What if Germany won the First World War?

[antwony]

Antwony...

I postulate that a German late war win is possible, not probable, but certainly possible. Let's say late 1917:

• * The US isn't in the war yet
  * Germany launches the Kaiser offensives
  * French Army morale collapses (again) and a mutiny ensues.
  * France sues for peace, dragging Britain to the negotiating table

Given the already extant collapse of Russia and Italy, the above is not far fetched. Basically, I'm postulating a negotiated peace, not an outright surrender. That is both sides get something positive out of the peace agreement as both sides are completely worn out from fighting.

Sure.

Got to admit, I'm not that familiar with France's WW1. Verdun was them, but then they had those mutinies (around the time you mentioned).

To try and replicate the 1918 offensive in 1917, Germany would have had to largely abandon the Eastern Front. But, it retrospect that probably wouldn't be such an issue.

A large part of the success of the 1918 offensive was that the units the German's initially attacked were A) Portuguese or B) under strength British units. The British units were understrength as Britain's PM, Lloyd George, was acting, to put it bluntly, like a dick and was withholding replacement soldiers in Britain until he was given a guarantee the next British offensive would be a success. There was also heavy fog when the German attack begun in March 1918.

The real world attack was, a bit of, a perfect storm with everything coming together for the Germans.

An alternate what if would be what if that offensive had been launched on a clear sunny day against some hard nosed French killers.

[Guaporense]

Over the past 200 years there have been only two major wars: WW1 and WW2, they were both caused by the same fact: about 100 years ago, Europe was the world's center, it constituted it's richest and most important region, all the cutting edge in science and innovation happened in Europe. Germany was the largest and most powerful country in Europe, hence, probably the most powerful country in the world around 1914 and Germany was located in the middle of continental Europe. It was quite natural in this situation for Germany to actually try to conquer the rest of Europe and create a massive superstate.

This is wrong. You forget the Napoleonic wars. Those, if you include the American war of 1812, were the world war of the era. All three, were caused by revolutions in government that were followed by nationalistic expansionism.

Napoleonic wars ended in 1815. We are in 2016, 200 years ago was 1816. But you are right that the Napoleonic Wars were the last big world impacting war before WW1.

None had anything to do with the economic or technological might of the nation starting them.

They had: France was the most powerful country in the world in 1800, it was natural for France to try to unify Europe. Germany was the most powerful country in Europe in 1914 and 1939, it was natural for Germany to try to unify Europe.

All three found those starting them ending up being crushed by an alliance of (loosely) everybody else.

Indeed. Although in all 3 cases the wars were very closely fought (except the last 18 months of WW2). All these wars were caused by rational decisions but involved a great deal of risk: they were a gamble.

[T. A. Gardner]

Napoleonic wars ended in 1815. We are in 2016, 200 years ago was 1816. But you are right that the Napoleonic Wars were the last big world impacting war before WW1.

It's close enough for government work, so I'm counting it. Besides, it gives more credence to what I previously mentioned.

They had: France was the most powerful country in the world in 1800, it was natural for France to try to unify Europe. Germany was the most powerful country in Europe in 1914 and 1939, it was natural for Germany to try to unify Europe.

France underwent a revolution and Napoleon came out of that revolution. He went on a conquest of Europe not to spread technology or because he had it available, but to spread the revolution and its ideas.

Indeed. Although in all 3 cases the wars were very closely fought (except the last 18 months of WW2). All these wars were caused by rational decisions but involved a great deal of risk: they were a gamble.

And, they were all stated on the basis of political ideas and goals, not technology or its abundance.

[antwony]

Napoleonic wars ended in 1815. We are in 2016, 200 years ago was 1816. But you are right that the Napoleonic Wars were the last big world impacting war before WW1.

Unlike the French, in Versailles c.1919, you're forgetting the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

[Guaporense]

Sure.

Got to admit, I'm not that familiar with France's WW1. Verdun was them, but then they had those mutinies (around the time you mentioned).

To try and replicate the 1918 offensive in 1917, Germany would have had to largely abandon the Eastern Front. But, it retrospect that probably wouldn't be such an issue.

A large part of the success of the 1918 offensive was that the units the German's initially attacked were A) Portuguese or B) under strength British units. The British units were understrength as Britain's PM, Lloyd George, was acting, to put it bluntly, like a dick and was withholding replacement soldiers in Britain until he was given a guarantee the next British offensive would be a success. There was also heavy fog when the German attack begun in March 1918.

The real world attack was, a bit of, a perfect storm with everything coming together for the Germans.

An alternate what if would be what if that offensive had been launched on a clear sunny day against some hard nosed French killers.

What are your sources for those claims? Because it's pretty intuitive that the Spring offensive was relatively succesfull because the Germans were concentrating massive forces of over 200 divisions in a single front. In fact they outnumbered the Entente at that point. Given their tactical superiority an attack would be expected.

Also the failure of the spring offensive had essentially economic reasons: under blockade and with food production collapsing the soldiers were hungry and stopped to fill their bellies.

[Guaporense]

Over the past 200 years there have been only two major wars: WW1 and WW2,

No, as pointed out by Mr. Gardiner

they were both caused by the same fact

Yes, they were both caused by German military aggression.

Everything else you write is an irrelevant, incorrect, and off-topic rant.

Let me guess, are you from a English speaking country?

[antwony]

Over the past 200 years there have been only two major wars: WW1 and WW2,

No, as pointed out by Mr. Gardiner

they were both caused by the same fact

Yes, they were both caused by German military aggression.

Everything else you write is an irrelevant, incorrect, and off-topic rant.

Let me guess, are you from a English speaking country?

Yes.

Also the failure of the spring offensive had essentially economic reasons: under blockade and with food production collapsing the soldiers were hungry and stopped to fill their bellies.

No.

[Futurist]

Sure.

Got to admit, I'm not that familiar with France's WW1. Verdun was them, but then they had those mutinies (around the time you mentioned).

To try and replicate the 1918 offensive in 1917, Germany would have had to largely abandon the Eastern Front. But, it retrospect that probably wouldn't be such an issue.

A large part of the success of the 1918 offensive was that the units the German's initially attacked were A) Portuguese or B) under strength British units. The British units were understrength as Britain's PM, Lloyd George, was acting, to put it bluntly, like a dick and was withholding replacement soldiers in Britain until he was given a guarantee the next British offensive would be a success. There was also heavy fog when the German attack begun in March 1918.

The real world attack was, a bit of, a perfect storm with everything coming together for the Germans.

An alternate what if would be what if that offensive had been launched on a clear sunny day against some hard nosed French killers.

What are your sources for those claims? Because it's pretty intuitive that the Spring offensive was relatively succesfull because the Germans were concentrating massive forces of over 200 divisions in a single front. In fact they outnumbered the Entente at that point. Given their tactical superiority an attack would be expected.

Also the failure of the spring offensive had essentially economic reasons: under blockade and with food production collapsing the soldiers were hungry and stopped to fill their bellies.

Didn't both logistics and Hindenburg's and Ludendorff's inability to make grand strategic decisions also help cause the 1918 Spring Offensive to fail, though?

[Guaporense]

Its a combination of factors. But there was the fact that soldiers were hungry by 1918 and so they stopped to eat the supplies of the Entente.

In WW1, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed due to food scarcity. Germany managed to stay afloat in 1918 but they were at their limit.

[Stiltzkin]

In WW1, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed due to food scarcity. Germany managed to stay afloat in 1918 but they were at their limit.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econ ... ew2005.pdf

Yes (actually Germany was able to pay more for the goods).

However, defensive measures far outweighed the offensive capabilities, logistical obstacles were relative to the existing progress, so western front WW1 conditions were congruent to eastern front WW2 strains. A high concentration of drafted soldiers in a defensive line could stop the german onslaught (under a high price). Time was the decisive factor, no mans land prohibited a faster advance.

[antwony]

In WW1, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed due to food scarcity. Germany managed to stay afloat in 1918 but they were at their limit.

The reasons for the Russian Empires collapse are far more complex than just food shortages.

Likewise for the Austro- Hungarian Empire, ethnic tensions and the Italian army marching unopposed into the heart of Austria Proper, were far more important than "food shortages".

Germany collapsed because all their infantry men had been killed, or were surrendering, on the Western Front due to the incompetence and stupidity of their Army. Those men were killed by Guaporense's "people from English speaking countries" + the French+ the Belgians+ some others.

In WW1, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed due to food scarcity. Germany managed to stay afloat in 1918 but they were at their limit.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/econ ... ew2005.pdf

Yes (actually Germany was able to pay more for the goods).

However, defensive measures far outweighed the offensive capabilities, logistical obstacles were relative to the existing progress, so western front WW1 conditions were congruent to eastern front WW2 strains. A high concentration of drafted soldiers in a defensive line could stop the german onslaught (under a high price). Time was the decisive factor, no mans land prohibited a faster advance.

Thanks for that, that looks like an interesting link I'll have a read of it later.

Have always been of the impression that from mid to late war that all offensives, of either side, were, if serious enough, virtually guaranteed some degree of success. However, a proper breakthrough, leading to a fluid battle of movement, was very difficult (verging on impossible) to achieve as the defending side had a far easier time moving their reserves to the threatened area and soon had a preponderence of forces in that zone.

Although, that's perhaps what you mean by: no mans land prohibited a faster advance... As in moving supplies and fresh troops forward through the captured ground i.e. over no-mans land was never going to be easy.

Am not quite sure why you mention drafted soldiers stopping a German onslaught, nor mention "under a heavy price". As far as I'm aware, Australia was the only major nation of the Entente not to ennact conscription. Virtually every soldier on the Western Front was a draftee. As for the heavy price, it was the nations who enjoyed a overwhelming advantage in man power and the losses they inflicted on the less numerous party i.e. Germany, that ended the fighting. Plus "obviously", "the Jews and the Communists" who stabbed the "never defeated" German Army in the back

[Stiltzkin]

I was trying to say that with the existing constellation of 1914, something like the Schlieffen-Plan was destined to fail.
Drafted, because you need a gigantic amount of Soldiers to stop such an Invasion (mass mobilizations started with the Napoleonic Wars), a very high strain on the economy. If it was just for Germany vs France, France would have lost a prolonged war (historically they needed a numerical superiority, not to mention that the french economy collapsed in 1917). The causes of defeat in WW1 are more economically than militarily (the opposite of WW2), Nations spent more than 50% of their GDP for war efforts for the first time in history.

Germany collapsed because all their infantry men had been killed,

[Guaporense]

well, these are the basic infantry stats for 1918:



As you can see, in april, may 1918, they had the numerical superiority but by late 1918, their numbers declined greatly while the Allies declined a little bit but managed to become much larger in relative terms. Overall, from this graph it appears that Germany's defeat in WW1 was the same as in the Eastern front in WW2: they couldn't replace the men they lost to the same degree the Allies could. The Allies lost more soldiers than the Germans by late 1918 but their population was much larger at about 210 million considering US, France, Canada, UK, Belgium and Australia to Germany's 67 million.

[Guaporense]

In WW1, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia collapsed due to food scarcity. Germany managed to stay afloat in 1918 but they were at their limit.

The reasons for the Russian Empires collapse are far more complex than just food shortages.

Likewise for the Austro- Hungarian Empire, ethnic tensions and the Italian army marching unopposed into the heart of Austria Proper, were far more important than "food shortages".

Food shortages lead to economic collapse which lead to the incapacity of Austria-Hungary to maintain their armed forces. Hence, leading to their defeat, because the Italians managed to steadily increase their munitions production and maintain a higher degree of economic cohesion.

One thing about WW1 was that the Entente had a huge economic advantage over the Central powers, first because France, Italy and UK could import goods from all over the world while Germany and Austria-Hungary were pretty much under siege, second, because the GDPs of the Entente powers was substantially higher than the Central powers (Russia+France+UK+Italy's combined GDP was about 7,972 million pounds compared to 4,367 million pounds for Germany + Austria Hungary, GDP figures converted at 1913 market exchange rates). In close proportion to GDP, the Entente powers produced about 722 million shells compared to 408 million for the central powers. Besides their substantial manpower advantage.

Germany collapsed because all their infantry men had been killed, or were surrendering, on the Western Front due to the incompetence and stupidity of their Army. Those men were killed by Guaporense's "people from English speaking countries" + the French+ the Belgians+ some others.

Actually, on a per capita basis in WW1 the German army was 50% more effective than the Allies. Same as in WW2. However, they were fighting an enemy who could replace casualties much more easily and had a substantial economic superiority.

[fwilliam]

Gerntlemen;

Late to this forum but here's what 60 years of extensive study, readinand teaching tells me. IF Germany had prevailed in WW I another world war would have been unlikely for these reasons.

First, yes, France would have been brimming with revanchism but that was nothing new. France had been spoiling to settle accounts with Germany since the Franco-Prussian War but I doubt if post-war France would have been in any way, shape, or form able to confront a victorious Germany. Certainly not for a long, long time. And, as we have seen, France was not disposed to join yet another costly arms race with Germany nor, do I believe, was Germany ready for anther one as well.

Second, a victorious Germany was not about to foster another Brest Litovsk on the West for the simple reason that that would not sit well with an America that was rapidly surpassing Great Britain and its empire as the world's financial colossus. The Kaiser may have been bull headed but the big, influential German industrialists were not. Money talks!

Third, Great Britain would have been fine since the Germans had many times signaled (as Hitler would also do 20 years later) they were willing to leave London with its empire intact, mutually beneficial to both parties.

Fourth, Italy? C'mon. Last thing Italia wanted was more war.

Fifth, Russia? Up to its eyeballswith the White Revolutionary wars within.

Sixth, the U.S. would have been more reluctant than ever to get dragged into yet another European armageddon. As I said, money talks.

Seventh, in a victorious Germany no revolutionary fervor sweeping the streets, no Hitler or other right wing nationalist screaming about the "dolchstuss," and a contented populace that had had more than enough of war after four years of slaughter.

On down the road, who knows but maybe, just maybe, the inevitable development of atomic/nuclear weapons would have cast its MAD -Mutually Assured Destruction - shadow against such folly as another world war.

I purposefully left the Pacific out of this because Japan was clearly bent on kicking the West, especially the Western imperial powers, out of Asia.

Respectfully,
Iceman