DBWI: What if the German Empire lost the second great war?

What would the shape of the world be like if Germany had lost the war, she almost lost the first one in 1918 and actually came close in the second one.
 
Well, to make a few basic observations- German wouldn't be as much of a first-rank world language that it is today. It's likely that the dominant language of scientific discourse would be English. German would simply be one of several major languages in Europe, rather than the lingua germanica of the entire continent.

I imagine that the Czechs would have an independent nation-state, whether with or without the Slovaks (probably without, unless the Kingdom of Hungary also collapses). Also, the Poles would probably have a larger national territoriy than they do now. Posen Province might very well be known as 'Poznan Voivodship' and be majority Polish.

Further than that, though- are we assuming a negotiated peace like between the German Empire and the United States (although likely harsher) or a total defeat, like with the Russian Empire?
 
The Austrian Empire would probably have been dissolved... in fact, I can easily imagine scenarios where the Alliance still wins the war, but Austria doesn't survive the end... Not sure what they'd do with a separate Austria, though- a Czech nation-state seems a no-brainer, but what about the rest? Germany lost, so obviously unification is a non-starter and won't be allowed, but I can't see the point of a separate country made up of only the German-speaking parts of Austria :confused:
 
Based on recent news events we cetainly wouldn't have the terrorist attacks by the right-wing neopagan extremist groups such as Asatru Free Assembly (AFA), the Ring of Troth (ROT), or Witan Theod (WT) against local churches and synagougues. While the vast majority of neopagan followers are certainly peaceful, a few zealots within their movements have taken things to unacceptable levels. Odinist violence since 1973 has had its roots in the attempts at "Cultural Revolution" under Kaiser Wilhelm III....
 
You realise that Germany basically lost the second time, right? If it hadn't been for British troops and American materiel, the Russians would have overrun them completely. As it was, they got all the way to Dresden. It's half a miracle Parliament came 'round from its initial stance of hostile neutrality, but then, they didn't suffer as much as the French and Russians in the Great War, so it probably came easier to them. Thank the heavens for balance-of-power politics.

And I'm not convinced that the neopagan terrorism in the US is entirely the fault of Bonkers Bill (Yes, seriously, they *do* call him Willi der Spinner). Germany and most of Europe haven't had a problem with them even after the 1982 Concordate. It must be something in the water, or maybe your pagans are different from ours. Isn't there also a demograpghic thing, with most German pagans being middle class and nearing retirement while the US congregation is overwhelmingly lower class and young?

Anyways, it's hard to figure the defeat. As was pointed out, a Czech state, I think the Hungarians hold together. Germany is likely to lose east Prussia to the Russians. I don't think St Petersburg would allow the creation of a Poland - too explosive for its own interests in Ukraine, Finland and the Baltics, even though it would hurt the Germans some. Schleswig Holstein would probably fall to Denmark, too, crippling German naval power. I can't see Britain not insisting on that if they have the Germans on the ground. The French will want Elsass-Lothringen and the Saar - maybe the whole left bank of the Rhine. That would probably depend on how badly Germany loses.

The German colonies are pretty much negligible - maybe the Americans could get the Pacific Isles and the French and British the African ones. That's insignificant. More to the point, the Germans destroyed a fair bit of industrial capacity in France. Would Paris insist on tit for tat? I can't quite see how, but maybe they could expropriate major German plcs and distribute the shares among state-owned holding companies to turn their output over to French control? I'm not sure this has been done successfully, but the Russians tried something like that in the Second War.

I don't think it would be this extreme. Even after a much less severe peace, the French and Russians came back for revenge. Can you imagine what Germany would do if it was hurt like that? How would you stop it from going back to war, anyway? Yes, the economy was wrecked in 1918 (so was the French and British), but by 1921? 1925? Everything militates for a reasonable peace. Elsass-Lothringen to France, East Prussia to Russia, Britain gets most of the colonies. Denmark maybe a few miles of territory, ditto Belgium, and Germany stays a major European power. Austria-Hungary, though - that's a puzzler. Without the German troops to shore it up, it would basically have collapsed in '18 under its own weight. I don't think it would survive even if the Entente allowed it.
 
German wouldn't be as much of a first-rank world language that it is today. It's likely that the dominant language of scientific discourse would be English.

Ja, bestimmt... Aber, als ich sehe, du kannst englisch wirklich gut sprechen ! :D:rolleyes:;)
 
That's simple. Like we did in the second war, we'd just rise up again 20 or so years later, and win that war. German domination is inevitable.
 
That's simple. Like we did in the second war, we'd just rise up again 20 or so years later, and win that war. German domination is inevitable.

I don't see how you can still hold on to Organicist interpretations like that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. History doesn't work like that, and real academics have known that for decades (even if German schoolteachers still suffer from the National Curriculum garbage they were fed back in the 60s and 70s). Germany won because the underlying economics favoured the better-organised industry and the better-trained army, not because they were fated to win.
 
Interrogation of Generalleutnant Hermann von Bülow at the International War Crimes Court, Geneva, Switzerland, 16. September 1962:

Prosecutor: General, you were the head of the German Nuclear, Biological and Chemical division at the Oberste Heeresleitung?

Bülow: Yes, I was appointed to this position two years before the war, and held it until demoblisation after the armistice. During that time I was awarded the Pour-le-Merite, the Schwarzer Adlerorden and the Hohenzollern Hausorden first class. I was promoted to my current rank after the conquest of the British Isles.

Prosector: Was it you that proposed the use of Tabun, Soman and Sarin in the invasion of Great Britain?

Bülow: Yes, we knew that had only inadequate defenses against these agents. We succeeded in not only paralysing the English air defence, we also achieved a major crippling of their armour. In all, I would say, the use of gas saved innumerable lifes on both sides, as English defense collapsed now rapidly and they surrendered immediately after the parachute landings.

Prosecutor: Did you also propose the use of nuclear bombs against Russia?

Bülow: Of course, we could never hope to match their numbers. To break their aggression, the use of nuclear weapons was irrefutable. Also, the predominatly western winds would carry radioactive downfall further into the Russian empire. And - they did not have nuclear weapons, nor any precautions against them. Thanks to our Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute we had an advantage of about ten years of research in nuclear weapons. - When you look at the primitive American devices that erased Cologne, Frankfurt, Metz, Straßburg, München and Hamburg, our strikes on New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Detroit, Chicago and Memphis were much more elegant and effective. Also, thanks to our superior rocket science we had not to rely on clumsy bombers, which often failed to hit the correct objective. Ask the Dutch what they think of the US 15 KT bomb that hit Njimwegen instead of Düsseldorf. Or the Swiss about Basel...

Prosecutor: Did you also propose the use of anthrax and typhus fever against the US?

Bülow: Yes, I did. But Kaiser Wilhelm IV. would not allow it. Even the Reichskanzler proposed it, but his Majesty wouldn't have it. - However, already before the war, we had provided ample supply of the agents to our Japenese ally who inteded to use it in China. So it was the Tenno who authorised the use of anthrax and typhus fever against the US west coast.

Prosectuor: Was it you who initiated the development of the binary agent Vetol?

Bülow: Yes, after we had used Soman, Tabun and Sarin against England, it was quite clear that something new had to be developed. Only if we succeeded in remaining scientifically atop of the enemy we could hope to wear him down. - It gave us the edge during the first invasion, otherwise they would have overrun the Atlantic Wall defenses in England with their Napalm, Fuel Air Explosives and optically guided missiles. We captured a lot of that stuff - and added it to our inventory.

Prosecutor: Who were your primary collaborators?

Bülow: Well, there was Colonel Krauskopf, my deputy, a chemical doctor himself. Then there were Professors Löwenstein, Einstein, Kirschfeld, Hahn, and Heisenberg of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut. Also, old Count Rathenau did a lot to orchestrate industry.

Prosecutor: Thank you, General.
 
rast - Interesting alternative scenario- I suppose you're positing the US not aiding the Alliance? It's not too easy to see that, honestly, considering the huge trading ties the US has with Germany and the UK (and Japan, which is one of the US oldest allies- to imagine the US going up against Japan is practically ASB IMHO), while not really so much with Russia, France, or China... I think the most you're going to see is a neutral US.

Though, if the US did go against Germany, it would definitely get very bad for both sides.
 
From Generalfeldmarschall Speidel's memoirs:
"That there remained an open bill with England, was clear to every member of the German General staff and the Admiral Staff. Fortunately, after the won war, funding was sufficient. So, we prepared thoroughly.
What we hadn't foreseen was that while we were busy with England, the Russian fascists would try to overrun Europe.
Our response to the Russian onslaught was devastating, thanks to our scientists. But now the Americans thought that Germany was threatening them, mainly because of our close cooperation with Japan and the fact that English refugees painted black Germany in American public opinion.
The Cuban incident then ignited American bellicosity, and the Japanese biological assault brought war.
We managed to hold them up for almost three years, but finally they proved stronger... That "democracy" of theirs seems to be very powerful. Anyway, we were lucky. They really scortched Japan to sterility..."
 
If the German Empire had lost the First Great War, I'm convinced that the Ukrainians would have been spared the Starving Time. The aftermath of Russian defeat and the catastrophe of 1918 (even if you Krauts won, it's still not worth calling a victory, not when Europe was in nearly the situation of the Byzantines and the Sassanids in the 600s...), coupled with German economic weakness for the period stretching from the immediate aftermath of victory until 1923, when things settled, as much as a quarter of all Ukrainians had starved to death. I believe they call it the Terror-Famine.

I fail to see how an Allied victory, and Russian sovereignty over that territory, even if it ends up being the Bolsheviki could have ended up worse. (;))
 
Top