They seemed more interested in discussing internal German politics than the global picture.
German victory WW1 - How different from Nazi Germany would it actually be?
- Thread starter Atterdag
- Start date
They seemed more interested in discussing internal German politics than the global picture.
Deleted member 1487
Yep. Though to be fair the Germans were interested in getting stuff out of the war beyond supporting Austria and militarily weakening their neighbors in open battle for the foreseeable future.
Okay, So America is in the war, which probably means that Britain is just off the continent, not beaten. So German can do as it likes with France and Belgium, but not with Britain.
Well both are important...
On the wider scale, Germany's almost certainly not going to be getting her old colonies back, but they do have the French and Belgians in their pocket, so I imagine they loot off them, Tunisia, Djibouti, Madagscar, FiC, Gabon, both Congos, etc. Not sure about French Guiana, they might end up selling that one to the USA, or at least working with the USA for it to become independent.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
No doubt about that, but my issue is the view that Germany is uniquely genocidal and then stacking up points to support this preconceived idea. The fact of the matter is that at the time all powers wanted stuff and to weaken their rivals in battle, that makes them all genocidal, or none depending on your point of view.
Riain
Banned
Given Britain reliance on coastal shipping for the domestic transport task having the Germans in control of Cap Griz Nez will be a particularly shitty ending to losing on the Continent.
Deleted member 1487
Um where does genocidal come up in this convo? Were not talking about WW2.
In WW1 everyone was a self interested dick and knew everyone else was too, so they had to try and be the biggest dick in the game to win. Historiography of the conflict was heavily influenced by US and UK wartime propaganda and of course what happened in WW2 then later Fritz Fischer trying to work out his guilt for having been a Nazi during WW2 by trying to displace his guilt onto the nation and it's 'special historical path'. That doesn't mean the CPs are guiltless of course, far from it, but focusing only on their culpability is frankly ignoring the entire context of the conflict.
Riain
Banned
Hoffmann told the Kaiser his idea and the Kaiser liked it. Once peace is declared and civilian government returns massive and difficult to integrate annexations will be less fashionable, although I can imagine Hoffmann's minimal idea would be expanded upon simply because they can.
Riain
Banned
The OP asks how different the victorious Germany would be from the Nazis, and as you know there is much support for Fischer's line of thought to this day and on this board.
The devil is in the details, people go on about H & L with no idea how and why they got there for example.
The Franco-German navy would be no match for the Anglo-American one, and Germany needs American trade, so they can't go too far on that score.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Admiral Bacon of the WW1 Dover Patrol said that if through Channel shipping was stopped 1/3 of London would have to be evacuated to where they could be more easily supplied with food. After defeating the French and the BEF the Germans will close the Dover narrows with shore guns, mines and aircraft, no major ship battles will be needed. Assuming Ad Bacon was overpesimisitic Britain still might have to evacuate 20-25% of Londoners after 4 years of unsuccessful war.
Will Britain want to continue the fighting under close blockade, London being partially evacuated, the skies over Kent a war zone, without allies and a position on the Continent? What would they be fighting for given the failure to balance power on the Continent?
Depends how stubborn each side is. London might need to be evacuated, but it's no victory for the Germans to push it, as they need the war to be over sooner, and such a move won't help that.
Riain
Banned
Keeping the continental hegemon off the Belgian and French Channel coast is why Britain went to war, why they sent the Royal Marines to Ostend then Dunkirk, the Royal Naval Division to Antwerp and moved the BEF to Flanders after the Marne. And now after 4 years of punishing was the Germans are on the channel coast and Britain has no way of dislodging this existential threat. The immediate partial evacuation of London is merely the most obvious manifestation of this threat.
I doubt the British want the Germans to establish permanent bases on the coast, which is bound to happen if the British keep fighting. Personally I think the British would throw colonies at Britain in exchange for them leaving the channel and Belgian coasts.
If America is in the war I really dont see how Germany could have won.
Quting an idiocy from Wilhelm is not really helping your case for more than one reason:
1. Wilhelm was anything but consistent. Take for example this hunnic speach you quoted. On a side note of a diplomatic report a short time later he was contemplating the need of an american-chinese-german alliance to counter the british Japanese one. Than some times later he envisions in another side note the yellow menace, the horde of asians led by Japan agains Europe led by Germany. Frankly he was an idiot.
2. The hunnic speach specifically was thought throughly embarassing at the time by nearly anyone in and outside of Germany.
3. The hunnic speach concerned chinese. Today thats not much of a difference for us: they are people same as us. Than it mattered: they were not white and not christian - to the europeans of the time basically lesser humans. It was acceptable at the time to do things to them that would be unimaginable to europeans - at least before the nazis.
4. The actual expedition did nothing of the sort the Kaiser encouraged when arrived.
5. And again taking one of Wilhelms idiocies at face value and presenting it as an indicator of German evilness doesnt reflect too well on you. Every country had its loons - Germany just had the luck of one being the head of the state. He was mostly managed by less loony people.
Germany is starving, 1918 was their last throw of the dice, and when that failed they gave up. Here they've done better, and have forced a French surrender, but that doesn't change the fact that people are literally starving. Neither side is actually beaten as such, but both are exhausted and seeking an armistice. As to closing the channel, I'm pretty sure they're not going to be doing any better here than in WW2, and they were pretty abysmal then.
If they can break through and take Paris before the Americans can build up significant forces in France they have a chance.
Last edited:
Meh, it's an overdone trope. France alone would probably not be in much of a position to militarily oppose Germany.
Personally I think Russia is a better possibility for authoritarianism.
And the French goverment relocate south and wait for building a force strong enough to fight the Germans...expecially with the terms L&H will give; all that while in Italy the entente go through the A-H lines and menace the German south flank (in OTL after 2nd Piave the A-H had almost ceased of exist as a fighting force)
Well I can imagine it wouldn't come off unless Germany had done a bit better earlier in the war too, so the PoD might be somewhat earlier.
Riain
Banned
The WW2 situation is bought up when talking about closing the channel, however the situation changed between the wars. In 1914 coastal shipping was a significant player in the domestic transport sector in the UK, which is why you see so many ships sunk by uboats were in the hundreds of tons rather than the thousands of tons in WW2. Between the wars the capacity of the rail system, which incidentally had orders of magnitude more market capitalisation, increased so much that the coastal shipping industry died out by the 30s. This is why in WW2 the Kanalkampf led to the closing of the channel for through-shipping without a partial evacuation of London, it just wasn't that important anymore.
In any case, once France and Russia surrender and Germany is on the channel what is Britain fighting for? To liberate France, to eject the Germans from the channel, to keep German colonies? Or merely the opportunity to go under economically?
From what I remember Germany was not actually starving during WWI. It was the weak, elderly, and children that couldn't take the calorie reduction, but the vast majority of starvation happened after the armistice was signed where the Rhineland was handed over and the blockade still in place