How much stronger and better off would Germany be right now had it won World War I?

CaliGuy

Banned
Let's say that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson cuts off U.S. loans to the Entente in 1917 and Germany doesn't resume USW that year--thus allowing Germany to win WWI by default once the Entente begins experiencing severe financial problems and is no longer able to fully fund their war effort.

How much stronger and better off would Germany be right now in this TL? Specifically, I am thinking in terms of its economy, total population, et cetera.

Any thoughts on this?
 
100 years is a long time, its hard to know exactly what Germany would be in those circumstances: would it join to Austria and even include access to the Adriatic.

I think that its safe to say that Germany would be at least as big as its maximu1914 boundaries, possibly bigger and if joined to Austria then TTL Austria would be considerably bigger than its current boundaries and include the likes of South Tyrol and other major German population areas. I could easily see a population of over 100 million and superpower levels of world GDP share.
 
Personally I think the massive difference in German culture and identity this would cause is actually more interesting, than how powerful they would be.
 
So Germany wins WWI and makes itself stronger by say 1939 than in OTL. Then what? There was going to be a WWII eventually, because the peace that the CP would have offered would be no better than Versailles.

So depending on who takes part in the WWII*, and ultimately the outcome of it, will determine how Germany is in 1950,which will influence where it is in 2017.

- BNC
 
So Germany wins WWI and makes itself stronger by say 1939 than in OTL. Then what? There was going to be a WWII eventually, because the peace that the CP would have offered would be no better than Versailles.

So depending on who takes part in the WWII*, and ultimately the outcome of it, will determine how Germany is in 1950,which will influence where it is in 2017.

- BNC
The Treaties the Germans imposed on Europe were and would be much harsher than Versailles. To the point that nobody could threaten Germany.
 
So Germany wins WWI and makes itself stronger by say 1939 than in OTL. Then what? There was going to be a WWII eventually, because the peace that the CP would have offered would be no better than Versailles.

So depending on who takes part in the WWII*, and ultimately the outcome of it, will determine how Germany is in 1950,which will influence where it is in 2017.

- BNC

I'm expecting WWI to end with B-L in the East, and massive losses for France in the west. Britain will have lost significant amounts of power, and will have a stronger anti-war crowd. Same goes for the USA. France will likely be rendered impotent. Italy will, naturally, be pissed. A-H might collapse regardless of German efforts, and Turkey will be busy holding their nation (and likely conducting genocide/coverups).

I'm willing to bet that WWII is the result of an USSR invasion of Eastern Ukraine, possibly working with Italy. France would be useless, although they might join in later. I suspect that in time, they would have been defeated, both due to the fact that the Kaiserreich would be less stupid, and that their enemies are weaker.

Overall, I'd say that Germany would be far more prosperous.
 
Would the USSR really be dumb enough to start away against Germany, all of its Eastern and Central European satellites, and the remnants of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire? I can't see any advantage they would have.
 
So Germany wins WWI and makes itself stronger by say 1939 than in OTL. Then what? There was to be a WWII eventually, because the peace that the CP would have offered would be no better than Versailles.

Versailles didn't fail because it was a bad treaty (any treaty coming out of the WW1 mess was certain to be bad) but because the victors were to weary and divided to enforce it. If the Germans were willing to make the effort needed to enforce their peace, they could most likely have done so.
 
The Treaties the Germans imposed on Europe were and would be much harsher than Versailles. To the point that nobody could threaten Germany.

That could work only against France (in addition to Brest-Litovsk). If they were too tough on Britain, Britain would just keep fighting (Germany can't cross the Channel without a major naval victory), until the blockade wrecks the Kaiser's economy. Ukraine wasn't enough to fix that problem, and was basically in civil war anyway.

Regardless, Germany's economy will crash at some point not long after WWI finishes (anywhere from 1918-25), because of the loaning system that was used to finance the war. That will weaken Germany's power to enforce a treaty, and I think there is a good chance that Russia could get Ukraine back (though not Poland/Baltics).

Would the USSR really be dumb enough to start away against Germany, all of its Eastern and Central European satellites, and the remnants of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire? I can't see any advantage they would have.
Depends who is leading it. If Stalin thinks he has half a chance of winning, he'll go all in (Finland anyone?). Lenin probably even more so. Can't say for the other leading Bolsheviks, but there were probably some who wouldn't fight.

Also, for both the Ottomans and AHE, either they stay together (German intervention before the economy falls) or they break apart and everyone in them is fighting each other, rendering each little country too weak to do much. At least compared to the USSR.

Versailles didn't fail because it was a bad treaty (any treaty coming out of the WW1 mess was certain to be bad) but because the victors were to weary and divided to enforce it. If the Germans were willing to make the effort needed to enforce their peace, they could most likely have done so.
Germany was weary of war as well, and France in particular would be absolutely livid about losing another war to Germany. The harsher the conditions, the worst this gets. Also remember that Ludendorff thought that Brest-Litovsk was creating unnecessary obstacles for his 1918 attack (having to leave a million garrison troops in the east).

So either the treaty is kinder to everyone but France, or it falls apart. I can't see Germany maintaining itself in a position of power through such a crisis if the UK, France, Italy and some of the AHE's breakaways (Serbia!) decide to oppose it.

- BNC
 
France isn't Germany, France in 1918 have lost two wars against Germany, an entire generation of young men, their industry lies in ruins (the one not annexed by Germany), most of their colonial empire will be lost, they're deeply in debt not only to Germany but also USA and they have half the population of Germany. No France will not make ready to a new war, they're not just tired of war, they have been shown that they can't win over Germany.

France can't play the same role as Germany did after WWI, because France wasn't Germany, Germany was too big to keep down, France aren't. France will likely focus on rebuilding and integrate Algeria into the French state. Fundamental France will look inward.

Russia on the other hand, I think Putin's Russia would pretty much be the model for their foreign policy, it would be oppoturnistic focusing on Russia regaining control over its traditional sphere of influence/territory. But at the same time Russia are in a much weaker position to challenge Germany. I think the Russian focus will be toward Russify Central Asia and throwing the Japanese out of Northern China and for Russia to gain control over Manchuria and Inner Mongolia.
 
So Germany wins WWI and makes itself stronger by say 1939 than in OTL. Then what? There was going to be a WWII eventually, because the peace that the CP would have offered would be no better than Versailles.
The Treaties the Germans imposed on Europe were and would be much harsher than Versailles. To the point that nobody could threaten Germany.

This is incorrect.

While the Treaty of B-L was harsh it was loosened 6 months later and the terms of the financial agreement made 27 August 1918 imposed a payments schedule that was quite favourable to Russia. In contrast the allies imposed far, far harsher financial terms on Germany at Versailles and then tightened them further as time went on. Comparing the two treaties the Germans were much smarter than the Allies.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
This is incorrect.

While the Treaty of B-L was harsh it was loosened 6 months later and the terms of the financial agreement made 27 August 1918 imposed a payments schedule that was quite favourable to Russia. In contrast the allies imposed far, far harsher financial terms on Germany at Versailles and then tightened them further as time went on. Comparing the two treaties the Germans were much smarter than the Allies.
Versailles was tightened over time?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
France isn't Germany, France in 1918 have lost two wars against Germany, an entire generation of young men, their industry lies in ruins (the one not annexed by Germany), most of their colonial empire will be lost, they're deeply in debt not only to Germany but also USA and they have half the population of Germany. No France will not make ready to a new war, they're not just tired of war, they have been shown that they can't win over Germany.

France can't play the same role as Germany did after WWI, because France wasn't Germany, Germany was too big to keep down, France aren't. France will likely focus on rebuilding and integrate Algeria into the French state. Fundamental France will look inward.

Completely agreed with all of this; of course, integrating millions of Arabs into the French state isn't something that will be easy. Thus, could we eventually see France engage in large-scale deportations and whatnot in Algeria--possibly after France itself becomes a right-wing dictatorship--in this TL?

Russia on the other hand, I think Putin's Russia would pretty much be the model for their foreign policy, it would be oppoturnistic focusing on Russia regaining control over its traditional sphere of influence/territory. But at the same time Russia are in a much weaker position to challenge Germany.

Yeah, unless Russia establishes a strong alliance with Britain and the U.S., I just don't see them having what it takes to challenge Germany--especially if Germany succeeds in permanently keeping Ukraine detached from Russia.

I think the Russian focus will be toward Russify Central Asia and throwing the Japanese out of Northern China and for Russia to gain control over Manchuria and Inner Mongolia.

Agreed.

Also, though, I wonder if Germany will try pitting Russia against the British in Central Asia in this TL; after all, Russo-British tensions in Central Asia mean that Russia and Britain can't jointly conspire against Germany!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Versailles didn't fail because it was a bad treaty (any treaty coming out of the WW1 mess was certain to be bad) but because the victors were to weary and divided to enforce it. If the Germans were willing to make the effort needed to enforce their peace, they could most likely have done so.
Agreed; indeed, the flaw with the post-WWI peace settlement is that it wasn't enforced--not that it was too harsh!
 
France isn't Germany, France in 1918 have lost two wars against Germany, an entire generation of young men, their industry lies in ruins (the one not annexed by Germany), most of their colonial empire will be lost, they're deeply in debt not only to Germany but also USA and they have half the population of Germany. No France will not make ready to a new war, they're not just tired of war, they have been shown that they can't win over Germany.

France can't play the same role as Germany did after WWI, because France wasn't Germany, Germany was too big to keep down, France aren't. France will likely focus on rebuilding and integrate Algeria into the French state. Fundamental France will look inward.

How can Germany realistically take apart the French colonial empire? In terms of territory in the west, Germany will probably get Luxembourg, the rest of Lorraine and the Belgian Congo, plus its African colonies returned. Germany in 1918 was staggered just as much as France was, so they know they can't pull a land grab, or France (+ UK) will just refuse terms and keep fighting until the blockade and the disaster in the Ukraine (remember, something like a civil war was happening) force Germany to lose the war from internal strife.

Also, I agree that France alone is in no position to fight all of Germany and whatever allies it still has. However France teamed up with countries that are also angry about the peace (Russia!) could probably still handle them if they spend the time after 1918 building themselves back up. It might take a while, but I think it is still quite feasible.

Russia on the other hand, I think Putin's Russia would pretty much be the model for their foreign policy, it would be oppoturnistic focusing on Russia regaining control over its traditional sphere of influence/territory. But at the same time Russia are in a much weaker position to challenge Germany. I think the Russian focus will be toward Russify Central Asia and throwing the Japanese out of Northern China and for Russia to gain control over Manchuria and Inner Mongolia.

Opportunism: ok, that gives them the Ukraine in the early '20s, the Kaukasus republics not long after, Manchuria when China and Japan are squabbling. This seems to put Russia in a great place to fight Germany again by 1940 or something. Combined with Stalin-style industrialisation, and Germany is probably going to lose most of its gains from 1918.

- BNC
 
What of Sino-German relations? OTL, they were going decently well enough before WWII broke out, and even then it was under Japanese pressure that the advisors were withdrawn and whatnot. Besides, China looked favourably upon the Kaiserreich, due to the fact that post-WWI, it had no more territorial ambitions in China. OTL, they were even willing to sell Qingdao before war broke out, and Japan took it.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
What of Sino-German relations? OTL, they were going decently well enough before WWII broke out, and even then it was under Japanese pressure that the advisors were withdrawn and whatnot. Besides, China looked favourably upon the Kaiserreich, due to the fact that post-WWI, it had no more territorial ambitions in China. OTL, they were even willing to sell Qingdao before war broke out, and Japan took it.
Relations between China and Germany after the end of WWI in this TL would probably be very good; indeed, in addition to what you wrote here, both Germany and China would also have hostile relations with Russia--something that might very well further push them closer to each other.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I'm expecting WWI to end with B-L in the East, and massive losses for France in the west. Britain will have lost significant amounts of power, and will have a stronger anti-war crowd. Same goes for the USA. France will likely be rendered impotent. Italy will, naturally, be pissed. A-H might collapse regardless of German efforts, and Turkey will be busy holding their nation (and likely conducting genocide/coverups).

I'm willing to bet that WWII is the result of an USSR invasion of Eastern Ukraine, possibly working with Italy. France would be useless, although they might join in later. I suspect that in time, they would have been defeated, both due to the fact that the Kaiserreich would be less stupid, and that their enemies are weaker.

Overall, I'd say that Germany would be far more prosperous.
Two things:

1. Wouldn't Germany overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia shortly after it wins WWI?

2. I agree that Russia would want to reacquire Ukraine; however, it will probably be unlikely to use force to do this unless either Germany itself is disintegrating/imploding or it (Russia) has strong allies to help it out.
 
1. Wouldn't Germany overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia shortly after it wins WWI?

It would want to, but as I have stated earlier, its economy wasn't going to hold up for long enough and powerfully enough that Germany could realistically throw them out, absent the death of most leading Bolsheviks. Plus, the Whites were too disorganised to really win the RCW anyway.

2. I agree that Russia would want to reacquire Ukraine; however, it will probably be unlikely to use force to do this unless either Germany itself is disintegrating/imploding or it (Russia) has strong allies to help it out.

It would do this when Germany's economy does crash, which would be sometime 1918-25. Plus, a substantial part of Ukraine supported the Bolsheviks anyway.

- BNC
 
Two things:

1. Wouldn't Germany overthrow the Bolsheviks in Russia shortly after it wins WWI?

2. I agree that Russia would want to reacquire Ukraine; however, it will probably be unlikely to use force to do this unless either Germany itself is disintegrating/imploding or it (Russia) has strong allies to help it out.
After Germany wins WWI, they're going to be knackered. They'll need to rebuild their nation and prop up their puppets. No time for adventuring in Russia.

As for reacquiring Ukraine via force, see OTL.
 
Top