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

tenthring

Banned
The reason Britain doesn't fight on is because Imperial Germany isn't an existential threat. Hitler was. There was no choice to be made.

If Britain lost they lost. A few territories change hands. That's how things are done. What are they going to do, fight on so that Belgium doesn't get made a puppet and France can keep some more border forts?
 
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?


I think we've been here before. See the following from Kathleen Burk Britain, America and the Sinews of War, Ch 5.


"- - the [British] Foreign Office called together an interdepartmental committee on 30 September [1916] to consider how far Britain was dependent on the United States; the statements of the various departments were printed for the Cabinet on 6 November, and the conclusions were alarming. The Ministry of Munitions procured a large percentage of its guns, shells, metals explosives and machine tools from the United States; The Army Department considered that there was no substitute for American supplies of oils and petroleum, nor for that of preserved meat; The Board of trade stated that for cotton, for foodstuffs, for military necessities and for raw materials for industry, the United States was "an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply"; the Board of Agriculture emphasise the dependence of Britain on the United States for grains; and finally the Treasury stated baldly 'Of the £5,000,000 which the Treasury have to find daily for the prosecution of the war, about £2,000,000 has to be found in North America', and added that there was no prospect of any diminution without a radical change in the policies of the Allied War Departments. The Treasury expressed, in its conclusion, the only action possible for the government; 'The policy of this country toward the USA should be so directed as to not only avoid any form of reprisal or irritation, but also to conciliate and to please' "

Were all these departments misinforming their government?


In addition, switching to alternative sources would in most cases have necessitated far longer voyages. Frex, South America is twice as far away as the US, so only half as many voyages could be made in any given time. The effect would be the same as if half the ships had been sunk - a vastly bigger difference than the U-boats could ever have made, and more than offsetting any difference made by no USW. India and Australia are of course even further away, so the problem there would be even greater.


Apologies to all those of you who've read this or similar message(s) before. Search for "Burk" with my name as author, and you'll see that I've had to put this up several times.
 

MrP

Banned
Italy and Japan were among the "winners" of WW1. Hrm.
A good and yet oft-neglected point. The country that invented Fascism and the country that pulled all the stops in terms of war crimes were both on the winning side of WW1. That didn't seem to make much of a difference as far as their thirst for aggressive expansion went. Further, Imperial Japan's institutions were largely modeled after Wilhelmine Germany's, so how the former turned out in OTL provides a plausible template as to what the latter might become in the event of a CP victory.
 
A good and yet oft-neglected point. The country that invented Fascism and the country that pulled all the stops in terms of war crimes were both on the winning side of WW1. That didn't seem to make much of a difference as far as their thirst for aggressive expansion went. Further, Imperial Japan's institutions were largely modeled after Wilhelmine Germany's, so how the former turned out in OTL provides a plausible template as to what the latter might become in the event of a CP victory.

"Winning" isnt saying much, they were on the winning side but didnt get what they desired, Italy got screwed by perfidious Albion promising the same pieces of land to multiple parties to get them into the war and Japan was relegated back to "noble savage" diplomatic status.
 

MrP

Banned
"Winning" isnt saying much, they were on the winning side but didnt get what they desired, Italy got screwed by perfidious Albion promising the same pieces of land to multiple parties to get them into the war and Japan was relegated back to "noble savage" diplomatic status.
WW1 was a Pyrrhic victory for all concerned. Nobody got out of it what they wanted, and I don't think that a victorious Germany would either.
 
WW1 was a Pyrrhic victory for all concerned. Nobody got out of it what they wanted, and I don't think that a victorious Germany would either.

A bit too simplistic.
The USA made got everything worthwile in the Americas which belonged to the UK and France while making them subsidise US industry.
Japan got some of the best West-Pacific real eastate at no cost.
Italy got the lands at the Adria they desired, their discontent afterwords stems from simple greed.
And Germany turned the Russian steamroller into a bunch of mini states at high cost.
 
I think we've been here before. See the following from Kathleen Burk Britain, America and the Sinews of War, Ch 5.


"- - the [British] Foreign Office called together an interdepartmental committee on 30 September [1916] to consider how far Britain was dependent on the United States; the statements of the various departments were printed for the Cabinet on 6 November, and the conclusions were alarming. The Ministry of Munitions procured a large percentage of its guns, shells, metals explosives and machine tools from the United States; The Army Department considered that there was no substitute for American supplies of oils and petroleum, nor for that of preserved meat; The Board of trade stated that for cotton, for foodstuffs, for military necessities and for raw materials for industry, the United States was "an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply"; the Board of Agriculture emphasise the dependence of Britain on the United States for grains; and finally the Treasury stated baldly 'Of the £5,000,000 which the Treasury have to find daily for the prosecution of the war, about £2,000,000 has to be found in North America', and added that there was no prospect of any diminution without a radical change in the policies of the Allied War Departments. The Treasury expressed, in its conclusion, the only action possible for the government; 'The policy of this country toward the USA should be so directed as to not only avoid any form of reprisal or irritation, but also to conciliate and to please' "

Were all these departments misinforming their government?


In addition, switching to alternative sources would in most cases have necessitated far longer voyages. Frex, South America is twice as far away as the US, so only half as many voyages could be made in any given time. The effect would be the same as if half the ships had been sunk - a vastly bigger difference than the U-boats could ever have made, and more than offsetting any difference made by no USW. India and Australia are of course even further away, so the problem there would be even greater.


Apologies to all those of you who've read this or similar message(s) before. Search for "Burk" with my name as author, and you'll see that I've had to put this up several times.

Getting 40% of its finances are a long way from being 100% dependent on imports like it was claimed earlier, even if we take these numbers at face value it still means that without any US loans and aid the Entente heavily outspends the Centralpowers. I am still not convinced that the army that at peak of its power failed to take Paris is with its homefront crumbling, its equipment largely worn out suddenly will be be able to march to victory.
 
Getting 40% of its finances are a long way from being 100% dependent on imports like it was claimed earlier, even if we take these numbers at face value it still means that without any US loans and aid the Entente heavily outspends the Centralpowers. I am still not convinced that the army that at peak of its power failed to take Paris is with its homefront crumbling, its equipment largely worn out suddenly will be be able to march to victory.

Funny. The reports I quote state the US was "irreplaceable" as a source of supply for all sorts of things. I assume the authors knew what they were talking about.

Also, no US intervention means Britain doesn't have the help of US oil tankers (about a million deadweight tons) at a time when the RN was facing a fuel crisis. A six-month reserve in Jan 1917 was down to less than three months at the end of May, and the Grand Fleet was having to cruise at three-fifths normal speed in order to conserve fuel. When America entered the war, we had to ask the USN to send only their old coal burning battleships as we had no fuel to spare for the modern ones. According to Fayle [1], at current rates of consumption (which there was little hope of reducing) the reseserves were likely to run out by the end of the year.

On top of that we didn't only have our own war effort to support. We were also financing our Continental allies, and by the end of 1916 were having to turn down French requests for further loans because money was getting tight.

In short, no US intervention means really big trouble.


[1] Fayle, Seaborne Trade, Vol 3.
 
A bit too simplistic.
The USA made got everything worthwile in the Americas which belonged to the UK and France while making them subsidise US industry.
Japan got some of the best West-Pacific real eastate at no cost.
Italy got the lands at the Adria they desired, their discontent afterwords stems from simple greed.
And Germany turned the Russian steamroller into a bunch of mini states at high cost.

Well, Italy discontent stems more for one factor, one that will greatly affect Germany even if she win aka all the endevour has not be worthy; the italian goverment try to get more and more because he needed to justify the enourmous cost of the war to his citizens.
Anything short of a quick victory will go on the road of the 'mutilated victory' as not even B-L will be considered enough to compensate the nation, add that more time pass more will be demanded at the negotiation table but less will be obtained (or at least not all they want) as the British cannot be forced to give up anything and the colonial empire will not be returned (unless other concession as given).
 
Funny. The reports I quote state the US was "irreplaceable" as a source of supply for all sorts of things. I assume the authors knew what they were talking about.

Also, no US intervention means Britain doesn't have the help of US oil tankers (about a million deadweight tons) at a time when the RN was facing a fuel crisis. A six-month reserve in Jan 1917 was down to less than three months at the end of May, and the Grand Fleet was having to cruise at three-fifths normal speed in order to conserve fuel. When America entered the war, we had to ask the USN to send only their old coal burning battleships as we had no fuel to spare for the modern ones. According to Fayle [1], at current rates of consumption (which there was little hope of reducing) the reseserves were likely to run out by the end of the year.

On top of that we didn't only have our own war effort to support. We were also financing our Continental allies, and by the end of 1916 were having to turn down French requests for further loans because money was getting tight.

In short, no US intervention means really big trouble.


[1] Fayle, Seaborne Trade, Vol 3.

So why didnt Germany win in 1914 or 15 then? The US contibition was minimal and apparently the Entente was unable to wage war without it? Why was the AEF largely equipped with French/British Artillery/Tanks/Aircraft when the US was the irreplacable source?

While agree that lack of US resources will bring problems to the Entenate I doubt it would make the implode in the spectacular fashion you and wiking claim.
I also notice that you both refuse to adress how the Central powers that were crumbling in 1917 even after the surrender of Russia suddenly are going to ride to victory while largely being unable to feed its own population
 
"Winning" isnt saying much, they were on the winning side but didnt get what they desired, Italy got screwed by perfidious Albion promising the same pieces of land to multiple parties to get them into the war and Japan was relegated back to "noble savage" diplomatic status.


More to the point, Japan didn't share the European experience of WW1. It did hardly any fighting, and once it had mopped up the German colonies in the Far East, it didn't do much beyond sending some warships to the Mediterranean to help against the U-boats. The real horrors of the war passed it by.

Italy is a better model, but it's worth noting that for all Mussolini's bombast he was generally careful to pick soft targets like Abyssinia and Albania for his aggressions. Even his entry into WW2 was intended to be the same, as France was already collapsing and he assumed the Britain would soon have to make peace. He did not realise that he was joining a World War, and most likely wouldn't have done it had he known. But for that miscalculation he would probably have died of old age like Franco.

After the experience of WW1, few people anywhere really wanted a second round. And the Kaiser, who had vivid memories of how the High command had marginalised him, leaving him to saw wood while they made all the decisions, would have as much reason as any for wishing to avoid a repetition.
 

Perkeo

Banned
A good and yet oft-neglected point. The country that invented Fascism and the country that pulled all the stops in terms of war crimes were both on the winning side of WW1. That didn't seem to make much of a difference as far as their thirst for aggressive expansion went. Further, Imperial Japan's institutions were largely modeled after Wilhelmine Germany's, so how the former turned out in OTL provides a plausible template as to what the latter might become in the event of a CP victory.

Only if you ignore everything that happened in Germany itself the decades before WWI. Yes Germany was only half-democratic, but certainly better than Russia. And the transformation into a two party system between political catholicism and social democracy was already unstoppable.

WW1 was a Pyrrhic victory for all concerned. Nobody got out of it what they wanted, and I don't think that a victorious Germany would either.

A bit too simplistic.
The USA made got everything worthwile in the Americas which belonged to the UK and France while making them subsidise US industry.
Japan got some of the best West-Pacific real eastate at no cost.
Italy got the lands at the Adria they desired, their discontent afterwords stems from simple greed.
And Germany turned the Russian steamroller into a bunch of mini states at high cost.

Had Germany not started WWII, a lot of historians would argue that she wasn't really defeated at all:

Germany went through really tough depressions, so did the victors. The most important war goal, the destruction of the Franco-Russian alliance, was actually accomplished. Of the territories Germany lost, all were either not German or regained before 1939, Danzig being the only exception - and even that might well have been accomplished if Germany doesn't invade Czecoslovakia and is willing to give up Gdynia for good.

France got A-L but failed to regain dominance over western Europe.

Britain kept the Germans out of the Channel but didn't prevent Germany becoming more dominant economically and even able to once again build a submarine fleet that can hit them where it hurts.
 
Last edited:
Had Germany not started WWII, a lot of historians would argue that she wasn't really defeated at all:

Germany went through really tough depressions, so did the victors. The most important war goal, the destruction of the Franco-Russian alliance, was actually accomplished. Of the territories Germany lost, all were either not German or regained before 1939, Danzig being the only exception - and even that might well have been accomplished if Germany doesn't invade Czecoslovakia and is willing to give up Gdynia for good.

Germany didn't regain Alsace-Lorraine or a ton of territory in Eastern Poland before 1939, and missed out on a lot of economic growth. You handwave this by saying those weren't "real" German territories, but that seems a bit weak no?
 
So why didnt Germany win in 1914 or 15 then? The US contibition was minimal and apparently the Entente was unable to wage war without it?

Because situations change, and sources of money and materials can dry out. What is true in 1914. is not necessarily true in 1917. and vice versa.

Why was the AEF largely equipped with French/British Artillery/Tanks/Aircraft when the US was the irreplacable source?

Because Artillery/Tanks/Aircraft are a finished product, while the USA was the irreplaceable source for the materials with which these things were built.

I`ll repeat the important part in case you missed it in Mikestone`s post.

The Board of trade stated that for cotton, for foodstuffs, for military necessities and for raw materials for industry, the United States was "an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply"

Note that it does not say "tanks, artillery and planes". The factories that constructed these were in France and the UK, but if they are not fed with US-provided materials, they don`t churn out these weapons.

While agree that lack of US resources will bring problems to the Entenate I doubt it would make the implode in the spectacular fashion you and wiking claim.

Would you be willing to acknowledge that the Entente can lose the war without US resources?

Even assuming wiking`s predictions wouldn`t come about and the Entente fights on into 1918., you have to take into consideration this part;

Of the £5,000,000 which the Treasury have to find daily for the prosecution of the war, about £2,000,000 has to be found in North America', and added that there was no prospect of any diminution without a radical change in the policies of the Allied War Departments

So even without taking into consideration the lack of materials provided by the US and focusing solely on the money, what exactly do the Entente Powers cut to make due?

Less shells? Less bullets? Less rifles? Less machine guns? Less artillery pieces? Less tanks? Less planes? All of the above?

Now consider the effect of the British and French armies having substantially less firepower than OTL while the Germans stay essentially unchanged. In that situation, I would say that the Spring Offensive-equivalent turning into a reversed Hundred Days is not beyond the realm of possibility.
 
Last edited:
While agree that lack of US resources will bring problems to the Entenate I doubt it would make the implode in the spectacular fashion you and wiking claim.

What does "implode" mean?

Given how close-run the battles of March-Apr 1918 were, the lack of imports from the US could well be enough to reverse them - or to lead the Entente to seek peace before things come to that.

I also notice that you both refuse to adress how the Central powers that were crumbling in 1917 even after the surrender of Russia suddenly are going to ride to victory while largely being unable to feed its own population

They were not "crumbling in 1917". Rations were poor, and they were worried that if 1917was similar to 1916 1916 they could well lose the war. Yet in fact the war was little more than halfway through. They were still a long way from crumbling.
 
To answer both posts without qouting yes the Centralpowers were crumbling that is the reason for the Hindenburg line and the Hindenburg program, the Centralpower transportation system was in such poor shape that they couldnt utilise the rawmaterials gained by forcing the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest on its eastern opponents. The constant changes in the direction of the Michael offensive was because the failure to make a significant breakthrough (lets not forget the many tales of what a blow to morale the capture of entamte supplies had on the German army when they realized that the Entante werent starving and on their last legs as propaganda would have it).

What could be cut to finance the continued war? Less materials to Italy for one stopping the largely pointless offensives in the alps for one, creating a proper defensive line of their own rather than continuing what had become easily predictable attacks, bringing in more colonial troops to release manpower for agriculture and industry.
Invite greater Japanese participation in Europe that was rejected for various reasons in our timmeline and finally with having the war cost 3 million rather than 5 a day the Entante is still outspending the Centralpowers.
 
Less materials to Italy for one stopping the largely pointless offensives in the alps for one,

So Italy drops out of the war? Good, as with Russia and Serbia gone, Austria-Hungary now has no active frontlines, and Germany doesn`t have to re-inforce Austria-Hungary anywhere.

creating a proper defensive line of their own rather than continuing what had become easily predictable attacks

So basically surrendering the occupied areas of France and Belgium to Germany and giving up all hope of re-taking them back? I`m sure the French will love that.

bringing in more colonial troops to release manpower for agriculture and industry. Invite greater Japanese participation in Europe that was rejected for various reasons in our timmeline

And arm them with what weapons? You seem to be ignoring the inconvenient little factoid that Entente firepower would suffer more than anything else without US loans and materials. They simply wouldn`t be able to keep their armies as well supplied and equipped in this TL.

finally with having the war cost 3 million rather than 5 a day the Entante is still outspending the Centralpowers.

Except they aren`t anymore. Going by the numbers, if we take out the USA (never comes in), Russia (drops out of the war), and cut the spending of the rest by 40%, the Central Powers and the Entente are actually pretty equal. Taking out Italy, which is the result of your strategy, actually puts the Entente below Central Powers spending.
 
Last edited:
The UK & France alone roughly outspent the Centralpowers by 2:1 which you should know making an economic argument.
Ausro-Hungary and Bulgaria grows super powers without the US? Must be since A-H is able to force Italy out of the war if there isnt a Italian offensive every mont the same obviously is true for Bulgaria as they according to you are going to throw the Entente into the sea on the Balkan front.

How is establishing a proper defensive line and planning better offensives giving up?

And I will leave you with a final thought on this matter, having seen the tender care given to Belgium and Serbia at the hands of the Centralpowers and the generous peace agreements the Centralpowers gave Russia and Romania what makes you think that UK and france would sign a peace treaty when they know what to expect?
 
The UK & France alone roughly outspent the Centralpowers by 2:1 which you should know making an economic argument.

Really? What are your numbers? Great Britain spent the equivalent of 35,334,012,000 dollars during the war while France spent 24,265,583,000 dollars. Combined, this comes out to less than the Central Powers total of 60,643,160,000 dollars. 2:1 is what you get by adding the entirety of the Allies (yes, this includes the generous contribution of the USA).

Ausro-Hungary and Bulgaria grows super powers without the US? Must be since A-H is able to force Italy out of the war if there isnt a Italian offensive every mont

You have seen what Caporetto did to Italy, right? And you`re proposing cutting all support to Italy. So yes, without Entente support, Italy folds because Austria-Hungary did have German help in this sector.

the same obviously is true for Bulgaria as they according to you are going to throw the Entente into the sea on the Balkan front.

I`m assuming the Entente go by your strategy of cutting loose dead-end fronts to concentrate on the Western front, so obviously Salonika would be given up as well.

How is establishing a proper defensive line and planning better offensives giving up?

Because Germany is the one occupying French territory, not vice versa. It is France that needs to liberate its territory, and the UK that needs to liberate "poor little Belgium". If they go on the strategic defensive, without the promise of American involvement and with Russia gone, they are basically admitting that they can`t dislodge the Germans.

And really, "planning better offensives"? The OTL late-war ones worked so well at least partially because the Entente had total dominance in materiel and firepower. And you expect them to do the same with less of everything? And people say that the Germans are the ones who handwaved materiel problems away...

And I will leave you with a final thought on this matter, having seen the tender care given to Belgium and Serbia at the hands of the Centralpowers and the generous peace agreements the Centralpowers gave Russia and Romania what makes you think that UK and france would sign a peace treaty when they know what to expect?

The difference being is that the French and British can expect better outcomes if they negotiate from a position of relative strength rather than total defeat like Romania, Serbia, Belgium and Russia did. The reality of the situation is that the Entente don`t have infinite resources to pursue the war forever until they reach final victory, regardless of your wishes.

But I`m really starting to think that none of this matters to you, given that you`d so easily dismissed the statements of British ministries at the time, and that all you really care about is "Germany must not win under any circumstances".
 
Last edited:
How is a miltary defeat before the all conquering German supermen a position of strength?

As for numbers i must admit that i missremembered it was the entente minus the US that was 2:1 not France and the UK alone

As for dimissing facts I am not claiming that something could be done with an worn out army that they failed to do at the peak of power
 
Top