Hypothetical: Germany wins WWI in the period after US entry and arrival of American troops in Europe

A significant question though is what would post-war Germany look like? Would they have a military dictatorship with the Kaiser as figurehead?

I've read that the H & L 'dictatorship' had its legal basis on the 1851 Prussian Law of Siege which arose from the 1848 revolutions, which gave commanders of Corps areas a lot of scope for control, H & L simply took this to its logical conclusion by coordinating it. Without the war this legal basis wouldn't exist and given that H & L only pushed the Kaiser and civilian politicians aside rather than eliminating them I doubt they'd be able to form a lasting dictatorship, assuming they wanted to that is.

This is only a vibe though, I'm happy for an expert to blow this away.
 

Deleted member 1487

I've read that the H & L 'dictatorship' had its legal basis on the 1851 Prussian Law of Siege which arose from the 1848 revolutions, which gave commanders of Corps areas a lot of scope for control, H & L simply took this to its logical conclusion by coordinating it. Without the war this legal basis wouldn't exist and given that H & L only pushed the Kaiser and civilian politicians aside rather than eliminating them I doubt they'd be able to form a lasting dictatorship, assuming they wanted to that is.

This is only a vibe though, I'm happy for an expert to blow this away.
Be that as it may...would the military really be willing to relinquish that authority once the war was over?
 
I've read that the H & L 'dictatorship' had its legal basis on the 1851 Prussian Law of Siege which arose from the 1848 revolutions, which gave commanders of Corps areas a lot of scope for control, H & L simply took this to its logical conclusion by coordinating it. Without the war this legal basis wouldn't exist and given that H & L only pushed the Kaiser and civilian politicians aside rather than eliminating them I doubt they'd be able to form a lasting dictatorship, assuming they wanted to that is.

This is only a vibe though, I'm happy for an expert to blow this away.


I should think Hindenburg could be a dictator (or close to it) if he wanted to be. What happens to Ludendorff is less certain. It was Hindenburg who had the mass appeal, and if he decides that he no longer needs Ludendorff, then Ludendorff is probably finished, esp as istr that the Kaiser didn't like him either.
 
I should think Hindenburg could be a dictator (or close to it) if he wanted to be. What happens to Ludendorff is less certain. It was Hindenburg who had the mass appeal, and if he decides that he no longer needs Ludendorff, then Ludendorff is probably finished, esp as istr that the Kaiser didn't like him either.

Perhaps, but I don't think Democratic Constitutional Monarchies turn into outright dictatorships without some mechanism to make it happen. The 'Silent Dictatorship' used existing law in a new way, Hitler got himself made Chancellor, got a State of Emergency and ruled by Decree making the most of methods to retain the SoE.

So how does Hindenburg turn the Silent Dictatorship using the Corps area machinery during wartime into a lasting thing? Does he kill, imprison, expel the Royal Family, Bundesrat and high profile Reighstag members and browbeat the rest? What about what the establishment, which has only been sidelined during the war rather than eliminated, can do to stop this such as offering Hindenburg the Chancellor or if he gets too narky Ludendorff or some other powerful and popular General to pull the rug from under a takeover attempt?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
I should think Hindenburg could be a dictator (or close to it) if he wanted to be. What happens to Ludendorff is less certain. It was Hindenburg who had the mass appeal, and if he decides that he no longer needs Ludendorff, then Ludendorff is probably finished, esp as istr that the Kaiser didn't like him either.
What he didn't.

Hindenburg was a die-hard monarchist and he would never ever acted aginst his Kaiser, not to speak off to topple him. With a peace treaty signed he would almost immediatly resign and put the power back into the hands of his emperor.
And as a more personal side note : IMO Hindenburg was
a) too lazy to engage in an internal power struggle
b) too undecisive to fight such a struggle through
c) too unwilling to take responsibility on his own hat
OTL he always had others to make the dicisions for him (Ludendorff, Groener) - and he could dump the blame on, if something goes wrong.

And without Hindenburg as the 'front man' Ludendorff wouldn't be able to pull anything - as said : despite being the 'hero od Liege' nobody liked or trusted him.

Only thing I could imagine is, that Ludendorff convinces Hindenburg to give a 'secured' power back to the Kaiser, with a military-industrial complex to 'serve' the Kaiser in the most prominent position, somehow installed by law.
But even that would meet considerable opposition by almost every other power group beside (most ?) of the military : almost every Reichstag faction, workers organisations, almost the complete civil service, the diplomatic service, the industrialists, small as well as large agriculture, artisans, ...

Don't forget : ITTL there is victory after a looong war, with the german empire exhausted, on the brim of collapse by itself.
 
Last edited:
What he didn't.

Hindenburg was a die-hard monarchist and he would never ever acted aginst his Kaiser, not to speak off to topple him. With a peace treaty signed he would almost immediatly resign and put the power back into the hands of his emperor.

Well, in that case there won't be a dictatorship.

Even if Hindenburg doesn't choose to be a dictator himself, there's no way that he's going to serve under one. And no other wannabe dictator will have a fraction of his prestige.
 
Last edited:
I think Hindenburg could be placated with a title and important Government position if he did want to hold onto power since these sorts of appointments were in the purview of the Kaiser.
 
Hindenburg wanted to retire. He didn't want to be a dictator. He was already old. He didn't even want to be President during the Weimar Republic.

He retired twice in his career, but extraordinary circumstances forced him into duties that he didn't want if he had a choice.
 
If Germany causes France to throw in the sponge sometime between April, 1917 and late spring 1918 when significant numbers of US combat forces arrive (remember support forces came first, and combat forces followed and had further training in France), it's game over. I expect the Germans will let the US & British to remove their forces and equipment, and the French will be tasked with speeding this along. The US and UK cannot continue in western Europe if France (and also Belgium) surrender. As noted it would take the USA 12-24 months to produce in quantity items French industry was producing for the US military (artillery, aircraft, etc). Until then the US Army and air service are in no shape to go up against CP forces. Britain cannot produce adequate surplus to equip the US military. Russia is out by now, and with France out the CP can put as much as they want in to the Balkans & against Italy - the latter won't last long in this scenario. Sure the US can send forces planned for France to Italy, this will take 3-6 months to shift, they will be light on heavy artillery and aircraft, and will be facing a geography where they are attacking experienced well entrenched troops on the heights. The mountains represent a formidable barrier that can be held readily by CP exacting a hugely disproportional cost on the Entente. I doubt the USA will be happy to see those sorts of casualty lists for this cause.

Because the CP has a surplus of troops now with Russia and France/Belgium the Ottomans can be reinforced, and frankly the preservation of the Ottoman Empire is not pivotal to Germany or A-H. IMHO Italy will take a quick peace if they can avoid any significant territorial concessions, and since the CP have no significant demands some border adjustments and/or a DMZ would be something they could offer.

As far as the blockade, this is 100% dependent on the British. If they keep fighting there can be a blockade, if not the USA can't do it by themselves from bases in the USA. The Navy isn't large enough, and I can't the US stopping British ships from trading with the continent if the RN isn't complicit. Also, now Germany (and A-H) can get resources from France and Russia. Would the UK and USA let France starve by maintaining the blockade as food is shipped to Germany - I doubt it.

Especially if the UK and Germany conclude a status ante bellum peace or something close to it, the USA simply can't fight Germany and vice versa. If Germany takes some French possessions in the western hemisphere there is the potential for Monroe Doctrine issues, but since the issue is transfer of a European owned territory from one European power to another, this is probably not anywhere close to enough to continue the fighting, whether or not htis would be an issue in the future is another matter.

Bottom line is in 1918 a war between the USA and Germany (+/- A-H) and nobody else is simply not happening.
 
If Russian army gives up faster than OTL, how early would Germany have to be free of eastern front in order to salvage an overall Western Front peace? OTL, Russia had February Revolution in March 1917, it was only in October 1917 that Germans could spare the troops for Caporetto, and March 1918 to be free of Eastern Front, which proved too late.
 
Top