Which victory in WWI would be better for the world?

A swift, decisive and total Entente victory, with a couple major German cities completely levelled (to get rid of any retarded post-war myths); large-scale post-war plebiscites implemented to see where the people actually wanted to belong.

Edit: oh, and the Entente refusing to sign any documents with a civilian delegation.
 
Last edited:
A swift, decisive and total Entente victory, with a couple major German cities completely levelled (to get rid of any retarded post-war myths); large-scale post-war plebiscites implemented to see where the people actually wanted to belong.

Edit: oh, and the Entente refusing to sign any documents with a civilian delegation.

It never ceases to amaze me that the solution proposed to WWI ending poorly is to end it with more devastation and more civilian casualties.

If by "amaze" you mean horrify.

And why not to a civilian delegation? The military isn't the government even in Prussia.

Not quite, at least.
 
A rapid Entente victory, say ending early-1915 at the latest. The only territorial exchange that goes on is Lorraine to France, Alsace stays German.
 
It never ceases to amaze me that the solution proposed to WWI ending poorly is to end it with more devastation and more civilian casualties.
The problem with a world war is that the only way to properly end it is by turning the losing side into a smouldering pile of rubble. Otherwise you end up fighting it all over again some while down the road. History is pretty specific in this respect. It's a bit like cleaning a septic tank: you can do it poorly or thoroughly; either way, you'll end up covered in shit. If you do it poorly though, you'll have to end up covered in shit again pretty soon.

And why not to a civilian delegation? The military isn't the government even in Prussia.

Not quite, at least.
Odd, I remember that, starting 1916, Ludendorff and Hindenburg dropped all pretense of civilian oversight to military matters (which didn't really exist anyway) and assumed direct control of the country.
 
The problem with a world war is that the only way to properly end it is by turning the losing side into a smouldering pile of rubble. Otherwise you end up fighting it all over again some while down the road. History is pretty specific in this respect. It's a bit like cleaning a septic tank: you can do it poorly or thoroughly; either way, you'll end up covered in shit. If you do it poorly though, you'll have to end up covered in shit again pretty soon.

Winning thoroughly and unleashing additional destruction and misery on civilians are two different things. All you are proposing is #2.

It doesn't demonstrate that the Germans are beaten, it demonstrates that the Entente doesn't have even a toehold on the moral high ground.

No point forfeiting that for something that will leave more reasons for Germany to want revenge than the OTL treaty.
Odd, I remember that starting 1916 Ludendorff and Hindenburg dropped all pretense of civilian oversight to military matters (which didn't really exist anyway) and assumed direct control of the country.
What exact authority did they wield?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/hindenburg_paul_von.shtml

"Credit for Ludendorff's invasion of Russia was misdirected to Hindenburg, who was appointed field marshal and commander of all German land forces, with Ludendorff at his side. Hindenburg oversaw the mobilisation of the whole German state for war, and became immensely popular throughout the country. Kaiser Wilhelm II was sidelined."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/266224/Paul-von-Hindenburg

"Hindenburg was called back into service in August 1914 to be the nominal superior of Maj. Gen. Erich Ludendorff. Acclaimed as one of the army’s best strategists, Ludendorff was to drive a Russian invasion force from East Prussia. For this achievement, the rocklike Hindenburg, rather than Ludendorff, received the nation’s applause. Soon Hindenburg’s standing overshadowed that of Emperor William II. He was promoted to the rank of field marshal, and in 1916 the Emperor was pressured into giving him command of all German land forces, with Ludendorff his co-responsible chief aide. Unable to win the war on land, the duo tried starving Britain into surrender by unrestricted submarine warfare, thus drawing the United States into the war and causing Germany’s ultimate defeat. When they conceded defeat, Hindenburg let Ludendorff take the blame."

Neither mentions him taking control of the government. The war effort, but not the government.

So if you have a source giving more and/or different information I would appreciate seeing it.
 
Last edited:
The problem with a world war is that the only way to properly end it is by turning the losing side into a smouldering pile of rubble. Otherwise you end up fighting it all over again some while down the road. History is pretty specific in this respect. It's a bit like cleaning a septic tank: you can do it poorly or thoroughly; either way, you'll end up covered in shit. If you do it poorly though, you'll have to end up covered in shit again pretty soon. y.


As with France in 1815?

FTM, the South in 1865 got pretty much what you advocate, but still had enough fight left to undo Reconstruction, even if it didn't secede again.
 
The idea that world wars will only keep happening unless one side is utterly devastated rests on a sample-size of... two. They wouldn't accept that in physics, they wouldn't. And aren't we dedicated to finding lessons in what didn't happen? I see no reason why WW1 made WW2 inevitable.

Anyway, a prompt Entente victory. Any quicker end to the war saves thousands of innocent people. Hopefully this one can leave the Ottomans up, and Austria up or else able to wind down in their own time. Russia's government as it stands won't last forever; and one hopes that it would fall to a leftist republic in a comparatively quick and peaceful revolution, and the slide towards the dissolution of the existing empires would continue.

But none of this is guaranteed. I am no believer in certainties.
 
I pick neither and the option of avoiding WWI would be best for Europe. World War I brought the rise of the USSR and the emergence of a power vacuum in Eastern/Central Europe, WWII replaced a short-lived fascist empire with a rather long-lived Communist one, and the causes of WWII, German revanchism from the overmighty subject that was the German army plus Soviet desires to regain all breakaway territories from the interwar period, will not disappear with either option.
 
I pick neither and the option of avoiding WWI would be best for Europe. World War I brought the rise of the USSR and the emergence of a power vacuum in Eastern/Central Europe, WWII replaced a short-lived fascist empire with a rather long-lived Communist one, and the causes of WWII, German revanchism from the overmighty subject that was the German army plus Soviet desires to regain all breakaway territories from the interwar period, will not disappear with either option.
Impossible. The war had to happen sooner or later. France was very revanchist for A-L, Germany's navy was challenging the British one, and Austria-Hungary was eyeing Serbia for a while. Old scores ran deep.
 

Deleted member 1487

Impossible. The war had to happen sooner or later. France was very revanchist for A-L, Germany's navy was challenging the British one, and Austria-Hungary was eyeing Serbia for a while. Old scores ran deep.

No it didn't.
In fact the Germans thought the war would be impossible after 1916 because Russia would be too strong. Germany had given up the naval race in 1912 and tried to sign a naval treaty with Britain, but was rebuffed. Nevertheless they stopped building capital ships.

AH was not 'eyeing' Serbia for a while. Serbia was challenging AH for a while and supporting terrorism within the Empire because Serbia coveted Habsburg territory. But the Serbian government was changing, as new elections in 1914 prompted a drawback from previous antagonistic policies. Too bad the Serb intelligence services tried to revolt though running an assassination operation to force the new government back into line with the policies of the nationalists.

Its true that old scores ran deep, but Europe had enough other changes coming for the major empires that had the FF issue not come up, within two years Europe would have been to preoccupied with internal national issues to worry about international war.
 
I vote for a quick Central Powers victory.

I would agree that slow change is better than fast change, and I would think that we would get that in a CP victory.
 
Impossible. The war had to happen sooner or later. France was very revanchist for A-L, Germany's navy was challenging the British one, and Austria-Hungary was eyeing Serbia for a while. Old scores ran deep.

There was no reason it had to happen at all, given the war was an impulsive gamble on the part of Conrad von Hotzendorf that the Habsburgs could win a punitive war against Serbia and then win a quick war against Russia together with Germany.
 
Top