NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the history of World War One, but suppose that Germany had won the war in the opening weeks of hostilities on the Western front, say by capturing Paris and encircling the French and British army - as they probably could have had they stuck to their original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) - would that have been better the four years of trench warfare that followed?

Would the consequences of a German victory have been that severe on France? Would it have been better to lose some territory and colonies to Germany than the thousands of soldiers killed in the next few years?

It could have completely reshaped last century. Would Nazism never have risen in Germany, or would the effects of the Great Depression resulted in the Nazis (or someone similar) coming to power?

Would colonialism still have declined? Without the military and social consquences of the war, could the European powers have maintained their empires? Would the Ottoman empire maintain its control over the Middle East, and potentially prevent a Arab-Israeli conflict?

How would the socialist cause have been affected? Could the Bolsheviks have taken power in Russia without the chaos and hardship caused by the war? Would universal suffrage be ganted in countries like Britian and Germany without the social changes caused by World War One.

With all this considered, do you think that it would be better if Germany had won World War One early on?

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the history of World War One, but suppose that Germany had won the war in the opening weeks of hostilities on the Western front, say by capturing Paris and encircling the French and British army - as they probably could have had they stuck to their original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) - would that have been better the four years of trench warfare that followed?

Would the consequences of a German victory have been that severe on France? Would it have been better to lose some territory and colonies to Germany than the thousands of soldiers killed in the next few years?

It could have completely reshaped last century. Would Nazism never have risen in Germany, or would the effects of the Great Depression resulted in the Nazis (or someone similar) coming to power?

Would colonialism still have declined? Without the military and social consquences of the war, could the European powers have maintained their empires? Would the Ottoman empire maintain its control over the Middle East, and potentially prevent a Arab-Israeli conflict?

How would the socialist cause have been affected? Could the Bolsheviks have taken power in Russia without the chaos and hardship caused by the war? Would universal suffrage be ganted in countries like Britian and Germany without the social changes caused by World War One.

With all this considered, do you think that it would be better if Germany had won World War One early on?

This is a great post, I have spent much time thinking about this topic over the years. Now I have someone to chat with woohoo!

This is quite a good first post.Often you get:

"OH NOES!TEH GAYS! :sniper: :sniper: :mp5:
But no,an intelligent n00b!
Anyway.
We can never really know.There are so many different possibilities that could have stemmed out from the situation back then,and we can never possibly predict many of them.

I suspect that if the Kaisers troops had taken Paris immediately, Great Britain would have been more reluctant to intervene on the continent, instead sticking to the periphery like it should have done in the first place, if they decided that the war was even worth fighting. It would have established Imperial German control of the continent as absolute, and Russia would have either capitulated and offered its share of Poland to Germany, or the Germans would have steamrolled Russia all the way back to Moscow.

The world would probably have been a much better place had the Germans won World War I. I think we would have seen a far different World War II that centered around the rise of Japan and The United States as two different models for East Asian "empires" with European colonies and increasing nationalism by the native folks there. I do not think that we would have had a holocaust of the Jews at least not one by the Germans.

It would be interesting to see what sort of a role the UK and France would have had. Would there even have been a France? I think that what would have happened would be a United Kingdom with colonies and an embarassing but not too life threatening peace treaty. An independent "Southern France" that resembled Ireland with a northern occupied section and an independent southern half and a hole lot of insurgency and problems for the occupying Germans for as long as they continued to control France. Do you have any idea of what would have happened with French colonies?

The German Empire would be a strong continental power and probably would have eventually taken on the USSR or at least given it a big thorn in its side and in so doing would endear itself to the US and UK and warm relations with its prior enemies.

If the Netherlands was conquered this would have had an interesting effect on the international relations relating to the Far East. I believe this would benefit the Japanese Imperialistic conquest of Indonesia. I do not think that Germany could really capitalize on its win to secure the colonies of the Far East. I think it would only throw the system into chaos and Japan and America could move in. The US would support democratic nationalism especially for regimes that would help the US fulfill her naval ambitions in the Pacific. Japan would just go and conquer what she could.

This is a fascinating OP.

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the history of World War One, but suppose that Germany had won the war in the opening weeks of hostilities on the Western front, say by capturing Paris and encircling the French and British army - as they probably could have had they stuck to their original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) - would that have been better the four years of trench warfare that followed?

Would the consequences of a German victory have been that severe on France? Would it have been better to lose some territory and colonies to Germany than the thousands of soldiers killed in the next few years?

It could have completely reshaped last century. Would Nazism never have risen in Germany, or would the effects of the Great Depression resulted in the Nazis (or someone similar) coming to power?

Would colonialism still have declined? Without the military and social consquences of the war, could the European powers have maintained their empires? Would the Ottoman empire maintain its control over the Middle East, and potentially prevent a Arab-Israeli conflict?

How would the socialist cause have been affected? Could the Bolsheviks have taken power in Russia without the chaos and hardship caused by the war? Would universal suffrage be ganted in countries like Britian and Germany without the social changes caused by World War One.

With all this considered, do you think that it would be better if Germany had won World War One early on?

A German win with the von Schlieffen Plan would have been more desirable than both the following trench warfare and the abominable Treaty of Versailles. Consider the Franco-Prussian War (1870/71) that Germany won. Basically the win entailed a bit of humiliation of the French and casualties, but not complete death and destruction of WWI. Also, the F-P War truly inspired the French to be brutal in seeking revenge on Germany (this is so very apparent in the Treaty of Versailles). World War I may be construed as a grudgematch between these two powers.

As for the "kvestion" of Nazism... To address this, one must consider what Hilter rose to power because of (besides illegal actions behind the scenes). Due to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany lost valuable territory as well as buying into a forced mortgage on its future. Please remember that all reparations to be paid to France would have lasted into the late 1980s and paid in gold. Now, currency at that time was backed with the gold standard. Thus helping the inflation of the Deutschmark to worsen. The major impetus that drove Hitler into power was Germany's dire economic situation. Had the inflation not been as terrible (exacerbated by French revenge exacted in gold), I honestly believe that Hilter would have still been a failed painter with a medal from "The Great War."

With colonialism, sure Germany had a few colonies but not really worth much. In fact, I would argue that a German presence on the Shandong Peninsula was a *good* thing, but that's another thread. Whether or not Germany would take French colonies... probably. Colonies were a sign of a prestigious and powerful nation. Therefore, I think that most French colonies would have gone to Germany; hence the profits (and expenses!) would have been funneled into German coffers. Please also consider that this would have had ramifications for Vietnam/Vietnam War.

*takes a breath*

The Ottoman Empire was the "Sick Old Man" of Eurasia anyway... If someone posts about that I'll respond, but I think that's more than enough for a "what-if" history entry.


Short answer spoiler: Yes, it would have been better if Germany won WWI early on (or even at all).

I think the USA of a would have formed an alliance with Germany and taken on Russia to counteract the Japanese threat. Southern France would have become a protectorate of Spain & Great Britain would have slowly lost its empire to the USA/German alliance, as a price to pay for staying out of it.

Do you have any idea of what would have happened with French colonies?


THey would be handed over to German control. So if in WW2 the UK had fallen, then the entire Empire would have had to come under German Control. If it was an unconditional surrender that is

I think the USA of a would have formed an alliance with Germany and taken on Russia to counteract the Japanese threat. Southern France would have become a protectorate of Spain & Great Britain would have slowly lost its empire to the USA/German alliance, as a price to pay for staying out of it.

Why would Southern France become a protectorate of Spain? When you talk of a Russian alliance with the USA, is this based on the premise that the Bolsheviks would not have seized control? Would we have had a parliamentary democracy in Russia? Would there be two Russias --one monarchical one democratic? Would there be nationalistic upheavals and independence like we saw with the end of the USSR?

I have heard that the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe. Greece and I think other Balkan countries obtained independence. But what was it like in the rest of the Empire? I know little about it. Also what was up with the Austro-Hungarians they did not seem to be a rising star upon the world's stage.

The World would certainly be a better place in so many, many ways.

Just think about how much better just the Middle East would have been if the Ottoman Empire had stayed intact.

THey would be handed over to German control. So if in WW2 the UK had fallen, then the entire Empire would have had to come under German Control. If it was an unconditional surrender that is

No offense but this sounds sophomoric. Also, I assume that you mean WW1 instead of WW2. It is one thing to hand something to somebody in a treaty, but what of the actual administration and dealing with people who do not necessarily like the idea of being governed by Germans? Germany would probably have a lot of trouble controlling its occupied territories, let alone all the far flung colonies of these recently occupied territories. I think that all the confusion would leave the colonies very succeptable to nationalistic movements by the natives; other new emmerging local powers like Japan, South Africa, and the United States; and separatist movements by the old regimes.

In fact, I would argue that a German presence on the Shandong Peninsula was a *good* thing, but that's another thread.

I know next to nothing about this. What was so good about it?

Anything could of happened. Its to easy to say if or but. Maybe Germany would of been overstretched, ripped in half and spent the next 20 years in a bloody civil war. Incredibly unlikely but who knows.

Hmmm, I wonder if Britain would actually have stayed sided with France.
I've a feeling that is the Germans had seemed to be winning, the very small BEF would have crawled away, and two way alliance been formed between the Kaiser and the King- remeber, they were actually pretty close relatives, and democracy wasn't the issue it is today.

With France subdued and Germany and Britain allies, the Continent would be controlled by Berlin, the British Empire controlled by London (for the foreseeable future) and America never really getting too much say internationally.

And a Soviet Revolution in Russia was inevietable with or without Germany. So when the USSR enter the World Stage, it would prolly EVENTUALLY declare War with Germany and Britain, and ending with a pretty bloody stalemate. The USA gets involved, (on the side of the British), but can't get past the Russian Winter. A stalemate is produced. In exchange for a reduction in Germany land, the Soviets stop attacking. The USA gets France back her country (making the French feel indebted and therefore resentful).

The war ruins Britain's economy and makes it lose her Empire but the USSR and the USA come out clear winners from the conflict, and neither side has Nuclear Weapons.

War between the USSR and the USA is bound to happen, but I have no idea who would win.

It's difficult to say what might have happened because the Germans themselves weren't quite sure what they'd ask for if they won.

If the Battle at the Marne had ended with a German victory, France would have asked for peace. Britain's expeditionary forces (the few that were actually there at the time) would've fled, and without tanks and planes, the Germans probably couldn't have stopped them from going home.

Belgium would probably have become a German protectorate, as well as French industrial areas near the border. The Germans would also have asked for all sorts of colonies overseas, probably in North Africa, and they would've taken over Belgisch Kongo.

I don't think Britain would've sued for peace immediately, simply because the Germans would probably have asked for the Royal Navy to be cut in size, so the High Seas Fleet would become the biggest Naval Force around. For an island like Britain, that would've meant the de facto end of the Commonwealth, since they could no longer have defended their trade routes if things got serious.

With Russia, I'm not sure. The German Army would probably have been able to defeat them in a year or two, if they didn't give up earlier. I don't think there would have been a need to send Lenin to destabilise Russia, so the USSR wouldn't have existed. I'm thinking of a post-war Russia with a figurehead Czar, but the real power resting with a pro-German military government of sorts, the same being true for the other Eastern European countries.

There was even talk of a German-dominated European Free Trade Zone...sort of like the EU.

Eventually Britain would have given up, I think, unless the States joined them (which would have been more unlikely), but only after years of careful maneuvering of the two navies, with the German industrial capacity not being bound by trench warfare eventually managing to build more ships.

As for what happened after the war...Japan and the US may have gotten in conflict, they might not. France would have been a prime suspect for some sort of fascist government trying to kick the Germans out. And Britain would've been torn to bits by internal strife (I'm thinking communist rebellions and worker's militias) and faded away from the world stage.

What would've become of Germany itself? I have no idea. Two directions basically: either a military dictatorship with the Kaiser as figurehead, or a civilian government involving into a British-type constitutional monarchy.

I liked the post comparing the result of a German victory over France to be similar to what happened at the end of the Franco-Prussian war. However, balance of power was a pretty important topic in Europe and I am not so sure that Britain would have slinked away unless a new force arose to keep the new Germany in check such as the USSR. However, the USSR was sos pathetic in the beginning that I am not sure that it would be a mighty check to Germany. Only an American -British - Russian and occupied resistance force could really do much. This would leave Japan able to pretty much run roughshod over the Far East. Russia was in really no shape to fight a war at that time so I am not sure how much help Russia would have been.

Had the Germans knocked out the French, Germany would probably have taken nominal control of the French colonies I am just not certain that they could have effectively ruled these places at least not immediately.

If Germany had won ww1;

1) As they would be the "leitkultur" most of us would at least have a rudimentary understanding of German which would be the international language not English.

2) Einstein would never have gone to the US, and Germany would probably have gotten the first nuclear weapon. As no nazis, and the Kaiserreich had plenty of Jews in high positions, government and soceitywise and was ironically the most jewfriendly nation in europe at the time more or less (The British used this, pouring anti-semitic propogranda in WW1, telling how the evil jews were sending the poor German boys to fight for their dreams of world domination).

3) The Kaisers birthday would be a big celebration in most of the world, including many colonies.

4) I wonder if Kaiser Wilhelm II , heir and son would have assumed a new title if his Empire was very drastically increased in size through colony acquisition and conquest?

5) As aristocracy would still be present we would have lots of beautiful architecture, palaces and castles continueing to be built.

If Germany had won ww1;

1) As they would be the "leitkultur" most of us would at least have a rudimentary understanding of German which would be the international language not English.

2) Einstein would never have gone to the US, and Germany would probably have gotten the first nuclear weapon. As no nazis, and the Kaiserreich had plenty of Jews in high positions, government and soceitywise and was ironically the most jewfriendly nation in europe at the time more or less (The British used this, pouring anti-semitic propogranda in WW1, telling how the evil jews were sending the poor German boys to fight for their dreams of world domination).

3) The Kaisers birthday would be a big celebration in most of the world, including many colonies.

4) I wonder if Kaiser Wilhelm II , heir and son would have assumed a new title if his Empire was very drastically increased in size through colony acquisition and conquest?

5) As aristocracy would still be present we would have lots of beautiful architecture, palaces and castles continueing to be built.

5 good points.

The questions of the colonies is a good one; Germany only had small and minor colonies, while France's were vast and important (check a map of colonial Africa and you'll see that). I'd imagine that France would have to be beaten decisively to lose all of the colonies to Germany.

And yes, the world would have been a far better place if Germany won WWI. The Treaty of Versailles was the single worst document in history.

Where to begin?
Germany has now conquered France. France and all its colonies are annexed by the Germans. The colonies don't much care about this: one oppressive occpier is much like another. The French are a bit miffed, naturally, but their children are brought up as good little Germans, and, by now, the free France is a distant memory.
Beyond sending in a few troops, the USA never really got involved in WW1, and deliberately stayed out of the aftermath, so none of this really affects them. They still have the Wall Street Crash and ensueing depression.
This is where we link back to Europe. The Kaiser is in charge of most of it, but the Germans never made it to Russia (hence its history is as it really was), or the UK. The Wall Street Crash causes the depression. However, with no reparations payments for Germany, things only get as bad for them as they did for Britain, hence no Nazi party.
No Nazi party means no WW2, so no holocaust. The Jews do not need a homeland, so Israel never happens, so you don't end up with an Arab-Israli conflict (at least, not one like the one that's happening now).
Without WW2, the USA never recovers from the depression, so cannot get involved in a Cold War. The USSR now has no incentive to do what it did, so spends some money on its people.
But what of the colonies? People gradually come to realise how wrong it is, and they get given their freedom (though perhaps a little later than with a full-length WW1).
And female suffrage? Again, WW1 was not the only reason for changes, so it follows that, eventually, we would have got the vote.

In short, then, everyone would have been much happier.
Except the French.

Germany would've taken the whole of Alacsine-Loarine(sp) from France, as well as her colonies. Russia would still be ruled by the Tsars as Lenin would've never returned. The Great Depression would still happen, hitting France the hardest. Fascism would still come to Italy, probably France, and maybe for England (Silver Shirts, anyone?)

The Pacific War would still occur, as Japan would still want the Philippines, Samoa, and other US territories in the pacific. The war pulls America out of the Depression, and proceeds to go toe-to-toe with Tojo.

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the history of World War One, but suppose that Germany had won the war in the opening weeks of hostilities on the Western front, say by capturing Paris and encircling the French and British army - as they probably could have had they stuck to their original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) - would that have been better the four years of trench warfare that followed?

Would the consequences of a German victory have been that severe on France? Would it have been better to lose some territory and colonies to Germany than the thousands of soldiers killed in the next few years?

It could have completely reshaped last century. Would Nazism never have risen in Germany, or would the effects of the Great Depression resulted in the Nazis (or someone similar) coming to power?

Would colonialism still have declined? Without the military and social consquences of the war, could the European powers have maintained their empires? Would the Ottoman empire maintain its control over the Middle East, and potentially prevent a Arab-Israeli conflict?

How would the socialist cause have been affected? Could the Bolsheviks have taken power in Russia without the chaos and hardship caused by the war? Would universal suffrage be ganted in countries like Britian and Germany without the social changes caused by World War One.

With all this considered, do you think that it would be better if Germany had won World War One early on?

Germany would have become a superpower along with Britain and the USA. The threat of Nazism in Germany would be avoided and German power would staedily grow. I feel that had Germany won, the Kaiser would simply have pushed for more wars in order to expand the German empire and it could well have lead to the second world war - minus Nazism and the holocaust.
Wilhelm was a meglomaniac - there is no way that winning World War One would keep him satisfied with the territories he owned and that would have lead to war with the U.K..

No offense but this sounds sophomoric. Also, I assume that you mean WW1 instead of WW2. It is one thing to hand something to somebody in a treaty, but what of the actual administration and dealing with people who do not necessarily like the idea of being governed by Germans? Germany would probably have a lot of trouble controlling its occupied territories, let alone all the far flung colonies of these recently occupied territories. I think that all the confusion would leave the colonies very succeptable to nationalistic movements by the natives; other new emmerging local powers like Japan, South Africa, and the United States; and separatist movements by the old regimes.

Yeah, i meant ww1. Germany would have control, but it would be very difficult for them. Troops already stationed in the colonies would prbably fight til there's no resources left. And then the people would rise up against the Germans, either pro Britain or pro independance, most likely the latter

tell me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Von Schliffen Plan deeply flawed and reliant on both impossible troop moving plans and impossible battle scenarios? The whole reason the germans didn't stick to the plan was that it didn't work. They were forced away from their original objectives because they couldn't do what the plan demanded: get troops enough to the important spots in order to capitalize on early wins.


At least this is what John Keegan says. And I tend to believe him.


but IF they had managed to win, say, by beating Russia completly, and then Italy (which was happening) and then swinging all the roops they were wasting there back to the western front, we might indeed have had a very different war. No Soviet Union, little or no Middle East craziness, no Halocaust, no US "leading the world"...wonder what would have come out of it?

tell me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Von Schliffen Plan deeply flawed and reliant on both impossible troop moving plans and impossible battle scenarios? The whole reason the germans didn't stick to the plan was that it didn't work. They were forced away from their original objectives because they couldn't do what the plan demanded: get troops enough to the important spots in order to capitalize on early wins.


At least this is what John Keegan says. And I tend to believe him.


but IF they had managed to win, say, by beating Russia completly, and then Italy (which was happening) and then swinging all the roops they were wasting there back to the western front, we might indeed have had a very different war. No Soviet Union, little or no Middle East craziness, no Halocaust, no US "leading the world"...wonder what would have come out of it?


Creepy, if Germany won world war one, the rest of the 20th century would probably be a real bore in history class....if that had happened...could have the world been on the road to real world peace? or somthing like it? citing points from yourself and many other people here....It seems likley...oh the Irony....

tell me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Von Schliffen Plan deeply flawed and reliant on both impossible troop moving plans and impossible battle scenarios? The whole reason the germans didn't stick to the plan was that it didn't work. They were forced away from their original objectives because they couldn't do what the plan demanded: get troops enough to the important spots in order to capitalize on early wins.


At least this is what John Keegan says. And I tend to believe him.


but IF they had managed to win, say, by beating Russia completly, and then Italy (which was happening) and then swinging all the roops they were wasting there back to the western front, we might indeed have had a very different war. No Soviet Union, little or no Middle East craziness, no Halocaust, no US "leading the world"...wonder what would have come out of it?

Interesting. Keegan does have a good point. The Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Schlieffen_plan) mentions another historian, David fromkin, who says that it might not have been the plan as such, but just von Schlieffen's idea, a thought exercise.

The Germans winning does bring up interesting ideas, though I doubt we'd be celebrating the Kaiser's birthday in the US. Certainly there would have been no European War in 1939. The Japanese did come to see the US as their main opponent in the Pacific, and we might have gotten into a war with them, but I wonder what the timetable would have been, earlier or later. I'm leaning toward later but for no particular reason.

I don't think, as some have suggested, that France would have been totally crippled. Stripped of her colonies, yes, I think so, Wilhelm II was very much interested in acquiring colonies. France would have had to pay reparations, as she did after 1870. Germany already had Alsace-Lorraine, so I doubt France would have lost any territory.

Austria-Hungary would have survived for a while, though I do think that empire would have broken up eventually. No Yugoslavia, no Czeckoslovakia, perhaps no Poland. The Germans might have demanded territory around East Prussia from the Russians. So the map of Europe would be very different.

If the Germans won, the Ottomans might also have survived, too, though how relevant the Sultan would be is questionable. Still, there would be no Syria, no Israel, no Iraq, no Jordan. And probably no Saudi Arabia, since a militarily strong Turkey might have put down the Saudis.

heres and entertaining thought, If Germany were to conquer France, and her colonies...and the Germans were take control of "French" Indo China... would the Vietnamese revolt occur, with the VietMinh fighting the Germans in the later half of the 20th century for independance? that would be messed up.... Esspecaily if communism still did make its way down there, but even if it didn't the Vietnamese people probably would've revolted soon anyways... lead to a German Vietnam war....wierd....

heres and entertaining thought, If Germany were to conquer France, and her colonies...and the Germans were take control of "French" Indo China... would the Vietnamese revolt occur, with the VietMinh fighting the Germans in the later half of the 20th century for independance? that would be messed up.... Esspecaily if communism still did make its way down there, but even if it didn't the Vietnamese people probably would've revolted soon anyways... lead to a German Vietnam war....wierd....

Except I don't think communism would have made its way to Southeast Asia without the Soviet Union existing. And the Viet Minh were a result of the Second War, rising after the French returned on the defeat of Japan.

tell me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Von Schliffen Plan deeply flawed and reliant on both impossible troop moving plans and impossible battle scenarios? The whole reason the germans didn't stick to the plan was that it didn't work. They were forced away from their original objectives because they couldn't do what the plan demanded: get troops enough to the important spots in order to capitalize on early wins.


At least this is what John Keegan says. And I tend to believe him.


but IF they had managed to win, say, by beating Russia completly, and then Italy (which was happening) and then swinging all the roops they were wasting there back to the western front, we might indeed have had a very different war. No Soviet Union, little or no Middle East craziness, no Halocaust, no US "leading the world"...wonder what would have come out of it?

1) the Von Schlieffen plan was possible, but the germans didn't follow it completely: they didn't put enough troops in the surrounding attack through Belgium, and they only attacked throudh Belgium and not through the Netherlands.
That is one of the reasons (and the most important) why the germans were held in France and in Belgium (antoher was that the germans had underestimated the defences of the belgian army).
I don't know who John Keegan is, but I think that he's wrong at this point.

2) Italy was not an enemy from Gerrmany, it was his ally, it was just so weak it could be conquered by the allies. But if the Von Schlieffen plan had worked, then the allies couldn't have conquered Italy.

Except I don't think communism would have made its way to Southeast Asia without the Soviet Union existing. And the Viet Minh were a result of the Second War, rising after the French returned on the defeat of Japan.

Well, you can still throw in Japan...because regardless of what happens in ww1, they're still going to expand the Empire... probably still into Indochina whether the French or Germans are there... then depending on who wins that conflict.. it could still happen, the Japanese get in there, get kicked out by the Germans eventually, and the Vietnamese could still revolt. If Japan wins, continues to expand the empire...and, well thats a different story...

I wrote this about 2 months ago on a very similar topic:
I'd say it all depends when that victory would have taken place.

In 1914, with a working Schlieffen plan and no drawing reinforcements from the West to the East, the war in the west would have ended fairly quickly, with Great Britain not really getting involved, for Belgium would "only" have been used as a transit country, not being occupied, and things returning to normal just like they did in 1870/71.
The war in the East would've been won accordingly with the only theatre left, but maybe the Russian Revolution wouldn't have taken place without Lenin being brought into Russia via Germany.

In 1916, after the Entente's deficient offensive at the Somme which had left the French army drained and depleted, a German "all or nothing" assault in the West might have tipped the war to Germany's favor, for the only offensive action the Germans had launched that far was the stalled one at Verdun.
If the German Highcommand could have been convinced of the true advantages the tank would have shown in the trenchwar battlefield, the use of which could have proven very successful indeed.
Dividing the British and French army groups and maybe successfully beating the French would have forced the British to retreat across the channel, with Paris captured by the Germans.
Also the development of newer and better, but especially the building of more aircraft might have helped the German military successes.
Things would have returned to normal in a timespan of about 5 years I'd guess, including new treaties and German colonial politics instead of French ones in Africa, as some colonies would definitely have become German after a victory.

In 1918, the war in the East would be over, one way or the other, and the only way to win the war in the West would have been a successful Operation Michael drawn up by Ludendorff, possibly including numerous German tanks and mobile artillery, but definitely including the Eighth Army in that operation, before the United States could deploy the mass of its troops strategically.
Not to forget that the Germans would have to have retaken the air superiority some time during that offensive to successfully control that theatre of war.
I'm pretty sure that the borders would not have changed all that much on the European continent, but globally Germany would have become a player to be reckoned with, definitely taking the French colonies in Africa and probably competing with the British over theirs.

It pretty much breaks down to mobile (motorized) warfare for which the Germans did not have the means or weapon systems - something that worked to the Germans' advantage in the Blitzkrieg maneuvers.

Who knows what would have happened after that. Maybe Adolf would have become a painter whose works would have been protrayed in the Kaiser's museums? The Reich might even have turned into a constitutional monarchy instead of the Weimar Republic? Who knows!
As for the rise of Communism in Russia - I'd wager it would have depended on when exactly the Germans had won the war, whether Lenin would have made it back to Russia, if at all, or if its rise would only have been postponed, or maybe even stalled.

Though, had Germany won that war, the one thing that would be well known throughout Europe would be this song (http://www.liedertafel.claranet.de/gloria.mp3)!

John Keegan is a retred General and military historian who has written and studded about WWI and II and prolly everything else you could think of. He centends that the plan wouldn't work, and is not alone in arguing this. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan


you'll note that he is described as one of the most noted and read military historians of the 20th century. look him up :) I think he has a new book out about WWII now.

It's all a matter of train schedules really. The ability to move troops, equipment and supplies in those days was dictated by train schedules. The Schlieffen Plan ignored several realities in demanding that Germany pump troops through Belgium. Which is why they didn't do it. They didn't just decide not to, they literally couldn't put enough troops where they were needed quickly enough. Ergo, the Schlieffen Plan was flawed and unworkable. Now, you can claim that it was a fine plan, and I guess had they been able to use Star Trek Transporters, it might have gone well. But with the technology of the day, it failed, let to the Germans pushing forces through in places they were useless, and failing to win the decisive edge in the north, and being drawn south. This gave the allies time to dig in and begin the race to the sea.:mad:
So no, I don't think they could have done it or they would have done it. Why would they throw away every tactica ladvatage they had won by suddenly deciding they needed to shift the bulk of their troops to a sideshow? Answer" they didn't. They simply had no other choice because the Schlieffen Plan ignored the reality of train schedules.:headbang:

it would have been awesome if there had been a way to do it with the tehnology of the day, but I think in general there was simply no way for two fairly well matched armies to win a decisive edge. Which is what happened.:(

John Reilly has done an interesting article of the what if scenerio. He states the war could have easily swung the other way. It seems in his observation that the Germans blinked first.

http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm

John Keegan is a retred General and military historian who has written and studded about WWI and II and prolly everything else you could think of. He centends that the plan wouldn't work, and is not alone in arguing this. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Keegan


you'll note that he is described as one of the most noted and read military historians of the 20th century. look him up :) I think he has a new book out about WWII now.

It's all a matter of train schedules really. The ability to move troops, equipment and supplies in those days was dictated by train schedules. The Schlieffen Plan ignored several realities in demanding that Germany pump troops through Belgium. Which is why they didn't do it. They didn't just decide not to, they literally couldn't put enough troops where they were needed quickly enough. Ergo, the Schlieffen Plan was flawed and unworkable. Now, you can claim that it was a fine plan, and I guess had they been able to use Star Trek Transporters, it might have gone well. But with the technology of the day, it failed, let to the Germans pushing forces through in places they were useless, and failing to win the decisive edge in the north, and being drawn south. This gave the allies time to dig in and begin the race to the sea.:mad:
So no, I don't think they could have done it or they would have done it. Why would they throw away every tactica ladvatage they had won by suddenly deciding they needed to shift the bulk of their troops to a sideshow? Answer" they didn't. They simply had no other choice because the Schlieffen Plan ignored the reality of train schedules.:headbang:

it would have been awesome if there had been a way to do it with the tehnology of the day, but I think in general there was simply no way for two fairly well matched armies to win a decisive edge. Which is what happened.:(

I like Keegan, and I respect his opinion. Still, it wasn't train schedules, I think, as much as the lack of roads and railroads in Belgium. I'm sorry, but it's kind of funny imagining the German Army lined up at a Belgian train station, with the generals asking when the next train to France is due.

Oh, and Keegan was never actually in the military or in combat, something he talks about in a few of his books.

1) the Von Schlieffen plan was possible, but the germans didn't follow it completely: they didn't put enough troops in the surrounding attack through Belgium, and they only attacked throudh Belgium and not through the Netherlands.
I'd agree. They had to put fairly significant forces into Eastern Prussia because the Russians were swarming all over them much earlier than expected, and von Moltke was too chicken to take the risks associated with the original plan.
It's said that Schlieffen said "strengthen the right wing" on his death bed, and he meant the forces that would break through Belgium into Northern France. The left wing would be sitting in the Alsace, but they were really just token forces.
Von Moltke was so afraid that the French might attack there (which they did, though not particularly successfully) that he made the left wing stronger. And when the French attacked (with cavalry and flag signals and all the trimmings) and got their arses throroughly kicked, he decided to send guys after them. So the left wing marched into Eastern France, and got its own arse thoroughly kicked in turn.

The guy wasn't enough of a risk taker, basically. And you're right about the Belgians. Silly idea to let them march to their fortresses and then have to besiege them for weeks.

2) Italy was not an enemy from Gerrmany, it was his ally, it was just so weak it could be conquered by the allies. But if the Von Schlieffen plan had worked, then the allies couldn't have conquered Italy.
Italy had originally signed a pact with Germany. But when the war started, they decided to switch sides by themselves, and attacked. The idea was mainly to get some of the Austrian industrial areas and land along the mediterranean coast in today's Yugoslavia. But I don't think the Italians would've been particularly committed if the French were taken out early, they would've sued for peace fairly soon after.

I'd agree. They had to put fairly significant forces into Eastern Prussia because the Russians were swarming all over them much earlier than expected, and von Moltke was too chicken to take the risks associated with the original plan.
It's said that Schlieffen said "strengthen the right wing" on his death bed, and he meant the forces that would break through Belgium into Northern France. The left wing would be sitting in the Alsace, but they were really just token forces.
Von Moltke was so afraid that the French might attack there (which they did, though not particularly successfully) that he made the left wing stronger. And when the French attacked (with cavalry and flag signals and all the trimmings) and got their arses throroughly kicked, he decided to send guys after them. So the left wing marched into Eastern France, and got its own arse thoroughly kicked in turn.

The guy wasn't enough of a risk taker, basically. And you're right about the Belgians. Silly idea to let them march to their fortresses and then have to besiege them for weeks.


Italy had originally signed a pact with Germany. But when the war started, they decided to switch sides by themselves, and attacked. The idea was mainly to get some of the Austrian industrial areas and land along the mediterranean coast in today's Yugoslavia. But I don't think the Italians would've been particularly committed if the French were taken out early, they would've sued for peace fairly soon after.

I think the Italians didn't come into the war intil 1915, so if Germany had beaten France in 1914, there would have been no war to come into.

I like Keegan, and I respect his opinion. Still, it wasn't train schedules, I think, as much as the lack of roads and railroads in Belgium. I'm sorry, but it's kind of funny imagining the German Army lined up at a Belgian train station, with the generals asking when the next train to France is due.

Oh, and Keegan was never actually in the military or in combat, something he talks about in a few of his books.

yeah, you're right, he wasn't. I was thinking of LIddel Hart when I said that I think. And Keegan uses the term "train Schedules" to describe the whole process. I think it leads to a funny mental picture as well, so I stoledded t :)

I always picture the Kaiser standing there looking at a pockey watch and glaring at the engineer myself :)

I think the Italians didn't come into the war intil 1915, so if Germany had beaten France in 1914, there would have been no war to come into.
True.

I always picture the Kaiser standing there looking at a pockey watch and glaring at the engineer myself :)
If he was a character in the game "Medieval", one of his attributes would have been "unhinged loon".

Rather than looking at pocket watches, he probably would've spent his time dancing naked under the stars, covered in sheep's milk. :D

yeah, you're right, he wasn't. I was thinking of LIddel Hart when I said that I think. And Keegan uses the term "train Schedules" to describe the whole process. I think it leads to a funny mental picture as well, so I stoledded t :)

I always picture the Kaiser standing there looking at a pockey watch and glaring at the engineer myself :)

That's a good one, too.

Speaking of the Kaiser, there's an interesting book, 1901: A Novel, by Robert Conroy, which deals with a German invasion of the US in that year. Seems there was some sort of diplomatic crisis between the US and the Germans in real life (which I can't find anything on).

*snorts coke through nose laughing*


Beautiful image there :)


I may have this wrong, nut didn't the Krauts move to the East in numbers only after the initial invasion of France? Wasn't the West a decided issue or is it simply that Russia is dealt with in books in the next chapter and it's confused me on the timeline?:rolleyes:

*snorts coke through nose laughing*


Beautiful image there :)


I may have this wrong, nut didn't the Krauts move to the East in numbers only after the initial invasion of France? Wasn't the West a decided issue or is it simply that Russia is dealt with in books in the next chapter and it's confused me on the timeline?:rolleyes:

The Germans did crush the Russians at Tannenberg in 1914, and in the Spring of 1915, Germany and Austria broke through in southern Poland and ended up driving the Russians clear out of that country. For some reason, the East always gets short shrift in the books, while the trench warfare gets more attention.

From Publishers Weekly
This cleverly conceived alternative history proposes that Kaiser Wilhelm II launches an invasion of the U.S in 1901 after President McKinley summarily rejects a demand that he surrender Cuba and the Philippines to the Germans. The long bloody struggle which follows after the enemy establishes a beachhead on Long Island and captures New York City precipitates depths of destruction never visited by a foreign power upon American soil. The German Command believes that the mere fact of the attack will be sufficient to make the Americans sue for peace and turn over the territories. They are dreadfully wrong, of course, and, after a stress-induced heart attack kills McKinley, the new president, Theodore Roosevelt, begins to put together a fighting force to oppose the supposedly unbeatable German war machine. Numerous historical figures are involved in the story, and Conroy, a college teacher and student of military history, depicts them clearly, if a bit broadly. Much of the action is seen through the eyes of a fictional officer, Major Patrick Mahan, who rises through the ranks to become brigadier general, and, in the ultimate confrontation, commands Mahan's Bastard Brigade (so named because of its regiments of German-American and African American troops). With much more emphasis on plot than on character, Conroy tells a solid what-if historical.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist
Conroy reconstructs history, imagining a German invasion of the U.S. in 1901 to enforce German claims to the colonies the U.S. took over in the Spanish-American War. The novel is clearly a labor of love. Conroy seems to have conceived the story out of a lifetime's dedication to military history, and he puts into it a host of apparently favorite ideas and historic characters. The writing doesn't attain the level of Conroy's aspirations but keeps us turning pages, anyway. Conroy focuses on his central character, Patrick Mahan, as he rises from captain to major general, but fills out the book with many engaging side characters, including African American officers and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as with the pleasant fancy of having erstwhile Confederate General Longstreet appointed commanding general of the U.S. Army (Longstreet actually did return to U.S. service, but as a diplomat, and lived until 1904). The yarn is likely to please both military history and alternative history buffs. Roland Green --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

------I thought it might haveto do with the SPanish American War---that ended about then, and we invaded the Phillipines just before this as well. GUess I'll have to grab a copy :)

That's a good one, too.

Speaking of the Kaiser, there's an interesting book, 1901: A Novel, by Robert Conroy, which deals with a German invasion of the US in that year. Seems there was some sort of diplomatic crisis between the US and the Germans in real life (which I can't find anything on).

I've got it. It has a properly constructed plot, but all of the characters (save Teddy Roosevelt and a German private) were completely bland. His next book, 1864, was much better, and based on the documented Mason and Slidell incident.

I've got it. It has a properly constructed plot, but all of the characters (save Teddy Roosevelt and a German private) were completely bland. His next book, 1864, was much better, and based on the documented Mason and Slidell incident.

Didn't know he had another title. Thanks!

So I guess I'm the only person who thinks that the idea of Germany trying to invade the US over the Phillippines is just a little ... off kilter?

So I guess I'm the only person who thinks that the idea of Germany trying to invade the US over the Phillippines is just a little ... off kilter?

It would seem so. :p It's a pretty good book, if a little more devoted to plot than character.

I have heard that the Ottoman Empire was the sick man of Europe. Greece and I think other Balkan countries obtained independence. But what was it like in the rest of the Empire? I know little about it. Also what was up with the Austro-Hungarians they did not seem to be a rising star upon the world's stage.

Austria-Hungary was actually on the decline. They were what was left of the "Holy Roman Empire" which was their original name. Had Franz Ferdinand not been killed, Austria-Hungary would have esentially become the United States of Europe as he planned to make the Empire's regions into the equivalent of states. In short, I believe the world would possibly (if not probably) be a better place had the Central Powers won. Then again, there is the possibility Franz Ferdinand was my great-great grandfather. Also, I won't go so far as to say WWII would not have occured. Somebody may have taken Hitler's place (a disenchanted France's Charles DeGaulle perhaps? Like Hitler he served in WWI). Or it may have been Germany/USA/Austria-Hungary v. USSR/Japan.

I have often thought of this scenario in which Germany over runs France in WWI and I came up with a few events that could have happened:

1) Germany annexes France dispite resistance (to say the least) from the population.

2) In former French colonies colonists an natives begin attacks on the newly arrived German garrisons in an attempt to gain independence from their new masters.

3) Britain evacuates as many troops as possible from France and deploys troops to northern Italy, the Balkans, Egypt, Qatar and former French Africa.

4) British Royal Navy along with free French Navy ships harass German troop transports and merchant shipping heading to Africa and begin blockading large German held ports, dispite being over stretched and suffering material losses at the hands of Unterseeboots.

5) ANZAC begin conquest of New Guinea while others divisions and brigades are deployed to Middle-East, the Balkans and former French Asia (mainly Indochina).

6) Japan captures all German pacific territory with the exception of New Guinea.

7) Russia losses ground as the German Austria-Hungarian armies continue to advance. The Russia October revolution occurred and peace is signed with Germany and Austria-Hungarian gaining territory.

8) Germany (seeing the loss of territory in the pacific) sues for peace with the allies demanding to keep all french colonial territory for Germany in exchange for all German pacific territory and all french provinces with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungry sues for peace dispite only gaining Russian territory.

9) The Ottoman Empire sues for peace loosing Mesopotamia and Palestine to Britain and loosing Syria and Lebanon to Italy. The Arabian peninsula falls under the leadership of the Saudi family.

10) Germany and Great Britain are locked in a state of Cold War. With France now a puppet of Germany due to a pro German coup they have an ideal launching point for an invasion of Great Britain and so the arms race begins again.

I have often thought of this scenario in which Germany over runs France in WWI and I came up with a few events that could have happened:

1) Germany annexes France dispite resistance (to say the least) from the population.

2) In former French colonies colonists an natives begin attacks on the newly arrived German garrisons in an attempt to gain independence from their new masters.

3) Britain evacuates as many troops as possible from France and deploys troops to northern Italy, the Balkans, Egypt, Qatar and former French Africa.

4) British Royal Navy along with free French Navy ships harass German troop transports and merchant shipping heading to Africa and begin blockading large German held ports, dispite being over stretched and suffering material losses at the hands of Unterseeboots.

5) ANZAC begin conquest of New Guinea while others divisions and brigades are deployed to Middle-East, the Balkans and former French Asia (mainly Indochina).

6) Japan captures all German pacific territory with the exception of New Guinea.

7) Russia losses ground as the German Austria-Hungarian armies continue to advance. The Russia October revolution occurred and peace is signed with Germany and Austria-Hungarian gaining territory.

8) Germany (seeing the loss of territory in the pacific) sues for peace with the allies demanding to keep all french colonial territory for Germany in exchange for all German pacific territory and all french provinces with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungry sues for peace dispite only gaining Russian territory.

9) The Ottoman Empire sues for peace loosing Mesopotamia and Palestine to Britain and loosing Syria and Lebanon to Italy. The Arabian peninsula falls under the leadership of the Saudi family.

10) Germany and Great Britain are locked in a state of Cold War. With France now a puppet of Germany due to a pro German coup they have an ideal launching point for an invasion of Great Britain and so the arms race begins again.

Where does the US play into all of this?

So I guess I'm the only person who thinks that the idea of Germany trying to invade the US over the Phillippines is just a little ... off kilter?
Ah, but an invasion of California by the Germans would've been quite a surprise:
"Hurrah!"
"Who are you?"
"Vee are ze Germans!"
"But... shouldn't y'all be comin' from over there?"
I have often thought of this scenario in which Germany over runs France in WWI and I came up with a few events that could have happened:
1) Germany annexes France dispite resistance (to say the least) from the population.
2) In former French colonies colonists an natives begin attacks on the newly arrived German garrisons in an attempt to gain independence from their new masters.
3) Britain evacuates as many troops as possible from France and deploys troops to northern Italy, the Balkans, Egypt, Qatar and former French Africa.
4) British Royal Navy along with free French Navy ships harass German troop transports and merchant shipping heading to Africa and begin blockading large German held ports, dispite being over stretched and suffering material losses at the hands of Unterseeboots.
5) ANZAC begin conquest of New Guinea while others divisions and brigades are deployed to Middle-East, the Balkans and former French Asia (mainly Indochina).
6) Japan captures all German pacific territory with the exception of New Guinea.
7) Russia losses ground as the German Austria-Hungarian armies continue to advance. The Russia October revolution occurred and peace is signed with Germany and Austria-Hungarian gaining territory.
8) Germany (seeing the loss of territory in the pacific) sues for peace with the allies demanding to keep all french colonial territory for Germany in exchange for all German pacific territory and all french provinces with the exception of Alsace-Lorraine. Austria-Hungry sues for peace dispite only gaining Russian territory.
9) The Ottoman Empire sues for peace loosing Mesopotamia and Palestine to Britain and loosing Syria and Lebanon to Italy. The Arabian peninsula falls under the leadership of the Saudi family.
10) Germany and Great Britain are locked in a state of Cold War. With France now a puppet of Germany due to a pro German coup they have an ideal launching point for an invasion of Great Britain and so the arms race begins again.
Wow, seems like you really did give this scenario some thought! ;)

(Noticed you quoted me in your sig - cool! :D)

Die Andere Möglichkeit
von Erich Kaestner

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
mit Wogenprall und Sturmgebraus,
dann wäre Deutschland nicht zu retten
und gliche einem Irrenhaus.

Man würde uns nach Noten zähmen
wie einen wilden Völkerstamm.
Wir sprängen, wenn Sergeanten kämen,
vom Trottoir und stünden stramm.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wären wir ein stolzer Staat.
Und preßten noch in unsern Betten
die Hände an die Hosennaht.

Die Frauen müßten Kinder werfen.
Ein Kind im Jahre. Oder Haft.
Der Staat braucht Kinder als Konserven.
Und Blut schmeckt ihm wie Himbeersaft.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wär der Himmel national.
Die Pfarrer trügen Epauletten.
Und Gott wär deutscher General.

Die Grenze wär ein Schützengraben.
Der Mond wär ein Gefreitenknopf.
Wir würden einen Kaiser haben
und einen Helm statt einem Kopf.

Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten,
dann wäre jedermann Soldat.
Ein Volk von Laffen und Lafetten!
Und ringsherum wär Stacheldraht.

Dann würde auf Befehl geboren.
Weil Menschen ziemlich billig sind.
Und weil man mit Kanonenrohren
allein die Kriege nicht gewinnt.

Dann läge die Vernunft in Ketten.
Und stünde stündlich vor Gericht.
Und Kriege gäb's wie Operetten.
Wenn wir den Krieg gewonnen hätten -
Zum Glück gewannen wir ihn nicht!

There's no satisfactory translation into English. Sorry.

Germany annexes France dispite resistance (to say the least) from the population.
But they had no interest in doing so.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs34.htm
The general aim of the war is security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time. For this purpose France must be so weakened as to make her revival as a great power impossible for all time. Russia must be thrust back as far as possible from Germany's eastern frontier and her domination over the non-Russian vassal peoples broken.

France. The military to decide whether we should demand cession of Belfort and western slopes of the Vosges, razing of fortresses and cession of coastal strip from Dunkirk to Boulogne.

The ore-field of Briey, which is necessary for the supply of ore for our industry, to be ceded in any case. Further, a war indemnity, to be paid in instalments; it must be high enough to prevent France from spending any considerable sums on armaments in the next 15-20 years.

Furthermore: a commercial treaty which makes France economically dependent on Germany, secures the French market for our exports and makes it possible to exclude British commerce from France. This treaty must secure for us financial and industrial freedom of movement in France in such fashion that German enterprises can no longer receive different treatment from French.


Belgium. Liége and Verviers to be attached to Prussia, a frontier strip of the province of Luxemburg to Luxemburg.
Question whether Antwerp, with a corridor to Liége, should also be annexed remains open.

At any rate Belgium, even it allowed to continue to exist as a state, must be reduced to a vassal state, must allow us to occupy any militarily important ports, must place her coast at our disposal in military respects, must become economically a German province. Given such a solution, which offers the advantages of annexation without its inescapable domestic political disadvantages, French Flanders with Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne, where most of the population is Flemish, can without danger be attached to this unaltered Belgium. The competent quarters will have to judge the military value of this position against England.


Luxemburg. Will become a German federal state and will receive a strip of the present Belgian province of Luxemburg and perhaps the corner of Longwy.


We must create a central European economic association through common customs treaties, to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland "sic", and perhaps Italy, Sweden and Norway. This association will not have any common constitutional supreme authority and all its members will be normally equal, but in practice will be under German leadership and must stabilise Germany's economic dominance over Mitteleuropa.


The question of colonial acquisitions, where the first aim is the creation of a continuous Central African colonial empire, will be considered later, as will that of the aims to be realised vis-à-vis Russia.


A short provisional formula suitable for a possible preliminary peace to be found for a basis for the economic agreements to be concluded with France and Belgium.


Holland. It will have to be considered by what means and methods Holland can be brought into closer relationship with the German Empire.

In view of the Dutch character, this closer relationship must leave them free of any feeling of compulsion, must alter nothing in the Dutch way of life, and must also subject them to no new military obligations. Holland, then, must be left independent in externals, but be made internally dependent on us. Possibly one might consider an offensive and defensive alliance, to cover the colonies; in any case a close customs association, perhaps the cession of Antwerp to Holland in return for the right to keep a German garrison in the fortress of Antwerp and at the mouth of the Scheldt.

As you can see, it's not a particularly long list. In short: The German leadership hadn't really worked out what the hell it was they wanted. Lots of "perhapses".

But occupying the whole of France was never going to make the list.

I think another big question is whether Germany could have won the Naval Battle and meaningfully defeat the Royal Navy.

So I guess I'm the only person who thinks that the idea of Germany trying to invade the US over the Phillippines is just a little ... off kilter?

The Kaiser wanted colonies worthy of an empire. The US had become a quasi-one after the Spanish-American War with the acquisition of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and a few other territories. The Kaiser tried to buy all of the territories (on several occasions), at which the US steadfastly refused. So it just wasn't about the Philippines.

Ah, but an invasion of California by the Germans would've been quite a surprise:
"Hurrah!"
"Who are you?"
"Vee are ze Germans!"
"But... shouldn't y'all be comin' from over there?"

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Did you make that up yourself? Seriously, that's funny stuff!

Where does the US play into all of this?

Well they don't and the deadly Influenza virus stay within the US and Canadian boarders. The US adopts an Isolationism policy.


Wow, seems like you really did give this scenario some thought! ;)

(Noticed you quoted me in your sig - cool! :D)

Thanks! I think what you put about freedom on the march was cool.

Well they don't and the deadly Influenza virus stay within the US and Canadian boarders. The US adopts an Isolationism policy.

Wrong. The Influenza virus started in Europe. If the US didn't get involved in WWI, it would not have easily spread to here.

Ah, but an invasion of California by the Germans would've been quite a surprise:
"Hurrah!"
"Who are you?"
"Vee are ze Germans!"
"But... shouldn't y'all be comin' from over there?"

Most of us here in California don't say y'all. That's the South (former Confederacy).

Wrong. The Influenza virus started in Europe. If the US didn't get involved in WWI, it would not have easily spread to here.Canadian troops would have brought influenza back to N America, there was no stopping it, it would be like trying to stop a wind.....

funny that it started in a tiny little town and because of the war (military camps with soldiers moving from one to the next for various reasons) it spread like wildfire IN MORE THAN ONE WAVE. If you got bit by wave one, you usually survived the later waves. If you didn't get it in wave one, and you got it later, you died...

Germany would've taken the whole of Alacsine-Loarine(sp) from France, as well as her colonies. Russia would still be ruled by the Tsars as Lenin would've never returned. The Great Depression would still happen, hitting France the hardest. Fascism would still come to Italy, probably France, and maybe for England (Silver Shirts, anyone?)

The Pacific War would still occur, as Japan would still want the Philippines, Samoa, and other US territories in the pacific. The war pulls America out of the Depression, and proceeds to go toe-to-toe with Tojo

Can you imagine what the Pacific war would have been like if the U.S. hadn't been committed to a Europe first policy that took more than half it's war effort?

It would depend on whether Japan started a war with Britain over it's Pacific possessions as well as the U.S., but either way I would predict a rather short war...possibly with U.S. boots on the ground of the home islands by 1944.

It would depend on whether Japan started a war with Britain over it's Pacific possessions as well as the U.S., but either way I would predict a rather short war...possibly with U.S. boots on the ground of the home islands by 1944.
Well, Japan wasn't interested in the Pacific Islands as such. Their idea was an Asian Empire, the problem came about when the Americans seemed to disagree with it.

The question is whether the US would have been interested in stopping whatever was happening in Asia without the pact between Japan and a Nazi Germany, without the close relationship with Britain brought about by the war.

So, assuming that Germany wins WWI, Britain would not have the same sort of powerful fleet or colonial empire. The British posessions would have been even more poorly defended, by a Britain that was much less of an important power than it was in real life. I have no idea what might have happened to French Indochina in case of a German victory.

Would the US have bothered to get involved in that situation? I'd dare say that the isolationists would've had a much firmer grasp on the president. So no lend-lease and no oil embargo. Maybe an angry letter or two, but not enough to provoke the Japanese into a Pearl Harbor.

I doubt it would happen that way. Look, we didn't even have a fighting army together together until what, Nov, 1942. We had absolutely no war fihting experience, no landing experience or equipment enough to island hop with. Not enough marines or naval assault trained troops. Not enough carriers. Not enough destroyers...we basically learned our trade by helping the brits stay alive in 43, and by jumping around on a few islands in teh pacific that year we learned the rules of keeping a force fighting and safe from counter invasion. OUr navy wasn't strong enough to do asll it had to do in the pacific--it was still mostly British and canadian destroyers on convoy duty, and American subs knocking out Jap transport until 1944. After THAT we got our feet on the ground, and could fight a real 2 front war. Before that we only had enough of what we needed to fight alongside the brits in the desert to survive long enough to learn how to fight.

In fact, the US cheifs badly wanted an attack into europ in 43. Churchills lobbying for finishing the desert and then taiking italy was the rioght decision if only because we got such badly needed training there. I can only imagine what would have happened had we leapt out intothe pacific on our own in 42. Well into 43 our forces there were...trembling. Not going to fall, but barely holding their own...which is why GUadalcanal was abandoned so long. Naval forces were wort more than the island and our troops on it.

Nah. I think if we had gone paciific we would have beat the japs by early 45, and watched europe become a German Empire and nothing we could do that would change it.

Well, WWIII, our cold war, would have been against germany I guess...

but going Europe was the right call.


woooo ambien kicking in! time for a drink and a smoke :)

I don't know how familiar everyone is with the history of World War One, but suppose that Germany had won the war in the opening weeks of hostilities on the Western front, say by capturing Paris and encircling the French and British army - as they probably could have had they stuck to their original plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_plan) - would that have been better the four years of trench warfare that followed?

Would the consequences of a German victory have been that severe on France? Would it have been better to lose some territory and colonies to Germany than the thousands of soldiers killed in the next few years?

It could have completely reshaped last century. Would Nazism never have risen in Germany, or would the effects of the Great Depression resulted in the Nazis (or someone similar) coming to power?

Would colonialism still have declined? Without the military and social consquences of the war, could the European powers have maintained their empires? Would the Ottoman empire maintain its control over the Middle East, and potentially prevent a Arab-Israeli conflict?

How would the socialist cause have been affected? Could the Bolsheviks have taken power in Russia without the chaos and hardship caused by the war? Would universal suffrage be ganted in countries like Britian and Germany without the social changes caused by World War One.

With all this considered, do you think that it would be better if Germany had won World War One early on?
50,000 NZ casulties would tend to agree.
Plus no Nazi Germany so no World War Two.

I doubt it would happen that way. Look, we didn't even have a fighting army together together until what, Nov, 1942. We had absolutely no war fihting experience, no landing experience or equipment enough to island hop with. Not enough marines or naval assault trained troops. Not enough carriers. Not enough destroyers...we basically learned our trade by helping the brits stay alive in 43, and by jumping around on a few islands in teh pacific that year we learned the rules of keeping a force fighting and safe from counter invasion. OUr navy wasn't strong enough to do asll it had to do in the pacific--it was still mostly British and canadian destroyers on convoy duty, and American subs knocking out Jap transport until 1944. After THAT we got our feet on the ground, and could fight a real 2 front war. Before that we only had enough of what we needed to fight alongside the brits in the desert to survive long enough to learn how to fight.

In fact, the US cheifs badly wanted an attack into europ in 43. Churchills lobbying for finishing the desert and then taiking italy was the rioght decision if only because we got such badly needed training there. I can only imagine what would have happened had we leapt out intothe pacific on our own in 42. Well into 43 our forces there were...trembling. Not going to fall, but barely holding their own...which is why GUadalcanal was abandoned so long. Naval forces were wort more than the island and our troops on it.

Nah. I think if we had gone paciific we would have beat the japs by early 45, and watched europe become a German Empire and nothing we could do that would change it.

Some valid points there, but I have seen estimates that as much as 80% of U.S. industrial capacity was geared towards the European front. Combined with all the stuff we sent to allies through Lend-Lease, and that's a sizeable portion of U.S. fighting and industrial power that wasn't headed towards the Pacific.

Picture all of that mobilization, but with only one enemy to worry about...

...methinks it would have been a short war. Perhaps more casualties than what really occurred (experience was lacking) but still a short war.

The world would probably have been a much better place had the Germans won World War I. I think we would have seen a far different World War II that centered around the rise of Japan and The United States as two different models for East Asian "empires" with European colonies and increasing nationalism by the native folks there. I do not think that we would have had a holocaust of the Jews at least not one by the Germans.



I think it would be more accurate to say, "...if France and Britain didn't start WWI" in the first place. But in what way would the world as a whole be better? I doubt humanity would be any better than they are. We would not have many advances such as nuclear power or orbital rockets. Atleast, these things would not have been developed when they were. If there were no WWI and/or WWII, maybe instead of the 1969 lunar landing, we'd be watching it right now.

Without WWI there is no WWII, and thus no massive US industrial build up. The US may have never become a super power. Hitler would likely have not been able to take power. WWI also spelled the end of the Russian Empire, giving birth to the USSR. The Czars were bound to be overthrown eventually given the job Czar Nicholas II was doing. I wonder if it would have still been Lenin, or if something worse would have come along?

Actually,I dont think that Germany had to even win the war for some of this syuff to heppen,basically all that needed to happen was change the Treaty Of Versailles so that it doesnt destroy what was left of Germany's ecnonomy and doesnt force them to pay $30-$33 billion to the allies.

This does not change the fact that Germany had a rising navy that directly threatened British interests. Britain would have remained in the war, though the face of it would have changed dramatically. The US would have still entered it and that is the telling point in this discussion.

The myth of Versailles destroying the German economy still runs so high in public opinion? Jeez.

Versailles didn't destroy the German economy, the German economy recovered much quicker than the French and the huge devaluation of the german currency was intentional to put more pressure on Britain and the US (who were deeply investing into Germany at this time, to the detriment of France) to cave in to pressure. Look up how many times Germany actually paid reparations. You will be quite surprised to learn that they almost never paid them, so how exactly did Versailles mess up the German economy?

The foreign policy agenda of Germany did not change from the Weimer Republic to Nazism, the time table was just sped up. Only by the mid 30s did Hitler deviate from the common German foreign agenda.

Blaming Versailles is to be an apologist and ignore the massive evidence to the contrary.