What would be better for Germany in the long run: No World Wars, or victory in WW1?

[NAF]

For the purposes of this thread, we'll define "better" as better living standards and overall economic output.

With this in mind, my personal vote has to be for the former. Without the World Wars Germany is still the global scientific leader, an industrial powerhouse, and in possession of an army more than capable of defending itself. On the other hand, its position is somewhat more precarious than it would be in the event of a Central Powers victory, in that it is still surrounded by a revanchist France, an increasingly rivalrous Britain, and a rapidly industrializing Tsarist Russia poised for superpowerdom (assuming internal strife or some other crisis doesn't send them crashing). It is my understanding that the German economy was rather dependent on exporting its manufactures around the globe, and as such hostilities with France, Britain, or Russia, all of whom controlled vast swathes of potential global markets, could spell disaster for the German economy should the aforementioned powers choose to take protectionist measures intended to keep Germany and its exports locked out. Of course, this is all assuming that the bad blood prior to the war continues on indefinitely, when it could also well end up being the case that with the Great War avoided, the rising tensions between the major European powers gradually subside, and relations are normalized in such a manner that a true, lasting peace can be achieved in which the major players opt instead for greater economic integration and cooperation. Perhaps some sort of proto-EU?

As for the "victory in WW1" option, I'll refrain from setting any hard parameters as I think a lot hangs on whether or not it is a quick victory (everyone is home by Christmas) or a bloody victory eeked out after years of prolonged combat with millions dead on each side. As such, I'll leave it to any interested posters to set the conditions of TTL's Germany's hypothetical victory and to consider whether or not it would be better for them in the long run compared to the option of avoiding the wars outright.

 

[Riain]

This is a difficult question because so much depends on other world powers. Late in WW1 German leaders knew that MittelEuropa was no economic substitute to free access to global trade, so any victory would have to include free access to the defeated countries markets, indeed a lack of punitive trade barriers was a non negotiable war aim. MitteEuropa wasn't much of an economic asset although the security and political control aspects make it worthwhile.

So my answer would be if a WW1 victory included free access to global trade then Germany would be better off, but if not then no World Wars is better.

 

[Dorknought]

No war is better for everyone. The war knocked 10 to 15 years off economic development off most European powers.

Here is a 1913 estimate

COST OF WAR.​

IF EUROPE SHOULD FIGHT.​

What would a European war cost?​

​

Professor Charles Richer, of University of Paris, and a . prominent member of the Peace Society, has worked out an eleborate estimate of the vast amount of money which would have to bo spent daily to maintain the armies and navies of Great Britain, Russia, Franco, Germany, Austria, and Italy in the field. A conflict between those, nations is still not unlikely to happen as an outcome of the Balkan war.​

​

In the event of such a-war Professor Richer declares 10.000,000 would be led immediately on to the fields of battle, and 20,000,000 would be placed​

under arms.​

​

• Germany 3,600,000 Men
• England 1,500,000 Men
• Austria 2,500,000 Men
• France 3,400,000 Men
• Italy 2,800,000 Men
• Roumania , 300,000 Men
• Russia 7,000.000 Men
• Total - 21,100,000 Men

​

The daily expense of maintaining these men in food and ammunition. &c. is made up by the professor as follows:-​

• Food for men £ 2,400,000
• Food for horses £200,000
• Pay £840,000
• Pay for non-combatants £200,000
• Mobilisation expenses £800,000
• Transport of food £400,000
• Infantry,ammunition £840,000
• Artillery ammunition £??0,000
• Naval ammunition .... ?
• Equipments ........ £840,000
• Ambulances £100,000
• Warship expenses (coal, &.. £100.000
• Decrease in ? £2.000,000
• Releif of ? £1,360,000
• Indemnities £400.000
• Total: £11,260,000 per day

Professor. Richer has estimated this daily cost on present market prices. He points out, however that prices would be enormously increased as soon as war was declared. Factories would be closed, farms would be deserted, commerce would be paralyzed banks would fail, and the nations themselves would soon become bankrupt. A war to decide whether Durrazzo should be Austrian or Serbian would bring famine and epidemics to Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Moscow, Milan, and Rome, and it would take half a century to repair the ruin and wipe out the hate aroused.​

 

[Citycat]

No World Wars scenario because a quick CP victory would leave the Allies in tact to plot a war of revenge. While a long CP victory would be exhausting and may be a pyrrhic victory .

 

[tomasqs]

No World Wars scenario because a quick CP victory would leave the Allies in tact to plot a war of revenge. While a long CP victory would be exhausting and may be a pyrrhic victory .

This . Germany winning WWI means at least France is coming for revenge.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

I think the assumption here is if there is no WW I, there is no WW II - but also, if Germany wins WW I, there is no WW II.

This I consider mistaken. German victory in WW I would validate much of the worst aspects of German culture at the time: namely, the assumption of military (and racial) superiority and the belief that might literally makes right. While the views of Treitschke and Bernhardi were not universally held in Wilhelmine Germany, they were dangerously influential. Many Germans, including much of the military, business, and political elite saw the world as a Darwinian competition among nations for survival, decided by military power, in which Germany ought to be supreme.

German triumph in WW I would be regarded by such men as confirmation. Germany would loot its defeated adversaries, and this looting would be seen as key to its prosperity. Indeed, if the post-war German economy stumbled, the easy answer would be more looting.

Internally, the German army would keep the expanded power gained during the war. Liberal and social-democrat politics, and labor unions would be stifled. The electoral system would remain rigged in favor of conservative, and even militarist and reactionary parties. Germany could even veer down the path followed by Japan, becoming a military dictatorship in all but name.

Another aspect would be how the conduct of the war was viewed. OTL, the German army evaded responsibility for its crimes in Belgium and elsewhere, even in defeat. In victory, German militarists would hold up their "ruthlessness" as entirely justified by their success. Their successors would follow in their footsteps, and other nations would seek to copy the German success.

The OTL post-war world had the League of Nations, arms limitation treaties, "the spirit of Locarno", and the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. A German-victory TL would have none of that.

IMO, there would be another Great War, brought on by German arrogance and greed, against a more powerful and better prepared coalition of enemies, which Germany would lose, suffering devastation as great as in OTL WW II.

So in the end, Germany would be much worse off than if there were no "world wars"at all.

IMO. YMMV.

 

[Aghasverov]

For the purposes of this thread, we'll define "better" as better living standards and overall economic output.

With this in mind, my personal vote has to be for the former. Without the World Wars Germany is still the global scientific leader, an industrial powerhouse, and in possession of an army more than capable of defending itself. On the other hand, its position is somewhat more precarious than it would be in the event of a Central Powers victory, in that it is still surrounded by a revanchist France, an increasingly rivalrous Britain, and a rapidly industrializing Tsarist Russia poised for superpowerdom (assuming internal strife or some other crisis doesn't send them crashing). It is my understanding that the German economy was rather dependent on exporting its manufactures around the globe, and as such hostilities with France, Britain, or Russia, all of whom controlled vast swathes of potential global markets, could spell disaster for the German economy should the aforementioned powers choose to take protectionist measures intended to keep Germany and its exports locked out. Of course, this is all assuming that the bad blood prior to the war continues on indefinitely, when it could also well end up being the case that with the Great War avoided, the rising tensions between the major European powers gradually subside, and relations are normalized in such a manner that a true, lasting peace can be achieved in which the major players opt instead for greater economic integration and cooperation. Perhaps some sort of proto-EU?

As for the "victory in WW1" option, I'll refrain from setting any hard parameters as I think a lot hangs on whether or not it is a quick victory (everyone is home by Christmas) or a bloody victory eeked out after years of prolonged combat with millions dead on each side. As such, I'll leave it to any interested posters to set the conditions of TTL's Germany's hypothetical victory and to consider whether or not it would be better for them in the long run compared to the option of avoiding the wars outright.

You should include a poll in this one

My vote is solidly for "No World Wars", for all the reasons you mentioned. Look at the UK - on the winning side in both World Wars, but lost an Empire, and emerged with lots of graves, a wrecked economy and demoted from her status as global hegemon...
Winning indeed isn't everything...

 

[Wendell]

Probably no world wars.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I say "winning ww1 due to Britain staying out." Because france will be in no position to resist, meaning that war is nice and quick without a blockade, while Germany can just curb stomp russia, getting its brestlivtosk

 

[NAF]

You should include a poll in this one

My vote is solidly for "No World Wars", for all the reasons you mentioned. Look at the UK - on the winning side in both World Wars, but lost an Empire, and emerged with lots of graves, a wrecked economy and demoted from her status as global hegemon...
Winning indeed isn't everything...

Good point, poll added.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

I think the question that first needs to be asked is what war replaces the World Wars, and will it be worse for Germany?

An Imperial Russia getting it's shit together with peaceful modernization and fixing it's internal issues for another 10-15 years without the losses of WW1 and WW2 would probably be able to absolutely curbstomp Germany into oblivion if a war broke out

 

[Aghasverov]

I think the question that first needs to be asked is what war replaces the World Wars, and will it be worse for Germany?

An Imperial Russia getting it's shit together with peaceful modernization and fixing it's internal issues for another 10-15 years without the losses of WW1 and WW2 would probably be able to absolutely curbstomp Germany into oblivion if a war broke out

That, unfortunately, is a possibility... and the one that terrified the German General Staff the most...

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Just look at the casualty lists for Germany alone. Between 8 & 9 million dead (incl. civilians) with around 20m wounded across both wars. Even allowing for a minority appearing in both lists, the numbers alone make a compelling argument for no wars.

 

[Post]

Just look at the casualty lists for Germany alone. Between 8 & 9 million dead (incl. civilians) with around 20m wounded across both wars. Even allowing for a minority appearing in both lists, the numbers alone make a compelling argument for no wars.

Indeed. And you can add the material losses and lost territories to it.

Now with a victory in WW1, they wouldn't have the lost territories, and the material losses might be compensated (completely or partly), but there's still the loss of live, and the war itself will have cost millions too, as the article @Dorknought quoted calculated. Although that was calculated in advance, it does look like a good estimate to me.

 

[Riain]

I think the question that first needs to be asked is what war replaces the World Wars, and will it be worse for Germany?

An Imperial Russia getting it's shit together with peaceful modernization and fixing it's internal issues for another 10-15 years without the losses of WW1 and WW2 would probably be able to absolutely curbstomp Germany into oblivion if a war broke out

This is in the back of my mind too, people are addicted to war and no World Wars likely means a bunch of smaller wars, both in Europe and in the colonies.

In this situation having a big, 'cathartic' bloodletting that realigns to the world into 'natural' superpowers and sorts out the problems and tensions for several generations might be a better solution than interminable small wars.

 

[Tjakari]

Peace, if it can be kept, is almost always preferable to war.

 

[Erzherzog_Karl]

If the scenario of no world wars includes the whole world being put into a stasis and no other conflicts taking the place of WW1 and WW2, it is an easy answer. Peace all-around is better. But such a question is in my mind utterly senseless. Therefore, the assumption I would use is that there is just no Great War, including all Great Powers.

In that case, a Central Power victory is massively preferable.

 

[Bakenellan]

Central Powers victory might establish a world dominance of Germany for a time. During that time life standards there would probably be higher then OTL. Nevertheless until nuclear weapons are introduced the chances of WWII are not insignificant. Of course a Supreme Germany might win again and took US position as a solid superpower. But I think the most favorable outcome is not very probable and ruin and suffering are more likely.

So while CP victory could in theory produce better results, I think no World Wars scenario are more likely to be beneficial overall. The only problem is in what ways both Wars are averted and if any World War is averted - in first half of XX century and later. May be even more devastating and ruinous then enything we know. Still like pesce better.

 

[Riain]

Central Powers victory might establish a world dominance of Germany for a time. During that time life standards there would probably be higher then OTL. Nevertheless until nuclear weapons are introduced the chances of WWII are not insignificant. Of course a Supreme Germany might win again and took US position as a solid superpower. But I think the most favorable outcome is not very probable and ruin and suffering are more likely.

So while CP victory could in theory produce better results, I think no World Wars scenario are more likely to be beneficial overall. The only problem is in what ways both Wars are averted and if any World War is averted - in first half of XX century and later. May be even more devastating and ruinous then enything we know. Still like pesce better.

World dominance is too much. It certainly would be a superpower but would have almost no impact in the Western Hemisphere or Asia, it's power would be limited to Central/Western Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Certainly the rise of the USA as a superpower is a given, Russia somewhat less certain but coming from such a low base at least great power status is likely and an Anglo-French strategic union is also likely given the events of OTL. These would all rival Greater Germany and MittelEuropa to a greater or lesser degree and limit it's ability to dominate most parts of the world. although it would be extremely powerful close to home.

 

[oberdada]

I vote no World Wars.

A Schliefen Plan victory in 1914 might bee a close contestant though, but only if another war is avoided.

Of course, we are talking overall.

If keeping the colonies longer means that we get Kamerun, Togo and Tanzania as third world countries with a large German speaking population, that's bad news for workers in Germany in the 21st century.
I am really glad that there is hardly a base for Outsourcing of call center jobs.