A better world if Germany and Central Powers won WWI?

[Heathen Hammer]

It depends on what outcome does the war end. The only thing I can think of is Germany taking Paris and Russians and British getting a Truce with Germany. Ottoman Empire would probably fall anyway. Russia would become a constitutional monarchy. Also it depends on how do people lived in every country. Maybe Germany, Great britain or even US would become another USSR.

[Player44]

Well since I'm French, no.

[Lysimachos11]

Germany was the a country with the least aggressive actions because it was only unified in 1871. And how was it securing safe land for German people by attacking France and the Low Countries? Does that not seem somewhat worse than the 'economical imperialism' of the US?

Germany was forced to attack France because Russia mobilized its forces. Germany being squeezed between a mobilizing Russia and France had two choices:
Choice A. Wait for what the Russians do: 1. they bluff and its all fine or 2. they dont bluff (they didnt) and Germany gets destroyed per definition because of having to fight two fronts simultaniously.
Choice B. Don't wait for what the Russians will do and mobilize your own forces to defeat France before both the Russians and the French mobilize, Germany actually stands a chance not to get destroyed.

So really how were the Germans aggressors or not primarily concerned with their own national security? The US carpetbombing Vietnam 7,000 miles from the nearest US border seems a lot less like a genuine threat to US national security to me...

Really? So the algerians were simply thrilled to be ruled by the French? Why were 8,000 shot down when demonstating against the exemplary colonial rule, then? And Vietnam? What about there? And Cameroon with the repression of the independence movement? Please explain how French and Dutch colonisation was more benevolent than British.

This is simply a well known fact. French overseas possessions were incorporated into the French state and French law made no distinction between ethnic Frenchmen and colonials, plus a lot of Frenchmen migrated to for example Algeria and started building the country into something decent. France supported independence but was obviously reluctant and envisaged keeping close ties to France as well as an ethnic French population (as they owned most of the banks etc. that had been set up). The Algerians like the Vietnamese were simply trying to become independent before the time was ripe in French eyes, but French intentions were good. British colonies on the other hand never achieved anything above being "crown dominion" etc., the British never migrated to their (African/Asian) colonies and did not build anything except for infrastructure that could support the transport of raw materials. Thats the big difference and why a French colony was totally different from a British colony.

[Markas]

This is simply a well known fact. French overseas possessions were incorporated into the French state and French law made no distinction between ethnic Frenchmen and colonials, plus a lot of Frenchmen migrated to for example Algeria and started building the country into something decent. France supported independence but was obviously reluctant and envisaged keeping close ties to France as well as an ethnic French population (as they owned most of the banks etc. that had been set up). The Algerians like the Vietnamese were simply trying to become independent before the time was ripe in French eyes, but French intentions were good.

'A well known fact?'. Indeed. The thing about those is they need sources so I'm afraid I'm going to have to pester you for some. Lets take algeria as an example:

The French intentions were good? Well there's somewhat of a differance between that and good actions-

Lieutenant-Colonel de Montagnac wrote on 15 March 1843, in a letter to a friend:

"All populations which do not accept our conditions must be despoiled. Everything must be seized, devastated, without age or sex distinction: grass must not grow any more where the French army has put the foot. Who wants the end wants the means, whatever may say our philanthropists. I personally warn all good militaries which I have the honour to lead that if they happen to bring me a living Arab, they will receive a beating with the flat of the saber... This is how, my dear friend, we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, charged the buildings with them [i.e. probable allusion to military brothels], send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs."

Were the Algerians treated as equals, then?:

The colonial regime imposed more and higher taxes on Muslims than on Europeans. The Muslims, in addition to paying traditional taxes dating from before the French conquest, also paid new taxes, from which the colons were often exempted. In 1909, for instance, Muslims, who made up almost 90% of the population but produced 20% of Algeria's income, paid 70% of direct taxes and 45% of the total taxes collected. And colons controlled how these revenues would be spent. As a result, colon towns had handsome municipal buildings, paved streets lined with trees, fountains and statues, while Algerian villages and rural areas benefited little if at all from tax revenues.

More 'good intentions':

The colonial regime proved severely detrimental to overall education for Algerian Muslims, who had previously relied on religious schools to learn reading, writing, and engage in religious studies. Not only did the state appropriate the habus lands (the religious foundations that constituted the main source of income for religious institutions, including schools) in 1843, but colon officials refused to allocate enough money to maintain schools and mosques properly and to provide for enough teachers and religious leaders for the growing population.

More 'equality':

"Algeria was in fact a colony but constitutionally was a part of France and not thought of in the 1950s (even by many on the left) as a colony. It was a society of nine million or so 'Muslim' Algerians who were dominated by the million settlers of diverse origins (but fiercely French) who maintained a quasi-apartheid regime." Bell, David Scott. Presidential Power in Fifth Republic France, Berg Publishers, 2000, p. 36

Of course, the British are not in denial about it as the French are-

On February 23, 2005 the French law on colonialism was an act passed by the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) conservative majority, which imposed on high-school (lycée) teachers to teach the "positive values" of colonialism to their students, in particular in North Africa (article 4).

And I thought the Japanese were bad for denying their atrocities in WW2. Sorry to use wiki as a source but as you say this is all 'well known fact'. The french fought in algeria and Vietnam because they didn't feel the time was 'ripe'. Ha. All the French left behind were rickety old colonies, none of which compare to, say, India or Hong Kong. The French were just as bad, just in differant ways. DeGaulle only gave up on algeria when he realised it was inevitable that independence would be achieved, the same as we did. Altruistic motives had nothing to do with it.

[MaximiIian]

If German had won WW1, I think things would have worked out for the better. Better than things ended up being with them losing that war.

[Mangalore]

The main problem after the end of ww1 was no attempt was made on the victors part to reconcile with the losers to prevent new fruits of conflict. Instead the main angle of the French was to keep Germany weak and poor (with reparations, by occupying the Ruhr area, ...). While this paranoia was understandable under the circumstances of some 80 million Germans with big economy vs only 50 million French with smaller economy it only allowed to continue the animosity of the world war without any great effect because France was too weak to do destroy germany as an entity (given that German nationalist/unionist movements had started in the 1850s and had become quite strong such an attempt could have only ended in a big mess. )

In contrast to former big European conflicts the Europeam powers found no common ground anymore to ease their respective worries. The absurd thing was that Germany had transformed into a republic just like the Allies wanted but the Allies still distrusted said republic which left germany hanging with no security but its own defense capability which was intentionally cut by the Allies thus by defintion making them not Germany's friends.

Now nothing of this would have made Hitler inevitable but given that he stole a lot of predefined planes and proclaimed him as his own the simple fact is that even a democratic germany under the Weimar republic pursued a very anatagonistic course because they saw no chance to reconcile with France (and lesser degree Britain) and thus prepared for the inevitable (like making a pact with the Soviet Union to test German weapon systems there). They obviously wouldn't have started a world war on their own or pursued a program of ethnic cleansing, but on the military side they also were following a policy aimed at achieving peace through strength if the bonds of the Versailles Treaty could be shaken loose (which they probably would have done only with a little more tact a few years latter than Hitler).

[christof139]

Barf. Imperial Germany/Prussia, Russia ans Austria-Hungary carve up Poland and other states between them and were nothing but very imperialistic states.

Chris

[gsoxx]

Barf. Imperial Germany/Prussia, Russia ans Austria-Hungary carve up Poland and other states between them and were nothing but very imperialistic states.

Chris

LoL, unlike Britain and France you mean?

[nce_wht_guy]

Ba-zing!

[Eternal]

No. Not in anyway. Hitler was intelligent, fanatical maniac. I dont think udner any circumstances that his "third kingdom" would be good for anyone else than his germans and blondes.

R. Eternal

[Ulyaoth]

I didn't know Hitler ruled Germany in WWI, I could have sworn he only got power because of the horrible treatment of Germans under the Allied victory.

[Eternal]

Oh, my bad, I read the thread wrong .

My answer is still no, Im not very clear with what the germans were thinking of doing if they actually won, but I dont think it was good for anyone else but the germans and austrians.

Regards Eternal

[hellheaven1987]

I didn't know Hitler ruled Germany in WWI, I could have sworn he only got power because of the horrible treatment of Germans under the Allied victory.

No, he got power only because Great Depression.

Weimar actually went out that "WWI shadow" around 1925 thanks US's support.

[Blasthood]

Hardly Hitler "only got the power because of the treatment the Allies imposed on Germany" Hitler would have still tried to come up to power mostly and simply because Germany lost. Many germans felt like it in fact, one of Hitler's first claim was that they lost the war, not that they were treated really badly. You can see it how you wish to be honest, but Hitler's main concern was to have revenge for the lost war. Guess what Hitler did after defeating France? He wrote the armistice treaty on the same train wagon that was used in the First World war. Ring any bells? No? Then you better find more convincing excuses.

Anyway i personally think the Centrals should have won (i'm italian btw) and i think it would have been the lesser evil for europe and worldwide talking. Many things could have been avoided under certain circumstances and precise times. For example: if Germany and Austria managed to defeat Russia in time, let's say close to the end of 1915 or 1916 )the time to get the Russians upset enough but still not too much) if the Centrals did not concentrate on the western front, probably the russians would have accepted a defeat by ending hostilities. During this time the German and Austrian government would have probably tried to prevent a Communist revolt by estabilishing a more pleasant government for the Russians and as the Communists would have not been able to make the population rise to find peace and a fair government for everyone, they would have eventually lost support = No Stalin = No unneeded deaths.

Not only, this scenario could have happened under the following circumstances (which mean a Central Victory):
Italy joins the Centrals in 1914 (slight chance of victory if Italy joines in late 1914 very early 1915)
Spain joins the Centrals in 1914 (in agreement with Germany and roughly under Italy's years and circumstances, Spain signed the Triple Alliance agreement in secret in 1887 for balance powers in the mediterrean, Italian and Austrian fleets were weaker than France's and Britain's presence in mediterrean but slightly) Spain had claims on Morocco and Gibraltar
Due to the events above, Greece would have not got involved in the war remaining Neutral throughout the conflict.
Again due to the events "Spain's and Italy's entrance" France's loss was assured. Romania would have joined the Centrals, again like Italy and Spain had military agreements with the Centrals (ignored at the beginning and during WW1 like Italy and Spain).
Portugal would have not joined the Allies.
(Possible events if they were planned carefully: Japan would have not entered the war however Netherlands would have joined the Centrals and would have aided Germany (if the Kaiser offered Belgium and Luxemburg to the Netherlands in case of Victory there was a possibility for Netherlands to join the conflict, Netherlands was more pro-Germany and sympathised with the Kaiser, Queen Wilhelmina offered refugee to the Kaiser after the Germans lost)
Germany would have probably inflicted some punishments to the Allies, of course, probably not as much with the Russians (to keep them appeased as their will for war would have probably been far more weak than Germany's for losing the first world war as they unanimously wanted to end the war at all costs). Britain would have surely lost a lot of colonies including India, African colonies like Somalia (to the Italians most probably) and south Africa and Egypt, maybe leaving a few insignificant colonies just because the Centrals would have found no use. The british after all would have received a much less harsh peace than the french most likely due to the rivalry between Germany and France. The real problem would have been France. Unlike Germany, France was not able to start another possible war in the future as it lacked the industrial and economic capacity for it. Therefore a future "Napoleon" that would replace the Hitler of Germany that would start another war is not coneivable. Great Britain hardly would have felt the resentment of the lost war to an extreme limit. Anyway the colonial tensions would have been much less problematic in the future and independence could have been achieved more peacefully from the colonised and they would do it around this time. Low risks of terrorism and better relationships between old colonisers and ex-colonised.

To conclude, say whatever you want about this "prophetic" arguement but you need to really consider everything (i could write more but i do not want to write 100 pages of this) as this is more realistic and more acceptable world. Because what happened in WW1 is still felt today due to the event of ww2 and other colonial conflicts. I give my vote to the centrals.

[Gerald The Herald]

Speculative history is but a favoured past-time of wishful thinking. The fact remains that proposing an educated guess, no matter how informed or accurate, is but hypothethical and hence, cannot be acccepted at face value. Thus, to say that a "victory" [which is impossible, given the massive industrial and manpower advantage the Entente had over the Central powers-both in gross production and foreign finance (American aid)] would create a "better" world is flawed fundamentally.

[Koelkastmagneet]

It's not that the wrong side won, it's that the side that won pretty much ed up after the whole ordeal was over.

[Azog 150]

We should have invaded, occupied and destroyed Germany like we did in World War 2. Either that or gone easy on her. The halfway approach of Versailles is what laid the foundations for World War 2.

[Koelkastmagneet]

I just noticed, but Blasthood, why did you necro a 11 month old thread?

[Yuri Orlov]

there was no good or bad side in ww1, more then any other war, there were normal folk being sendt to their deaths whilst generals were sipping vine and doing their mistressed... most of you are so diluded by national romanticism, and the evil socialists and the workers movment are the reason people in europe dont work 16 hours a day, and people have health care... i dont like stalinism, but the soviets did sent a man into space, and they did not even have colonies, more then most other countries will ever contribute to humanity..

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

If Germany had won WW1, France would become very weak and would happen the same that happened to Germany after losing the war!
But i agree, world would have been better!