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
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

The French army was at the peak of its power in 1914, the British in 1915, and the major offensives they launched then couldn't win the war. Seems like that's exactly what you're claiming.
 
How is a miltary defeat before the all conquering German supermen a position of strength?

Well for starters if the Entente powers start negotiations at any time when the lines are static without the Germans achieving a breakthrough, then they still have armies in the field and, well, they haven`t been conquered obviously, so their defeat won`t be total. But if Paris falls then your question " what makes you think that UK and france would sign a peace treaty when they know what to expect?" pointless since the Germans have defeated the French and they have no choice in the matter.

But considering you used "all conquering German supermen" in your question here, you`re not really interested in the answer and you just wanted to be flippant.

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

2:1 is only reached with the USA`s participation.

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

Except that`s exactly what you are claiming when you say that ITTL an Entente force in 1917.-1918. which would be far less supplied, equipped and trapped in a considerably less favorable strategic position to OTL could accomplish the exact same successes that the OTL armies did.

And hey, I`m not the one who casually dismissed the claims made by the people who were actually in charge of running the British war effort at the time. I mean, what do those idiots know about the British situation in WWI, right? :rolleyes:
 
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,

How does that help?

If Italy stays on the defensive, that just releases Austro-Hungarian troops to tither

a) Reinforce the Germans on the Western Front, or
b) Take over more of the Russian Front, thus releasing German troops for the West.

This doesn't reduce the cost of the war, just transfers it - robbing Pierre to pay Paolo or vice versa.

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.

Where does the shipping come from?

Keep in mind that without US imports the Entente is already having big problems with shipping. Frex, if it has to import food from South America instead, that roughly doubles the journey time, so they either make do with only half the food in any given month, or else have to somehow double the number of ships. This will be hard enough without having to tie up even more shipping to transport Japanese or Indian troops halfway round the world.

There's also the language problem. How many officers does France have who can speak Arabic (or Senegalese or whatever)? How many has Britain who can speak Indian or African languages? And they'd have to be continually replaced due to the huge death toll of junior officers on the Western Front.

Seems to me that the only readily accessible source of "colonial" manpower would be Ireland. And had conscription been extended thither, the resulting fireworks hardly bear contemplating. Iirc [1] Britain did pass a law to this effect, but never dared bring it into operation.

[1] Field Marshall Haig was very keen on this idea, not just for the manpower but "for the good of Ireland". Please, please don't ask me to fathom what he meant by that.
 
My bad then Germany can not be defeated unless the US comes to rescue the Entante

Well, at any rate that has to be the way to bet.

An Entente win without the US might be theoretically possible if absolutely everything else went right for them - just as, conversely, it might still be possible for Germany to win even after US intervention if everything went right for them in March-April 1918. However, in both cases the proviso is all-important. Either scenario depends on everything going dead right for the party concerned - a condition seldom fulfilled in real life.
 
Well, at any rate that has to be the way to bet.

An Entente win without the US might be theoretically possible if absolutely everything else went right for them - just as, conversely, it might still be possible for Germany to win even after US intervention if everything went right for them in March-April 1918. However, in both cases the proviso is all-important. Either scenario depends on everything going dead right for the party concerned - a condition seldom fulfilled in real life.


Nonsense Germany knew they were losing by 1917 which is why they went to unlimited submarine warfare in a desperate bid to beat the British before the blockade beat them. Even had they waited to see if Russia fell thanks to a more effective crystal ball then Germany would still have been in trouble.

The Entente spent a lot more blood and treasure in World War 1 because it was assaulting a besieged position, Germany simply lacked the wherewithal to bring the western Entente allies (Belgium, Britain, France) down by offensive, the best it could hope for was to force the Entente on the defensive but since that was no solution to the blockade problem that is no solution.

Germany might have wangled a white peace by diplomacy if it found the right psychological juncture and it is just, just barely, conceivable that it might have negotiated terms that could be played up as a win but no the Kaiserreich was unlikely in the extreme to be able to force the kind of peace that the Entente forced upon them.

Germany simply lacked the physical means of keeping armies supplied at the front of an offensive with the resources they needed, they were woefully short of trucks and those trucks they did have often ran on wooden wheels which shortened their service lives. The Entente on the other hand had time on their side. Even without offensives against Germany they were still wearing Germany down and Germany was heavily reliant on food from Austria-Hungary so once the Duel Monarchy sued for peace, which is would have to at some point Germany's situation becomes even more precarious.

It could have been a much longer war but by 1917 it is hard to see where German victory comes from, let alone that German victory was inevitable.
 
Last edited:
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.

Would you be willing to acknowledge that the Entente can lose the war without US resources?
The scale of British imports (and exports) are important. The latter is interesting as, even before US entry, Britain was a major supplier of completed munitions and components to France and especially Russia.

It took time for UK munitions production to ramp up, under-capacity led to the "Shell Scandal” of 1915; pre-war the UK was heavily dependent on imports, often from Germany.

Food imports are another important area; before WW1 (in the period 1910-13) the UK imported about 80% of it's wheat, more than 55% of grains and pulses, 35% of meat, 44% of butter, and about 75% of cheese. It wasn't until late 1916 that UK agricultural policy changed, under the twin pressures of lack of shipping capacity and the poor US harvest, to bring more land under cultivation for potatoes and grain and reduce meat production with measure like the Corn Production Act of 1917. This was one of a number of measures that brought a host of industries, from coal to ship-building, under state control. This also included granting (in January 1917) the Treasury power to confiscate and sell, for the war effort, dollar securities in private hands to offset the enormous surge in US imports
 
Nonsense Germany knew they were losing by 1917 which is why they went to unlimited submarine warfare in a desperate bid to beat the British before the blockade beat them. Even had they waited to see if Russia fell thanks to a more effective crystal ball then Germany would still have been in trouble.

Not enough trouble to stop them waging war for a further two years.

They certainly "knew" they were losing in Jan 1917. On the available evidence they were Not only was the Russian Revolution still in the future, but they also didn't know how badly France had been hurt in 1916 (both sides could feel their own wounds but not the enemy's) nor that the RN was consuming fuel oil faster than Britain could replenish it. Their prospects were in fact much better than they appeared.

The Entente spent a lot more blood and treasure in World War 1 because it was assaulting a besieged position, Germany simply lacked the wherewithal to bring the western Entente allies (Belgium, Britain, France) down by offensive, the best it could hope for was to force the Entente on the defensive but since that was no solution to the blockade problem that is no solution.

They did not need to bring down the Entente by an offensive. It was US intervention that created this need by putting Germany into a "race against time" to win before Americans arrived in large numbers.

As for the blockade, it certainly made life miserable for a lot of German civilians, but it too didn't get really watertight until the US came in. Since the Northern Neutrals who were the main leak in it got their imports principally from the US, American belligerency allowed these to be controlled at source without the need for a physical blockade. This resulted in German imports in 1917-18 being only abt 10% of what they were in 1915-16


The Entente on the other hand had time on their side.

Only after the US entered the war. Until then it was on the CPs side, since all they had to do was hold their own. Afterwards, of course, it was the Entente which had that advantage. They had only to "hang in" until American manpower did the trick

Even without offensives against Germany they were still wearing Germany down and Germany was heavily reliant on food from Austria-Hungary so once the Duel Monarchy sued for peace, which is would have to at some point Germany's situation becomes even more precarious.

Wrong way round. Austria-Hungary (and the other CPs) collapsed because Germany collapsed, not vice versa. They fell because Germany was pinned down on the Western Front and could spare no troops to bail them out.

It could have been a much longer war but by 1917 it is hard to see where German victory comes from, let alone that German victory was inevitable.

It comes from France getting steadily weaker due to the ending of British loans (which itself would come about due to the ending of US loans to Britain) and the RN's supply of fuel oil running dangerously low absent the American tanker fleet. I don't see GB plodding on regardless at the risk of the Grand Fleet's fuel supply running out.
 
the RN's supply of fuel oil running dangerously low absent the American tanker fleet. I don't see GB plodding on regardless at the risk of the Grand Fleet's fuel supply running out.

The British had other methods of managing the issue: reducing the use of oil by the Grand Fleet (only a minority of battleships were oil-fired); convoying tankers to reduce losses, building new tankers and reducing civilian use. In any case the demand reduction would extend stocks to last through mid 1918 without any increase in supply.
 
So once more
The British had other methods of managing the issue: reducing the use of oil by the Grand Fleet (only a minority of battleships were oil-fired); convoying tankers to reduce losses, building new tankers and reducing civilian use. In any case the demand reduction would extend stocks to last through mid 1918 without any increase in supply.


Actually what surprises me is that we are in fact back to the exact same magic bullet that the hopefuls for a Kaiserreich victory have been pushing unsuccessfully since before I arrived at this board which is credit in all its magic and mystery.

Oil can be managed, the same tempo of operations arguments that have been made before still apply but it once again turns out the supply of oil or more specifically US bottoms to transport the crucial difference, well that depends on the abundance of Entente credit and gold.

Now there is evidence that the Entente who actually had gold mines ought to be able to last at full rates of consumption without credit of any kind from the US (which is not a monobloc entity as I shall come to) until at well in 1919 (sticky for the Germans) and that is before having to reduce the tempo of operations (as their empires are still selling stuff the Americans want to buy).

Now once again I am sure we shall hear how Wilson tried to stifle the supply of credit...rather less mention will be made of his success because there was rather less of that. The big problem is that credit is complicated. Say for example I am working at the Remington Arms Company managing the supply of rifles to meet the British Government contract and the British tell me they cannot pay the full amount this month. Do I panic, do they panic? No I accept they will pay me in the future (this is the British Government after all, they are not going anywhere and Chamberlain and his dodge are still in the far future), now if I need cash above and beyond the amount the supplied I take my note to a bank who provide me with credit. No loan appears to go to the British Government and yet by accepting late payment Remington Arms is extending credit to HMG and indirectly it can be argued so is their bank. But should Wilson (actually his lawyers but more fun to imagine the man himself) try and argue the point in front of a jury of businessmen who all rely on such work arounds in their own lives...well you can imagine how far he would get.

In the same way British loans to the French are not directly underwritten in America. The British can allow the French to delay payment, They can cover the costs of their factories at home.

Of course the other point it why would America cut off credit? The economy of the US needs to sell and Entente are buying, if the Entente cannot buy then the US economy suffers. Further but the main beneficiaries in 1917 of the US stifling credit are the Germans who are competitors who want to lock the Americans out of as many markets as they can rather than competitors who are free traders as well and thus have markets open to American goods.

America staying out of the war is entirely imaginable and would probably have been the smart move, let the Europeans bleed. America imploding its economy to aid the Kaiserreich out of a big and deepening hole...this needs to be further explained.
 
Best scenario is the entente winning quickly, likely involving Hindenburg dieing and the Russians bungling their way into East Prussia.

Hindenburg wasn't a major factor in German success on the Eastern Front. He merely took credit for others' contributions.
 
Ehh make it Linderhoff then.

Same story with Ludendorff. Really, Max Hoffman's the guy to get rid of, but even then, the Russians were seriously overextended. Their chances of taking Berlin in 1914 were lower than those of the Germans taking Paris, and those odds were pretty bad to begin with.
 
Same story with Ludendorff. Really, Max Hoffman's the guy to get rid of, but even then, the Russians were seriously overextended. Their chances of taking Berlin in 1914 were lower than those of the Germans taking Paris, and those odds were pretty bad to begin with.
Taking Berlin is near impossible yes, but the war being fought in East Prussia would be a boon for the allies.

Or you could have A-H fold in Galacia.
 
Best scenario would be a stalemate being accepted at the end of 1914, followed by a peace conference that would be based on a general repudiation of the colonial/imperial logic and steps towards a new world model based on free trade.

Alternatively, in a not so rosy view, Wilson accomplishing the goal he is credited with in "the deluge" by Adam Tooze and moderating a nobody wins peace conference in a mutual exhaustion no soviet revolution scenario would have been better than any side winning.

WW1 was not won by democracies. It was won by colonial empires and the USA. It allowed (actually encouraged) even more aggressive colonialism and in response even crazier totalitarian resource based conceptions of mega states.

Colonialism was what was wrong with the world in 1914 and the best peace would be the one that solved it
 
My impression from reading Castles of Steel is that US entry was inevitable, because USW was inevitable because political pressure to re-implement it in 1917 had become overwhelming and the US had already been backed into a corner during the previous implementation. Is that fair?
 

Deleted member 1487

My impression from reading Castles of Steel is that US entry was inevitable, because USW was inevitable because political pressure to re-implement it in 1917 had become overwhelming and the US had already been backed into a corner during the previous implementation. Is that fair?
USW was only inevitable once H-L forced their way into power. So long as Falkenhayn survives in power USW doesn't happen, but once H-L get in they can force it through.
 
My impression from reading Castles of Steel is that US entry was inevitable, because USW was inevitable because political pressure to re-implement it in 1917 had become overwhelming and the US had already been backed into a corner during the previous implementation. Is that fair?
Before USW was implemented the US had already betted financially in an allied victory or at least a solution that allowed the allies to pay their massive debt to the US financial system. After the winter of 1916/17 the allies owed the US so much money that the central powers could not be allowed to win.
USW was a desperate measure at a time when the political situation was becoming critical in Germany (and extremely critical in AH) and was actually supported in parliament as the only way to deliver victory before the central powers resources were totally exhausted.
It was the collapse of Russia that gave the central powers hope for a last effort and ensured that the USA would actually have to fight. As opposed to just entering the war with limited forces and almost unlimited funds.
 
USW was only inevitable once H-L forced their way into power. So long as Falkenhayn survives in power USW doesn't happen, but once H-L get in they can force it through.

Well yes. But the two appear to be so linked as to almost be the same - it seems to me that Falkenhayn was forced out because he wouldn't accede to USW and it's not clear how he could have survived much longer.

AdA said:
Before USW was implemented the US had already betted financially in an allied victory or at least a solution that allowed the allies to pay their massive debt to the US financial system. After the winter of 1916/17 the allies owed the US so much money that the central powers could not be allowed to win.

True, but going to war is a political decision that needs political assent. And if the political will is absent then dithering and indecision in the US might have been able to draw things out long enough for the CP to benefit.
 
Top