A better world if Germany and Central Powers won WWI?

[Ahlerich]

If Germany had won WW1, France would become very weak and would happen the same that happened to Germany after losing the war!

well that we dont know. the way the winners treated germany surprised the germans. it wasnt common to punnish the loser that hard.

on the short run for sure the world would have been better in the long run is really hard to say. depends on when and what about the next conflict would have been. and thats really hard to guess.

[Azog 150]

Its a good point. If Germany did win World War 1, could we have seen the rise of some sort of dictator in France? Possibly a Communist state? (Seeing as the French Communist movement was rather large even with France having won the war)

[Domnul Ceaşcă]

Hungary would not have been chopped up by Romania and Slovakia and Yugoslavia would not have become the unnatural federation it became.

I find that quite humorous. Yugoslavia a unnatural federation? What`s so unnatural about it? All are Christian, all are south slavic, i don`t see anything unnatural about that. What about Austro-Hungary-Cehoslovakia-Croatia-Venice-Rutenia-Romania-and who knows what else...Thank god the entente won. Altough I don`t agree with the humiliating terms for Germany which set the stage for another world war.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Its a good point. If Germany did win World War 1, could we have seen the rise of some sort of dictator in France? Possibly a Communist state? (Seeing as the French Communist movement was rather large even with France having won the war)

you know azog you sound like you've been playing a rather popular mod for HOI2.

[Pious Agnost]

That's the impression I got from the OP too.

[Lysimachus]

To be honest I think the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires would have collapsed anyway. They were both melting pots of cultures forced in to one state and they would have revolted. Then i'm guessing that the loss of losing such a war would cause the Triple Entènte to fight another war against Germany with the reasoning that their conquests would have been unjustified from the Allied point of view and simply for the desire for more Empire. I can see another massive war happening, just not the colossal clash of ideologies and extreme ideals that World War II ended up as. We know that the Germans were extremely harsh in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk so that means that they would have demanded crippling concessions from France and Britain and this would have destabilised the world. Germany would then want to pounce on its' weak neighbours later on while the weakened empires would want to restore the balance in the world and restore the independence of the conquered lands.

[cfmonkey45]

What would have happened had Germany won the war? For starters, the most philo-Semitic nation in Europe, Germany, would have remained so. Six million Jews would not have disappeared, as Hitler would have remained a failed artist and nothing more. The dynasties would have survived, which means there would have been no communism with its 20 to possibly 100 million victims. Hungary would not have been chopped up by Romania and Slovakia and Yugoslavia would not have become the unnatural federation it became. The Ottoman Empire would have lumbered along, Iraq would not have been created, nor would’ve Israel, Lebanon or Jordan. Russia would have joined the modern world–eventually. The world would have been led by England, Germany, France and the United States, and Africa would have never become the slaughterhouse it is today.

You also have to consider the "blow back" from the Central Powers winning. France and Great Britain had two of the largest empires around the world. If the war was long and protracted, perhaps even longer, and France and Great Britain lost a significant amount of infrastructure in the homeland, we might see a massive wave of decentralization occurring across massive world empires. India probably would have revolted, bloodily, since Gandhi wasn't there to make a peaceful protest, and the British and French empires would have crumbled. Not only that, but there's no plausible reason why France or Great Britain might not become the new Axis. France could easily have been transformed into a third empire by another great-grandson of Napoleon, or been ruled by a military junta. Great Britain might have had their own blackshirts. Who knows?

The axis winning would have a minor effect on Russia, because IRL, the Axis did win on that front as the new USSR made a treaty with the German empire in 1917. Africa was a screwed up place to begin with. No national identity, no unifying language nor religion. All the unity came from colonialism. Without infrastructure or clear identity as to whom will succeed, those nations would have descended rapidly into anarchy.

Despite all its horrors, the Brits insist there was a moral case for fighting WWI, but they would say that, wouldn’t they? Britannia did not wish Germany to spread her wings. But that was manifest destiny, pure and simple. So Hitler came to power because of the Versailles Treaty, and I guess you know the rest. Woodrow Wilson, a well-meaning man but criminally responsible for Jimmy Carter-like naivete, has a lot to answer for. Oh yes, I almost forgot, there would never have been a man called Mussolini lording it over the most pleasant land of Europe. Finally, socialism, the great cancer that has befallen us, would have remained a dream among hirsute intellectuals on the Left Bank of Paris. The struggle between good and evil that was WWII would never have taken place.

Ironically, Woodrow Wilson did the opposite. He opposed a number of policies imposed upon the Central Powers. Ultimately, the United States did not join the League of Nations for a number of reasons, partially Woodrow Wilson's dissatisfaction with it, partially the Republican-dominated Congress opposing it on the basis of national sovereignty. The Treaty of Versailles ultimately did not anticipate the dissolution of those three empires (German, Austrian, and Ottoman), which happened in a matter of weeks, but still imposed the French-backed and US-opposed principles of War Reparations, along with the Allied (sans US) stance that Germany accept total responsibility for the atrocities committed by both sides.

In Italy, with the rise of Fascism, Mussolini came to power late in the 20s for a number of reasons. Italy was horribly backwards and most people doubted the efficiency of a free market, and feared Bolshevikism. Mussolini also catered to their nationalistic tendencies, because Italy had basically been snubbed at the Treaty of Versailles. They had wanted Trieste and the Dalmatian Islands (part of what was then Croatia), and felt somewhat betrayed. Imagine if Italy had lost and the Austrians had reoccupied Venetia. Mussolini, who was very open and vocal during and after WWI, would have come to power much sooner on a populist, militaristic, and nationalistic platform promising economic and social reforms.

Even in the far Orient, things would have been for the better. Japan was the only combatant nation that achieved its aims by joining the Entente. It gave her a free hand to pursue her ambitions in Asia. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese would not have been slaughtered, and Mao would have remained a chainsmoking peasant, unknown outside his village. There never would have been a Vietnam War. Sure, Churchill said the Germans are either at your throat or at your feet, but that was just war rhetoric. The Kaiser was a civilized man, as were the Germans, and had the Allies humored him and allowed Germany to pursue her destiny, we would today be living in a far, far better place.

China at this time was fractured. The Republic of China was ruled by the one-party system of the Koumintang by Generalissmo Chiang-Kai Sek. It was not the most "democratic" of regimes, and also was thoroughly corrupt (Don't get me wrong, I would love a free and liberal democracy in China, specifically the KMT, but its just wishful thinking). If I recall correctly, he led about 60% of China, the rest led by warlords. European Imperialism, including German, had already fractured it. Japan joined the entente as a symbol of good faith, but later went lone wolf. By happenstance, Nazi Germany allied with Japan in 1937, leaving the now-fascist KMT out to dry. WWI and Japan's advancements are mutually exclusive.

Do you agree with this article?

Not really. It would obviously be wishful thinking and an interesting concept to debate and discuss, but we can't know the effects of changing such a massive world event. The views and attitudes of the aggregate population would have vastly changed. We might not be talking about the same world.

[Prodigal]

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

[cfmonkey45]

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

Probably wouldn't have happened. By 1917, large tracts of the military had mutinied. Ultimately, the Tsar had to abdicate to a short-lived republic, which was then toppled by Communism. A German victory would have only exacerbated this.

[Lysimachus]

A German victory would have only exacerbated this.

I think you're forgetting that the Germans did win against the Russians

To be honest, even though the idea of a monarchy sounds all great and all they were past their time and in a rapidly modernising world they were all going to fall eventually. I mean, Her Majesty now is simply a figurehead rather than wielding any actual power.

[Boer]

you know azog you sound like you've been playing a rather popular mod for HOI2.

That was my first though when I saw this thread.



As for the article in the OP, it's major problem is trying to stop the march of history after the one change of a German victory in WWI (a very common problem in alternate histories).

Stating that the would be no communism ignores the weakened state of Russia, even before the war, and completely disregards the possibility of communism gaining a foot hold anywhere else in the world.

The assumption is made the the Ottoman Empire would continue to survive. Apparently the sick man of Europe, would find a cure, prevent any Arab revolt and never become involved in a loosing war.

The Austro-Hungarian empire is assumed to not only survived preexisting weaknesses but to over come new ones created by acquisition of conquered lands and the additional minorities peoples from them.

"Africa would have never become the slaughterhouse it is today" seems to imply that, with out WWI, Africa would have perpetually remained under European rule, sounds like a recipe for a communist uprising in Africa to me.

The claim that socialism would "remained a dream among hirsute intellectuals on the Left Bank of Paris" ignores gains it had already made in France, England and even Germany. Lets not forget that, by 1912, the Social Democratic Party of Germany was Germany's strongest political party.

[cfmonkey45]

The axis winning would have a minor effect on Russia, because IRL, the Axis did win on that front as the new USSR made a treaty with the German empire in 1917.

Emphasis added. This was the post above. And, I agree with you post completely.

[Poach]

Well where do we start...

Let's ignore the fact that Germany could never actually win the First World War as completely as the Allies did, geography made it an impossibility. Any "victory" in WW1 for Germany would have been a white peace or minor losses/gains.

Had Germany somehow won the war as totally as the Allies did historically, the following would have occured:

Dismantelling of the British and French Empires before their historical time, much of the lucrative areas transferring to German control. Britain and France becoming second rate powers.

Socialism would still have risen, the Russian Revolution came about as a result of WW1, the only way to avoid that is to not fight the war at all. The USSR is garaunteed within the context of the question as the war is still fought. The USSR itself was not much of a Socialist nation, totalitarian dictatorship is more like it BUT the Socialist ideas, literature and ideas would still be communicated to the outside world. It is merely your opinion that Socialism is a bad thing, OP.

Mao would still have fought in China, as communism and support would still have been communicated via the USSR.

Honestly, the only outcome (outcome being as differing from our modern world) I see for Germany winning WW1 is the following:

Britain and France being second rate players on the world stage, perhaps not even nuclear nations. Germany instead, freed from its constitutional restriction on world affairs, would be the main voice in Europe.

Whether they would act as the UK does now, supporting and working closely with the US on international affairs (quite possible as Germany would likely have allied with the US during the Cold War which would likely still occur in some form) or whether they would work more like France, keeping a dialogue with the US going but focusing their attention on the EU and creating a more unified and cohesive Europe capable of operating without US backing or dancing to a US tune, so to speak, is unknown.

It would depend on how heavily Germany relied on US support during the Cold War era and also on European politics. France and Britain would have undoubtably recovered since WW1 by now and the UK, having not fought on the same side as the US in two major wars (with heavy reliance on US support in the second) would be unlikely to be so pro-US and thus quite possibly more pro-Europe. A pro-Europe UK and France would probably draw Germany, as the main European player, into the EU to some degree.

In conclusion, your vision of a majorly changed and far more capitalist world is unlikely, as you overlooked several key facts. The USSR and Communist China are still likely products of your alternate timeline, the Cold War is a likely outcome and the EU-esque organisation is also a likely outcome.

Germany, in her position of power in Europe, would either be unwilling to share her dominance in Europe and thus avoid the EU, prefering to deal with the US, China and Russia seperately and letting the UK and France fall in step out of lack of ability to do much else, or would be eager to unite Europe into a powerful force capable of contending on equal footing with the heavyweights in China and the US, or would be very pro-US and be happy to follow the US around whilst paying lip service to Europe, as the UK currently does.

[pchalk]

Well where do we start...

Let's ignore the fact that Germany could never actually win the First World War as completely as the Allies did, geography made it an impossibility. Any "victory" in WW1 for Germany would have been a white peace or minor losses/gains.

Had Germany somehow won the war as totally as the Allies did historically, the following would have occured:

Dismantelling of the British and French Empires before their historical time, much of the lucrative areas transferring to German control. Britain and France becoming second rate powers.

Socialism would still have risen, the Russian Revolution came about as a result of WW1, the only way to avoid that is to not fight the war at all. The USSR is garaunteed within the context of the question as the war is still fought. The USSR itself was not much of a Socialist nation, totalitarian dictatorship is more like it BUT the Socialist ideas, literature and ideas would still be communicated to the outside world. It is merely your opinion that Socialism is a bad thing, OP.

Mao would still have fought in China, as communism and support would still have been communicated via the USSR.

Honestly, the only outcome (outcome being as differing from our modern world) I see for Germany winning WW1 is the following:

Britain and France being second rate players on the world stage, perhaps not even nuclear nations. Germany instead, freed from its constitutional restriction on world affairs, would be the main voice in Europe.

Whether they would act as the UK does now, supporting and working closely with the US on international affairs (quite possible as Germany would likely have allied with the US during the Cold War which would likely still occur in some form) or whether they would work more like France, keeping a dialogue with the US going but focusing their attention on the EU and creating a more unified and cohesive Europe capable of operating without US backing or dancing to a US tune, so to speak, is unknown.

It would depend on how heavily Germany relied on US support during the Cold War era and also on European politics. France and Britain would have undoubtably recovered since WW1 by now and the UK, having not fought on the same side as the US in two major wars (with heavy reliance on US support in the second) would be unlikely to be so pro-US and thus quite possibly more pro-Europe. A pro-Europe UK and France would probably draw Germany, as the main European player, into the EU to some degree.

In conclusion, your vision of a majorly changed and far more capitalist world is unlikely, as you overlooked several key facts. The USSR and Communist China are still likely products of your alternate timeline, the Cold War is a likely outcome and the EU-esque organisation is also a likely outcome.

Germany, in her position of power in Europe, would either be unwilling to share her dominance in Europe and thus avoid the EU, prefering to deal with the US, China and Russia seperately and letting the UK and France fall in step out of lack of ability to do much else, or would be eager to unite Europe into a powerful force capable of contending on equal footing with the heavyweights in China and the US, or would be very pro-US and be happy to follow the US around whilst paying lip service to Europe, as the UK currently does.

interesting perspective. while recognizing that this whole thread is based on speculation, what is your reasoning for thinking that Germany would dismantle the allied empires? I cant say i have a real opinion but it seemed others tended to think germany wouldn't be so harsh. Also I'm curious what you would think would happen to Germany's monarchy. being almost absolute in power any thoughts as to how/if it would be challenged. I imagine it would depend on the toll germany took during the war. I suppose i ask cuz the thought of germany staying with the kaiser just sounds awesome to me .

[Koelkastmagneet]

The Entente just screwed up post-war in Russia, the former Ottoman Empire (particularly Armenia and Greece) and Germany, it's not that the wrong side won, it's that the winners didn't follow up on their victory in a proper way.

[Poach]

interesting perspective. while recognizing that this whole thread is based on speculation, what is your reasoning for thinking that Germany would dismantle the allied empires? I cant say i have a real opinion but it seemed others tended to think germany wouldn't be so harsh. Also I'm curious what you would think would happen to Germany's monarchy. being almost absolute in power any thoughts as to how/if it would be challenged. I imagine it would depend on the toll germany took during the war. I suppose i ask cuz the thought of germany staying with the kaiser just sounds awesome to me .

Well, to answer your first question:

One of the main German war aims was to establish herself as a colonial power, the equal of Britain and France. As shown here, one of the Kaiser's speeches.

As such, I feel it is only logical to assume that Germany would take control of the more lucrative colonies of Britain and France in the peace necogiation. The Kaiser may have left the poorer colonies in the hands of the British and French but the defeated and broken armies of the two nations would be unlikely to hold onto them for long, if their governments even wanted to keep those dirt poor provinces just so they could pretend to be an Empire.

Thus, a German Empire would be born and the British and French empires would be a collection of worthless provinces, if they continued to exist at all.

For the second, absolute monarchy...

The Kaiser would be likely to reign until his death, as he'd be hugely popular due to him catapulting Germany into Europe's foremost power. His son (William) ascending to the throne would probably have happened, though he'd be unlikely to retain absolute monarchy, if his father even had. The world by then had moved away from monarchs actually ruling their domains. I honestly can't take an educated shot at what would become of the German monarchy, as I'm not all that good at guessing alternate-history politics!

Perhaps they'd have ended up as the British Monarchy, still Head of State but not active in politics? I'll leave this question to someone better at politics, I think.

[Darsh]

Even if Germany won the WW1, as long as they kept Alsace and Lorraine, there will be an another WW.

[Xerrop]

Let's ignore the fact that Germany could never actually win the First World War as completely as the Allies did, geography made it an impossibility. Any "victory" in WW1 for Germany would have been a white peace or minor losses/gains.

That´s actually why it could be a better world if Germany had won WWI.

A german victory would be possible only in 1914 or 1915 when beating France fast. In a long Total War Germany hadn´t the Ressources to succesfully survive. And without a devasting four year long war, the peace treaty would be moderate. No "self-destruction" of the european empires and their hegemony over the world.

I find that quite humorous. Yugoslavia a unnatural federation? What`s so unnatural about it? All are Christian, all are south slavic, i don`t see anything unnatural about that.

then you haven´t heard or seen how this federation ended in the 90s ...

And not all are christians, there are muslims too. And even the christians divided in catholics (Slovenia, Croatia) and orthodox.

Even if Germany won the WW1, as long as they kept Alsace and Lorraine, there will be an another WW.

After beeing beaten the second time the French might and should loose their interests there. Would be better for them ...

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..

Yeah, except the fact that under Stalins regime his people were treated worser than most natives in the European colonies.

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.

Agreed

[Nik]

interesting perspective. while recognizing that this whole thread is based on speculation, what is your reasoning for thinking that Germany would dismantle the allied empires? I cant say i have a real opinion but it seemed others tended to think germany wouldn't be so harsh. Also I'm curious what you would think would happen to Germany's monarchy. being almost absolute in power any thoughts as to how/if it would be challenged. I imagine it would depend on the toll germany took during the war. I suppose i ask cuz the thought of germany staying with the kaiser just sounds awesome to me

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.

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.
- 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.
- 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.

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

[Helm]

It would have been a better world had WW1 not happened at all, there weren't really any winners as far as that war was concerned.