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
Basically, I'm trying to get the US to remain neutral, which requires the Germans to maybe ease up on submarine warfare and asking countries to invade America, so you can plausibly get a peace of exhaustion in the west.

Don't ask why. Yet.
I think that would be a solid approach for an easy PoD. Not enganging in USW and no Zimmerman telegram is also well within the realm of a plausible alternate decision making scenario. @Mikestone8 has given pretty compelling evidence that without the US in the war, the Entente would have to make peace due to financial exhaustion.

Kind regards,
G.
 
I think that would be a solid approach for an easy PoD. Not enganging in USW and no Zimmerman telegram is also well within the realm of a plausible alternate decision making scenario. @Mikestone8 has given pretty compelling evidence that without the US in the war, the Entente would have to make peace due to financial exhaustion.

Kind regards,
G.

I've always been skeptical the Entente would be forced to a peace of exhaustion right away, because the British could just eat their own resources, just as the Germans did. In OTL the British kept their economy pretty well afloat by relying on lending, but they could always cut to the bone. But yea, but the end of 1918 things would be ugly.

Perhaps the Red Clydeside becomes a bit realer in ATL!
 

Deleted member 1487

How bad was morale? You keep saying this but there's no sign of it. There were mutinies in 1917 (which were limited) about charging forward into guns...
In 1918 the French had to withdraw cavalry divisions to forcibly break peace demonstrations, which left them unavailable when the German started attacking.
This is a short, but decent book about the French internal situation in WW1:
https://www.amazon.com/France-Great...4214&sr=1-1&keywords=france+and+the+great+war

Robert Doughty in his book on French WW1 strategy wasn't particularly sanguine about their army's morale in 1918 either and noted how they broke very readily in the face of German offensives in 1918, which Zabecki's study on the 1918 German offensives notes too. Hopefully next year when the French archives on the mutinies is opened after the 100 year seal is over we'll get some more authentic scholarship about French army morale.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think that would be a solid approach for an easy PoD. Not enganging in USW and no Zimmerman telegram is also well within the realm of a plausible alternate decision making scenario. @Mikestone8 has given pretty compelling evidence that without the US in the war, the Entente would have to make peace due to financial exhaustion.

Kind regards,
G.
That would be the easy approach, but not really late war, as the war would end in 1917 without US entry. Several of us including Mike have talked about that on these forums for years. The POD for that would have to be something that kept Falkenhayn in power and H-L out to make sure USW doesn't happen.
 
That would be the easy approach, but not really late war, as the war would end in 1917 without US entry. Several of us including Mike have talked about that on these forums for years. The POD for that would have to be something that kept Falkenhayn in power and H-L out to make sure USW doesn't happen.

I'm still skeptical of this. Britain will run out of ready cash, but there are alternatives. If US financing was key to the war, how did Germany go to war without access to US capital markets?

The obvious answer is it relied on internal borrowing, inflation, and basically burning its assets. Why couldn't Britain try the same?
 
In 1918 the French had to withdraw cavalry divisions to forcibly break peace demonstrations, which left them unavailable when the German started attacking.
This is a short, but decent book about the French internal situation in WW1:
https://www.amazon.com/France-Great...4214&sr=1-1&keywords=france+and+the+great+war

[...]
Hmm, I did not read the book itself, but this review of said book points decidedly into a different direction:
The great originality of Smith’s
previous work, and of the argument presented here, is that the mutinies of 1917 (like the strikes of that year, too) do not undermine the thesis of national
consent but reinforce it. Arguing that “the French army mutinies of 1917 became one of the Great War’s most extraordinary exercises in patriotism” (p.
126), the authors insist that the front-line soldiers who defied military authority in the aftermath of the failed Nivelle Offensive rejected the strategy of the High Command, but they did not reject the war as such

It might be that in 1918 France could break - even with the US coming, but I have my doubts. Nevertheless, thank your for pointing me to that book, I somehow missed it in my "to read list".

Kind regards,
G.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm still skeptical of this. Britain will run out of ready cash, but there are alternatives. If US financing was key to the war, how did Germany go to war without access to US capital markets?
It was key to British and French conduct of the war, not German. Germany either already had or seized Europe's major iron and coal deposits, while having Austro-Hungarian and later Romanian oil, rich farmlands and self made nitrates, while the British and French had to import US steel, oil, food, and gun cotton among other things (plus Chilean nitrates) because they couldn't source them in quantities from their nearby empire given shipping constraints. Their war efforts were dependent on outside resources, the Central Powers weren't per se, though they did import a lot from neighboring neutrals that often transshipped from other neutral countries. Apparently there was an elicit steel trade going on in Switzerland where German steel manufacturers were selling steel to Swiss middle men, who sold it to France. Germany had enough resources to fight while blockaded, Britain and France did not, particularly France who had lost most of her iron and coal deposits to Germany in 1914.

The obvious answer is it relied on internal borrowing, inflation, and basically burning its assets. Why couldn't Britain try the same?
Because they didn't have the raw materials nearby in their zone of control. They had to import from the US, because there were no nearby sources for what they needed; distance was critical given the naval war going on making shipping constraints quite serious. Canada could only supply so much, same with Ireland, and the rest was too far away to really keep the Franco-British war effort going.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hmm, I did not read the book itself, but this review of said book points decidedly into a different direction:

It might be that in 1918 France could break - even with the US coming, but I have my doubts. Nevertheless, thank your for pointing me to that book, I somehow missed it in my "to read list".

Kind regards,
G.
As far as we know given the limited information available to historians until the French archives open next year. But yes it would appear that for the most part the French soldiers were against fighting offensively and all weren't against the war completely, though some certainly were. The civilian population was much more anti-war and wanted to negotiate. But again April 1917 is different than May 1918 if the British are broken as a military ally. As it was the US was not going to be a replacement for the British army, they were a welcome addition in 1918; the heavy lifting was being done by Britain and France and France alone in 1918 with some US help is nothing like having the British army as an active participant in the ground war. With Britain pulling back to the coast in May 1918 after a successful Operation Georgette aimed at Hazebrouk, the French have an open flank and only IIRC 1 US division combat ready and already committed to a quite sector because it was combat ineffective beyond holding a trench line at the time. With the British out of combat all the German combat ready offensive divisions can concentrate on that open flank and work it, as the French really don't have reserves to hold the line to the sea once the British are unable to help.
 
What raw materials? As it turns out, the British Empire had a lot of resources, and there's a reason people said "coals to Newcastle."
 
As far as we know given the limited information available to historians until the French archives open next year. But yes it would appear that for the most part the French soldiers were against fighting offensively and all weren't against the war completely, though some certainly were. The civilian population was much more anti-war and wanted to negotiate. But again April 1917 is different than May 1918 if the British are broken as a military ally. As it was the US was not going to be a replacement for the British army, they were a welcome addition in 1918; the heavy lifting was being done by Britain and France and France alone in 1918 with some US help is nothing like having the British army as an active participant in the ground war. With Britain pulling back to the coast in May 1918 after a successful Operation Georgette aimed at Hazebrouk, the French have an open flank and only IIRC 1 US division combat ready and already committed to a quite sector because it was combat ineffective beyond holding a trench line at the time. With the British out of combat all the German combat ready offensive divisions can concentrate on that open flank and work it, as the French really don't have reserves to hold the line to the sea once the British are unable to help.
Interesting points you make there. I will have to look into this further.

Kind regards,
G.
 

Deleted member 1487

What raw materials? As it turns out, the British Empire had a lot of resources, and there's a reason people said "coals to Newcastle."
The Empire which were too far away to really supply Britain in wartime when Uboats were sinking merchant ships and demand was much higher than in peacetime, so the US was the primary source for steel, food, oil, and gun cotton. Britain had an abundance of coal and IIRC was actually exporting some to France. But at best with rationing and as much domestic production as was feasible (which relied on imported nitrates BTW) they could only supply 2/3rds of domestic needs. They tapped out Ireland's surplus every year and Canada's, but the US was indispensible there.
 
Wiking you keep promoting this thesis that without the US the Enrente would rapidly collapse yet the starving Centralpowers with its worn out industry and warmaterials would charge to victory? And please provide a source for the US provided the majority of food and warmaterials claim
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking you keep promoting this thesis that without the US the Enrente would rapidly collapse yet the starving Centralpowers with its worn out industry and warmaterials would charge to victory? And please provide a source for the US provided the majority of food and warmaterials claim
Not just me, Mikestone too and several historians. I'm getting this from noted British WW1 historian Hew Strachan that has written the book on the financing of WW1:
https://www.amazon.com/Financing-First-World-War-Strachan/dp/0199257272

Also that book I already sourced on France had a bit about the French dependency on US imports.

Reading that turned me on to this point. Basically the British, French, and Italians were resource poor for critical elements of their war effort and needed to import them to sustain their war economies, Germany did not, though as Strachan points out it ran at substantially less than 100% capacity as a result, while the Entente nations with access to imports might have well doubled their war making capacity as a result. But they were dependent on those imports to function, without them they fall apart, while Germany and its allies were able to continue on for years without more than neighboring neutral trade. That was in large part due to the resources they had under their control in Europe and German ersatz production; it wasn't great, but it kept them going, while the Entente was 100% dependent on imports and couldn't get around that. France had lost their iron deposits and most of their coal to the German invasion in 1914 and lacked those resources in her colonies, so needed to import from the US to get the steel, oil, and food needed to fight (food was also pretty important because they had conscripted most of their farmers and lost their most productive farmlands to the battlefield and behind German lines). Italy had really no significant raw materials at home, so had to import heavily too. Britain was probably the best off due to neighboring Ireland and Norway, while having Canada relatively nearby to help supply them, plus large coal reserves at home. But even they were pretty much 100% dependent on US oil to run their navy and air force and US food to feed them because imperial sources were just too far away (4 times as far as the US East Coast) and German Uboats were wearing down their merchant fleet, while the volume of demand to sustain and ever increasing war output meant they needed to get ships back and forth as quickly as possible, which meant getting supplies from the nearest source otherwise you have a lot less materials in your factories to work with.
 
I think that would be a solid approach for an easy PoD. Not enganging in USW and no Zimmerman telegram is also well within the realm of a plausible alternate decision making scenario. @Mikestone8 has given pretty compelling evidence that without the US in the war, the Entente would have to make peace due to financial exhaustion.

This is my working premise, an end via exhaustion because the USA never tips the balance, and even if the Entente tries to twist the armistice to a false victory akin to Versailles I think public fatigue quashes it without the promise of more Americans to feed the slaughter. This will be a pyrrhic "victory" on both sides with possible revolution in Germany and France, the shattering of A-H and animosity galore, yet I see it as better ground to build a peace long term than OTL. My guess is that despite the desire the USSR still gets birthed, I am not convinced the Germans change that even if they add troops and supplies to the Allied efforts to prop up the Whites. None of it in my opinion avoids a second war, rather I think Asia goes sideways as Japan ascends and China awakes, and the revanchist USSR rushes headlong at Germany, likely over Poland who goes to revolt unless some German makes true peace with the Poles, but the wildcard is how do Britain and France react, OTL they were loathe to go to war again, but I still see much stumbling by idiots that gets another round of dying and destruction but no Holocaust, no total global war, and without the illusion of victory and scapegoating of Germany Europe is forced to maybe set up their own honest League to resolve the disputes, a remote long shot, but worth considering in light of how the world actually consumed itself from 1914 through to today. And if you want to wank it, have Britain eschew war and at most be a hostile neutral, the Empire might survive and the war ends sooner, but I suspect France and Russia end up weaker, maybe the Lenin train never gets out of the station though.
 

Thothian

Banned
Easiest POD for this is if the Kaiser says no way to the Zimmerman Telegram and orders an end to unrestricted sub warfare. He orders that German subs attack only ships flying Allied flags OR ships that fire on them first. Simultaneous to this, the Kaiser releases a statement (in newspapers, on radio, etc) that he does not want war with the US and urging American citizens to resist efforts by their leaders to drag them into Europe's conflicts.

At the same time, CP fights a holding action on the Western Front, and throws everything at the Russians. While funneling money, intel, and all other possible support to the Bolsheviks.

IMO, with this POD, Wilson can never get the public opinion behind him for a declaration of war. The Russians collapse, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk happens, and CP throw everything at the Western Front. With no prospect of US relief, public opinion in France and UK begins to tilt heavily towards a negotiated peace.

An interesting side to this is Italy ( as they were only in the war for territorial ambitions) maybe sees the writing on the wall and asks for an armistice with the CP. The Kaiser leans hard on the Dual Monarchy to accept, eager to send all troops at France. Emperor Charles I agrees, and all CP strength hits France.

French morale goes POOF ( as they were already having to pull cavalry off the front lines to suppress peace movements) and the government flees south, declaring Paris an open city. Germans take Paris, and the Kaiser publicly states that any German soldier who mistreats the people or property of Paris will be publicly hung. The French sue for peace, public opinion in UK turns against the war strongly. A sort of idea like " What in the hell are we fighting for in France if the French don't want to keep fighting?"

PM Lloyd George's government falls, and King George V breaks precedent by publicly decrying " this boondoggle of a war that my people no longer want. I stand with them." Liberal party is swept from power, and the Tories ask for an armistice with the CP. The Kaiser agrees, and the war is over.

Some knock-on effects from this

a slowly democratizing strong German state in Central Europe for the rest of the century

communism penned in to a basket case nation with a strong enemy to its west

Uk remains a strong naval power, calling a great portion of its fleet back to home waters to defend against any possible German moves ( which never come because Germany is content to be a land empire in Eurasia)

Austria-Hungary adopts a more federal system ( as the new emperor intended in the OTL) and is backed by Germany in its efforts, remaining stable as it reforms

the Ottoman Empire endures for some time yet, spending most of the next few decades suppressing Arab nationalism, with German backing

with two militaristic empires as its open enemy, Islamic extremism is strangled in its cradle

the United States remains committed to the Monroe Doctrine and spends the 20th century solidifying its control over the Americas

Japan carves an empire out of East Asia and the Pacific ( this may eventually lead to war with the US if cooler heads don't prevail)

nobody ever hears of Adolf Hitler

All in all, a better world than the OTL, imo

 
Last edited:
Easiest POD for this is if the Kaiser says no way to the Zimmerman Telegram and orders an end to unrestricted sub warfare. He orders that German subs attack only ships flying Allied flags OR ships that fire on them first. Simultaneous to this, the Kaiser releases a statement (in newspapers, on radio, etc) that he does not want war with the US and urging American citizens to resist efforts by their leaders to drag them into Europe's conflicts.

At the same time, CP fights a holding action on the Western Front, and throws everything at the Russians. While funneling money, intel, and all other possible support to the Bolsheviks.

IMO, with this POD, Wilson can never get the public opinion behind him for a declaration of war. The Russians collapse, Treaty of Brest-Litovsk happens, and CP throw everything at the Western Front. With no prospect of US relief, public opinion in France and UK begins to tilt heavily towards a negotiated peace.

An interesting side to this is Italy ( as they were only in the war for territorial ambitions) maybe sees the writing on the wall and asks for an armistice with the CP. The Kaiser leans hard on the Dual Monarchy to accept, eager to send all troops at France. Emperor Charles I agrees, and all CP strength hits France.

French morale goes POOF ( as they were already having to pull cavalry off the front lines to suppress peace movements) and the government flees south, declaring Paris an open city. Germans take Paris, and the Kaiser publicly states that any German soldier who mistreats the people or property of Paris will be publicly hung. The French sue for peace, public opinion in UK turns against the war strongly. A sort of idea like " What in the hell are we fighting for in France if the French don't want to keep fighting?"

PM George's government falls, and King George V breaks precedent by publicly decrying " this boondoggle of a war that my people no longer want. I stand with them." Liberal party is swept from power, and the Tories ask for an armistice with the CP. The Kaiser agrees, and the war is over.

Some knock-on effects from this

a slowly democratizing strong German state in Central Europe for the rest of the century

communism penned in to a basket case nation with a strong enemy to its west

Uk remains a strong naval power, calling a great portion of its fleet back to home waters to defend against any possible German moves ( which never come because Germany is content to be a land empire in Eurasia)

Austria-Hungary adopts a more federal system ( as the new emperor intended in the OTL) and is backed by Germany in its efforts, remaining stable as it reforms

the Ottoman Empire endures for some time yet, spending most of the next few decades suppressing Arab nationalism, with German backing

with two militaristic empires as its open enemy, Islamic extremism is strangled in its cradle

the United States remains committed to the Monroe Doctrine and spends the 20th century solidifying its control over the Americas

Japan carves an empire out of East Asia and the Pacific ( this may eventually lead to war with the US if cooler heads don't prevail)

nobody ever hears of Adolf Hitler

All in all, a better world than the OTL, imo
What about Eastern Europe and China. I thought mittleuropa was basically Germany turning Eastern Europe into it's own colonial domain. I recall that the Germans still saw Slavic people's as "backwards barbarians", so I question how different mittleuropa would become compared to the Warsaw pact. How would China compare to now? What about the post war reparations? France's economy could be tanked, and by the 21st century, who knows what it could look like.You basically changed the entire personality of the Kaiser. Minusly would have a different Kaiser considering how much you changed him to the point that he isn't the same man. It's like making the Nazis not anti-Semitic, it's basically not the Nazis, but another fascist group.
 

Thothian

Banned
As to the kaiser's personality, all it really required was for him to have a few moments of clarity and realize that a war with the US would be utterly disastrous. Men of power are capable of great change when that power is under threat.

China would basically be on it's own against the rising Japanese Empire I think, unless the Japanese were stupid enough to push on British interests in the Pacific too much.

The Slavs would have been in a far better position than in the OTL, seeing as how nothing like the planned Slavic genocide would ever have crossed Wilhelm's mind. He was a petulant fellow, but as evil goes, he wasn't anywhere in Hitler's league.

As for France, tanking of it's economy would have led to much earlier decolonization ( probably with UK grabbing some of them). As for France itself, I'm guessing it falls totally from the ranks of the Great Powers for good, and probably has strongly anti-war socialist governments for the foreseeable future after its defeat.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

As to the kaiser's personality, all it really required was for him to have a few moments of clarity and realize that a war with the US would be utterly disastrous. Men of power are capable of great change when that power is under threat.

China would basically be on it's own against the rising Japanese Empire I think, unless the Japanese were stupid enough to push on British interests in the Pacific too much.

The Slavs would have been in a far better position than in the OTL, seeing as how nothing like the planned Slavic genocide would ever have crossed Wilhelm's mind. He was a petulant fellow, but as evil goes, he wasn't anywhere in Hitler's league.

As for France, tanking of it's economy would have led to much earlier decolonization ( probably with UK grabbing some of them). As for France itself, I'm guessing it falls totally from the ranks of the Great Powers for good, and probably has strongly anti-war socialist governments for the foreseeable future after its defeat.
By the time that H-L took power the Kaiser had lost all power and credibility, he was at most a rubber stamp for H-L and wouldn't dare oppose their demands for fear of being ousted for his son, much like how his cousin Nicholas in Russia was. H-L wanted USW, they were going to get it. To stop USW from resuming you need a POD to keep Falkenhayn in power.
 
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.

You're not hearing me. Forget OTL assumptions about only fanatics using nukes. I'm saying what if our dear Militaristic, Pro-Conquest empire split the atom first and whipped out their cool new toy during their next beef. Any revaunchism against that Germany could ultimately end in a 3rd Punic War that dwarfs Hiroshima.
 
Last edited:

tenthring

Banned
You're not hearing me. Forget OTL assumptions about only fanatics using nukes. I'm saying what if our dear Militaristic, Pro-Conquest empire split the atom first and whipped out their cool new toy during their next beef. Any revaunchism against that Germany could ultimately end in a 3rd Punic War that dwarfs Hiroshima.

Britain and France conquered the world. Russia was the most brutal slave state in Europe. Hell, even poor little Belgium created hell on earth in the Congo. These powers were empires in the true sense of the word, subjecting countless millions to their will. Militaristic? Pro-Conquest? They all were. This was a realpolitik war between a bunch of powers operating under the same basic philosophical assumptions.
 
Top