Germany wins WW1

Spot the deliberate error....

 

Deliberate, no. Silly, yes.
Obviously, the recent biography is by Kershaw. Silly 'K' named Historians...

 

First, das Reich, you should specify: when does Germany win WWI? In 1914 or 1918? - the two most likeable dates for that to happen. Because then the whole general view changes, since in 1914 there might not have been a Soviet Union because Russia might have fought differently being alone - or maybe ask for an early armistice...

I don't think this could have been possible in the long term. With a victorious Germany then the ambitious Kaiser would seek for the colonial empire he wanted - now easier, since Germany would have had most of Europe's resources - and this would bring Germany again into conflict with Great Britain. Both natiosn then would have had to enlarge their fleets and prepare for a colonial war because I do not think there was a posibily of both dividing and taking France's empire...

 

The question does only make sense to the point: What happens if Germany wins the war already in 1914, reaching Paris? Well, it would not have been the 'Great War' or 'World War I' as we know it! The USA, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece and the many other small nations stay out.

If Paris falls, France will give up. Russia and Serbia will lose, maybe not before Turkey entering the war. Germany will annex large areas, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy will persist... for now. Probably Austria will annex Serbia, or parts of it.

England does not have a reason to resign, she will continue invading German colonies. As Germany didn't want war with her, maybe they soon agree an armistice - provided Germany releases Belgium to freedom.

Germany's policy won't be wise but very arrogant. Sooner or later France will rise again, with support of England, Russia...

It is hard to say what will happen in this case. No 'World War' would have taken place, maybe one would follow.

In 1918, against wide-spread believe today and then, Germany DID NOT HAVE ANY MORE CHANCE to win the war. Guess their spring offensive 1918 is double as successful, and they reach Paris. So what! With the USA at war and after all the sacrifices, France wouldn't have resigned. The USA pump one more million, and another, and another, soldiers to the new front in France, and in 1919, 1920 or so, famished Germany collapses, Austria and Turkey certainly before this.

Thus a vitory of the Central Powers in 1918 was, in reality, out of question.

 

Good point. Say Germany gets to Paris in 1914 and force a treaty, then swinging around to bash Russia with their entire army. Without France, England would probably want to sign a peace treaty, and then Germany would be the Hegemonic force in Europe.

If instead there is a white peace so to speak in 1915-7, we would we see a fair and balanced treaty, and subsequent talks on arms reductions for all parties concerned.

But yes, all things considered, Germany could not have won in 1918.

 

Two late remarks on this:

I think you sum up ALL Central Powers fronts to have collapsed, but these were the fronts of Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey. This wasn't Germany's fault.

About the submarine warfare: I quote (re-translated from German) David Jordan, "Wolfpack":

"Regarded objectively, the Royal Navy did not win against the U-boats in WWI, but only NOT LOSE. At least this was enogh for survival. Although the casualties inflicted by U-boats were unsettling until the end of the war, they could be coped with."

 

It may not have been entirely Germany's fault (though the North Eastern France front was) but Germany had no capacity to reinforce these fronts, and they had all collapsed. Regardless of wheither it was the fault of Germany or her allies or both, Germany's position was clearly completely untenable.

Not losing was just fine. Germany was suffering increasing losses, and they were unable to influce crippling losses on their enemies. By 1918, U-boat warfare was not relevant to Germany,s chance of wimming the war.