What would life in Europe been like if Germany won WW1?

Ok then, lets go with the number of ships. I'm willing to take a gander and suggest that the amount of ships which passed through the Straights of Dover during the Second World War is greater then that same number during the First. Do you think that's an accurate presumption?

EDIT: I've gotta catch up on some sleep so I probably wont be able to respond for a bit.

I would say that despite ww2 last 2 years longer less hulls would have transitted through the dover narrows. The reason is all the small coastal ships on what are basically domestic transport tasks. These ships are often 1000t or less, uboat sinking logs are full of ships of less than 1000t which is why they used deck guns so often.

This is Britain's great vulnerability, that uniquely among the combatants her domestic transport was vulnerable to sustained enemy interdiction. On top of this of course is international shipping, both in Europe and transatlantic.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Really, given the British behavior, why would the Germans just say "Ok Britain, you can rule India, Africa, Indonesia and Asia and we will just sit here meekly when they can simply wipe the British from the map
Clearly the Germans of 1914 did not share your grasp of 4x PC strategy gamer expertise...
 

BooNZ

Banned
Salisbury assured his colleagues that it was highly unlikely that the Cabinet would recommend such a treaty and even less likely that the Parliament would be stupid enough to sign it.
Neither the French nor the Russians had a formal alliance with the British. Grey had to skulk around in the shadows with the French, because Grey had already been warned by Cabinet his liaisons with the French were needlessly jeopardizing Anglo-German relations.

There were never any British alliance offers to Germany. The British tried desperately to avoid becoming dependent on France and Russia but were too weak to pull that off
Have you never heard of foreplay? The French and British had been dating for years, but Britain refused to offer anything resembling a commitment. The were a number of clumsy Anglo-German moves made up to 1902, which might have eventually developed into something 'special'.

In contrast with Grey's flirtations with the French, the best interests of both Britain and Germany could have been served by a celibacy [non-aggression] pact.

The Entente was conceived to settle differences with France and Russia and thearby end the Franco-Russian threat to Britain. Its the last part of a multi prong approach.
The word you're looking for is appeasement

Its driven by long term interests Long term the Franco-Russian alliance was seen as the stronger and it was except for the brief period following the Russo-Japanese War and before WWI.
You are saying the British were attracted to Franco-Russian strength, but conclude Britain would be repulsed by the demonstration of German strength. It is difficult to follow/detect your logic.
 
Oh, you mean the ship on which the british had loaded arms and ammunition despite such things being forbidden, and which was a lawful military target? If anything, in ATL the Lusitania will be - rightliy - decried as a symbol of british perfidy and dishonesty.
The 1198 dead just another example of that benevolent German 'expediency' I suppose.
Clearly the Germans of 1914 did not share your grasp of 4x PC strategy gamer expertise...
I take it your critique of Sir Edward Grey is based on a 24 year career in the foreign office then?
 
Last edited:
Its driven by long term interests Long term the Franco-Russian alliance was seen as the stronger and it was except for the brief period following the Russo-Japanese War and before WWI. By 1914 Franco-Russian naval construction vastly outstripped the Germans and the British.

The Germans are an after thought and indeed, the settlement with France is done at the expense of German interests

Indeed, I find it bizarre how the first thing said is that it was German power that motivated Britain to align against her, as if Britain quaked in her boots. If Britain was afraid of any greater power I suspect it was Russia, joining her against Germany as the play. And in all the discussion here we see just how difficult it was to defeat the UK. Not that she was that mighty but her geography and naval power let her remain at a distance from continental power, like the USA, that bit of water gave a good defense, but the Empire was not monolithic, Britain had more than one Achilles heel poised to unseat her. As we see, winning this war did more to unravel her power than it ever could to maintain it. Thus when I think on a German "victory" it really is just a shade better than a draw, it mostly curbs Russia's extremism and race for supremacy, it leave the Empire on the sidelines, that is the more plausible route I see for the UK to do better than become the sidekick for American globetrotting wankery.
 

BooNZ

Banned
The 1198 dead just another example of that benevolent German 'expediency' I suppose.
Scarcely comparable to the OTL hundreds of thousands of starving non-combatants, courtesy of the benevolence of the Royal Navy.

I take it your critique of Sir Edward Grey is based on a 24 year career in the foreign office then?
Are you suggesting Grey was not a complete buffoon?

Grey being repeatedly cited as the authority of what is best for Britain is akin to citing Castro's opinion as being impartial in a capitalism v communism debate.
 
I read anther little snippet yesterday; bicycles were rare in 1914 Russia so Russian soldiers who invaded East Prussia tended to see them as military machines and shoot riders out of hand as spies or francs tireurs.

So perhaps if Germany won many more people in Eastern Europe would get pushbikes and become locally more mobile.
 
I would say that despite ww2 last 2 years longer less hulls would have transitted through the dover narrows. The reason is all the small coastal ships on what are basically domestic transport tasks. These ships are often 1000t or less, uboat sinking logs are full of ships of less than 1000t which is why they used deck guns so often.

This is Britain's great vulnerability, that uniquely among the combatants her domestic transport was vulnerable to sustained enemy interdiction. On top of this of course is international shipping, both in Europe and transatlantic.

Im sorry if im missing the point but if we assume the absurd, that 10x the number of ships passed through the dover straights during the First World War in relation to the Second, could we not extrapolate that a total of 20 ships would be lost? That number being derived from the number of ships which sunk during the Second World War, two, and multipled by 10.
 
Are you suggesting Grey was not a complete buffoon?

Grey being repeatedly cited as the authority of what is best for Britain is akin to citing Castro's opinion as being impartial in a capitalism v communism debate.

Grey's being a liar with a noted interest in helping out the French seems like the more immediate cause for concern, of course.
 
Im sorry if im missing the point but if we assume the absurd, that 10x the number of ships passed through the dover straights during the First World War in relation to the Second, could we not extrapolate that a total of 20 ships would be lost? That number being derived from the number of ships which sunk during the Second World War, two, and multipled by 10.

Sure, but sinkings aren't the primary measure of success. If no ships get sunk because through traffic is halted and 1/4 of London's population was evacuate due to the inability to supply them with food and coal then I doubt many people would be bitching that no ships were sunk. The quote you provided earlier pretty much lays out the scenario of skippers refusing to sail through Hellfire Corner due to the ferocity of the guns, coupled with e-boats and bombers except in WW1 it would be coastal uboats and full-sized destroyer flotillas.

The difference in WW1 is that the railways hadn't totally finished off coastal and canal traffic, so simply avoiding the area in large measure may not be possible so sinkings may be much higher than even the 20 you suggest as Britain has no option other than fighting the ships through.
 
On the Netherlands being involved in the war from what I know, there was initially plans to invade parts of the southern Netherlands to bring more troops to the front in Belgium and France. They obviously decided to have them remain neutral.
 
Regarding the possibility of coastal traffic through the Dover straits being stopped If the Germans occupied the Calais coast...

Without radar won't coastal guns be far less effective at night? Enabling convoys to be passed through the straits in darkness.

So, an inconvenience but not a show stopper. It was I believe air attacks in WW2 that led to the conveys being halted anyway.
 
Regarding the possibility of coastal traffic through the Dover straits being stopped If the Germans occupied the Calais coast...

Without radar won't coastal guns be far less effective at night? Enabling convoys to be passed through the straits in darkness.


This also of course allows German destroyers etc to prowl around undetected.
 
Without radar won't coastal guns be far less effective at night? Enabling convoys to be passed through the straits in darkness.

Yes, IOTL the guns in Flanders meant the RN couldn't operate within 16 miles in daylight and 8 miles at night.

This also of course allows German destroyers etc to prowl around undetected.

That's right, the German destroyers will know where to hunt and when shipping concentrations will want to do the night run. Simple maths of getting through the danger zone in darkness will eliminate a bunch of ships from the run, particularly in the short nights of summer.
 
Yes, IOTL the guns in Flanders meant the RN couldn't operate within 16 miles in daylight and 8 miles at night.



That's right, the German destroyers will know where to hunt and when shipping concentrations will want to do the night run. Simple maths of getting through the danger zone in darkness will eliminate a bunch of ships from the run, particularly in the short nights of summer.
So it will require escorts, with the RN having a plethora of cruisers that's not impossible. And couldn't the Germans sail from Antwerp iOTL so the threat wasn't extreme.

Eight miles from shore still leaves at one channel clear at night too.

So, more of an inconvenience than I first thought. Still probably not a war winner. Remember southern England has one of the world's densest rail networks at the time. Some traffic, if not the majority, can be shipped by rail.

[Edit] Further thoughts
While not a war-winner on its own (IMHO of course), it's possible this POD would be one of a number that shift the balance of attrition towards the Central Powers. Which may be what Riain and others are suggesting.

Though I think you still need to ensure the US doesn't enter the war to ensure a CP victory. Unless Britain stays neutral, which will require PODs before 1914 or Germany not invading Belgium. Plus no attempt by the HSF to bombard the French or Flanders coastline - I can see the UK declaring a 'neutral zone' banning warships from the channel. (Since in pre-war talks the RN was supposed to guard the Channel for France.)
 
Last edited:
@Aphrodite , Mackinder would agree with you, once Germany becomes a continental superpower it will have the financial and material resources to build a navy bigger than any medium power. In 1914 Russia was building a huge number of capital ships and the amazingly secure USA had the world's 3rd biggest fleet of capital ships, and the Soviets outbuilt the British in the Cold War.

Germany was a major threat to Britain in the era of total war.
??? In 1914 Russia had seven dreadnoughts, of the mediocre Gangut and Imperatritsa Mariya classes, under construction.
 
Top