Which Germany Would Be Stronger Today: One Which Won WW1 in 1918 Or One Which Won WW2 In 1940

Which Germany would be more powerful today, politically, militarily, and economically, one where they win WW1 in 1918 by say, concentrating their Spring offensive on taking Amiens and forcing the Allies to agree to peace with the prewar status quo in the West restored, losing all of her colonies, but getting to keep all the gains from Brest-Litovsk or one where Hitler dies immediately after the fall of France and Göring doesn't invade the USSR or declare war on the USA and eventually Britain agrees to make peace with Germany and accept their domination of continental Europe after realizing there's no way of beating Germany without either the U.S. or USSR in the war? Let's assume there is no subsequent major war in either timeline.
 
The one that won WWI by far, the one that won WWII would be lead by an unstable ideology and have as territories areas where they are universally despised. The they would also never cease to be in the eyes of the world anything less than an empire of murderers, at least as long as the Nazi Party is in power and will be surrounded by hostile powers. The consensus also seems to be that Lebensraum (populating the former USSR with German settlers) would be a complete failure that would cost Germany a lot and would not achieve anything. I think best case scenario a victorious Nazi Germany becomes the replacement for the OTL USSR Superpower, maybe more successful but not tremendously. They are basically surrounded in and out by people that will simply be waiting for the most minuscule crack to appear to take them down, making them ironically what Hitler described the USSR to be: a rotten house that will crumble under a strong enough kick.

On the other hand a Germany that won WWI would be a legit world leader with a massive indrustry built, in large part, not by conquered territories (although they would exist) but by economic hegemony in continental Europe. It would grow to become a Superpower that is equal to the USA and is not doomed to fail.

WWII was basically a second half assed attempt to achieve what WWI could had achieved for them.
 
Last edited:
The one that won WWI by far, the one that won WWII would be lead by an unstable ideology and have as territories areas where they are universally despised. The they would also never cease to be in the eyes of the world anything less than an empire of murderers, at least as long as the Nazi Party is in power and will be surrounded by hostile powers. The consensus also seems to be that Lebensraum (populating the former USSR with German settlers) would be a complete failure that would cost Germany a lot and would not achieve anything
.

But there would be no attempt at Lebensraum in the USSR because in the WW2 scenario, Hitler dies right after conquering France so there is (probably) no invasion of the USSR and and there probably won't be a holocaust either with Göring in power so the Nazis won't be viewed as extremely murderous either.
 
But there would be no attempt at Lebensraum in the USSR because in the WW2 scenario, Hitler dies right after conquering France so there is (probably) no invasion of the USSR and and there probably won't be a holocaust either with Göring in power so the Nazis won't be viewed as extremely murderous either.

The only concievable outcome for Nazi Germany to achieve something similar to a victorious WWI require a tamer Barbarossa, something like what I postulated in this thread:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ould-britain-be-willing-to-make-peace.420065/

Long story short, there is evidence that Stalin was willing to make a Brest-Litovsk peace settlement very early in Barbarossa. So you have to kill Hitler after Barbarossa has started and have Goring accept Stalin's proposal or propose himself a B-L style peace. Then have the utter shock of defeating the USSR within months (which even if not true would look that way to the rest of the world) and the utter disappointment of the British to be again left alone against a Germany that looks even more invincible, cause Britain to make peace with Germany.

Still the Nazi ideology was too bizarre in my opinion for even this to work. Goering (as far as I understand) was still a fanatic, a rational one, but still a fanatic. Though it is possible that his brother, whom he loved, might be able to keep Goering restrained enough to pull back actions like the Holocaust and the violent antisemitism which made Germany an outcast in the international community:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Göring

The guy achieved enough already with Hitler as Fuhrer, so I think that with Goering himself as the Fuhrer he might be able to completely halt the attrocities.

However the best case scenario is to have Goering couped shortly after and replaced by a rational military junta, or have him replaced by a more rational and level headed government after his death.

So we have: Germany virtually untouched by the war, huge new territories in a Brest-Litovsk settlement but not so vast as to make it unworkable, Britain and the US in peace and continental dominance. Under those circumstances I guess, they could achieve the same status their victorios WWI self would.

But as you can see, look at how much you need to change to have WWII Germany be equal to its WWI self, WWI you only need to win the war, a convenient peace treaty and that's it. Here you have to kill Hitler in a very specific timeframe, have the German leadership make or agree to a peace settlement counter to Barbarossa's goal, have this shock be enough to knock the British out and most likely change the core politics of the Reich post-victory.
 
The only concievable outcome for Nazi Germany to achieve something similar to a victorious WWI require a tamer Barbarossa, something like what I postulated in this thread:

So Germany with complete dominance over all of Europe West of the Vistula would still be weaker than a Germany that controls it's Brest-Litovsk gains and the Balkans but doesn't control France, the Low Countries or Italy?
 
So Germany with complete dominance over all of Europe West of the Vistula would still be weaker than a Germany that controls it's Brest-Litovsk gains and the Balkans but doesn't control France, the Low Countries or Italy?

Yes because said Germany would use said terriory via Lebensraum and this was an unworkable strategy. So all this land is nothing more than an endless land of unrest and partisans. Even if you kill all the native population there is no way you can populate all of it with German settlers. The cost to keep all that territory would be very high.

Also in this scenario Germany had to bleed a lot and its army is in way worse shape than in one where the war ends very quicky and is virtually untouched.

The main problems is that nazi economy worked by looting. Also to keep occupied territories productive you need the natives to feel they are okay in your rule or at least not so bad to not revolt. Germany could concievably conquer everything up to the Urals, but to keep it and profit they need to have the locals collaborate and this they would never be able to do. No one is going to accept being a subhuman to be killed at will with no rights.

Germany could maybe had occupied all this and profit greatly, perhaps turn out even better than their victorious WWI self, but not Nazi Germany.

A rational Germany could maybe get through the wallies by reversing the Versailles loses and only the Versailles loses (this means if you go for the Sudetes, you keep just the Sudetes and dont invade the entire country for example)

Then they can turn to the USSR under the guise of liberating the Soviet people from Stalin and pull the Soviets to a German economic sphere. This will be very easy, all they have to do is provide the Soviets with a better alternative than Stalin.
 
Yes because said Germany would use said terriory via Lebensraum
Not even Hitler planned to use France or Italy for Lebensraum, I am absolutely certain Göring would not. From what I've learned, Göring would grant all the conquered nations accept Poland nominal independence but leave them economically subservient to Germany.
Also in this scenario Germany had to bleed a lot and its army is in way worse shape than in one where the war ends very quicky and is virtually untouched.
I think you're mixing up the scenarios, the WW1 victory comes after four years of war, the WW2 victory comes after less than a year of heavy land combat.
 
Ironically, agreeing to such a peace would've meant he'd never be in a position to do so.
No. Hitler would still need large forces in in the East to occupy the land and keep eye on Soviets. Stalin OTOH has time to rebuilt his forces and train new recruits properly. IOTL Soviet Union had army of greenhorns every year due to need to compensate heavy loses in hurry with masses of untrained, raw recruits.
 
Not even Hitler planned to use France or Italy for Lebensraum, I am absolutely certain Göring would not. From what I've learned, Göring would grant all the conquered nations accept Poland nominal independence but leave them economically subservient to Germany.

No, but they would use Russia for Lebensraum, as long as this stupid concept exists, their conquests will be unworkable. Unless you dont have Barbarossa. But in this case they would lack the Brest Litovsk territories from their WWI counterparts.

I think you're mixing up the scenarios, the WW1 victory comes after four years of war, the WW2 victory comes after less than a year of heavy land combat.


Except that a WW1 victory Germany would have legitimacy and a rational economy.

WW2 Germany was to rule by military might alone, so it cant afford to bruise its army as much.

Also WW2 would not end in less than a year, this would only happen if you took the Brest-Litovsk route. If you take Germany reaching the A-A line and then the Urals it will take them more.
 
Stalin made second B-L peace proposition only to take a breath. He had no intention to respect it in the long run.

Stalin might not survive to do this. In the end B-L is a hard surrender to Germany.

Stalin was as despised as it was. Being forced to do a B-L settlement could also make him do yet another purge, which could make his generals and/or the soviet people finally snap.
 

trajen777

Banned
WW1 Germany by a ton --- it would be better with a win in 16 but in 18 i think they would be in a very strong position :

1. Russia a disaster - revolution but will have lost its bread basket, much of its industry, and a lot of its people ---
2. So Germany is much more secure in the east with captive markets, allies which would tie closely to Germany (Poland, Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia), and bases to attack critical USSR or Russian key areas (Leningrad, Oil fields, transportation networks).
3. Germany would prob have to minimize its fleet as part of the deal and Germany would prob want to have a smaller fleet (seeing what a waste of resources it was in WW1)
4. France (with no Russia) would need to work with Germany to not have a war they could 100% not win in the future
5. The Kasier had agreed to have a post war much more democratic country (Brit model) so Germany would not want to be as militaristic
6. With no country dieing to redo the way (ala Germany WW2) i could see a much more peaceful Europe
7. The colonies were an expense to Germany better off with out them.

So add the eastern countries controlled by Germany army (so add another 500,000 - 2 mm troops). Industrial base solid. Eastern trading partners (captive). I assume Cortland and some other areas directly part of Germany, with the rest being dominated by Germany, allows lots of raw materials, food, etc. to be accessible to Germany (blockade less important for future war)
 

samcster94

Banned
Which Germany would be more powerful today, politically, militarily, and economically, one where they win WW1 in 1918 by say, concentrating their Spring offensive on taking Amiens and forcing the Allies to agree to peace with the prewar status quo in the West restored, losing all of her colonies, but getting to keep all the gains from Brest-Litovsk or one where Hitler dies immediately after the fall of France and Göring doesn't invade the USSR or declare war on the USA and eventually Britain agrees to make peace with Germany and accept their domination of continental Europe after realizing there's no way of beating Germany without either the U.S. or USSR in the war? Let's assume there is no subsequent major war in either timeline.
I'd rather take an authoritarian monarchy that behaved like a relatively normal country over a souped up North Korea that believed in murdering hundreds of millions of people economically as the former seems like it could run a real economy.
 
Unless you dont have Barbarossa
There isn't, the POD for Germany winning in WW2 is Hitler dying after France, so Barbarossa probably doesn't happen.
Also WW2 would not end in less than a year, this would only happen if you took the Brest-Litovsk route. If you take Germany reaching the A-A line and then the Urals it will take them more.
Again I must stress that the POD is Hitler dying after France, so there is most likely no Barbarossa, though I do admit that Britain wouldn't make peace immediately if Hitler died, the war would linger on with fighting in North Africa and air combat over Britain for a few years until Britain finally gets fed up with fighting an unwinnable war, but there will be no major lands campaigns.


I'd rather take an authoritarian monarchy that behaved like a relatively normal country over a souped up North Korea that believed in murdering hundreds of millions of people economically as the former seems like it could run a real economy.
In the World War II victory scenario, Hitler dies right after conquering France and is succeeded by Göring, he's not as murderous as Hitler and would probably purge or at least sidelined Himmler and Heydrich nor is he as ideologically as fanatical as Hitler so I don't see Germany turning into North Korea. Economically I've been of the opinion that Göring would do like Franco did and liberalize the economy.
 
In the World War II victory scenario, Hitler dies right after conquering France and is succeeded by Göring, he's not as murderous as Hitler and would probably purge or at least sidelined Himmler and Heydrich nor is he as ideologically as fanatical as Hitler so I don't see Germany turning into North Korea. Economically I've been of the opinion that Göring would do like Franco did and liberalize the economy.

Goring is still a fanatic and a nazi. Though it is possible he is kept restrained by his brother.
 
Top