Germany wins WW1

Granted, this does not occur in historical ww2, but what would a possible ww2 have looked like? Remember, the Soviet Union will still exist...although Hitler will likely not rise to power...due to Germany being the European hegemon. Any peace Germany imposed on the Allies would have been as unequal if not more so than Versailles...and unequal peace does not last very long.

Who would be on what sides? Would the tactics/weapons be markedly different? Would Japan and USA still have gone to war?

 

one thing is for sure the Soviet Union would not have been as important as it would become, as the germans made huge inroads into russian territory after the revolution. France probably would have become very belligerent after losing a another war to germany. britian probably would have gone back to imperial policing and maybe even had considered some form of relationship with imperial germany. at the end of the day our link with germany were far stronger than those with france most notably our royal families. i would have thought the austro-hungarian empire would still decay into fragments as it had already been doing that the previous half century. who would pick up the pieces? probably germany with the german speaking section. america would have still become much more important but still would enter isolationism.

would there be another war? would depend on whether france became a resurgent power in the next few decades. britian would probably stay by the sideline and possibly if anything support an imperial nation rather than a a resurgent belligerent nation.

 

I think it's practically impossible to say what would happen - changing the outcome of something as significant as a war changes too many factors.

 

Really... ?? What about the Russian Civil War? You are presuming the Bolshivieks would have won? Soviet Russia did not come in to being until after that. And who's to stay a far sighted Germany wouldn't have teamed up with the White Russians, and defeated the Reds?

 

How do you mean by 'win' ? What was Germany's WW1 objectives ? Germany's WW2 objectives was the world, but I doubt WW1 German-time was less fanatic/stupid.

Heres mine:
Germany won, lets say they let the British run back to England and the France but there hands up, but Germany took it no further, they took some of the France's terrain and kept Belgium occupied, yet treated them 'nicely'. The Frence, and maybe British, would of been blamed and thus have to pay for the war, but Germany could of tipped in, Hinenburg was a honourable man from what I understand. As such, Germany never entered crisis, so extremist groups were largely ignored for the moment, yet Communists attempted several attempts to gain power.

During the New york high-street wall crash (or whatever) Europe will become poor, including Germany, yet I doubt it would of been enough of the citizens to turn to Extremists, so the Communists and Nazis were ignored, and I doubt Hitler could of made leader of the Nazi party.

Germany would make military advancements as they did, but I doubt the decromatic Germany would see the need of massed armour research, and this will result in the Soviets having in some less armour, (some, not alot), as the Soviets did alot of joint-research with the Nazis.

Eventually I think Germany would make peace with the Western allies, but not keep on good terms with them, so the Soviet Union war with Finland would go on as normal, but the western europe powers would open there eyes, and worry about the red threat looming in the east, this could even result in a Britain-France-German pact. World War II would come in the shape of the Red army crashing into Poland, around 1942, 1943, and may cause alot of trouble for Europe, and the Soviets could of won or lost, I'm not to sure.

Well, thats my theory, not 100% fool-proof, but everyones willing to post there opinions on my opinions...

Cheers,

 

Well, the way i see it

GERMANY DID WIN WORLD WAR ONE!

They BEAT Russia, and were beating the Allies in France when their DOMESTIC FRONT collapsed


They Won the War, lost the Domestic BAttle

 

I would disagree with that CVM, the Spring offensive of 1918 was pushing the Germans back, reclaiming land lost to the Kaiserschlact. The USA had entered the war and by summer US troops were fighting hard and would have kept going. Germany most definatly would not have won if their domestic front had lasted longer. Apart from anything by 1918 soldiers were starving and were badly kitted out, the 'stab in the back' myth created by the right wing in the 1920's so that ex-soldiers would turn against the socialist government is just that, a myth.

 

Not to sure, the German lines were unbroken, give them another few weeks then the Germans would of most likely lost. It was true to an extent, but most of it was lies.

 

With respect - Germany did not win the war on the Eastern Front in WW1, they simply signed a peace treaty at Brest-Litovsk in February 1918. This then released more than a million men to fight one last phase of offensives on the WF.

While Germany had the much launded Storm Troops (both French and British units had also adopted such tactics by 1918), the German Army had not undergone the same learning curve that the Allies had, and standard infantry tactics had moved on little by March 1918.

So when the German Army attacked on 21st March 1918, it broke through the outpost line on the Somme pretty quickly, but was unable to take out British redoubts - these only gave out once they were out of ammo. By the close of the day, the Germans had lost more than 30,000 men - no attacking army should have been losing that many men by March 1918, but the Germans advanced in column, and were mown down by British machine-gunners.

The failure of the German offensives, and the arrival of the AEF, doomed Germany. By October the British and Commonwealth forces had broken through the trench lines, and it was OPEN WARFARE in the last phase of the war up to the final action in the streets of Mons on 11.11.18.

As has been said above, to believe the Germans did not lose in 1918 is simply to believe Nazi propaganda...

 

With Respect, in my opinion (for what its worth) the Germans DID win in the East Through Brest-Litvosk. With that Russia Signed over HUGE amounts of Land to the Germans.


CvM

 

CVM, with respect they got land, so what? Land is of little use when its population is hostile and you have to re-build before you can use the reasources, something Germany could not afford to do. The only real advantage of 'beating' Russia (well they didn't really, Russia tore itself apart due to internal problems that were far older than the war) was that German troops could be moved to the west, tired, demoralised and hungry troops. In the west Germany was beaten, the Kaiserschlact was a success but only because of the surprise, the British troops fought hard to hold it up though and by the time the famous 'not a step back' order was issued the attack had lost its momentum and would never be repeated. A sort of WW1 Wacht Am Rhine you might say.

 

Actually, in 1917 a lot of the Russian Peasantry was pro anything not Tsar. The majority of Russians didnt mind German Occupation.

CvM

 

Peasants maybe, but then the peasantry in that area has a history of not particularly careing who ruled them, however there were still elements that were pro-tsar or pro-bolshevik. Either way I still do not see many benefits to having a huge tract of wasteland plus a load of starving cities and a bigger population to feed (well, maybe the increased land would make feeding them easier but I need to read more about that).

 

I think we're drifting off into WW1 here, but personnely I don't mind.

I'm not to hot on this but I always thought that after Hindenburg killed 500,000 Russians soldiers at the lose of 40,000, the eastern front was a victory, about 1,500,000 marched over to the western front as the Germans took some, not alot of land. The russians then mutined, severe supply shortages as well as poor treatment led to many open rebellions starting in the east, the Tsar was very unliked. I think it got really bad, soldiers turning around to shoot at there officers and noble houses were looted. So, pretty much a victory in the Eastern Front.

As i said, I ain't to hot.

 

No, Russia wasn't BEATEN, they simply lost the domestic battle!

Anyone else see the irony? Germany suffers military reverses and a political revolution and is forced into signing an armistice (but wins the war all the same!), while Imperial Russia is suffers military reverses and a far more comprehensive political revolution and is forced into a peace treaty, and is thus defeated by the victorious Germans!

Arguing that Germany won the military war but lost the political battle at home is nonsense - wars are fundamentally political actions and one cannot be divorced from the other.

 

Sorry for delaying my response for so long...I have been away from the forums for awhile.

Germanys aspirations for the first world war were definitely not world conquest. At most they wanted to grab some some eastern territory from the Russians, which they did for a short time.

Considering the humiliating terms of Brest-Litovsk, I would say the Germans beat Russia. But they most definitely did not win the war. By the time the armistice was signed, Germany was in the middle of a forced strategic retreat in the West. It wasnt just the domestic front, everything collapsed, the military, the government, everything. Had the war continued longer, they Allies would have entered Germany itself and eventually Berlin.

Had Germany managed to defeat the Allies instead, though, I think they would have sided with the white Russians, so perhaps the Soviet Union would not have existed. I hadnt thought of that, Sommecourt. Instead we might see Russia becoming closely allied with Germany, assuming they win their civil war.

 

Das Reich Welcome back it's nice to read your post's again

Well Germany did win the war in the East, but lost the war in the west. Maybe if they would have broken the British naval blockade, they would not have had to resort to the use of unrestricted sub warfare. Maybe the US would not have entered the war?

Also if Germany did win WW1 Hitler probably would have never risen to power, and he would probably have become the neigborhood weirdo.

 

To win a war you got to gain somthing, Russia and Germany did neither, both lost land and both ended up signing treaty's which were sided to the other nation.
Germany was the aggresive nation, and gained nothing, lost lots, I do not know how they WON! CvM, they may have got Russia, but that doesnt make you win the war, or win at all, its like saying Germany won WW2 cause they took France.

 

Let's just say that the Germans fight the French and British to a draw even. WW I ends in a negotiated peace. Now, this is the really intriuging "what-if:"
The most interesting long term effect isn't that the Germans invent the "blitzkrieg" but, that they retain their navy.
Assume for a moment that the Germans in this situation sit in on the Washington Naval Treaties. How would they fare? Let's assume that they are able to negotiate a ratio for themselves that allows them to match Japan. While this leaves them inferior in surface combatants to England it gives them a superior navy to France. With English commitments else where in the world the possiblitiy now exists that the Germans could attain local naval superiority over the British.
If we further assume that the Germans opt for a carrier fleet (knowing their inferiority in number of capital ships) and upgrade their fleet to support their carriers, the result is that the British are faced with a real delimma. Spend heavily on naval forces to maintain their superiority or, rely more heavily on allies while building larger ground forces.
As a possible list of capital units in this situation:

4 BB of the Bayern class (15" guns)
4 BC of the Mackensen class (15" guns)
2 new BC improved Mackensens
2 new BB Say similar to the H40 class with 16" guns
4 or 5 carriers of slightly more capacity than Graf Zeppelin (say, 50 -60 A/C each).

If you consider a WW II "rematch" along the lines of the original 1940 campaign, all of a sudden the loss of France and the French fleet looks extremely serious for the British. If the above (with appropriate supporting units) was the constitution of the German Navy in 1939 the British are now in very serious trouble. Seelöwe is a very real possiblity following the defeat of France.
A German successful stalemate in 1918 makes for a successful rematch 30 years later.

 

I have to interject this, I have to respond to a comment which has gone unchallenged.

I must say I am surprised to hear it stated on a newsgroup devoted to the study of the history of World War II.


Germany most certainly DID lose WWI, they were a completely beaten nation, with a defeated army. One front had collapsed completely, Two fronts were collapsing and their Navy was mutinying, and their submarine arm had been defeated.

The collapse of the home front never happened at all, in fact the German Home front, though starved and facing worse privation in the months to come, remained quite steadfast.

The 'Stab in the back' theory was propagated during the Inter-war period as the excuse for the German collapse, fielded by both left and Right, and became a particular favourite of Hitler himself. Under Hitler, the stab in the back theory transformed from weak politicians, to Jews and communists as the main agents of this fictional home-front collapse.

Regardless, this theory for the loss of WWI, which has become known as the "Dolchstoss theory", is utter invention by those who did not wish to accept a military defeat. It was a widely used propaganda tool, but has no basis whatsoever in fact.


The Military situation in November 1918 was disastrous for Germany. The Western front, while still technically on enemy soil, was not stable and had been in a period of withdrawal for about 100 days. Desertions in the German army were up by 6000% in those same three months. Germany had no operational reserves, and was short of weapons, having in abundance only chemical weapons. Thus they began their famous denial tactics, flooding a sector with so much mustard gas that it became effectively impassable. Thus the Germans did not have to defend it, and could concentrate their forces elsewhere.

Germans had come up with no answer for the tank, they had surrendered air superiority to the allies, and they had lost their war-long advantage in chemical weapons production.

At the same time, the Balkans front was in total collapse, and no solid defence line existed between the Balkan allied armies and Berlin. The Italian front too was going poorly, and while the Germans still held, they had no reserves and were losing ground.

The German Navy mutinied rather than following orders to sortie ‘en force’ and engage the British fleet, orders that would likely have been very costly, if not suicide to follow. The fact that such orders were given at all is an example of the apocalyptic mood in the German High Command.

Germany had victory in the East, but could not even afford the troops to garrison their new holdings, and so many farmers and towns in the newly occupied lands continued paying taxes to Russia.

Germany was in every measurable manner a defeated foe. When presented with the terms of surrender, the Kaiser balked at how fierce they were, and asked his high command if there was any further possibility of resistance whatsoever. They responded unanimously no. That’s not politicians, but the German High Command saying they had lost the war completely.

Finally, let me finish with a quote from Keegan's excellent biography of Hitler, which I am re-reading:

"In reality, of course, there had been no treachery, no stab-in-the-back. This was a pure invention of the Right, a legend the Nazis would use as a central element of their propaganda armoury. Unrest at home was a consequence, not a cause, of military failure. Germany has been militarily defeated and was close to the end of its tether -- though nothing had prepared people for capitulation.”

Ian Kershaw
Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris