of Versailles should have never happened.


----------



## JULAY (Mar 21, 2019)

No. Hitler would have eventually invaded the US, and for all its flaws, the US is the only country on Earth that has near-absolute freedom of speech, as has been demonstrated quite graphically over the past week or so.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

...I'm not even sure how to respond to this what if scenario having for some time now read up on things related to WW1 and WW2 for some time and still going strong (currently reading about SOE).  My understanding is that you want to assume the Germans essentially would have somehow won the war by 1914 assuming say if they got to Paris?

Even if that did happen, and for some inexplicable reason, the French surrendered and the rest of France's allies at the time called for an armistice, there's no reason to believe that Britain, Russia, France, Belgium, etc. would have honored the peace deal made at all for long.  So as far as I'm concerned, in this situation there might have been 2 world wars after this where the first would have been all the enemies Germany made seeking vengeance and the second being somewhat a reverse situation of that.

There's also no proof communism wouldn't have reared its ugly head in Russia later on or in defeated France.

Edit : Ok, I'm sorry.  I know this is a crazy, if not ridiculous, what-if scenario but after reading the point regarding the Japanese, I have to sperg because there is no goddamn way the Japanese would have curbed its expansion in the East just because Germany won the war (though it is possible they could have they slowed their expansion assuming Russia was not bloodied enough during the war).


----------



## Red Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

The whole war never should have happened honestly. The Triple Alliance ( Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary) and the Triple Entente  (Russia, France, and Britain) were formed to pressure the other side in not causing a war in the first place. But Austria-Hungary had to fuck everyone over because they refused to give Bosnia independence.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Mar 21, 2019)

Yes, because fuck Great Britan.


----------



## iRON-mAn (Mar 21, 2019)

Or, emboldened by their victory, German peoples feel an overwhelming pride in their country leading to a surge in nationalism and national socialism and...

Oh, hi, Hitler.

Fascism had been on the rise in Europe since the early 1900's. World War I was a catalyst, not the cause.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> The British wouldn't have quit that easy. No way are they giving up their naval supremacy just because of some losses on the continent and the High Seas Fleet was not strong enough to force a peace on them.



The Germans didn't really want to fight the British though. They felt being encircled on the continent by France and Russia posed an existential threat to Germany, and they weren't wrong. Besides, the only reason Britain joined the war was because the Germans violated Belgium's neutrality, had the Belgians not resisted/allowed the Germans through the British probably wouldn't have entered the war. Don't forget that the British and French are historic enemies, there was still a degree of animosity.



ColtWalker1847 said:


> Austria, Russia, and Ottomans were already on borrowed time. This, at best, buys them a bit more time before their collapse.


Austria Hungary and the Ottomans were fucked, sure, but their break-ups could've been handled much better than it was by the Allies in the treaty of Versailles. Plus, without the Germans supporting commies and bring Lenin from his sausage factory adjacent flat in Switzerland you don't end up with the Soviet Union. Hell, the provincial government that formed after the overthrow of Nicholas II was trying to craft a constitution based on the United State's before their failed attempts to fight the Germans led to them losing legitimacy. So a democratic Russia would not be out of the realm of possibility either.



Red Guy said:


> But Austria-Hungary had to fuck everyone over because they refused to give Bosnia independence.


Austria-Hungary didn't have much of a choice. Letting the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ride would be akin to the United States letting a country off without consequence after an important official was killed in an act of state sponsored terrorism. By that same logic, Russia fucked everyone over by starting to mobilize their armies after Austria-Hungary issued their ultimatum. Germany could not win a two-front war, thus once the Russians started to mobilize the Germans were forced to act, or face certain defeat.



iRON-mAn said:


> Fascism had been on the rise in Europe since the 1920's. World War I was a catalyst, not the cause.


Fascism arose because of the devastation inflicted on Europe's economy through the course of the First World War, as well as dissatisfaction with the perceived impotence of democratically elected governments. Without WWI dragging out, the socialist movement likely wouldn't have gained as much traction as it did as quickly as it did, thus the communist and fascists likely don't take power power until _maybe _the Great Depression.


----------



## Red Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Austria-Hungary didn't have much of a choice. Letting the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand ride would be akin to the United States letting a country off without consequence after an important official was killed in an act of state sponsored terrorism. By that same logic, Russia fucked everyone over by starting to mobilize their armies after Austria-Hungary issued their ultimatum. Germany could not win a two-front war, thus once the Russians started to mobilize the Germans were forced to act, or face certain defeat.


That's still the fault of Austria-Hungary though. No other country was going to attack them as long as they were in the Triple Alliance, so they had no real reason to keep Bosnia in their control. If they had given Bosnia independence, Ferdinand wouldn't have been killed.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

Ratko_Falco said:


> The Treaty of Versailles should have never happened.



I'm honestly going to have to agree with the point (and it was pretty much the only good point she made) Margaret MacMillan made in her book regarding the treaty, and that was that most of terms of the treaty were either a fait accompli (for example the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the consequent fighting brought forth by the new countries) or not unexpected (Germany losing its colonies which it had militarily lost, Germany returning Alsace-Lorraine, etc.)  The only really stupid terms that comes to mind with regard to the treaty which were sheer rubbish was Germany's admission of guilt for supposedly causing the war and the terms aimed at limiting Germany's future military which were utterly unenforceable.

Edit

"Fascism arose because of the devastation inflicted on Europe's economy through the course of the First World War"

...not accurate.  I'm quite sure from what I've read of the lead up to the Spanish Civil War, that fascism didn't arrive there because of economic problems.  I also don't believe this description applies to Italy or Japan (if you're among the camp that thinks Japan was fascist) either.  It does of course apply to Germany


----------



## Woke Blue Muttlema (Mar 21, 2019)

tl;dr: Blame Woody. Third Teddy tenure would be the most based timeline.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

Red Guy said:


> That's still the fault of Austria-Hungary though. No other country was going to attack them as long as they were in the Triple Alliance, so they had no real reason to keep Bosnia in their control. If they had given Bosnia independence, Ferdinand wouldn't have been killed.


That sets a *very* dangerous precedent when your empire is already coming apart at the seams, and was absolutely an untenable position for A-H to take.

It tells anyone who might think about agitating for their own ethnic group to get its own state (of which there were many in A-H including the Hungarians):

Violence is an acceptable tool to accomplish your political ends
There will be no consequences for killing one of our heads of state
The Austro-Hungarians had to take an aggressive stance, otherwise it would compromise their status as a great European power, and because it would potentially expose them to further nationalistic violence.



verissimus said:


> The only really stupid terms that comes to mind with regard to the treaty which were sheer rubbish was Germany's admission of guilt for supposedly causing the war and the terms aimed at limiting Germany's future military which were utterly unenforceable.


_cough_Impossible to pay war reparations that wrecked the German economy_cough_


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> The Germans didn't really want to fight the British though. They felt being encircled on the continent by France and Russia posed an existential threat to Germany, and they weren't wrong. Besides, the only reason Britain joined the war was because the Germans violated Belgium's neutrality, had the Belgians not resisted/allowed the Germans through the British probably wouldn't have entered the war. Don't forget that the British and French are historic enemies, there was still a degree of animosity.


Revisionist bullshit. They might not have wanted to fight the British in 1914. But it was going to happen eventually. Ol' Kaiser Willy stump-arm was engaged in a naval arms race with Britain well before the war. This significantly increased tensions and that's why the UK allied with France and guaranteed Belgian neutrality. Then Wilhelm went and cemented it with the First Moroccan Crisis.

What you are missing here is that the Germans pretty nakedly wanted an overseas empire and the only way to that was through the British. So they built a no-shit navy, not just a colonial fleet like what the Dutch had. If they would have just cooled their tits and focused on the continent I doubt there would have been an Entente at all. But the Kaiser got outmaneuvered diplomatically (you can just see German foreign policy go in the shitter the minute Bismarck left) and when he couldn't get what he wanted at the bargaining table he buddied up with Austria in an alliance to take what he wanted by force.

Imperial Germany was the belligerent one. Not the Entente.


----------



## Chocolate Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

tl;dw A thousand times yes.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> They might not have wanted to fight the British in 1914. But it was going to happen eventually. Ol' Kaiser Willy stump-arm was engaged in a naval arms race with Britain well before the war.


You missed the part where I pointed out that the only reason the British entered the war against the Germans, despite being at best, divided on the subject before, was because the Germans violated Belgian neutrality. If in this hypothetical the Belgians don't resist then its doubtful the British would've come into the war. Further, given Germany's unification was the impetus for the Franco-Prussian War, the Germans weren't without cause in fearing that France especially was out to get them. Plus the Germans knew that it would be near impossible for them to beat the Royal Navy.

Tbh the Kaiser's decision to fire Bismark and alienate the Russians was fucking retarded and I'm not even going to try to defend that choice.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> _cough_Impossible to pay war reparations that wrecked the German economy_cough_



Alright you got me there, I forgot that one.  Happy?


----------



## Y2K Baby (Mar 21, 2019)

ωσкє вℓυє мυѕℓιм qυєєη said:


> Third Teddy tenure would be the most based timeline.


Lol, fascist scum.


----------



## Red Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> That sets a *very* dangerous precedent when your empire is already coming apart at the seams, and was absolutely an untenable position for A-H to take.
> 
> It tells anyone who might think about agitating for their own ethnic group to get its own state (of which there were many in A-H including the Hungarians):
> 
> ...


I'm saying that the Austro-Hungarians should have allowed Bosnia independence well before the assassination of Ferdinand, as that was the political motivation to kill him. If they had given them independence, they probably would have stayed allies, as they were being targeted by Serbia.


----------



## Red Guy (Mar 21, 2019)

Red Guy said:


> I'm saying that the Austro-Hungarians should have allowed Bosnia independence well before the assassination of Ferdinand, as the political motivation to kill him was because of the outright refusal of allowing them to be their own country. If they had given them independence, they probably would have stayed allies, as they were being targeted by Serbia.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

Red Guy said:


> I'm saying that the Austro-Hungarians should have allowed Bosnia independence well before the assassination of Ferdinand, as that was the political motivation to kill him. If they had given them independence, they probably would have stayed allies, as they were being targeted by Serbia.


It's still really bad optics though, if you let one part of your empire go because some Slavs are REEEEEEEEEEEEEE-ing about independence, well it makes it a whole lot more appealing for another ethno-national group to start REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-ing, and before you know it your empire is balkanized and dead.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

Germany's biggest mistake was allying with Austria-Hungary over Russia.


----------



## Marco Fucko (Mar 21, 2019)

Thinking that if WWI had a different "winner" the world would be a better place today is the ultimate


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> Thinking that if WWI had a different "winner" the world would be a better place today is the ultimate


In hindsight I think the better question would be how would the world be different, but that doesn't have the same clickbait-y ring to it.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> Thinking that if WWI had a different "winner" the world would be a better place today is the ultimate



Tch, if you think that's bad you should have heard Ben Shapiro's completely exceptional take on how everything would have been so much better if the US had went all out in their intervention in the Russian Civil War.


----------



## OB 946 (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> After hearing people meme about how the wrong side won WWII for years, it finally got me wondering; assuming the war was an inevitability, how would the world be different if the Belgians didn't resist the Germans at the outset of the war? What if Von Schlieffen's Plan had been successful in crushing the French military before they could mobilize and forced the French and British to sue for peace?
> 
> I'd argue yes for several reasons:
> 
> ...



Communists would've seized power in France and fascists in the UK in the postwar depression. Nothing would've changed. WW2 was inevitable.


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Plus the Germans knew that it would be near impossible for them to beat the Royal Navy.


No they didn't. There are diplomatic cables back and forth for decades from the British to the Germans begging them to stop trying to have fleet parity. They have the responses from the Kaiser too. It goes something like:

UK: Hey, whatcha doing over there?
Ger: Building ships.
UK: Cool. Don't try to build as many as me k.
Ger: Whatever. You don't own the seas. I'll build as many as I want.
UK: Ok, suit yourself but just know that for every ship you build I'll build 2.
Ger: Stop it no. You can't do that.
UK: "I'll build as many as I want", right?
Ger: Whatever I'll build my fleet.
UK: For what exactly? Who you planning to fight? You already outmatched the French and the Russians? And what would you be fighting for anyways?
Ger: HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE DESTINY OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY ENGLISH SWINE
UK: Ok then. _gets France on the phone_

The naval building programs and blatant antagonism is what pushed Britain into the Entente. Why do you think they protected Belgium anyways? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Or to prevent Germans from having more fleet anchorages and shipyards?

Even if Belgium acquiesced and became doormats the British would still get involved because they wanted Belgium neutral and out of the German sphere because that was a direct threat to them. Seriously read Massie's book I mentioned earlier. It's not really about ships it's an extremely thorough examination of European diplomacy from the mid-1800's to WWI.


----------



## Stoneheart (Mar 21, 2019)

Red Guy said:


> The whole war never should have happened honestly. The Triple Alliance ( Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary) and the Triple Entente (Russia, France, and Britain) were formed to pressure the other side in not causing a war in the first place.








everything needed to say about that concept


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

@ColtWalker1847 did you read Massie's follow up book?  I'm thinking of getting it.


----------



## OB 946 (Mar 21, 2019)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> No they didn't. There are diplomatic cables back and forth for decades from the British to the Germans begging them to stop trying to have fleet parity. They have the responses from the Kaiser too. It goes something like:
> 
> UK: Hey, whatcha doing over there?
> Ger: Building ships.
> ...



Incorrect about your navy shit. The reason they wanted Germany to stop building ships was so France wouldn't jump them. The Royal Navy was operating under the Two Powers rule, which stated that their navy must be larger in tonnage than the next two largest navies combined, which at the time meant they had to have a navy larger than France and Russia combined. Germany didn't even chart. They were worried of having to divert battleships from containing France to kill the German fleet. Germany was never a credible naval threat, at all.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

ColtWalker1847 said:


> -snip-


If they thought they could beat the Royal Navy in a straight fight why would they use their navy primarily in a commerce raiding role? The Royal Navy's Grand Fleet tonnage dwarfed the size of the _entire_ Imperial German Navy, the lion's share of which were obsolete pre-dreadnoughts. If the Germans seriously thought they could challenge English naval superiority they wouldn't have used U-boats as heavily as they did.



verissimus said:


> not accurate. I'm quite sure from what I've read of the lead up to the Spanish Civil War, that fascism didn't arrive there because of economic problems.


Spain's dynamic is an outlier though. The Spanish Civil war was fundamentally one between conservatism and Catholicism versus liberalism/socialism/communism/anarchism.


verissimus said:


> I also don't believe this description applies to Italy





> Fascism arose because of the devastation inflicted on Europe's economy through the course of the First World War, *as well as dissatisfaction with the perceived impotence of democratically elected governments.*


----------



## von Hapasbourg (Mar 21, 2019)

It would have been better if the Austrians won the war. No more for this american and revolutionary bullshit


----------



## ColtWalker1847 (Mar 21, 2019)

verissimus said:


> @ColtWalker1847 did you read Massie's follow up book?  I'm thinking of getting it.


Not yet.


Crippled Eagle said:


> Incorrect about your navy shit.


Lol, ok Mahan. The First and Second Naval Law don't real.

My mistake.


EurocopterTigre said:


> If they thought they could beat the Royal Navy in a straight fight why would they use their navy primarily in a commerce raiding role? The Royal Navy's Grand Fleet tonnage dwarfed the size of the _entire_ Imperial German Navy, the lion's share of which were obsolete per-dreadnoughts. If the Germans seriously thought they could challenge English naval superiority they wouldn't have used U-boats as heavily as they did.


You are thinking about this in WWI terms. Stop. Think about this in 1898-1904 terms. That's when all this went down.

The Germans didn't intend to fight the RN straight up. They wanted to be able to go after them when they were weak. Like if they brawled with the Frenchies or something they would sweep in and mop up. Tirpiz had a whole strategy for it.
Unfortunately for them the British reacted pretty strongly. First, they got Jackie Fisher to overhaul the RN so they kept their technical and skill edge (Tirpiz counted on that a lot). Second was making nice with the French who were every bit as spooked as the British by the German building programs allowing the RN to pivot the Home Fleet towards the North Sea (rather than having it scattered all over the damn place). Third was build build build.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

von Hapasbourg said:


> It would have been better if the Austrians won the war. No more for this american and revolutionary bullshit



Fuck that.  Nothing good ever came from Austria except Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Mozart.


----------



## Kamov Ka-52 (Mar 21, 2019)

verissimus said:


> Fuck that.  Nothing good ever came from Austria except Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Mozart.


The women aren't bad.


----------



## Niggernerd (Mar 21, 2019)

No and yes.
Yes:Because they're uniforms were aesthetic and remind me of the rebel army from Metal Slug, so our unified military uniforms would be cool as fuck Also space tech might of been more advanced than it is now, so we would be able to invade ayy lmaos in style. 
No:They just sound angry all the time and if they ruled the world i'd hate to go into their stores because I'll think they hate me when they're just advertising great deals on weinerschnizels and offering me samples.


----------



## von Hapasbourg (Mar 21, 2019)

verissimus said:


> Germany's biggest mistake was allying with Austria-Hungary over Russia.


the Russians didnt want to ally with the Germans in the first place. They wanted to take Pomerania from them


----------



## Chexxchunk (Mar 21, 2019)

Probably not. WW1 had already caused too much deep pathology that had to be dealt with some way or another.
I do fervently think the world would be MUCH better off if WW1 hadn't happened, though.


----------



## cuddle striker (Mar 21, 2019)

Chexxchunk said:


> Probably not. WW1 had already caused too much deep pathology that had to be dealt with some way or another.
> I do fervently think the world would be MUCH better off if WW1 hadn't happened, though.


this I agree with. the flu during that time, alone, killed more people than the war- and that was because of the war. the resources being piled up in muddy fields could have been used to quarantined, clean, care for the sick. that epidemic could have been contained in the Midwestern US and France if it hadn't been splattered worldwide by that war.

however, plastic surgery, prosthetics, surgical tools and techniques might be less advanced. that war taught us to rebuild human ruins. to fix the irreparable. there's a lot of knowledge of grafting techniques, maintaining blood flow, healing wounds, scar maintenance, and deep organ closure that we might not benefit from if it hadn't been for those bombardments.

of course the right side won both wars. and I'm ambivalent about the horror of WWI. WWII was a stupid travesty spawned by an exceptional failed artist, though.


----------



## verissimus (Mar 21, 2019)

von Hapasbourg said:


> the Russians didnt want to ally with the Germans in the first place. They wanted to take Pomerania from them



...no they didn't.  They rather have Istanbul and the straits.  Wtf good would it have been for Russia to have, never mind, want more Polish territory?

Also this

"Still, it is impossible to accurately predict how the world would look like today in such an event. WW2 in the exact form we know today would not have happened, but that does not mean it would not have happened in some other form either - there would still have been territorial disputes between the great powers, there would still have been ethnic tensions, and marxism (although it probably would not have taken over russia in 191 would also still exist as a movement that would try to incite revolutions and uprisings wherever possible. and in the east, japanese imperial ambitions would be mostly untouched by the situation in europe. while russia would be more up to the challenge, there would still be nothing preventing the japanese from invading and conquering large parts of china and nearby pacific territories."

Completely agree with this.  If WW1 had ended in 1914 with fairly little blood spilt, there would have been at least 1 sequel or several spin-offs to it.  There also would have been no guarantee whatsoever that either fascism or marxism wouldn't have sprang forth in some capacity.  This is what was so re-tarded about Ben's dumbass scenario.  He tried to make the claim that somehow fascism in Germany and communism in general wouldn't have risen if we had intervened in the Russian Civil War when there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Russia couldn't have later succumbed to communism later on never mind to something akin to fascism which would have been extraordinarily likely had the "White Generals" won.  There was also no guarantee Germany wouldn't have followed at least Italy's brand of fascism either as opposed to Hitler's.


----------



## iRON-mAn (Mar 21, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Fascism arose because of the devastation inflicted on Europe's economy through the course of the First World War,





BigRuler said:


> no.



From A History of Fascism, 1914—1945, Stanley G. Payne:



Spoiler



Many of the forces that helped to generate such conflict had undergone long gestation during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as in the cases of nationalism, imperialism, socialism, communism, and anarchism. Only one major new force-fascism-was novel and seemingly original, a product of the great conflict generation itself. Yet no major force suddenly emerges without prior development; the roots of fascism lay in the innovations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and particularly in the new doctrines and concepts produced by the cultural changes of the 1890s and the years that immediately followed.



I never said that events would unfold EXACTLY the same (I was being facetious with the Hitler comment). I even agree that there are many variables to consider. But fascism wasn't just an ideology that sprung up out of nowhere. The winds of change were already blowing before the 1900s.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Mar 21, 2019)

I don't see much Russian and British Empires around. Do you?


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 22, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> Thoughts?



How does the war end? Are we talking just before the Americans arrived in 1917-1918 or in 1915?

I'll assume the latter.

Germany - Germany prevails in a short war and continues to build up its navy to challenge the UK. The question is: What kind of Germany do we see? The socialist movement was huge before the war and the German government was conservative and authoritarian. The war being a win wouldn't change that and I suspect we'd see some kind of revolution or reform movement.

Austria Hungary - Prevails but is a dysfunctional mess as it was before the war. Inbred cabinet ministers would probably fuck up and cause a bunch of crises that slowly breakup the Empire. Germany would literally not give a fuck and just add these new countries to their sphere of influence. Or perhaps this goes the route of Yugoslavia on a much larger scale...

Russia - The peasants need starvation to rise up and that doesn't happen. The "woke" urban populace revolts and we possibly see some liberal reforms or a liberal revolution but not likely.

USA - Less centralization due to less Wilson. Mexico is still a clusterfuck on the border so maybe he uses that to justify his plans. Dunno. Regardless, the USA neglects its military even further but still develops a powerful navy.

Ottoman - They probably have a coup rather than a series of bloody genocides and civil wars. Or perhaps the Caliphate continues. I could see a huge impact here because the Caliphate not existing is pretty central to Salafist extremist Islam. The Saud family and others remains "loyal" vassals but Britain will meddle later. The Empire is revitalized by the Baghdad railway that binds the country together and brings in enormous wealth.

France - Is anally raped and devastated. Germany probably wouldn't pin the war on them due to them obviously being a defender and it would likely end with Germany taking a bunch of colonies. France is literally too weak to be a threat to anybody and their "great past" is liberal - stop the fascist France memes.

UK - Their idea is the balance of power so the UK just continues to  support France and Russia as a counterweight to Germany. This is assuming a white peace rather than some kind of spectacular German naval victory. The UK would probably have to spend more on its navy for the next few decades. Irish relations are better off due to the UK just letting them leave instead of prolonging the breakup due to the war.

Canada - Canada likely puts off independence a bit longer. Their huge contribution to the war made them really want control over their own affairs. The country became socially liberal post-war due to women getting the vote and vets wanting help not being landless/homeless cripples. It likely stays more conservative.

Japan - Very little changes but they feel much less inclined to challenge the west due to the colonial powers still doing well for themselves. However, rising leftism and rising nationalism will lead to colonial conflicts that can't be won.  Does Germany seize Vietnam and take a more proactive role in the region? Dunno.

China - Still fucked - Idiot declares himself Emperor, dies and shatters the country. Europe may exploit this more.

Africa - Colonized... by more Germans

South America - Less war economy and also less European immigrants or more French immigrants.


A 1917 or 1918 where Germany is still economically and socially broken is still a bad end. The German inflation crisis was caused by poor fiscal policy during and after the war, not by reparations. The post-war ills were not caused by losing the war but by the war itself.  Germany winning just means the entente countries also experiencing the what Germany historically had. Does this mean no Hitler? No, now the Jews just made it so that Germany couldn't exploit her victory. Germany is still economically broken by this war and stealing grain from Ukrainian and Belorussian peasants (who would likely burn it instead of giving it up, also - how would you transport this?) is not going to fix it. If Germany insisted on continuing war by crushing eastern-European nationalists they'd be doubly fucked - imagine the feelings of the Vietnam war on steroids.


----------



## ObsoleteMediaFormat (Mar 22, 2019)

No, if they won that means no WW2 movies or Indiana Jones flicks, then again it also means no Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Apr 6, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> After hearing people meme about how the wrong side won WWII for years, it finally got me wondering; assuming the war was an inevitability, how would the world be different if the Belgians didn't resist the Germans at the outset of the war? What if Von Schlieffen's Plan had been successful in crushing the French military before they could mobilize and forced the French and British to sue for peace?
> 
> I'd argue yes for several reasons:
> 
> ...



The Imperial houses of Europe would still fluctuate and some would still dissolve, most likely now through direct involvement of the Germans or through the institutional issues that pre-existed during the war.

While the time scale is longer, some of the results are still the same.

The Ottoman empire either democratizes or is preserved in a reduced size as Arab uprisings cause the fall of the middle east.

The Austro-Hungarian still breaks apart due to weak leadership and a bolster nationalism among the Magyar speaking populations, and so the house of Hapsburg still exist, but is now expressly Austria's imperial house.

The French Colonial Empire would cease as the territory was ceded to German control completely or within a very reduced and demilitarized France, where all colonial holdings would be ceded to Germany.

Britain would probably suffer some territorial exchanges in parts of colonial Africa.

Russia would likely still have a civil war or internal conflict, though due to German territorial expansion and annexation of Russian territory such as the Ukraine for the it and it's East European allies, diminishes Russia's power immensely. It still is under the threat of communism, and other uprisings as the instabilities existed before Russia joined the Great War.

Romania and Bulgaria are bigger countries, as they annex the remains of Serbia that the Hapsburg's don't take for themselves.

China still suffers from Japanese intervention, though this is still seen as a force for good by some, as the Japanese are fighting communism, they still likely crash out of the league of nations.

America focuses on South America and following the Monroe doctrine.

Major differences.

German trade is still the major competitor to a now reduced American industrial output. (War prep wasn't needed, so industry in USA is not as organised.)

The houses of Hohenzollern and Hapsburg are guaranteed to continue to be in power. German speaking settlers would continue to expand into Eastern Europe.

The British Empire has to deal with a reduced navy and war reparations but continues to be one of the three great powers, as it's not strapped with as much war debt. The Irish would get home rule, which means that the ROI remains part of the UK. Other colonial holdings of the Empire would not be given independence. (fueled by war debt and weak adminstration.) Britain would keep India, and the Suez Canal. It would also have to deal with social upheavals at home, as workers and socialist movements that agitated for labor would come to the political front and center. 

Africa and Asian ends to colonialism takes much longer possibly mid 80's if they ever do, (loss of all European colonial power came from pressure from national movements, the US and war debt) as well as the potential for a Korea and most of China dominated by Japanese administration. (It used China for opium trading as Manchuko was outside international conventions.)

France is the biggest loser. Dispossessed of it's future and colonial holdings, with a crumbling economy and limitations on it's army size, plus a zone where there is no military allowed, would go through massive periods of economic instability and hardship, blaming Germany. (basically mirroring Weimar Germany.)

And somewhere in all of this an Austrian corporal in the German Army stays in the Army after the war long enough to get a nice discharge with a pension and a Captain's rank, he eventually eschews his career in the army for one in politics and stands as part of a moderate conservative movement that wants a constitutional monarchy and an active house of government in Germany.

He is a great orator, but is removed from the party for his radical views on Jews, and his more revolutionary leanings towards socialism.

He takes the failure on the chin and moves in 1923 to Argentina to try and make it there as an artist and landscape painter.

In 1930 he reads in the German newspaper that Herman Goring is elected the first chancellor of the new German parliament, answerable only to the Kaiser himself, and wonders what could have been. In 1960 he dies from Parkinson disease in an Argentine hospital surrounded by his wife and children. A few of his works will survive into the new millennium though they aren't worth a lot as he was an artist of little note.

Edit: Further thoughts

The Ottoman Empire or Secular Turkey is likely to become a stronger world power if they don't cede the territory in the middle east, as once oil exploration shows the vast quantities of crude reserve, the Ottomans/Turkey exploits that wealth for itself and not the separate Arab gulf states. What effects this would have on world politics who knows, as either the oil hungry countries of the world including Europe would either seek to exploit alliances or fuel separatist movements in order to exploit oil. 

Though with the retention of oil interests in SE and Canada for the British and Africa for other European powers means that the middle east doesn't reach the level of importance it has post war, as the nations that became heavily dependent on oil are less so. (The war fueled the expansion of automobile and other modernization, these would still likely happen but at a slower rate of expansion.) 

Also as an interesting aside Churchill in this alternate timeline would likely have fulfilled (in his own words) his ultimate political ambition of becoming Viceroy of India. He doesn't suffer from the political set backs caused by the failure of the Galipoli, and thus the political exile and fighting that followed throughout the 1920's. Also Kitchener survives the war, and so has an effect on world politics in this way.


----------



## Übertroon (Apr 6, 2019)

In the end I think alternate history is too convoluted to make an accurate guess. For example disarmament after WWI was supposed to cripple any future German war machine. Instead it strengthened it by invalidating the old guard and creating a small and relatively inexpensive professional army that could choose between the cream of the crop that would become the officers leading the new army once Germany began mobilizing again. 

Better question to ask is if the world would be better if the allies never aligned themselves with the Comintern and routed out the communists in its midst as much as they did the fascists


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 6, 2019)

EurocopterTigre said:


> It would have prevented the appalling casualties incurred by both sides on the Western Front


In the grand scheme of things, the casualties are not even a blip on the population of a country.


----------



## Rome's rightful successor (Jul 15, 2022)

The world would only be a better place at least in a short while if your German, Austrian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Turkish and maybe Libyan depending on what your political beliefs are of course.


----------

