Germany winning WW1 - best scenario for the 20th century?

Is Germany winning WW1 the most preferable outcome?

  • Yes. A German victory would have prevented the greatest horrors of the 20 century and saved millions

    Votes: 105 26.9%
  • No. A German victory would have made things as bad or worse than OTL

    Votes: 56 14.3%
  • Perhaps. Some things would have turned out better, some worse

    Votes: 245 62.7%

  • Total voters
    391
And even in the event of the allies making a total mess of things France 1917 is not France 1940. The French would fight to the knife, and keep on fighting from their colonies if necessary. Clemenceau is the Churchill of WW1.

"Fighting to the knife" didn't really help the Germans to win against the USSR in 1944.-1945.

And really, "keep on fighting from the colonies"? That would mean that the French have lost the metropole, and with it the entirety of their war industry and a huge chunk of its recruitable population, and all that after suffering 3+ years of death and devastation, all of which was ultimately for nothing if I might add.

Forget about the "all-conquering German supermen", the Entente here are displaying such a degree of stuborness that would have made Dwarves proud.
 
The best scenario for the 20th century is no WW1 ! at least in europe.

I haven't read through this whole thread, but I think this proposition is hard to argue with.

But if there is a war, I repeat what a few others have said: It depends on when and how Germany wins the war (in the West, of course; the East will take a year or two at absolute minimum). The quicker it wins, the more mild the peace will be. The longer and more expensive it is, the more draconian the peace terms. Niall Ferguson (The Pity of War) may overstate how much such a resulting German Mitteleuropa would have resembled the EU it dominates today. But Wilhelmine Germany is not Nazi Germany. A victory earned at much more limited sacrifice will (inevitably) produce a less stable Europe than existed in 1914, but a great deal more stable than that which existed in OTL after 1918.

It's certainly not one that's going to produce the Third Reich, and that gives it a lot to recommend itself.
 
Unless you're Armenian, Czech, Croatian, Irish, Polish, a Transylvanian Romanian, Slovakian, a Russian Jew etc.
Personally I think a 'Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg' Central Powers victory scenario is one of the best for Europe.

Not sure I'm seeing this.

The Armenians may not have been happy under Ottoman rule, but they had been living with it for centuries. The Genocide only happened in connection with the Russian invasion of Anatolia (I am not justifying the Armenian Genocide here, just explaining why it was a lot less likely in a timeline where there's no war). Most Czechs, Slovaks and Croats (and yes even many Rumanians) in 1914 still had a consensus recognizing the legitimacy of Habsburg rule, even if they wished for greater autonomy in some cases; the real break for the majority would not come until later in the war.

The Irish and captive peoples of the Russian Empire are separate questions, really. Ireland was moving toward some kind of confrontation, and without the war, it plays out differently in certain respects. It was likely going to get home rule by the 1920's, and there was a chance it could have happened without the '16 Rising. As for the peoples of the Pale, the price they paid for independence through the war was a steep one.
 
Uh, no. If the Entente loses, then unsecured loans to them are a waste. Explain why this possibility would be dismissed out of hand without the snark and innuendo or go away. You are not advancing the discussion like this.

Unless the Entente loses very badly the loans are still honoured but further the loans have already stimulated economic activity in the United States. The latter point being one I have already made. America still makes a net gain from the operations funded by the loans even if at some point the investors who funded them lose out. It is not a question of regulators dismissing risk out of handing but weighing up the benefits to the economy.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Uh, no. If the Entente loses, then unsecured loans to them are a waste. Explain why this possibility would be dismissed out of hand without the snark and innuendo or go away. You are not advancing the discussion like this.
There is no feasible situation in which the British Isles are conquered, at least without a massive PoD that destroys half the Royal Navy without touching the High Seas Fleet just for starters.
There is also no particular reason a defeated Britain would default on her loans - once peace resumes, the British economy is actually not that badly harmed as their trade networks are still largely intact.

As such the loans are not a waste.
 
Unless the Entente loses very badly the loans are still honoured but further the loans have already stimulated economic activity in the United States. The latter point being one I have already made. America still makes a net gain from the operations funded by the loans even if at some point the investors who funded them lose out. It is not a question of regulators dismissing risk out of handing but weighing up the benefits to the economy.

There is no feasible situation in which the British Isles are conquered, at least without a massive PoD that destroys half the Royal Navy without touching the High Seas Fleet just for starters.
There is also no particular reason a defeated Britain would default on her loans - once peace resumes, the British economy is actually not that badly harmed as their trade networks are still largely intact.

As such the loans are not a waste.

The Entente won, and still never paid down the principal on their debts. The whole of the 20's involved the Germans taking out loans to pay reparations so the Entente could repay their American loans. Without a victory and resulting reparations, that attempt at a perpetual motion machine can't be attempted. How would debt be honored then?
 
The Entente won, and still never paid down the principal on their debts. The whole of the 20's involved the Germans taking out loans to pay reparations so the Entente could repay their American loans. Without a victory and resulting reparations, that attempt at a perpetual motion machine can't be attempted. How would debt be honored then?

I think you are missing the wider point that the segment of the US economy that lost out was more narrow than the segments of the US economy that gained. Farmers gained and when they gained the people who supplied them with goods gained, arms manufacturers, clothes manufacturers, the makers of medicines, machinery and parts all gained and all of their suppliers gained. Further the Entente did not just pay with credit but also included cash and gold payments in the mix (in fact the French preferred to pay their American suppliers with gold). In addition the Entente were supplying trade goods like rubber and copper and other ores and agricultural goods.

The Americans lose less the longer it takes the Entente to lose and actually have the potential even should the Entente lose but not too badly of gaining overall in their economic relationship.

It is not like the loans were disappearing into a vacuum but they were going towards American goods and services. Further it is not like the loans were entirely defaulted on though some individual instruments were. Thus the net loss of default is by most measures outweighed by the total gain to the US economy and this is even before the fact is considered that the Entente ran the markets they controlled in a manner more open to US exports while Germany was the foremost direct competitor (in that it was most often a choice of buying German or buying American for a given good) of the US.

Beyond the loans was the impression that barring a fundamental change in German economic policy post war the Entente were fighting to protect US markets. That was not what was motivating the Entente to fight but it was one of the things motivating the economic elites in the US to view the Entente favourably.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Entente won, and still never paid down the principal on their debts. The whole of the 20's involved the Germans taking out loans to pay reparations so the Entente could repay their American loans. Without a victory and resulting reparations, that attempt at a perpetual motion machine can't be attempted. How would debt be honored then?
General practice is to honour debts. What ultimately resulted in the Germans (the losing party iOTL) defaulting on their debts was the crippling damage done by the crash of 1929 - and that's not something which would be being predicted in 1917.
Further, the reason the Germans had to take loans to repay their reparations was twofold - first, that such large reparations were being imposed (not likely to be imposed on the British, at least - unlike Germany in 1919, a Britain driven off the continent has the military capability to refuse a treaty she considers overly harsh) and secondly the way the Americans were expanding into areas formerly served by the Germans in terms of trade - thus damaging the German ability to generate revenue at all. (The British provide shipping as a major revenue source, and they're still going to have that revenue stream whatever happens.)
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Of course, something it's also possible to consider is that - in the event that the Americans do refuse to provide the loans - the immediate result of that is going to look like the collapse of Russia, followed by the defeat of France (if the assumption is that the Germans are going to win this one) and the British pushed off the continent. In short, that the Americans in refusing to provide loans to the British have essentially aided the creation of a German power across much of Europe which (as per Brest-Livotsk) has enacted some pretty startling land grab terms on their defeated enemies, thus resulting in a power controlling enough of Europe to cause the Americans some pretty serious problems down the line.
(As in, the B-L treaty line west across the Balkans, including Austria-Hungary and Turkey in this alliance, and also the Low Countries).

Now, some of this also couldn't be known in the US at the time, but in the event that they did deline to loan money to the British they might well come to regret it within a few years...
 

Deleted member 1487

General practice is to honour debts. What ultimately resulted in the Germans (the losing party iOTL) defaulting on their debts was the crippling damage done by the crash of 1929 - and that's not something which would be being predicted in 1917.
That and the lack of further credit forthcoming from the US. The consequence of default is higher interest rates or being cut out of credit markets entirely; as Germany was effectively cut off from credit as a result of the 1929 crash yet still expected to repay what it already had borrowed there was no consequence in addition to what it already was experiencing to defaulting, so there was no reason to continue payments that were destroying the country.
 
My suspicion is that the US would do a lot of dithering trying to figure out what was in the US national interest (and also whether the UK was actually telling the truth about being out of ready cash and assets).

The Entente reaction to cessation of US loans is just as unclear. Throw everything into a final decisive assault? Or sit back and defend, conserving resources and emphasising the need for further support to the US. I feel that the latter is more likely, but that might be modern sensibilities speaking...
 
My suspicion is that the US would do a lot of dithering trying to figure out what was in the US national interest (and also whether the UK was actually telling the truth about being out of ready cash and assets).

The Entente reaction to cessation of US loans is just as unclear. Throw everything into a final decisive assault? Or sit back and defend, conserving resources and emphasising the need for further support to the US. I feel that the latter is more likely, but that might be modern sensibilities speaking...

Come April, there's this guy who says he can end the war in 48 hours...
 

Deleted member 1487

My suspicion is that the US would do a lot of dithering trying to figure out what was in the US national interest (and also whether the UK was actually telling the truth about being out of ready cash and assets).

The Entente reaction to cessation of US loans is just as unclear. Throw everything into a final decisive assault? Or sit back and defend, conserving resources and emphasising the need for further support to the US. I feel that the latter is more likely, but that might be modern sensibilities speaking...
Waiting out the Germans once US credit has been cut off is not really an option. They could try and negotiate, but the problem with that in early 1917 is that the Germans have all the cards. Yes the Entente has most of the German colonies and would not give them back, but Belgium and lots of vital parts of France are held by the Germans so they'd have to trade a lot of things to get them back, things that would make it very clear that the Germans won. Mittelafrika for instance would be a minimum to get back part of occupied France and Belgium, though Luxembourg and iron fields along the Franco-German border are staying with Germany unless the Entente can take someone of value to the Germans back. So unless the Entente wants to negotiate from a position of defeat they have to attack. Additionally General Nivelle convinced both the French and British government that he had the formula to crack open the front combined with the British planned offensives (prior to Passchandaele) and a Russian Provisional Government offensive, plus what the Italians had planned, so IMHO they'd think they'd have the juice for one major throw of the dice, which seems to be guaranteed to succeed in 1917, so go big or go home before resources became critical. When it all spins off the rails like IOTL they then have to negotiate and get really bad terms as a result.
 
Waiting out the Germans once US credit has been cut off is not really an option.

It's not that simple. You're assuming that the Entente knows that further US credit is impossible, but this assumption is not valid. In reality there will be a debate going on in the US about what to do. The Entente will be seeking to influence that debate and will believe that further US support is possible. Hence they are not compelled to negotiate after the next offensive fails, as there will be a faction arguing that they can restore the flow of US credit, and another faction arguing that actually, yes, they can just wait and let the blockade do it's job. It doesn't matter whether these factions are right or not in hindsight, they would just be convenient crutches to believe in at the time.

So it will take some time - months probably - for the situation to become clear and I can see the western front stagnating in the uncertainty. It's an opportunity for Germany, certainly, but it might require 1918 for therm to take full advantage of it.
 

Deleted member 1487

It's not that simple. You're assuming that the Entente knows that further US credit is impossible, but this assumption is not valid. In reality there will be a debate going on in the US about what to do. The Entente will be seeking to influence that debate and will believe that further US support is possible. Hence they are not compelled to negotiate after the next offensive fails, as there will be a faction arguing that they can restore the flow of US credit, and another faction arguing that actually, yes, they can just wait and let the blockade do it's job. It doesn't matter whether these factions are right or not in hindsight, they would just be convenient crutches to believe in at the time.

So it will take some time - months probably - for the situation to become clear and I can see the western front stagnating in the uncertainty. It's an opportunity for Germany, certainly, but it might require 1918 for therm to take full advantage of it.
I don't think you understand the situation as of March 1917. The US government issued it's advisement to the banks, only JP Morgan was still lending, but it was a limited account and winding down. No one else was lending and Wilson was putting the screws to the Entente for refusing to negotiate when he made his attempt to mediate in December 1916. London fully realized that they had lost any sort of good will from Wilson and credit was not coming from the US government, who would be the only source possible now that they had run out of collateral. They fully understood that credit was winding down and would be gone very shortly even from Morgan. There was no debate in the US about what to do, Wilson had already decided, so had the banks in response to the Treasury announcement. Morgan was in the process of limiting his exposure as his credit account was the only one left. I really urge you to real the Strachan book on the finance of the war, it was very stark in March 1917 already that the game was up financially, which is why US entry prompted an immediate plea for unsecured credit by London. If you want to know what the feeling and situation was for the Wilson administration read "Too Proud to Fight" by Devlin, who covers in detail the decision and how the discussion was closed by the time the Administration issued their position.

But given your perspective then the Entente will launch it's Spring offensives because they don't know if there will be money forthcoming, so why not continue with plans. Either way the argument to attack is far stronger than to sit tight and wait out events. By 1918 the Entente will have been starved out of food, so the war will be long over or the Entente nations in Communist revolution.
 

BooNZ

Banned
General practice is to honour debts. What ultimately resulted in the Germans (the losing party iOTL) defaulting on their debts was the crippling damage done by the crash of 1929 - and that's not something which would be being predicted in 1917.

This misses the point made by TRH, that despite being victorious, the Entente (Britain and France) were OTL unable to honour their debts to the US, despite German reparations and the US shouldering the economic war effort in 1917 and 1918 [after it entered the war]. If the British and French were able to borrow their way through 1917 and 1918 [assuming US neutrality] there is little likelihood any unsecured creditors would receive satisfaction - whatever the outcome of the war. The US administration decision to suspend unsecured credit in 1916/17 was clearly prudent.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This misses the point made by TRH, that despite being victorious, the Entente (Britain and France) were OTL unable to honour their debts to the US, despite German reparations and the US shouldering the economic war effort in 1917 and 1918 [after it entered the war]. If the British and French were able to borrow their way through 1917 and 1918 [assuming US neutrality] there is little likelihood any unsecured creditors would receive satisfaction - whatever the outcome of the war. The US administration decision to suspend unsecured credit in 1916/17 was clearly prudent.
In the first case, that's arguing with hindsight (when the quoted sentence makes clear that the cause of the inability to honour the debts was the economic crash) and in the second case that's also making the assumption that a suspension of credit lasting to the end of the war (and resulting in Entente defeat) would have had no downsides.
 

BooNZ

Banned
In the first case, that's arguing with hindsight (when the quoted sentence makes clear that the cause of the inability to honour the debts was the economic crash) and in the second case that's also making the assumption that a suspension of credit lasting to the end of the war (and resulting in Entente defeat) would have had no downsides.

Yeah-nah. The actual underlying debt to the US was minimized OTL by the US entry into the war in early 1917. The only reason the British could initially contemplate honouring those comparatively modest debts to the US was the stiff reparations imposed on the Germans by the victorious Entente. The reason the British were unable to completely honor debts to the US was Britain ceased to receive reparations from Germany - the reason for their ceasation academic. The 1916/1917 US administration could not assume its own imminent belligerence or ultimately decisive Entente victory. The US administration of the time made the correct call based on the facts available (i.e. the inability of the Entente to service a far greater debt than OTL - without reparations).

Please remind me why the US would regret not propping up the traditional colonial powers...
 

BooNZ

Banned
Unless the Entente loses very badly the loans are still honoured but further the loans have already stimulated economic activity in the United States. The latter point being one I have already made. America still makes a net gain from the operations funded by the loans even if at some point the investors who funded them lose out. It is not a question of regulators dismissing risk out of handing but weighing up the benefits to the economy.

Are we talking 1916 or 2006... ?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Yeah-nah. The actual underlying debt to the US was minimized OTL by the US entry into the war in early 1917. The only reason the British could initially contemplate honouring those comparatively modest debts to the US was the stiff reparations imposed on the Germans by the victorious Entente.
Let's talk numbers, then - what was the scale of the OTL debt and the scale of the reparations? (I think it would help for us to avoid terms like "comparatively modest" and "stiff" and to use numbers instead - or alongside, at the least.)


Please remind me why the US would regret not propping up the traditional colonial powers...
Well, I was rather assuming the US would rather see democracies controlling chunks of Europe (France, Britain, Menshevik Russia as-was) rather than a large, victorious and highly militarized Germany controlling most of it.

Are we talking 1916 or 2006... ?
1916. The money the US loans out is going to be spent on US goods anyway - after all, the British are getting dollar loans. (They are the source of Sterling, they can buy what they want in the Sterling zone.)
 
Top