A better world if Germany and Central Powers won WWI?

[Atterdag]

Massive cleaning needed.

Any more insults and/or off topic posting will result in full blown and brightly red infractions.

You've been warned.

[Mangalore]

It is certainly enlighting to look up Bethmann-Hollwegs September Programm of 1914, laying out a first draft of german claims to be realized after winning the war, which came down in essence to 4 points:
- Reduction of Zarist Russia by generating buffer states between germany and russia and expanding Germany eastward (mainly into the baltic)
- Weaken france (by annexing further parts of eastern france, especially the iron rich areas of Briey)
- Generation of a middle-european economy sphere, outwards a pact of equals, but in reality controlled by germany as means to further german industrial capacities.
- Generation of a huge german colonial empire in middle africa..

Historians argue if the program is a ex post facto formulation to align the different political power players in imperial germany to a common goal or just the written formulation of the underlying motivation of the german goals preceding the war of 1914.
But the german stipulations of the treaty of Brest-litowsk with the bolsheviks carry some eary semblances to the goals formulated 4 years earlier.

The problem with the program is that it was formulated _after_ the war started and there is no clear indication of concrete governmental plans before the war though think tanks most certainly pondered about the question of what germany should do to secure its precarious and at the same time advantageous strategic position within central Europe in the case of a major war. Some of the war goals are clearly defensive in solving Germany's two front problem, others clearly economic and quite a few pure fantasy land without any realistic considerations.

Overall the program is at best a stipulation similar to the Morgenthau plan. Outrageous in some of its aspects but not really a realistic concept to deal with the post war era in the case of victory.



[/QUOTE]
All in all, a realisation of such war goals would certainly lead to the following developments:
- Guerilla Wars in western europe. Given the german conduct in Belgium 1914 (summarized as "Burn, Loot, Kill"), this would not have boded well for the suppressed civil population.[/QUOTE]

Why certainly? There never was a Belgian uprising during the occupation and the socalled "Rape of Belgium" is still hotly debated how much of that was simple paranoia and how much premeditation. It more importantly describes a row of atrocities within a short time frame while combat troops were moving through the country with orders to hurry and crush any obstacles as swiftly as possible so no delays would occur. Afterwards such widescale shootings did not take place anymore. Belgium is even worse an example in this regard if compared to France because Germany established a proper administration to handle the occupation while the French districts remained under immediate military control without any central government and responsibility.

Any policies for preparation of annexation of Belgium territory aimed at the ethnic relations between Germans and Flemish and Wallonians actually aiming at a rather pragmatic angle to make a German annexation a juicy proposition for the Flemish. The basic idea of making the rest a satellite nation actually aims at not having a guerrilia war to worry about.

It is important to note than none of the above was implemented to any serious extent.

- A huge colonial empire in Africa. Given the german conduct in Africa, for instance in the Herrero Revolt (summarized as "Burn, Kill, drive into the desert to starve), this would not have boded well for the african population gripped in independence movements.

This assumes other European powers were nicer. Look at Belgium where even the Belgians couldn't sell that stuff to be a mission of mercy anymore. The English weren't cute little dogooders in India and South Asia either. While the brutality in putting down those native uprising were certainly bordering on genocide the thing one shouldn't ignore is that sadly this brutality was not esspecially German.

- A Resettling campaign in eastern Europe. Given the prussian conduct in the preceding centuries, this would not have boded well for the slavs and poles in the affected regions.

Where did the Prussians supposedly resettle people other than to add to its population? Prussia was always desperately vowing for settlers regardless of origin or religion because they needed every guy they could get. They didn't necessarily like those guys but if they were contributing to Prussia they were all too happy to have them. In that vein Friedrich II. uttered his willinginess to settle Muslims in Prussia and build minarets as long as they pay taxes.

Anti Polish policies were more of a product of the creation of the German empire because it meant a great shift in population distribution. Within Prussia from 1700-1871 the Polish population was far to big and valuable to piss off. Given Prussia's control over Polish regions for more than 100 years this "Germanization" policies are hardly an example of what the German empire would do with territory added only recently.

The world a better place with germany winning the war? Sorry, I really cannot see how.

I think the same things would have happened, just in a different way. A second world war would have been most likely because even the full application of the September program would have kept Britain and even Russia (only pushed far east) in the game, not to speak of the US and all the pissed off countries germany/the central powers are trying to teach the benevolence of their rule.

Given how the Versailles treaty turnt out I wouldn't bet on the Central Powers fairing any better with France/Britain and they certainly did not with Russia which turnt into the Soviet juggernaut.

The problem with ww1 was not who won but what was done afterwards to secure peace. Overall that approach proved to be bollocks. I consider it a very bad judgement by Britain and France as liberal democracies to beat up and humiliate the newly founded German republic because it completely sabotaged any hopes of stabilizing this new governmental form which would have made a war of aggression far harder.

[Banana Jelly]

I really would have wanted Germany to win WW1 in my opinion.

[Zawisza]

Anti Polish policies were more of a product of the creation of the German empire because it meant a great shift in population distribution. Within Prussia from 1700-1871 the Polish population was far to big and valuable to piss off. Given Prussia's control over Polish regions for more than 100 years this "Germanization" policies are hardly an example of what the German empire would do with territory added only recently.

Throughout the 18th century, many Prussian intellectuals likened Poles to Iroquois, and were viewed as subhuman. The Polish language was suppressed. They paid higher taxes than the Germans. While Frederick the Great once claimed to advocate equality for people of all colours and creeds, he persecuted Catholicism. While the policy of Germanisation came into full force in the 19th century, in the 18th century Poles were treated as an underclass under Prussian rule.

Aside from Poland, life for the non-German peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was hard, as well. Meanwhile, in the Baltic states, there were vigorous attempts to euthanise the Latvian language and culture (ie "the Latvian must die" according to anti-Young Latvia activists).

In World War I, the Germans and Austrians discussed the creation of a "Kingdom of Poland" in order to improve the Poles' view of the German Empire. But it was an insincere move to gain more recruits for the army and attempt to sedate any more problems in Polish-inhabited areas. They were promised greater autonomy, but this would naturally have been a temporary arrangement. Any constitutional accord would have been violated soon after a German victory.

If we were to assume that a German victory would allow colonialism to continue longer than it had, then I would say that it would not make the world a better place, because many people under imperial control would continue to suffer, and Germanisation policies would continue to accelerate. If it just so happened that Germany would gradually relax its control over its territories throughout the 20th century like the British had (less likely, I would think), then the horror of the Second World War might have been avoided, and Eastern Europe might not have been visited by widespread destruction. But then, who could really predict what would happen?

Finally, the standard of living for Slavs and Balts would not improve - and this includes the Germans living in East Prussia and Eastern Europe, as well. Social mobility for non-Germans would continue to be restricted, and economic and infrastructural development would continue to be arrested, especially since Poland and the Baltic states were considered "frontiers", the wild west, the no man's land between Germany and Russia.

So no German victory for me, thanks.

[intel]

Throughout the 18th century, many Prussian intellectuals likened Poles to Iroquois, and were viewed as subhuman. The Polish language was suppressed. They paid higher taxes than the Germans. While Frederick the Great once claimed to advocate equality for people of all colours and creeds, he persecuted Catholicism. While the policy of Germanisation came into full force in the 19th century, in the 18th century Poles were treated as an underclass under Prussian rule.

Aside from Poland, life for the non-German peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was hard, as well. Meanwhile, in the Baltic states, there were vigorous attempts to euthanise the Latvian language and culture (ie "the Latvian must die" according to anti-Young Latvia activists).

In World War I, the Germans and Austrians discussed the creation of a "Kingdom of Poland" in order to improve the Poles' view of the German Empire. But it was an insincere move to gain more recruits for the army and attempt to sedate any more problems in Polish-inhabited areas. They were promised greater autonomy, but this would naturally have been a temporary arrangement. Any constitutional accord would have been violated soon after a German victory.

If we were to assume that a German victory would allow colonialism to continue longer than it had, then I would say that it would not make the world a better place, because many people under imperial control would continue to suffer, and Germanisation policies would continue to accelerate. If it just so happened that Germany would gradually relax its control over its territories throughout the 20th century like the British had (less likely, I would think), then the horror of the Second World War might have been avoided, and Eastern Europe might not have been visited by widespread destruction. But then, who could really predict what would happen?

Finally, the standard of living for Slavs and Balts would not improve - and this includes the Germans living in East Prussia and Eastern Europe, as well. Social mobility for non-Germans would continue to be restricted, and economic and infrastructural development would continue to be arrested, especially since Poland and the Baltic states were considered "frontiers", the wild west, the no man's land between Germany and Russia.

So no German victory for me, thanks.

^That, plus the fact that the collapse of Austrian Empire would most likely result in creation of some kind of Polish State, which (in addition with defeat and collapse of Tsarist Russia) would most probably trigger another uprising in Poland.

[Gurkhal]

Aside from Poland, life for the non-German peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was hard, as well. Meanwhile, in the Baltic states, there were vigorous attempts to euthanise the Latvian language and culture (ie "the Latvian must die" according to anti-Young Latvia activists).

If I don’t misremember, the Baltic states was part of Russia at that time, so you can hardly blame that one on Germany, or Austeria.

In World War I, the Germans and Austrians discussed the creation of a "Kingdom of Poland" in order to improve the Poles' view of the German Empire. But it was an insincere move to gain more recruits for the army and attempt to sedate any more problems in Polish-inhabited areas. They were promised greater autonomy, but this would naturally have been a temporary arrangement. Any constitutional accord would have been violated soon after a German victory.

I agree entirly, while the imperialism which guided the Entante shouldn't be glossed over, it would be a big mistake in thinking of Germany as some kind of liberator or as somehow more humane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Poland_(Mitteleuropa)#German_aims

If we were to assume that a German victory would allow colonialism to continue longer than it had, then I would say that it would not make the world a better place, because many people under imperial control would continue to suffer, and Germanisation policies would continue to accelerate. If it just so happened that Germany would gradually relax its control over its territories throughout the 20th century like the British had (less likely, I would think), then the horror of the Second World War might have been avoided, and Eastern Europe might not have been visited by widespread destruction. But then, who could really predict what would happen?

The main problem is that isn’t based on anything but personal speculation based on an “assumption”, from which I doubt we would be able to really reach any important conclusions if a German victory would aid or worsen the situation for the world.

Finally, the standard of living for Slavs and Balts would not improve - and this includes the Germans living in East Prussia and Eastern Europe, as well. Social mobility for non-Germans would continue to be restricted, and economic and infrastructural development would continue to be arrested, especially since Poland and the Baltic states were considered "frontiers", the wild west, the no man's land between Germany and Russia.

First we would need to define “non-Germans”. Do you mean non-Aryans? People without citizenship in Germany or what? Because as far as I can tell, the Jews for instance didn’t face any major persecutions within the German empire. Any sources for your cause? I'll add one that Germany wasn't overly oppressing all their minorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_Germany#Freedom_and_repression_.281815.E2.80.931930s.29

As to regarding that the Baltics would be "frontiers", I'll have to ask for some sources


That there was a practice of Germanization in practice within Germany I think is true, and may be what you were refeering to. But then again similar practices were practiced within almost all countries at that time, and during following decades until after the Second World War, and in many cases also after that. So I doubt that it could be laid on Germany’s with more right than upon anyone else’s.

[Desperado †]

I fail to see how Germany was more 'wrong' than the other side in the war.

Wasn't it less democratic?

[intel]

Wasn't it less democratic?

At some point, German political system was more democratic than British. But does it really implies one nation more "wrong" than other? I don't think so. Besides, at the Allies' side was one of the least 'democratic' regimes in Europe, Tsarist Russia.

[Poach]

I concur with Intel, non-democractic does not equal wrong, and if it did then all hail Tsarist Russia!

[Zawisza]

^That, plus the fact that the collapse of Austrian Empire would most likely result in creation of some kind of Polish State, which (in addition with defeat and collapse of Tsarist Russia) would most probably trigger another uprising in Poland.

Interesting point, Intel. The Austrian Empire was at breaking point during the war. But if the Germans were allowed to continue, would another Polish uprising have succeeded in independence or at least in lighting a path to it?

If I don’t misremember, the Baltic states was part of Russia at that time, so you can hardly blame that one on Germany, or Austeria.

It's true that the Baltic states were territorially part of Russia. However, large numbers of Germans lived there, and had done so since the 13th century. While the Russians formed the administrative and military class of the Baltic regions, the Germans dominated the aristocracy and middle classes. So linguistically, intellectually, socially and economically, it was the Germans who ruled. When the Germans gained the Baltic states after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, it was their plan to create a 'Baltic Duchy', similar to the 'Kingdom of Poland'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Duchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Germans

The main problem is that isn’t based on anything but personal speculation based on an “assumption”, from which I doubt we would be able to really reach any important conclusions if a German victory would aid or worsen the situation for the world.

True, that. But no one can really do anything more than take a good guess at what a German-dominated future would look like. Expect the unexpected, as the old saying goes. But I think I can safely say that judging by the trends of Britain, which slowly relaxed its controls over its colonies after the First World War, the Germans would consolidate its empire like the British had done a century before. And judging by the socioeconomic trends of the eastern territories in Germany during the 18th and 19th centuries, the development of Eastern Europe would have been arrested, and the people in Eastern Europe, Namibia and Guinea (although, on the other hand, these people would have to wait longer under British rule anyway) would be much less happy with being under foreign rule. So in this sense, I don't think that the world would be a better place under German domination.

First we would need to define “non-Germans”. Do you mean non-Aryans? People without citizenship in Germany or what? Because as far as I can tell, the Jews for instance didn’t face any major persecutions within the German empire. Any sources for your cause? I'll add one that Germany wasn't overly oppressing all their minorities.

By 'non-Germans' I mean people who considered themselves belonging to an ethnic or language group other than German, like Poles, Magyars, Slovaks, Jews and Lithuanians, for example. Austria, while not exactly paradise, was actually the least repressive of the three partition areas for Poles to live; Krakow, for example, was an intellectual haven for Polish thinkers, artists and musicians.

I think that the Jews weren't persecuted as much because they weren't aspiring to establish a free nation in German-occupied territory. They weren't a political force, and therefore not a target for the German and Prussian authorities. The Germans wanted to suppress Slavic and Baltic groups because they feared they would be unhealthy to German hegemony. In addition, Otto von Bismarck wanted to suppress Catholicism, in order to increase Prussia's control over Germany, and because it was tied to Polish nationalism. It was part of a broad campaign known as 'kulturkampf'.

A brief history of the role of anti-Polish sentiment in German politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment#Persecution_.28to_1918.29

Treatment of Poles under the German partition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germani...ing_Partitions

German domination of the Czech lands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_lands:_1648-1867

As to regarding that the Baltics would be "frontiers", I'll have to ask for some sources

Well, I can't provide a statement that explicitly states the Baltic nations were 'frontiers', but eastern territories under German control were always the poorest and the most under-developed (less access to healthcare, education, fewer roads, poorer housing, factories and railroads), and it seemed the Germans were unable or unwilling to invest in developing those areas. So I believe the Baltic states would be no exception. For instance, many people emigrated from East Prussia (and not only East Prussians, but Poles as well) to seek work in the industralised west:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prussia#German_Empire

I read in a 1980s edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that the Germans both naturally and strategically placed their chief industries to the west of Poland. Investing in developing areas near Russia was considered unwise, because the Germans had for some time expected to go to war with the Russians again.

That there was a practice of Germanization in practice within Germany I think is true, and may be what you were refeering to. But then again similar practices were practiced within almost all countries at that time, and during following decades until after the Second World War, and in many cases also after that. So I doubt that it could be laid on Germany’s with more right than upon anyone else’s.

Also very true. The European populations of African colonies had very repressive policies, perhaps the most monstrous being the 'Free Congo State' personally controlled by King Leopold III, in which at least hundreds of thousands of Congolese slaves perished working in the primary industries. The British had also put down an Irish rebellion in 1916. However, it was the first stepping stone towards Irish independence. The British were slowly beginning to loosen their grip on their occupied territories, but as far as I could tell, the Germans would continue tighten their grip on their possessions.

[Darkarbiter]

I think it would've been a good thing, as monarchy would've lasted longer. I long for an Imperial Russian Empire...

Haha, as much as we are speculating here, I find that highly unlikely.

1. Tsarist Russia's collapse was inevitabel and had been viewed as such since the 1870s (Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire)
2. Austro-Hungary was imploding, look at where the war started. The balkans would have become ever more unstable and Austria could expect the same treatment that the near-eastern (to use the term of the time) states had delivered to the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans had been in decay for centuries, the middle east would probably be more unstable than it is today.
3. Socialism was already a major force in Europe prior to WWI, look at the rise of the Labour party in britain at the expense of the Liberals.
4. The British and French empires would not survive defeat, just as Germany and the Ottomans lost all of their empires. Even if the British Empire was not carved up at the peace table, the Indian independence movement would gain massive ground in the wake of Britain's defeat, probably ending the British Empire. The dominions would have looked elsewhere for a powerful protector.

I think that there would be a fair chance that communism would succeed in germany or possibly some of former austria-hungary or ottoman empire countries as those states broke up. Thus giving the USSR a much stronger standing point and stopping Stalin from taking power. I agree that a lot of the colonies would've revolted sooner, most likely putting them in a better economic position.

[Lysimachus]

I agree that a lot of the colonies would've revolted sooner, most likely putting them in a better economic position.

Not really. They'd been exploited and deprived of pretty much everything, so if they became self-governing it would have just meant that all the ex-colonies would have fell in to civil war sooner rather than later.

[Desperado †]

At some point, German political system was more democratic than British. But does it really implies one nation more "wrong" than other? I don't think so. Besides, at the Allies' side was one of the least 'democratic' regimes in Europe, Tsarist Russia.

Well, it's more immoral if an unelected government becomes a part of a war than if an elected one does, seeing as the populace in general will fight and die, so it's certainly a factor on which side is most moral overall.

I was thinking narrowmindedly from a British perspective, but you're right they still worked alongside Russia and the power for declaring war nonetheless was not an election promise and lied with the exectuive (and still does) (without starting on how democratic Britain actualy was).

[SorelusImperion]

Well, it's more immoral if an unelected government becomes a part of a war than if an elected one does

Applying that principle the Nazi government which had been elected was more moral than the Stalinist government which was not eleced.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Applying that principle the Nazi government which had been elected was more moral than the Stalinist government which was not eleced.

The Nazi government did not get the absolute majority, only some 30% of the vote if I remember correctly.

[Cyreidel]

If Germany would of won, my country would of been colonized by the krauts.

[sabaku_no_gaara]

For one we wouldn't have to suffer Amrica gloryfiying in countless WW2 games/movies/docu's and we wouldn't constantly be reminded by yanks on the internet how they saved our asses and are awesome etc...

Since Germany winning WW1 would probably mean no WW2

[RomanSoldier9001]

NOthing wrong with the fact that WW1 was won by the right side, but how it was handled afterward was poor. Manifest destinty is a justification for tyrants.

Manifest dinasty was previous to WW1 anyway I fail to see how WW1 was on by the rigth side.
In this War they werent such tihng as "rigth side" neither any war has ever a rigth side or wrong side.

The Nazi government did not get the absolute majority, only some 30% of the vote if I remember correctly.

But they had elections and won contrary to the Soviet Union.

For one we wouldn't have to suffer Amrica gloryfiying in countless WW2 games/movies/docu's and we wouldn't constantly be reminded by yanks on the internet how they saved our asses and are awesome etc...

Since Germany winning WW1 would probably mean no WW2

Sorry but only fools and ignorants realy belive in that sort of propaganda WWII wasnt won by USA it was just paid(Allied Side) by USA.


Well I dont think that if Germany had won it would necessary be a better world only if Germany and other European Nations reach a comom ground that would probaly be possible Germany hadnt the power to take G.B or even France for that matter it would end in drawn and that would be good for Europe USA wouldnt enter in war and rule pretty much Europe and Europe would remain the "center of world" the Depression wouldnt probaly hit us and Fascist Movements wouldnt rise to power neither would WW2 happen but it wouldnt only be roses and flowers for poles and other eastern peoples Germany may try to Germanized them by force with the new "conquered" provinces in East or maybe not if France and G.B forced it to not and some sort of aggrement existed is hard to guess a outcome of victory that never happen but even Germany try that such tihng wasnt worse that France and G.B were doing in their colonies or Russia in their provinces.

Also very true. The European populations of African colonies had very repressive policies, perhaps the most monstrous being the 'Free Congo State' personally controlled by King Leopold III, in which at least hundreds of thousands of Congolese slaves perished working in the primary industries. The British had also put down an Irish rebellion in 1916. However, it was the first stepping stone towards Irish independence. The British were slowly beginning to loosen their grip on their occupied territories, but as far as I could tell, the Germans would continue tighten their grip on their possessions.

Actualy the Congoless perished were more than 10 milion!And they were 30 milion people.
And that alone is even worse than numbers of victims of Holocaust and Holodomor.
As for the suposed British losing their grip for someone that was "losiing its grips" they still would that grip today.

[Poach]

Americans just love their country, as far as they care their country saved the world all by itself in both wars. Non-Americans (and some Americans too) do agree that they played a role of lesser importance compared to Britain and France in WW1 and that the USSR took the brunt of the fighting in WW2. Though RomanSoldier is correct, US funding and manufacturing was of great importance in the Second World War.

[conon394]

and that the USSR took the brunt of the fighting in WW2

Only after June 1941, and than only in some areas (the air war and naval war were hardly won on the Eastern Front...), I suspect the Chinese might have something to say about bearing brunts when you add up the final butcher bill. In any case I'm happy to give the USSR credit as an American as long as you remember the situation that made the USSR bear that brunt was rather self inflicted.