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
Given Russia's history, is there the slightest reason to expect her to become any kind of democracy - socialist or other?

Russia was and is one of those places that oscillates between anarchy and tyranny. Once the anarchy ends, the only real question is what kind of tyranny.

Much like the Germans, who went from illiberal democracy to the third Reich.
 
Much like the Germans, who went from illiberal democracy to the third Reich.

True. A victorious Second Reich won't be all that democratic either. OTOH, even when junior officers were dropping like flies, compelling quite a few promotions from the ranks, they never let dear old Adolf rise above the rank of corporal. So I doubt if they'll tolerate a Third Reich if they don't need to.
 

Deleted member 1487

Much like the Germans, who went from illiberal democracy to the third Reich.
Was it less liberal than the British system in 1914? What is more startling was the move from the very liberal (compared to the British system) Weimar Republic to the Third Reich. Not sure how Weimar stacked up to the Third Republic in France though, but given that the French system collapsed and gave way to the 4th and 5th Republics their system wasn't that stable either. Turns out Democracy is a learning process.

True. A victorious Second Reich won't be all that democratic either. OTOH, even when junior officers were dropping like flies, compelling quite a few promotions from the ranks, they never let dear old Adolf rise above the rank of corporal. So I doubt if they'll tolerate a Third Reich if they don't need to.
Bad example, the German army listed in his records that he wasn't fit for any higher rank level than Gefreiter (which in WW1 was more of a private 1st class rank according to a biographer of his WW1 service). But yeah the German army was VERY stingy about promotions to officer rank for NCOs and not great for promoting officers either. The Nazis changed that in WW2, but even then the military required all civilian contractors to either be forcibly inducted at enlisted rank or go through unnecessary officer training so they could get officer rank.
 
A German victory in WW1 means no purging of the aristocracy. It also means that the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires stick around for awhile longer (though in the latter's case, they were probably going to reform or collapse sooner rather than later, probably the latter).

Numerous genocides are prevented, but the growth of liberal democracy that really took off in earnest after OTL WWII is butterflied. Society in general is probably more politically conservative.

Also, just because the USSR doesn't exist doesn't mean communism won't take hold somewhere.
 
I think you're best shot for a negotiated peace comes in 1916. That was the year in which the two forces were most evenly matched. The CP have scored some great victories in the east but can't knock out Russia. The Dardanelles has failed. The Western and Italian fronts have stalled. By 1916 the reality of trench warfare should be obvious. 1916 is really the tragic year in my mind.

While i entirely agree with you, for getting this result you need a lot of hindsight as all parties at this stage had invested too much and more importantly are not in any mood to give the concession necessary for even starting the negotiation round.
Maybe a mix of a more succesfull Brusilov offensive with a continued USW can force both side to the table, but frankly it's a given that first nobody will get all that they want and that the secondary players will be sacrificed brutally.
 

tenthring

Banned
While i entirely agree with you, for getting this result you need a lot of hindsight as all parties at this stage had invested too much and more importantly are not in any mood to give the concession necessary for even starting the negotiation round.
Maybe a mix of a more succesfull Brusilov offensive with a continued USW can force both side to the table, but frankly it's a given that first nobody will get all that they want and that the secondary players will be sacrificed brutally.

Agreed. It didn't happen for obvious reasons, although its telling that the only serious attempt at peace happened in 1916.

I think the Germans best bet would have been Spring 1916 to negotiate. Fall 1916 is the second best. It may be rather hard to talk the Entente into negotiations before their Summer 2016 offensives fail.

Your best bet for peace would be AH doing better in 1914, specifically the winter. This isn't that hard as it was all self inflicted wounds. 1915 was a good year for the CP, if it was even better maybe they could close the deal. Especially with a whole less year of bloodshed and maybe Italy staying out.
 
A German victory in WW1 means no purging of the aristocracy. It also means that the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires stick around for awhile longer (though in the latter's case, they were probably going to reform or collapse sooner rather than later, probably the latter).

Numerous genocides are prevented, but the growth of liberal democracy that really took off in earnest after OTL WWII is butterflied. Society in general is probably more politically conservative.

Also, just because the USSR doesn't exist doesn't mean communism won't take hold somewhere.

The Ottoman Empire isnt going anywhere, the Arab rebellion is horribly overrated, without France and the UK funneling money and advisors to them it falters and fizzles away back into nothing, exactly what happened when the Allies betrayed them after the war, they quickly went back to being fairly quiet colonies at the edge of empires.

Btw, wherever communism took hold it needed massive support by the USSR, either by direcly invading (Eastern Europe), by very generous donations of land, money and weapons (China) or threat of WW3 if anyone interferes (Cuba).
 
In the EDC that's broadly what I went with; the Great War fizzled out in 1915 with both sides reasonably happy to end it (and later a mix of "We could have won if not for XXX" and "We really avoided a disaster there" views). With Franz Josef dead Franz Ferdinand better managed the break up of Austria-Hungary (a controlled, slow motion, collapse), the Russians avoided communism and most of the violence of the revolutions, Germany went Social Democrat/Constitutional Monarchy and things were rather better generally.

Of course in the thirties the economies started to collapse, the Okie flu spread, the USA fell apart, and various countries started embracing fascism leading to the Eastern War, and nuclear and biological weapons use.
Zone Rouge has nothing on parts of eastern Europe.

Of course it is not possible to anticipate what would happen in a world where the Great War lasted just 4 months: the tens of millions of people who died from 1915 to 1925 as direct or indirect result of the OTL duration of the Great War would be alive and would contribute to change the world.
Even the liberalization of the German empire (which is a reasonable possibility if the war ends pretty quickly in favor of the CPs) may be turned back in a few years by a reaction of the Junkers and the military: a new war can be started even pretty soon (say in 1917 or 18) with the unsaid aim of restoring the previous regime and curb the pretension of the lower classes. The pretext would be very easy to find (unrest in Russia, or in A-H; cold relations between GB and Germany going worse and worse; something stupid happening in the Balkans) and after all there would be little restrain in getting again on a war foot since the last war was nothing too bad after all.
 
Why do people always assume that the people of France are nothing more than mindless monkeys intent on marching themselves to the slaughter over something as petty as revenge? If Germany wins WWI, that's it. It's game over for France and it's place as a great power. In a little over a century, it has suffered total military defeat no less than three times (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, and WWI). Each successive defeat is more destructive and humiliating than the last, culminating in the complete destruction of northeastern France, the national economy, and the wholesale slaughter of it's fighting age men. This kind of national trauma in part led to the appeasement policy of otl. Despite France not wanting to allow Germany to become powerful again, they were not willing to fight a war over it until it became abundantly clear that war was coming anyway.

And the reason that the otl WW2 strategy was chosen and executed was because of the limitations that France faced even after being a victor of the first war, if Germany won, there would be no way that they could even dream of mounting an offensive into Germany simply due to the realities of the situation.
 
"Better" 20th century, depends on who you are at the time. For Eastern Europeans and Africans, things still suck, if not worse. For the Anglosphere,things are pretty much the same. For, French people, things suck. An important thing to note is how social issues develop. Things like feminism, civil rights, discrediting eugenics and Social Darwinism, etc. I often feel that on this board, these issues are rarely taken into account and are often forgotten.
 
It's hard to say if Germany winning WW1 is the "best" scenario for the 20th century; as people have pointed out it could go anywhere from a gradually liberalizing Germany leading Europe and the world into something resembling its current peace and prosperity without the agony of WW2 or the Cold War, but on the other hand in the worst case it could lead to a bloodier WW2 with even more nukes and genocide followed by a nastier aftermath.

To compare the two scenarios it's also necessary to look at how the aftermath of Germany loosing WW1 sets things up. OTL was pretty improbable; nobody would have guessed a genocidal raving lunatic like Hitler would gain control over Germany, and he had incredible luck against the French and Soviets in the buildup and initial years of WW2. The most likely aftermath of Germany loosing WW2 is probably some revanchist authoritarian government coming to power in Germany but waffling on poking the French and British too hard until nukes or growing Soviet power make war too costly. Meanwhile Japan's "adventure" in China eventually gets shut down by the Soviets or Americans, potentially butterflying Mao. The point is, Germany loosing WW1 also sets the stage for an OK world to develop, but OTL drew a short straw.
 

tenthring

Banned
Of course it is not possible to anticipate what would happen in a world where the Great War lasted just 4 months: the tens of millions of people who died from 1915 to 1925 as direct or indirect result of the OTL duration of the Great War would be alive and would contribute to change the world.
Even the liberalization of the German empire (which is a reasonable possibility if the war ends pretty quickly in favor of the CPs) may be turned back in a few years by a reaction of the Junkers and the military: a new war can be started even pretty soon (say in 1917 or 18) with the unsaid aim of restoring the previous regime and curb the pretension of the lower classes. The pretext would be very easy to find (unrest in Russia, or in A-H; cold relations between GB and Germany going worse and worse; something stupid happening in the Balkans) and after all there would be little restrain in getting again on a war foot since the last war was nothing too bad after all.

Even if the war ends in 1914, casualties are horrific. Germany casualties through 1914 were still about 5-10 times what they were in the Franco Prussian war. And for what, Serbia?
 
"Better" 20th century, depends on who you are at the time. For Eastern Europeans and Africans, things still suck, if not worse. For the Anglosphere,things are pretty much the same. For, French people, things suck. An important thing to note is how social issues develop. Things like feminism, civil rights, discrediting eugenics and Social Darwinism, etc. I often feel that on this board, these issues are rarely taken into account and are often forgotten.

The manner in which nukes are developed and deployed are the real determining factor imho. Its all for naught if there isn't a Nuclear Taboo. For example.....

However... Imperial Germany was deeply militarist, and seriously infected wtih proto-Nazi ideas about the righteousness of conquest. The defeat of Germany in WW I, I believe, put these ideas out of respectability forever. Had Germany won, they would have been "mainstreamed".

^^^^^ - imagine these guys, unhindered by "Jewish Science", coming up with nukes first.
 
Last edited:
The manner in which nukes are developed and deployed are the real determining factor imho. Its all for naught if there isn't a Nuclear Taboo. For example.....

The "nuclear taboo" developed in our world despite the USA being lead by religious fanaticals working towards armageddon (according to the Soviets) an the USSR being lead by ideologically charged madmen rejecting reality (according to the USA).

The Prussian Junkers in charge of Germany are not really known for their religous fervor or ideological purity.
 
Nazi-germany,Italy,Japan and the Soviet Union were very much pro-conquest long after imperial germany was dead. Thats a lot of big and important countries.

Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan were all outlaw nations. Their actions were repeatedly condemned in the world press, and ineffectually denounced by the League of Nations.

The USSR was not "pro-conquest". That is, the USSR never claimed that "might makes right", or that powerful nations should just go ahead and conquer and exploit weaker nations. The official position of the USSR was that the people of the world should fight the capitalist and imperialist exploiters, and the USSR would support such struggles.
 
Agreed. It didn't happen for obvious reasons, although its telling that the only serious attempt at peace happened in 1916.

I think the Germans best bet would have been Spring 1916 to negotiate. Fall 1916 is the second best. It may be rather hard to talk the Entente into negotiations before their Summer 2016 offensives fail.


That's exactly what they tried in our timeline.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedensangebot_der_Mittelmächte

The Entente reaction was "They know they can't win and are lying anyway. Let's slaughter the Hun!"
 
Why do people always assume that the people of France are nothing more than mindless monkeys intent on marching themselves to the slaughter over something as petty as revenge? If Germany wins WWI, that's it. It's game over for France and it's place as a great power. In a little over a century, it has suffered total military defeat no less than three times (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, and WWI). Each successive defeat is more destructive and humiliating than the last, culminating in the complete destruction of northeastern France, the national economy, and the wholesale slaughter of it's fighting age men. This kind of national trauma in part led to the appeasement policy of otl. Despite France not wanting to allow Germany to become powerful again, they were not willing to fight a war over it until it became abundantly clear that war was coming anyway.

And the reason that the otl WW2 strategy was chosen and executed was because of the limitations that France faced even after being a victor of the first war, if Germany won, there would be no way that they could even dream of mounting an offensive into Germany simply due to the realities of the situation.

Wish fulfillment. The same thing is also the reason why the "Second Great War" starts as a massive Eastern European rebellion against "proto-Nazi German rule" while the German Army goes to the war somehow more badly prepared than the Entente were IOTL because their whole army was being "optimized for anti-partisan activities" while the "neo-Entente" have legions of T-34-85`s from the begging. Somehow.
 
Last edited:
I also can't imagine the Entente agreeing to reparations just an end to the fighting. That might well be too much. If Team Germany was smart, they'd simply offer an end to the fighting. Hell, they might even sweeten the deal by offering Alsace-Lorraine back to the French. Doing that would take a whole lot of wind out of any French Nationalist resistance to the peace process.

They won`t because this offer is pure madness. Anyone who would propose this on the German side would either by shot as a traitor or lynched in the streets.
 
Of course it is not possible to anticipate what would happen in a world where the Great War lasted just 4 months: the tens of millions of people who died from 1915 to 1925 as direct or indirect result of the OTL duration of the Great War would be alive and would contribute to change the world.
Even the liberalization of the German empire (which is a reasonable possibility if the war ends pretty quickly in favor of the CPs) may be turned back in a few years by a reaction of the Junkers and the military: a new war can be started even pretty soon (say in 1917 or 18) with the unsaid aim of restoring the previous regime and curb the pretension of the lower classes. The pretext would be very easy to find (unrest in Russia, or in A-H; cold relations between GB and Germany going worse and worse; something stupid happening in the Balkans) and after all there would be little restrain in getting again on a war foot since the last war was nothing too bad after all.
Well it was a but longer than that, the war started in June 1914 (with FJ's assassination) and progressed rather worse for the Entente than historically (legacy of a few earlier events; a worse Boer War, poor UK army reforms, the death of Churchill in 1911 and more revolutionary activity in Russia for example) and ended in April 1915 with France effectively defeated and Russia in chaos.

Of course this was just backstory, most of the interesting stuff started in 1962 when a certain Gallifreyan fugitive landed in Britain a few decades earlier than he'd intended...
 
They won`t because this offer is pure madness. Anyone who would propose this on the German side would either by shot as a traitor or lynched in the streets.


Not to mention that the Entente would take this as an open admission that Germany was on the ropes, and raise their demands accordingly.
 
Top