What if Germany won the First World War?

[James McBride]

IIRC the part of the reasoning for deploying into Belgian, aside from circling around the French troops driving into Germany, was to pre-empt any French movement to man the Muse in Belgium. The French, however, did not do this, and thus the Germans were the only nation to violate sovereignity.

Had the French been the first to violate Belgian territory, the British would have had an even harder time to find a reason to come to France's assistance.

Gwynn

France knew that, and Joffre imposed a rule in the days before the war that 10km be kept between Belgian and German border and French forces, just to make sure there could no question of France being the victim.

[Field Marshall Manstein]

The German monarchy would have survived and the Kaisers would have continued ruling. France would become a German protectorate and the low countries would have been annexed by Germany. The Baltic states would be annexed and the unkraine and belarus would become german colonies. Germany would take control of the french colonies and the important british ones (ex.suez canal) and austria hungary would take control of most of the Balkans. There would not be another major European war for at least a century and no one would know the name of Hitler.

[Loïc]

If Germany would have won world war 1, France would no longer exist or would be a puppet state of Germany.

No,germans would annex more territories,that's all.France would survive,Belgium would not.German plan is not unknow,a german victory would lay down:
-annexations of Belgium;Lorraine completely,Belfort,Nord,Pas-de-Calais in France.
-annexations of Baltic,Finland,Bielorussia,Ukraine(divided with austrians)
-austrians annexations of Serbia,Montenegro,Albania(fate of Rumania ?)

"a nazi-facist regime in France would threat Europe":no there was not the same political traditions and way than with both authoritarian monarchies neighbours unified in 1870.Parliamentarism & democratic institutions existed before and after the defeat of 1871.
"a german protectorate or a puppet regime":it would require a more large invasion (not just nothern-eastern borders)and a long occupation;occupations of 1815-1818 and 1870-1873 did not provoke such repercussion.

Naturally and logicaly,ancestral rivalries would surface victorios powers:
-Bulgaria seized quickly and shortly Turkish Europe in 1912-1913,except Constantinople(Russian ambition)with a bolchevik-atheistic regime in Russia,Bulgaria would annex the capital of Orthodoxy.
-Austrian and Prussian monarchies about Germany
-Austria and Bulgaria in Balkans

[Hoth]

I remember reading somewhere on the Internet that Wilhelm wished to leave France's borders alone if Germany had a swift victory in 1914. It didn't mention Belgium though, and I'm not sure if the source is reliable.

France would never have become a threat to Europe like Germany. It doesn't have the land and the manpower like the German's do, and the mentality of the French people would not support such a militarist leader like Hitler. Had WW1 been a swift German victory, possibily by the German's playing it defensivly in Alsace and then pushing north around Belgium and not invading it therefore keeping Britain neutral, there would have been no NSDAP, although sooner or later there would have been another war, possibly Germany conquering the Low Countries or Denmark or clashing with the British over one of Kaiser Bill's naval build ups. A Russo-German war would probably break out as well, but no doubt Germany would win that through sheer military superiority.

[Beowulf]

Hoth, France and Germany were about equal in land area (France is much bigger now) and as to your argument that "the mentality of the French people would not support such a militarist leader like Hitler" is belied by history. Don't you remember a fellow named Napoleon Bonaparte? This warmonger is still revered as a hero in France. German military heroes? What are you talking about? They are all barbarian criminals!!

[Loïc]

Sorry,but the a "panfrancism"(if you allow me this barbarism) like a pangermanism and panslavism did not exist.
I am sure that we can not compare Napoleon and Hitler,napoleonic and nazi regimes,and both mentalities(Prussian militarist heritage/Revolution-Empire legacies)
"Napoleon revered as a hero in today France":very exaggerated,there are not a mass each sunday devoted to his loved memory in whole french churches

Loïc

[Mike K.]

Sorry,but the a "panfrancism"(if you allow me this barbarism) like a pangermanism and panslavism did not exist.

Wasn't there a statue of a woman in chains representing Alsace-Lorraine in Paris some time after the Franco-Prussian War?

(I vaguely remember reading this, could be wrong )

[chronos20th]

There would have been a revolution in the US as the economy collapsed in 1919 and we could have probably had a USSSA and Russia a liberal and capitalist state with everything reversed.

The huge loans to Britain in which JP Morgan and Du Pont had betted vitually all the US investment capital on a British victory would have been defaulted. The resulting financial collapse would have made 1929 look like a teaparty and turned the 1919 depression into a total economic collapse.

This is a not forseen result of victory by Imperial germany and A-H.

[Obserwator]

First of all, let us remeber that both Austria and Germany possed in their territories ethnic groups, which demanded freedom, and return of their states.As we all know Austria was weak and unable to exist and subdue their minorties.Therefore, to stabilize their ally, German Empire would have to devote its military to control those regions, facing several uprisings and constant worker strikes and protests, such as those that German state encountered in Silesia.Not only that, it would also need to help the Whites in Russia if it wouldn't want communist state to arise at its Eastern border.All of this military operations, would require money and resources, which would harm the German economy, in turn leading to severe working conditions, food shortages etc.This in turn would led to communist uprisings and movements-after the monarchies were outdated ideological systems.
In the end the German Empire would turn into a harsh bloody military dictatorship, with poor living conditions of its subjects, and ruined economy.In the end it would collapse after a series of wars in former Austrian Empire and in the communist East, and with the help with French and British support.
And we can also expect it to be heavily antisemitc-as Jews were often wrongly identified with communism.

Nazism wasn't something new.It was grounded in traditions of Prussian militarisms and concepts of class, then national supriority over others.
With the loss of monarchic ideology appeal we can expect a militant militaristic movement of officers, soldiers and nationalists to gain power.
After all :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Germany

Intensified by the reign of the far more militaristic Kaiser Wilhelm II, Bismarck's legacy would contribute to the political culture in which Nazism found significant support-bases. This should raise questions over their true roles in history, despite the era of progress and prosperity over which they presided. Under Bismarck, much of this entails his strategies to suppress Catholic and socialist opposition while promoting militaristic Prussianism. As a result, in Germany, as in Japan and Italy, later attempts to extend democracy would succeed in establishing unstable democracies (the Weimar Republic, Japan in the twenties, and Italy from the end of World War I to the 1922 appointment of Mussolini as premier by Victor Emmanuel III). Each of these constitutional democracies could not to cope with the severe problems of the day and the reluctance or inability to bring about fundamental structural changes.

Despite advances in industry and science under the Second Reich, Germany retained a despotic aspect to its character, due to its militaristic inclinations and having achieved its unification by "blood and iron". The armed forces, inculcated in the militarism of the Prussian Junkers – the glorification of war, and supreme and unquestioning loyalty to the state, leader, and hierarchy – remained passionately loyal to the Hohenzollern dynasty. The values of Prussia's repressive "garrison state," grounded in Prussia's repressive system of agriculture since the defeat of the Teutonic Knights, would be carried to a new extreme under the Third Reich.

Prussianism caught on because prosperity satisfied the old support base of the middle class liberals, and the state was solicitous of the material welfare for many eventually won over—including the working class. German education emerged strong in vocational fields as well as propaganda. From the side of the landed aristocracy came the conceptions of inherent superiority in the ruling class and a sensitivity to matters of status, prominent traits well into the twentieth century. Fed by new sources, these conceptions could later be vulgarized and made appealing to the German population as a whole in doctrines of racial superiority. The royal bureaucracy introduced, against considerable aristocratic resistance, the ideal of complete and unreflecting obedience to an institution over and above class and individual.

At the foundation of these currents was centuries of economic, political, and cultural evolution starting with an agricultural system dominated for centuries by repressive means rather than through the market. German peasants were not only under the repressive watch of their landowners, but grounded in village and work structures that favor solidarity, diminishing their revolutionary potential. Thus, in the realm of propaganda, the Junkers established the generally successful Agrarian League in 1894, laying the groundwork for Nazi doctrine. The league sought the support of peasants in non-Junker areas of smaller farms, inculcating them in "führer worship," the idea of a corporative state, militarism, anti-Semitism.

In the end, with the economy weakened and its population divided and fighting against an authoritarian state, Imperial Germany would face war in one form or another.Either from the East, or from French and British forces.The German Empire was a state unable to function and unable to preserve its existence, a creation that required constant fight and intervention to continue its presence on the world stage. In our world, it would take 1945 to finally end it, and bring peace to Europe.

[Gwynn Compton]

Just realised I should have relocated this thread to the What If section sometime ago.

Gwynn

[fredleander]

If Germany had won the first world war, it would have imposed an even harsher peace on France.

There was a tough "peace" in 1871, too. But, it wasn't the French that started WWI out of a want of revenge. Even if they were ready for the challenge (anyway, more so than in 1939). That peace lasted for 44 years.

[Baltasar]

Therefore, to stabilize their ally, German Empire would have to devote its military to control those regions, facing several uprisings and constant worker strikes and protests, such as those that German state encountered in Silesia.

Since in this scenario the war was over by 1917, the Austro-Hungarian army would be free to operate within it's territory at will.

Not only that, it would also need to help the Whites in Russia if it wouldn't want communist state to arise at its Eastern border.All of this military operations, would require money and resources, which would harm the German economy, in turn leading to severe working conditions, food shortages etc.This in turn would led to communist uprisings and movements-after the monarchies were outdated ideological systems. In the end the German Empire would turn into a harsh bloody military dictatorship, with poor living conditions of its subjects, and ruined economy.In the end it would collapse after a series of wars in former Austrian Empire and in the communist East, [...]

A very interesting, if not even far fetched story. Since Germany and Austria would've won the war in this scenario, the indemnities of France and the United Kingdom would ease the strain on the German economy, since both money and recources would be deliverd into the Kaiserreich. Also, gradually increased rights for workers like social security, unions and the civil code, helped / would help making living conditions for the population a lot better.

[...] and with the help with French and British support.

And how do those tow nations suddenly join the game?

Nazism wasn't something new.It was grounded in traditions of Prussian militarisms and concepts of class, then national supriority over others.

The idea of one race or nation being "better" than others can be seen in many other empires as well (for example in Africa when it was divided by European powers), this was by no means a new idea of the Nazis.

With the loss of monarchic ideology appeal we can expect a militant militaristic movement of officers, soldiers and nationalists to gain power.

After all :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Germany

Quoting from sources like wikipedia has been repeatedly frowned upon, as anybody can contribute there, whether or not he has knowledge in that area or not. Furthermore, this article has no sources mentioned.

In the end, with the economy weakened and its population divided and fighting against an authoritarian state,[...]

I can't follow your logic here, as the German population wasn't exactly famous for rebellion. One famous Communist (I think it was either Marx or Lenin) stated that his countrymen would ask for permission before starting a rebellion.

The German Empire was a state unable to function and unable to preserve its existence, a creation that required constant fight and intervention to continue its presence on the world stage.

Any sources that the Kaiserreich was unstable in general? All I read was that economic problems were appearing shortly before WWI ("the pity of war" by Niall Fergusson, ISBN 3-423-30808-7, especially chapter 5)

[Obserwator]

Since in this scenario the war was over by 1917, the Austro-Hungarian army would be free to operate within it's territory at will.

And ? What of it ? Would it change in any way the fact that Austro-Hungarian state was no longer able to stop the numerous minorites from demanding their own say. Or that didn't posses a modern economy or state structures ?

Since Germany and Austria would've won the war in this scenario, the indemnities of France and the United Kingdom would ease the strain on the German economy, since both money and recources would be deliverd into the Kaiserreich.

Ah but the necessity of constantly holding down uprisings and preserving or fighting in the East would mean that both Austria and Germany would find it quickly hard to enforce their demands from United Kingdom or France.As for UK I don't see any possibility of Germans enforcing any demands that were made towards them after WWI.

Also, gradually increased rights for workers like social security, unions and the civil code, helped / would help making living conditions for the population a lot better.

And what would make the same people ready to shoot children and women suddenly to make those rights ? No to mention that the very rights would undermine the authoritarian regimes in those countries.

And how do those tow nations suddenly join the game?

By providing financial and military support for the enemies of their opponents.

The idea of one race or nation being "better" than others can be seen in many other empires as well (for example in Africa when it was divided by European powers), this was by no means a new idea of the Nazis.

Sure, but only with Prussian militarism, imperial ambitions of Germany, tradition of antisemitism, and ethnic repression was it able to develop into such hideous form.

oting from sources like wikipedia has been repeatedly frowned upon, as anybody can contribute there, whether or not he has knowledge in that area or not. Furthermore, this article has no sources mentioned.

Yes, frowned by you if you don't like it.Do you got anything to say against this article ? I think is summs up quite right what ware the problems of Germany dominated by Prussia.

I can't follow your logic here, as the German population wasn't exactly famous for rebellion

Your opinion didn't stop them from forming Bavarian Socialistic Republic did it ? Or the mutiny of sailors in Kiel ? Or the Spartacus rebelion ? Or taking over several cities in the name of communism ? Furthermore-the population of Germany wasn't made of Germans alone, but also of Poles, who as we all know are quite able to revolt

Any sources that the Kaiserreich was unstable in general? All I read was that economic problems were appearing shortly before WWI

It included Prussia, which had to resort to ethnic cleanisng in order to maintain rule over its conquests.This doesn't speak of stability.There were several uprisings against Prussian rule and ethnic cleansing during Kulturkampf. Its control over the lands it took from Poland was questionable.
Furthermore Silesia region also included Polish population.
By looking at history I see no willingess of German authorities to coexist peacfully with the ethnic groups it conquered, rather they prefered to resort to repression and forced germanisation-both of which failed to stop Polish population from opposing them. I doubt anything would change with the victory of German forces, and probably the same methods would be used, leading to further conflict.
If as people assume it would gain even more land, the problem would even increase.
Who knows ? Perhaps it would even resort to policy of extermination like Hitler did with Jews ? In any case, this definetly means no stability, and constant need of military control of the lands inhabited by hostile population, sabotage of production and divertion of resource needed elswhere.

[Baltasar]

Since in this scenario the war was over by 1917, the Austro-Hungarian army would be free to operate within it's territory at will.

And ? What of it ? Would it change in any way the fact that Austro-Hungarian state was no longer able to stop the numerous minorites from demanding their own say. Or that didn't posses a modern economy or state structures ?

Such facts don't even stop other countries to carry on today, eg North Korea or China.

Since Germany and Austria would've won the war in this scenario, the indemnities of France and the United Kingdom would ease the strain on the German economy, since both money and recources would be deliverd into the Kaiserreich.

Ah but the necessity of constantly holding down uprisings and preserving or fighting in the East would mean that both Austria and Germany would find it quickly hard to enforce their demands from United Kingdom or France.As for UK I don't see any possibility of Germans enforcing any demands that were made towards them after WWI.

The necessity of holding down uprisings is yet a matter of discussion, as they would have to show up in the first place. For now, it's only your assumption that talks about uprisings as a unavoidable result.

Also, gradually increased rights for workers like social security, unions and the civil code, helped / would help making living conditions for the population a lot better.

And what would make the same people ready to shoot children and women suddenly to make those rights ? No to mention that the very rights would undermine the authoritarian regimes in those countries.

Generally the civil code was a state of the art when it was introduced, granting lots of rights to the people. I'm not aware that the civil code excluded minorities within the borders of the Kaiserreich, so why shoot?

And how do those tow nations suddenly join the game?

By providing financial and military support for the enemies of their opponents.

Quite unlikely in view of the assumed peace conditions dictated by the Kaiserreich, whose conditions would've been as harsh as the historical treaty of Versailles.

The idea of one race or nation being "better" than others can be seen in many other empires as well (for example in Africa when it was divided by European powers), this was by no means a new idea of the Nazis.

Sure, but only with Prussian militarism, imperial ambitions of Germany, tradition of antisemitism, and ethnic repression was it able to develop into such hideous form.

In which point exactly where the imperial ambitions of Germany different from those of, lets say, France or the United Kingdom? The so-called tradition of anti-semitism is not a German tradition and if you look closely, laws, mob and the such against Jews happend in other countries also to no lesser degree. Ethnic repressions also occured in other empires, eg Britain to name only one.

oting from sources like wikipedia has been repeatedly frowned upon, as anybody can contribute there, whether or not he has knowledge in that area or not. Furthermore, this article has no sources mentioned.

Yes, frowned by you if you don't like it.Do you got anything to say against this article ? I think is summs up quite right what ware the problems of Germany dominated by Prussia.

Not only by me, but since I'm one of the few still responding to your postings, you're of course likely to notice only me.
Also, the article surprisingly doesn't mention that Kaiser Franz Joseph I in fact tried to improve the living conditions of eg the Serbian population shortly before the war, hence the picture of a burtal dictatorship is one sided.

I can't follow your logic here, as the German population wasn't exactly famous for rebellion

Your opinion didn't stop them from forming Bavarian Socialistic Republic did it ? Or the mutiny of sailors in Kiel ? Or the Spartacus rebelion ? Or taking over several cities in the name of communism ? Furthermore-the population of Germany wasn't made of Germans alone, but also of Poles, who as we all know are quite able to revolt

Polish population was but a minority in the Kaiserreich. Also, the events shortly before and after the war was lost can't really be considered here, since these were completely different circumstances. The population would have to sort out their political problems, but it wouldn't lead to a situation like the Weimar Republic, which often enough engulfed in anarchy. Bear in mind protest were enough to force Bismarck to introduce unions, civil code and social security.

Any sources that the Kaiserreich was unstable in general? All I read was that economic problems were appearing shortly before WWI

It included Prussia, which had to resort to ethnic cleanisng in order to maintain rule over its conquests.This doesn't speak of stability.There were several uprisings against Prussian rule and ethnic cleansing during Kulturkampf. Its control over the lands it took from Poland was questionable.
Furthermore Silesia region also included Polish population.

So what? Even if the 'ethnic cleansing' would be pracitsed, it would be limited to the far east of the Kaiserreich.

By looking at history I see no willingess of German authorities to coexist peacfully with the ethnic groups it conquered, rather they prefered to resort to repression and forced germanisation-both of which failed to stop Polish population from opposing them. I doubt anything would change with the victory of German forces, and probably the same methods would be used, leading to further conflict.

With the hands free from the war, what could the polish population do? Fight back? Against soldiers who had fought four years in trenshes or in the east? Violent uprisings would only lead to more blodshed, most notably among the polish population, not to mention harsher restrictions for them.

If as people assume it would gain even more land, the problem would even increase.
Who knows ? Perhaps it would even resort to policy of extermination like Hitler did with Jews ?

Things could also develop into a brighter future for all. Politicians achieved a lot prior to WWI, they could do so again, gaining lots of rights even for the minorities.

In any case, this definetly means no stability, and constant need of military control of the lands inhabited by hostile population, sabotage of production and divertion of resource needed elswhere.

I'm not familiar with the intentions in the east, but if my memory serves me right, the states in the east were intended to be self governing areas with the Kaiserreich in control of them, hence there's not much reason for uprisings. Belgium and parts of France may have been occupied, but neither the Frensh nor the Belgian population was in any mood to fight, having had four years of fighting on their soil.

[Obserwator]

[/quote]Such facts don't even stop other countries to carry on today, eg North Korea or China.

I do think China and N. Korea are two different countries for the record.But your observation is right-German Empire would have to resort to many military and inner security measures diverting its resources from elswhere, and in enviroment full of rivalising states, often containing ethnic it would oppress at home, German Empire would be in a weakened position and thus vulrnable to either attack or internal revolution.
I.

The necessity of holding down uprisings is yet a matter of discussion, as they would have to show up in the first place. For now, it's only your assumption that talks about uprisings as a unavoidable result.

It isn't my assumption.Uprisings in Silesia and Poznan happened before WWI, and in WWI several Poles gained military experience, which they used in paramilitary organisations formed before the WWI. I see no reason why it should happen otherwise.
.

Generally the civil code was a state of the art when it was introduced, granting lots of rights to the people. I'm not aware that the civil code excluded minorities within the borders of the Kaiserreich, so why shoot?

Then you are unawere of several laws made against Poles and shootings of Polish women and children during strikes in Silesia.

Quite unlikely in view of the assumed peace conditions dictated by the Kaiserreich, whose conditions would've been as harsh as the historical treaty of Versailles.

Harsh as Versailles ? Doubtfull-Germany didn't have USA on its side, and how could it enforce them on Grt. Britain ? I can see France being treated badly, but how are they going to achieve anything else then peace with Britain ?

In which point exactly where the imperial ambitions of Germany different from those of, lets say, France or the United Kingdom?

They differed in that that military tradition and obedience was more worshiped in Germany.Germany had no colonises worthy to speak of and tried to colonise the Eastern Europe, hence its ethnic cleansing there.

The so-called tradition of anti-semitism is not a German tradition and if you look closely, laws, mob and the such against Jews happend in other countries also to no lesser degree. Ethnic repressions also occured in other empires, eg Britain to name only one.

But only Prussia owned its existence to conquering a neigbour occupying its land, and opressing its ethnic population.

Not only by me, but since I'm one of the few still responding to your postings, you're of course likely to notice only me.

I can live if people who believe Wehrmacht wasn't conducting genocide don't respond to me(if that are the people you are talking about )

Also, the article surprisingly doesn't mention that Kaiser Franz Joseph I in fact tried to improve the living conditions of eg the Serbian population shortly before the war, hence the picture of a burtal dictatorship is one sided.

Possible.Still the national desires of people making up the Empire were strong enough to tear it apart.

A quite sizable minority, which dominated several areas importent to the Reich.

It would be different if they would be defeated and saw opportunity for gaining back their positions-after all you said yourself that they would face harsh conditions.

Questions unanswered and interesting :
Russia -how do you deal with-support the Whites or let it fight in anarchy
Territories-which territories Germany takes, which Austria gets ?
Austria-how can it keep its loose structure with all the minorties fighting to get away from it or dominating it
Britain-it can't be defeated, nor can it be dictated what to do.Its navy protects it. How does it react in the long term ?
German state-it is likely it will face internal conflicts with minorites and between militaristic parties and socialists.