NationStates Jolt Archive

A common enough question. I’m not talking about an improbable success of Schlieffen plan; but that in 1917 Woodrow Wilson and the US did not enter the war, although the threat of entry remained (possibly because the Zimmerman telegram wasn’t sent/intercepted).

At the risk of corrupting your answers; I’ll provide my own.

March 1918 sees as per normal history, the Treaty of Brest-Litosvk, Russia surrendering control of Armenia to Turkey, Poland, Ukraine, Finland and the Baltic states. This gives Germany the advantage of numbers for the first time; but it will be lost if the US enters the war. The conquests in the east would be turned into vassal states in time to weaken the position of Russia.

The Ludendorff offensives are drawn up as per OTL to bring a decisive end to a war that has gone on too long. The Entente collapse in France and as Germans return to Marne the French call for an armistice. British forces withdraw across the Channel.

After a moderate success at Vittorio Vento, the remaining Entente powers sue for peace in a united front in the face of the oncoming German onslaught in Italy and the Balkans expected in Spring 1919. All the sides are now exhausted, the German government appearing on the brink as reds take to the street.

Germany puts down its internal wobbles with a combination of constitutional reform, higher levels of democracy, sheer force and victory abroad. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire are wobbling much worse and will never truly recover. The Ottoman Empire is eventually forced to abandon Arabia, allowing a unified Arab state. Germany probably helps hold Austria Hungary together with brute force.

Germany annexes Belgium, all of French Alsace, and possibly Lorraine as well. Small portions of northern France are also annexed, depending on their strategic/economic value. Large amounts of French colonies are transferred to Germany. Reparations and military restrictions are also enforced. Britain and Portugal get out of the war with only their prides damaged. A small chunk of Italy is transferred to Austria-Hungary. Greece and Italy might be burdened with minor reparations.

France would swing to an extreme either socialism or ultra conservative monarchism. My guess is that a Socialist sate would arise. The Third Republic was an ill constitution and losing a war would have killed it. Italy would still have seen the rise of Mussolini. The Nazis or a Nazi-like organization would still have been influential in Germany; but not dominate. Similarly Mosley would have been more powerful in a Britain with a hurt pride. The United States would become more isolationist and when the Great Depression hits; I suspect FDR’s new deal would be far more left wing than in our history.

The Second World War would still happen. France and Russia, the socialist powers would strike Germany and her satellite states (Ukraine, Poland, Baltics, Finland) once Kaiser Wilhelm II falls off the perch. Britain would probably realign to support Germany against Communism. Japan would pick off the French colonies in Asia. The US would remain neutral; or FDR might side with leftist powers against the Fascist-Imperialist powers.

After that it all becomes a blur.

They would have got the gold medal instead of the silver.

Why would the Nazis come to power in Germany? The only reason people gave them a second look was due to their economic plight which was caused by the allies forcing them to pay reparations for a war they didn’t start.

The miracle of MAD would possibly have resulted from another country being nuked.

Most people forget that Italy was technically part of the Central Powers, but remained neutral until it could see who would be the victorious power. In your case, Italy would've reaffirmed its loyalty to the other imperial powers of Europe, and probably would've gotten some French territory in return.

Also, FDR was elected solely because of the Great Depression. Without the US's entry into the war, the country might not have experienced the Roaring Twenties, nor the subsequent stock market crash. No crash, no New Deal.

Well, the world would be a TOTALY diferent place in so many ways we really cannot predit what would happen.

Would WWII happen? Would the US rise as the main power? Even with Germany being almost completely destroyed during WWII, nowadays its one of the biggest economic powers. If WWII didnt happened...

What about communism. Would it spread as much? I doubt it. What about the totalitarian states, would they rise too? Or Germany/Nazi and WWI were the reasons for them to rise?

Trust me, things would be completely diferent, and its even possible WWII wouldnt happened.

Japan. Cuba. China. Russia. France. Germany. All these countries would be completely diferent.

Die Andere Moeglichkeit
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!


Sorry for those of us who don't know German, but this poem works best in its original language.

Germany would become the first Superpower. Most of Europe would be under German control or influence. Austria-Hungary would probably be able to hold itself together with the victory. The French would be permanently weakened. Britain's Empire would dissolve earlier.

But more importantly the Depression would probably not hit. China would probably consolidate faster, while Japan most likely would go for Siberia instead (and the Taisho Democracy would have lasted).

United States would gradually come to be an economic power, but probably would remain 'isolationist' in the sense that the military is still limited.

Russia would be totally torn apart. Chances are Communism wouldn't take root there, and even if it did Eastern Europe wouldn't be turned Communist.

And there wouldn't have been a WWII happening when it did.

Germany would become the first Superpower. Most of Europe would be under German control or influence. Austria-Hungary would probably be able to hold itself together with the victory. The French would be permanently weakened. Britain's Empire would dissolve earlier.

But more importantly the Depression would probably not hit. China would probably consolidate faster, while Japan most likely would go for Siberia instead (and the Taisho Democracy would have lasted).

United States would gradually come to be an economic power, but probably would remain 'isolationist' in the sense that the military is still limited.

Russia would be totally torn apart. Chances are Communism wouldn't take root there, and even if it did Eastern Europe wouldn't be turned Communist.

And there wouldn't have been a WWII happening when it did.

Guys, stop being so eurocentric. WWII would have started right on time, 1936, in China, when Japan invaded. And likely the US would still have gotten involved (though Japan might well not have attacked the European powers, given they were not distracted by the European war).

.....And why did Japan invade China in 1936? :rolleyes:

Japan would have remained a British ally without American intervention in WWI.

Besides without Europe it wouldn't have been much of an World War would it? Japan was invovled in the Great War, you know.

French Hitler.

Well, I think it would have been better. Austria-Hungary and Germany would have retained their monarchic states instead of having democracies, and there would have been no punishment on the scale of the Treaty of Versailles, seeing as how no side would have the sheer power of enforcing it on all of their enemies. (France would probably have been forced to hand over some reparations/land, but aside from that it would have been otherwise fine.) The Central Powers would most likely have won, since they were relatively close to doing so anyway (The Spring Offensive worked pretty well for the Central Powers.) Maybe democracy in France would have been discredited and they would have returned to monarchy. I think that a German victory would have precluded Hitler, since there would be a monarch instead of a rabblerouser as head of state. Regardless, the effects of a German victory would almost certainly been superior to those of what actually happened.

Why would the Nazis come to power in Germany? The only reason people gave them a second look was due to their economic plight which was caused by the allies forcing them to pay reparations for a war they didn’t start.
You still have millions of mentally totally destroyed veterans coming home, who can't fit into normal life anymore. Among those the various cults (like the Thule Association and so on) were very popular.

Sooner or later that would have started to influence politics to some extent, though I agree that the Nazi Party in particular couldn't have come to power without Weimar's instabilities.

Old link, still interesting: http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm

If Germany had won, they'd just have a normal treaty.

For the last time, if Germany won WWI, it would be like Red Alert, except the Germans wouldn't roll over.

Die Andere Moeglichkeit
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!


Sorry for those of us who don't know German, but this poem works best in its original language.

Ich verstehe das nicht. I understood the first line only. Then it got confusing so I gave up. I'm just so persistent like that. :D

Germany annexes Belgium

I see no reasoning in this action. Belgium had been an independent nation for more than 75 years and compelled by strong feelings of nationalism. By attempting annexation, the Reich is only furthering the risk of internal dissent down the road (especially since very few Belgians are ethnically German).

Instead, it would seem more plausible for the Belgians to fall under a German sphere of influence (especially when Leopold III becomes King) much like Denmark in the wake of the Second War of Schleswig.

all of French Alsace, and possibly Lorraine as well. Small portions of northern France are also annexed, depending on their strategic/economic value.

This seems rather implausible, as well. The French, already furious about Germany's annexation of their eastern frontier in 1871, would not yield one more inch of ground to the Huns. It would require the complete defeat of France and its subsequent occupation by German forces before such a policy could be realistically enacted.

In the the case of Alsace-Lorraine, it's likely that the French would be forced into recognizing its status as part of the German Empire indefinantely.

Large amounts of French colonies are transferred to Germany.

Again, this seems rather unlikely. As the Allies had essentially subdued the Reich's African realms, I think Berlin would be content with keeping the status quo so far as the Dark Continent is concerned.

Reparations and military restrictions are also enforced.

Certainly large indemnities will be payed by the Allies. But as for military restrictions, that's another story since the UK is still in a rather strong position.

Britain and Portugal get out of the war with only their prides damaged.

Indeed.

A small chunk of Italy is transferred to Austria-Hungary.

As of 1918, the Austrians will be far too worried about maintaining what they currently have than expanding. However, their claim to all of Tyrol would most likely be recognized by Italy.

Greece and Italy might be burdened with minor reparations.

This seems realistic.

Assuming the Soviet Union was not immediately attacked by the Germans following the end of the war, it would probably end up turning in to a war between the two for control over Eastern Europe during the 1930's or 1940's.

If Germany had won all of Europe would be using the mark instead of the Euro.
Asia would be either the same or much better off with probable German support.
Africa and South America probably wouldn't change much.
North America would either conform and start speaking more German and grade 4-8 students would hate German rather then French. Or The USA would lash out against the Germans with underground support in Europe, and Canada would help out just because we are totally whipped

I better defend my version of non-history.

I see no reasoning in this action. Belgium had been an independent nation for more than 75 years and compelled by strong feelings of nationalism. By attempting annexation, the Reich is only furthering the risk of internal dissent down the road (especially since very few Belgians are ethnically German).

Instead, it would seem more plausible for the Belgians to fall under a German sphere of influence (especially when Leopold III becomes King) much like Denmark in the wake of the Second War of Schleswig.
Perhaps, but perhaps not is the only answer I can give there. Belgium would not have been difficult to occupy and would not pose a true threat to the internal stability of the Reich, unlike the Balkans did to Austria-Hungary. Belgium also had a good strategic location for Germany, with Channel access, so Germany would have good incentive for direct control, rather than indirect.

This seems rather implausible, as well. The French, already furious about Germany's annexation of their eastern frontier in 1871, would not yield one more inch of ground to the Huns. It would require the complete defeat of France and its subsequent occupation by German forces before such a policy could be realistically enacted.

In the the case of Alsace-Lorraine, it's likely that the French would be forced into recognizing its status as part of the German Empire indefinantely.

Again, this seems rather unlikely. As the Allies had essentially subdued the Reich's African realms, I think Berlin would be content with keeping the status quo so far as the Dark Continent is concerned.

At the end of Spring, Germany would be sitting outside Paris, hammering across the river. The French armies would be shambles and Britain would be looking poorly. With Summer and Autumn to go before the relative safety of winter; France would be at the barrel of the gun. France would have gladly given a few colonies and a little land in the north and east to have Germans further from Paris as opposed to practically in it. If the French did resist the requests of Kaiser, I'm sure the German military still had some persuading left in it.


Certainly large indemnities will be payed by the Allies. But as for military restrictions, that's another story since the UK is still in a rather strong position.
I only really meant France. The English Channel made Britain untouchable. Britain was never at any risk of starving and still ruled the water.

As of 1918, the Austrians will be far too worried about maintaining what they currently have than expanding. However, their claim to all of Tyrol would most likely be recognized by Italy.
If Germany promised to prop-up Austria-Hungary, they might help themselves to a small chunk of Italy. I could not imagine Germany not proping up Austria-Hungary, it was a useful power to balance the Balkans without actually threatening Germany.

Most people forget that Italy was technically part of the Central Powers, but remained neutral until it could see who would be the victorious power. In your case, Italy would've reaffirmed its loyalty to the other imperial powers of Europe, and probably would've gotten some French territory in return.
Italy entered the war before the US. It would have difficulty flipfloping. Other nations would not approve.

Also, FDR was elected solely because of the Great Depression. Without the US's entry into the war, the country might not have experienced the Roaring Twenties, nor the subsequent stock market crash. No crash, no New Deal.
The Great Depression wasn't just in the US. Nor did it start in the US. All the triggers would still have been there; and it still would have reached the USA.

Die Andere Moeglichkeit
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!


Sorry for those of us who don't know German, but this poem works best in its original language.

If we had won the war
with wave percussion and a roaring storm
then Germany would be out of its mind
and would resemble a mental asylum

One would tame us with music
like a wild tribe
We would jump when Sergeants came,
from the pavement and stand at attention.

If we had won the war
then we would be a proud nation.
And hands would still press against trouser seams in our beds
The women would have to make children.
One child per year. Or jail.
The nation needs children like canned goods.
And blood tastes like raspberry juice.

If we had won the war
then heaven would be upon the nation.
Ministers would wear epaulettes,
And God would be a German General

The border would be a gunner's trench
The moon would be a private's stripe
We would have a Kaiser
and a helmet instead of a head.

If we had won the war,
then everyone would be a soldier.
One people of showoffs and carriages!
And there would be barbed wire around.

Then on command they would be born
for humans are rather cheap.
And because one with cannon barrels
alone does not win wars.

Then reason would lie in chains.
And would stand hourly before the court.
And there would be wars like Operettas.
If we had won the war-
Fortunately, we didn't win it!

--Some people, on the other hand, like to be able to understand things. Feel free to correct my translation---

It's all really simple. Every German/ Nazi soldier sent into the heart of the USA would have killed many Americans. However, everyone of them would have died. No matter how many were sent, they would have died. You can not invade a country that was founded on the freedom of the right to bear arms...in the 40's non the less, and expected to over run it. Especially the south, would have met foreigners with the utmost hostillity.:mp5:

I don't believe that the US entering the war had much bearing on the final outcome. The germans still wouldn't have taken paris in 1918, and the blockade would still have brought germany to her knees.

That said, had the US not entered, france would have got everything up to the west bank of the rhine after the war.

One child per year. Or punishment.
"Or jail." would be better.

The border would be a gunner's grave
"Graben" is "trench". You're thinking of "Grab".

Other then that, an excellent effort. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

I don't believe that the US entering the war had much bearing on the final outcome. The germans still wouldn't have taken paris in 1918, and the blockade would still have brought germany to her knees.

That said, had the US not entered, france would have got everything up to the west bank of the rhine after the war.

Then again, we did bring something across the Atlantic that was vital to the war effort: Influenza.

Italy entered the war before the US. It would have difficulty flipfloping. Other nations would not approve.

I checked Wikipedia and you are correct. My mistake.

The Great Depression wasn't just in the US. Nor did it start in the US. All the triggers would still have been there; and it still would have reached the USA.

At the end of WWI, many countries held debt, and reperations, towards the US, still a major economical power back then. If the US had never entered the war, there never would've been the huge wartime debt to America, and thus more money in Europe, and less rampant credit in America. There most likely would've been an economic hit, absolutely (as illuminated to me by the Wiki entry on the causes of the Great Depression), but recession instead of depression.

I admit that my stance on the latter is weak; economics is one area of politcs that I lack any significant knowledge about.

I don't believe that the US entering the war had much bearing on the final outcome. The germans still wouldn't have taken paris in 1918, and the blockade would still have brought germany to her knees.

That said, had the US not entered, france would have got everything up to the west bank of the rhine after the war.

Not true. By the time American forces arrived in Europe, pretty much all Allied powers have collapsed. The French Army mutinied half way through 1917 and won't go on the offensive for another year, when American troops finally arrived to replenish Allied lines. The Italian army was routed by the end of 1917 at the Battle of Caporetto, and was replenished by Allied (including American) forces only by 1918. Russia folded in early 1918 and went into civil war.

Without the Americans, France won't have the sort of muscle required to demand anything even if they won.

Although the Spring Offensive might not have taken Paris, it yielded significant gains for Germany in spite of fresh American troops arriving in hundreds of thousands. In addition, much of the Allied losses were to be replaced by American troops; without them Britain and France would have been in a much more dire situation. Do remember that, before the Americans arrived, the Western front roughly balanced. But by this stage Germany and Austria was free of the Eastern Front.

At the end of WWI, many countries held debt, and reperations, towards the US, still a major economical power back then. If the US had never entered the war, there never would've been the huge wartime debt to America, and thus more money in Europe, and less rampant credit in America. There most likely would've been an economic hit, absolutely (as illuminated to me by the Wiki entry on the causes of the Great Depression), but recession instead of depression.

I admit that my stance on the latter is weak; economics is one area of politcs that I lack any significant knowledge about.

Eruope accumulated debt while fighting the war, not when America entered it. Regardless of the outcome European nations would be heavily in debt.

However, a chief cause of the Depression was the reparations that Allies demanded from Germany. The Americans loaned Germany the money to pay Allies the reparation, which in turn would be used to pay the debt they owned America. So when American banks pulled the money from Germany, the economies there collapsed, leading to global depression.

Not true. By the time American forces arrived in Europe, pretty much all Allied powers have collapsed. The French Army mutinied half way through 1917 and won't go on the offensive for another year, when American troops finally arrived to replenish Allied lines. The Italian army was routed by the end of 1917 at the Battle of Caporetto, and was replenished by Allied (including American) forces only by 1918. Russia folded in early 1918 and went into civil war.

Without the Americans, France won't have the sort of muscle required to demand anything even if they won.

Although the Spring Offensive might not have taken Paris, it yielded significant gains for Germany in spite of fresh American troops arriving in hundreds of thousands. In addition, much of the Allied losses were to be replaced by American troops; without them Britain and France would have been in a much more dire situation. Do remember that, before the Americans arrived, the Western front roughly balanced. But by this stage Germany and Austria was free of the Eastern Front.


The french army was fixed by the summer of 1918. Also by that point the allies had cracked combined arms and the naval blockade was finally working. The americans didn't really have that much effect on the fighting.

France agreed to settle for less than territory up to the west bank of the rhine (a natural defensive line) because the US promised to guarantee french national security with force of arms. The US then failed to ratify this in the senate later and told the french (after they gave up their claim) that they should get a better understanding of US consitutional law. Given the domestic situation in germany in 1919, it is likely that france and the UK could have demanded pretty much what they liked and gotten it even without the US.

It's also worth considering that had france been ceded the territory it wanted, the reparations might not have been so crippling.

Stupid wilson and his stupid points.

The french army was fixed by the summer of 1918. Also by that point the allies had cracked combined arms and the naval blockade was finally working. The americans didn't really have that much effect on the fighting.

France agreed to settle for less than territory up to the west bank of the rhine (a natural defensive line) because the US promised to guarantee french national security with force of arms. The US then failed to ratify this in the senate later and told the french (after they gave up their claim) that they should get a better understanding of US consitutional law. Given the domestic situation in germany in 1919, it is likely that france and the UK could have demanded pretty much what they liked and gotten it even without the US.

It's also worth considering that had france been ceded the territory it wanted, the reparations might not have been so crippling.

Stupid wilson and his stupid points.

Yes, summer, when American divisions began to really arrive in force.

And just out of interest, why would losing more land help Germany with reparations?

If only Wilson agreed to forgive France and Britain's debt.

Yes, summer, when American divisions began to really arrive in force.

And just out of interest, why would losing more land help Germany with reparations?

If only Wilson agreed to forgive France and Britain's debt.

The war was already over by the summer. Germany was starving. Anway, like I said, the allies had finally cracked combined arms by then, so they could actually make ground. The US just really didn't make all that much difference as the casualty lists show.

France was terrified that it would have to fight another war with germany in the next generation. (I think it was Foch who observed that it wasn't peace just a cease-fire for twenty years). So naturally france wanted to keep germany as weak as possible, and crippling reparations were one way to do that. Remember, germany didn't really start to rearm until after they were forgiven/repudiated. On the other hand, had france been given the territory up to the western bank of the rhine, it would have stood in a far better defensive position - the rhine being a naturally good defensive border - as well as transfering a great deal of german industrial capacity away from them. In that event, there would have been less need to try and keep germany weakened through financial measures.

Of course, WWII was inevitable anyway. Nothing short of breaking germany up would have avoided it. And no-one was going to do that because the US and the UK didn't want france to become too powerful on the continent.

The issue of reparations/debt came up in the twenties. Calvin Coolidge refused to address it.

what if everyone had just aggreed that the kaiser had needed killing and let it go at that and there had never been a WWI?

personaly i find this a MUCH more interesting question, and one leading to a much more gratifying kind of a world.

although i'd go further back in time and eliminate the context even for that.

i really don't have anything else to contribute to the context of THIS thread so i'll quietly go away and let you get back to it.

=^^=
.../\...

This is a slightly different version.

What if Lundendorff didnt condone the policy of unrestriced Submarine warfare drawing the US into the war. Then with the collapse of Russia German forces would have been concentrated in France. Since the people at home were restless ans staving the military would have taken drastic measures for victory. If victory was brought home the people might be willing to live for a little bit longer.

As such Hindenburg and Lundendorff start making effective but costly advances getting to within 30km of Paris. France and Britain would be more inclined for peace after Caporetto.

The treaty would still be one sided. Germany would have to give up its Aisan colonies and maybe German East africa in exchange for some lands in Poland. Germany would accept becuase the people are sick of war. Reperations would be minimal for both sides. Austria just holds itself together and be content with a minimal amount of payment from Italy.

Hitler would rise to a strong political figure as the head of the Nazi party, but he would get total control of Germany. Germany, having no problem with Poland uses its hatred for Russia to its advantage keeping Poland in its sphere of influence.

In the end Germany would rise as both an economic and military power. The US would have a very strong economy based more on production than services and be a rival to Germany.

Its just an idea.

A common enough question. I’m not talking about an improbable success of Schlieffen plan; but that in 1917 Woodrow Wilson and the US did not enter the war, although the threat of entry remained (possibly because the Zimmerman telegram wasn’t sent/intercepted).

At the risk of corrupting your answers; I’ll provide my own.

March 1918 sees as per normal history, the Treaty of Brest-Litosvk, Russia surrendering control of Armenia to Turkey, Poland, Ukraine, Finland and the Baltic states. This gives Germany the advantage of numbers for the first time; but it will be lost if the US enters the war. The conquests in the east would be turned into vassal states in time to weaken the position of Russia.

The Ludendorff offensives are drawn up as per OTL to bring a decisive end to a war that has gone on too long. The Entente collapse in France and as Germans return to Marne the French call for an armistice. British forces withdraw across the Channel.

After a moderate success at Vittorio Vento, the remaining Entente powers sue for peace in a united front in the face of the oncoming German onslaught in Italy and the Balkans expected in Spring 1919. All the sides are now exhausted, the German government appearing on the brink as reds take to the street.

Germany puts down its internal wobbles with a combination of constitutional reform, higher levels of democracy, sheer force and victory abroad. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire are wobbling much worse and will never truly recover. The Ottoman Empire is eventually forced to abandon Arabia, allowing a unified Arab state. Germany probably helps hold Austria Hungary together with brute force.

Germany annexes Belgium, all of French Alsace, and possibly Lorraine as well. Small portions of northern France are also annexed, depending on their strategic/economic value. Large amounts of French colonies are transferred to Germany. Reparations and military restrictions are also enforced. Britain and Portugal get out of the war with only their prides damaged. A small chunk of Italy is transferred to Austria-Hungary. Greece and Italy might be burdened with minor reparations.

France would swing to an extreme either socialism or ultra conservative monarchism. My guess is that a Socialist sate would arise. The Third Republic was an ill constitution and losing a war would have killed it. Italy would still have seen the rise of Mussolini. The Nazis or a Nazi-like organization would still have been influential in Germany; but not dominate. Similarly Mosley would have been more powerful in a Britain with a hurt pride. The United States would become more isolationist and when the Great Depression hits; I suspect FDR’s new deal would be far more left wing than in our history.

The Second World War would still happen. France and Russia, the socialist powers would strike Germany and her satellite states (Ukraine, Poland, Baltics, Finland) once Kaiser Wilhelm II falls off the perch. Britain would probably realign to support Germany against Communism. Japan would pick off the French colonies in Asia. The US would remain neutral; or FDR might side with leftist powers against the Fascist-Imperialist powers.

After that it all becomes a blur.

remember though germany didnt start WW1, austria hungary did. their leader was assassinated and they threw what i call a "temper tantrum" and started a war cuz they were pissed off about who killed their leader. so germany couldnt win the war because...well.. they really didnt start it, they just got punished for it for dominating the war.

Though I would like to know why people are always so desperate to find a way that germany could have won either WWI or WWII? It's like people feel they were cheated or something. Is it 'cos people really like their cars or something?

It's nearly as bad as the whole 'how the confederates could have won the civil war' thing.

Face it. None of those things were going to happen.

Though I would like to know why people are always so desperate to find a way that germany could have won either WWI or WWII? It's like people feel they were cheated or something. Is it 'cos people really like their cars or something?

It's nearly as bad as the whole 'how the confederates could have won the civil war' thing.

Face it. None of those things were going to happen.

Thought experiment.

remember though germany didnt start WW1, austria hungary did. their leader was assassinated and they threw what i call a "temper tantrum" and started a war cuz they were pissed off about who killed their leader. so germany couldnt win the war because...well.. they really didnt start it, they just got punished for it for dominating the war.

The Austro-Hungarians marched into Serbia (thus provoking the Russians, thus provoking the Germans, thus provoking the French etc, etc, etc) under enormous pressure from Germany. The Kaiser and his generals were keen to get the machinery of war going. Although, yes, you are technically correct, the culpability of the Kaiser should be acknowledged.

In answer to the original thread question: I think there would have been a revolution in Germany.

Though I would like to know why people are always so desperate to find a way that germany could have won either WWI or WWII?

Because the world would be a lot better that way. The Allies won, and now our world sucks.

Because the world would be a lot better that way. The Allies won, and now our world sucks.

You inspired me to start a new thread.

Because the world would be a lot better that way. The Allies won, and now our world sucks.

Better how?

World War One was a very morally ambiguous conflict, and objectively I'm not sure there was a right side to be on. It's true to say the Entente was a little better off on that score, as Germany declared war on France at a point when France had not made an offensive move, and Britain joined the war in defence of Belgian neutrality. However that doesn't escape the fact that the long-term cause of WWI was imperial rivalries, and in that Britain and France were as guilty as Germany and Austria.
So as I say, I'm not sure there was a right side in WWI, and it's debatable - as here - what the consequences of a victory by the Central Powers would have been. I think it's true to say there would have been a more balanced peace, as they would have most likely lacked the power to enforce harsh terms.

World War Two, however, was a war of naked aggression; on the part of Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. The fact that the regime in both nations was utterly repellent is not even required to make the decision here - in both cases they went to war as self-aggrandisement. Germany was handed, in a variety of stages up to Munich, all that could be reasonably asked for and more to reverse the humiliation of Versailles.
Thus the Allies were clearly the right side to win WW2. It's true that the Soviet Union was of the same order as Nazi Germany, and had it been possible for the Allies to win without Russian help that would have been better; however better an Allied-Soviet victory than a German-Japanese one.

It's an interesting question, though not a new one. I think more directly, we should ask, "What if Britain didn't declare war on Austria-Hungary?" In that sense, WWI as we know it probably wouldn't have started. Either way...

Austria-Hungary would have made lots of people mad in their territories, and likely added fuel to their own demise. Italy may or may not have still seen Mousilini. Italy has historically been an unstable conglomeration of multiple governments, none being totally successful (other than the Roman Empire of course). The Russians would have likely still overthrown their Czar, but there may have been a 10 or 20 delay, and would probably not have been Lenin or other Marxists. WWI was the nail in the coffin for a few empires, so the Ottoman empire is another whose demise was only put off for a decade or two. Germany would have likely conquered France if it were not for maning two battle fronts and/or if the US and Britain stayed home. After that, they may or may not have stopped.

Overall, it's tough to answer with any real certainty. Most of Europe seemed eager to start something, although no one was sure who. They just wanted to fight, and the assassination of the archduke, and the subsequent supression by the Austrians seemed like a good excuse I guess.

Without the advancements made in WWII however, we would not have been launching orbital rockets in the 50's and 60's. The space race may have been delayed, or not have happened at all. It may have been between other countries than Russia and the US, and likely more than the two. There would also be no nuclear power, or in the least another big delay in the development. WWI and WWII also sparked massive changes in the weapons of war, and they way soldiers are trained to fight. This may have been good or bad depending on whoever would have come to power, or whatever country would have become a superpower instead of Russia and the US.

.....And why did Japan invade China in 1936? :rolleyes:

Because Japan wanted to conquer China. There really isn't much more to it than that - it was simple, strightforward imperialism, tinged with more than a little ancient rivalry. China was the big prize, and Japan figured they could take it.
(Don't know why the roll-eyes - what are you trying to imply?)


Japan would have remained a British ally without American intervention in WWI.

I have no idea where you get that idea from. In 1919, the US and Imperial Japan were on quite good terms - not allies, but certainly not enemies. And the Anglo-Japanese Alliance started to fray in 1920, when Japan wasn't treated as an equal with the US and Great Britain in the Treaty of Washington. Japan's aggressive stance (such as the invasion of Manchuria) drove the two countries apart - not Great Britain's relationship to the US (which varied between tolerant and outright hostile, as they had seriously differingideas of how trade should be conducted).


Besides without Europe it wouldn't have been much of an World War would it? Japan was invovled in the Great War, you know.

Of course I know that; my grandfather served alongside the Japanese in one war, and against them in the next one :D . And while it may not have been a World War, it would certainly have set the dominance of the Pacific Rim firmly in US hands, just as it did in reality.

It's true to say the Entente was a little better off on that score, as Germany declared war on France at a point when France had not made an offensive move, and Britain joined the war in defence of Belgian neutrality. However that doesn't escape the fact that the long-term cause of WWI was imperial rivalries, and in that Britain and France were as guilty as Germany and Austria.

Well, France was allied to Russia and began mobilisation on the 1 August.... The Germans would have to be pretty stupid to not preempt that. Although they did then violate Luxembourg and Belgian neutrality, though we could argue they pretty much had no choice with the rest of Europe surrounding them.

I can't help but wonder if Belgium let the Germans pass through, maybe we'd really have gotten a short war that wouldn't be counting bodies in the millions.

But I agree, there is no right or wrong side in WWI (I usually hold the opinion that no one is right in wars.... but in this war it is more true than any other).

I have no idea where you get that idea from. In 1919, the US and Imperial Japan were on quite good terms - not allies, but certainly not enemies. And the Anglo-Japanese Alliance started to fray in 1920, when Japan wasn't treated as an equal with the US and Great Britain in the Treaty of Washington.

I read somewhere once that one of the USA's aims with the Washington Treaty was to drive a wedge between Britain and Japan.

Well, France was allied to Russia and began mobilisation on the 1 August.... The Germans would have to be pretty stupid to not preempt that. Although they did then violate Luxembourg and Belgian neutrality, though we could argue they pretty much had no choice with the rest of Europe surrounding them.

I can't help but wonder if Belgium let the Germans pass through, maybe we'd really have gotten a short war that wouldn't be counting bodies in the millions.

But I agree, there is no right or wrong side in WWI (I usually hold the opinion that no one is right in wars.... but in this war it is more true than any other).

Blackadder put it best:

Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.


Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?


Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.


George: What was that, sir?


Edmund: It was bollocks.

Alternatively you could say it was the break-up of the Bismarck system of alliances keeping France isolated and thus too weak to face Germany; which itself had a variety of causes including German naval build-up driving Britain into the arms of France, and thus making an alliance that was (or thought it was) strong enough to win in the West.

Because Japan wanted to conquer China. There really isn't much more to it than that - it was simple, strightforward imperialism, tinged with more than a little ancient rivalry. China was the big prize, and Japan figured they could take it.
(Don't know why the roll-eyes - what are you trying to imply?)

You'd be hard pressed to find evidences for that. Japan's military (which staged the Mukden Incident, for example, directly against the government's orders) wanted a captive market; not to conqueor the whole place. And why did the military want to do that? Because with the Great Depression kicking in they felt that Japan needs a market to dump its industrial products in order to secure a strong economy.



I have no idea where you get that idea from. In 1919, the US and Imperial Japan were on quite good terms - not allies, but certainly not enemies.

Japan resented American racism, which was a big deal for Japanese migrants in Carlifornia, and when their attempt to get a racial equality clause into the League of Nations got blocked it aggravated things.



And the Anglo-Japanese Alliance started to fray in 1920, when Japan wasn't treated as an equal with the US and Great Britain in the Treaty of Washington.

Wrong, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired in 1923 and Britain let it lapse due to American pressures. America regarded Japan as a competitor in the Pacific, and after Britain's efforts to enlarge the alliance to cover them failed, closer ties with the US was deemed more vital.This led to a fundamental shift in Japanese foreign policies.


Japan's aggressive stance (such as the invasion of Manchuria) drove the two countries apart - not Great Britain's relationship to the US (which varied between tolerant and outright hostile, as they had seriously differingideas of how trade should be conducted).

The two countries were already on their own roads by the time of the Japanese takeover of Manchuria. However, during the 30s significant efforts were devoted on reviving some sort of cooperation, including high level exchanges between the royal famlilies of both sides. Ultimately it failed because, after the termination of the alliance, their strategic interests diverged.


Of course I know that; my grandfather served alongside the Japanese in one war, and against them in the next one :D . And while it may not have been a World War, it would certainly have set the dominance of the Pacific Rim firmly in US hands, just as it did in reality

If the US didn't interfere, and I doubt it would without Pearl Harbour, which would not have happened without the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan, the I don't see America dominating the Pacific as it does now.

Alternatively you could say it was the break-up of the Bismarck system of alliances keeping France isolated and thus too weak to face Germany; which itself had a variety of causes including German naval build-up driving Britain into the arms of France, and thus making an alliance that was (or thought it was) strong enough to win in the West.

Yeah, what a mess the Alliance system was eh... Which is why I've always thought having a Superpower is a lot better than without.

What if Germany won WWI?

I guess that we would make threads called "What if the Entente won WWI?" :D

You'd be hard pressed to find evidences for that. Japan's military (which staged the Mukden Incident, for example, directly against the government's orders) wanted a captive market; not to conqueor the whole place. And why did the military want to do that? Because with the Great Depression kicking in they felt that Japan needs a market to dump its industrial products in order to secure a strong economy.


I'm sure that was part of it (EVERY war has many sides), but the simple fact is that Japan, from almost the moment the Black Ships forced it to open to the rest of the world, was expansion oriented. Given their possession of Korea, Manchuria, Okinawa and Taiwan, China was simply the next obvious target.


Japan resented American racism, which was a big deal for Japanese migrants in Carlifornia, and when their attempt to get a racial equality clause into the League of Nations got blocked it aggravated things.

Perhaps so - but it couldn't have been the US that blocked it. The US was never a member of the League.


Wrong, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired in 1923 and Britain let it lapse due to American pressures. America regarded Japan as a competitor in the Pacific, and after Britain's efforts to enlarge the alliance to cover them failed, closer ties with the US was deemed more vital.This led to a fundamental shift in Japanese foreign policies.

Britain's failing to stand up for Japan as an equal in Washington was regarded as a serious insult by the Japanese government. It certainly wasn't US pressure - the US of 1923 did not WANT allies, especially not Great Britain, which they regarded as the country they were most likely to fight the next war against.

Britain may have been trying to strengthen (or create) an alliance with the US - but the US was not reciprocating.


The two countries were already on their own roads by the time of the Japanese takeover of Manchuria. However, during the 30s significant efforts were devoted on reviving some sort of cooperation, including high level exchanges between the royal famlilies of both sides. Ultimately it failed because, after the termination of the alliance, their strategic interests diverged.

Accurate.

If the US didn't interfere, and I doubt it would without Pearl Harbour, which would not have happened without the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan, the I don't see America dominating the Pacific as it does now.

The US was already interfering. The US regarded Nationalist China (the Kuomintang) as an allied state - or more accurately, as a cats-paw they could use against British interests in the region. They embargoed oil against China, and used their economic clout to bully several European states, notably including the Netherlands, to follow suit. They were also financing the Kuomintang war effort (which could be reasonably described as both dismal and ineffectual) and supplying US volunteer units (such as the famous "Flying Tigers"), which actually had some success. Japan HAD to act against the US, or withdraw from China as they simply ran out of fuel. The US was betting on the latter, and seriously underestimated Japan's naval striking power.

Yeah, what a mess the Alliance system was eh... Which is why I've always thought having a Superpower is a lot better than without.

For levels of conflict - definitely. The fact that no individual power can face war with the superpower tends you towards small, regional conflicts rather than global wars.

I'm sure that was part of it (EVERY war has many sides), but the simple fact is that Japan, from almost the moment the Black Ships forced it to open to the rest of the world, was expansion oriented. Given their possession of Korea, Manchuria, Okinawa and Taiwan, China was simply the next obvious target.

The world is not that simple. Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan and Hokkaido were all acquired during the Meiji Era. Following that was 20 years of peaceful Taisho Democracy; there is no such thing as a 'next obvious target' when the country stopped being militaristic.


Perhaps so - but it couldn't have been the US that blocked it. The US was never a member of the League.

No, but they had to draft a convenant before states could join. Can't be a member of something non-existent, you see; and the Americans rejected Japan's proposed racial equality clause during the process.


Britain's failing to stand up for Japan as an equal in Washington was regarded as a serious insult by the Japanese government. It certainly wasn't US pressure - the US of 1923 did not WANT allies, especially not Great Britain, which they regarded as the country they were most likely to fight the next war against. Britain may have been trying to strengthen (or create) an alliance with the US - but the US was not reciprocating.

I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. The US did not want the British to have allies - because, you seemed to say, they thought they'd go to war against them. Makes perfect sense. And so Britain thought they might as well let the Anglo-Japanese Alliance drop to get a better relationship with America, also makes perfect sense. I didn't say America wanted to team up with Britain.


The US was already interfering.

I meant militarily. Also I said Japan wouldn't have hit Pearl Harbour had the Dutch dealt with them. So again I don't see what you're trying to say...

The world is not that simple. Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan and Hokkaido were all acquired during the Meiji Era. Following that was 20 years of peaceful Taisho Democracy; there is no such thing as a 'next obvious target' when the country stopped being militaristic.


While Hokkaido was not formally conquered by Japan until the Meiji era, much of Hokkaido was a defacto Japanese colony throughout the Edo era.

Well true, although in that case Okinawa was part of Satsuma (and hence Japan) too way before Perry showed up.

"Or jail." would be better.


"Graben" is "trench". You're thinking of "Grab".

Other then that, an excellent effort. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Ugh, thanks. Not being a native speaker can make things hard to translate. @_@ Like an idiom or two that I found. >_>

US neutrality in WWI would not have likely caused a German victory. But to play along, if Germany won, no Bolshevik coup and no justification for a Red Scare in the US. More likely than not, there would have been a socialist revolution in the United States, most likely left-Marxist or anarchist in nature.

The world is not that simple. Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan and Hokkaido were all acquired during the Meiji Era. Following that was 20 years of peaceful Taisho Democracy; there is no such thing as a 'next obvious target' when the country stopped being militaristic.


Japan never "stopped being militaristic". The nature of it's government and business practice was expansionist - they needed to continue to expand to service a rapidly growing population and keep their economy healthy. The Taisho period was one of stability and gradual growth, when they gradually absorbed what they had taken. When the economy went into a downturn (remember that while Japan was one of the least affected nations by the Great Depression, it still was affected) they turned back to what had worked before - expansion by military force, first into Manchuria, then China itself.



No, but they had to draft a convenant before states could join. Can't be a member of something non-existent, you see; and the Americans rejected Japan's proposed racial equality clause during the process.

Where do you get this crap from? The US rejected the entire CONCEPT of the League when Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. They were not involved in any part of the setting up of the League.


I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. The US did not want the British to have allies - because, you seemed to say, they thought they'd go to war against them. Makes perfect sense. And so Britain thought they might as well let the Anglo-Japanese Alliance drop to get a better relationship with America, also makes perfect sense. I didn't say America wanted to team up with Britain.

If I may quote you: "the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired in 1923 and Britain let it lapse due to American pressures." But the US had a better relationship with Japan in 1923 then they did with Britain. So what "pressures" could those be?


I meant militarily. Also I said Japan wouldn't have hit Pearl Harbour had the Dutch dealt with them. So again I don't see what you're trying to say...

"War is just the continuation of diplomacy by non-diplomatic means." - Von Clausewitz. The Netherlands were NOT going to go against the US on this; the US was their biggest buyer of both oil and rubber. And without Dutch (or US) oil, Japan wasn't going to be able to conquer China. The US believed Japan would back off their ally, Nationalist China. Instead, Japan attacked the US.

Nothing in this alternate timeline changes any of the steps that led up to Pearl Harbour. Therefore, the attack would still have taken place, and the US would still have kicked the IJN back to the Home Islands.

Japan never "stopped being militaristic". The nature of it's government and business practice was expansionist - they needed to continue to expand to service a rapidly growing population and keep their economy healthy.

It didn't have to be through militaristic means.


When the economy went into a downturn (remember that while Japan was one of the least affected nations by the Great Depression, it still was affected) they turned back to what had worked before - expansion by military force, first into Manchuria, then China itself.

Exactly what I said. Becuase of the Great Depression Japan thought that it needs a captive market, so the military destroyed the Taisho Democracy and went on the offensive to invade China. So, what was your point?



Where do you get this crap from? The US rejected the entire CONCEPT of the League when Congress refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. They were not involved in any part of the setting up of the League.

Seriously, go read a book or something. The League of Nations was setup as part of the Treaty of Versailles, which the US took part in writing. Just because Congress refused to sign the treaty doesn't mean Americans had nothing to do with it. In fact, when Japan proposed they received a majority votes supporting the clause, but the Chariman President Wilson (yes, the then POTUS) vetoed it by saying that something so important needs unanimous support. Privately he was afraid that by recognising Japan as equals to Whites, it will implicitly make blacks euqal too.

Or are you going to say that because America didn't ratify the Versailles Treaty, they were not involved in that either?



If I may quote you: "the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired in 1923 and Britain let it lapse due to American pressures." But the US had a better relationship with Japan in 1923 then they did with Britain. So what "pressures" could those be?

I'm confused. If the US was feeling hostile towards Britain, as you said, they would naturally pressure Britain into NOT having allies. Exactly what I tried to tell you from the beginning. And I don't see how Japan's relationship with US comes into play, although I have to say things weren't all sweet on that front either. Racism causes resentment.



"War is just the continuation of diplomacy by non-diplomatic means." - Von Clausewitz. The Netherlands were NOT going to go against the US on this; the US was their biggest buyer of both oil and rubber. And without Dutch (or US) oil, Japan wasn't going to be able to conquer China. The US believed Japan would back off their ally, Nationalist China. Instead, Japan attacked the US.

And you think losing their European mainland has no effect on the Dutch position?




Nothing in this alternate timeline changes any of the steps that led up to Pearl Harbour. Therefore, the attack would still have taken place, and the US would still have kicked the IJN back to the Home Islands.

It changes whether Japan would target China, instead of say, oh I don't know, their traditional enemy Russia?

I personally think that best way for Central powers to win WW I would had been concentrating aganist Russia with all free forces from beginning. Belgium would had stayed neutral giving Germany quite short front to defend in west. Also british participation would had been a lot smaller in western front as defending Belgium and France aganist Germany was a lot more importnant for them then defending Russia aganist Germany, so if there wouldn't had been direct threat to Belgium then British would had smaller motivation to send forces to front. Austria-Hungary could had easily held the line aganist Serbia too. So both main countries of central powers could had concentrated on same target. With German fast mobilization fighting would had been on Russian territory from beginning meaning faster fall of Russia.

It didn't have to be through militaristic means.

No, it probably didn't; they did have other options. But they had other options with the takeover of Korea and Manchuria too, and did not take them.


Exactly what I said. Becuase of the Great Depression Japan thought that it needs a captive market, so the military destroyed the Taisho Democracy and went on the offensive to invade China. So, what was your point?

No, they did nothing of the sort. The Taisho Democracy continued all the way to 1945.
The militarist faction came to office perfectly legally and democratically. They enjoyed widespread support among the general populace. Japan as a whole chose the expansion by military force route, not just a small number of leaders.
My point is simply that Japan was both culturally and politically an expansionist, imperialist state, and had no reason to stop.


Seriously, go read a book or something. The League of Nations was setup as part of the Treaty of Versailles, which the US took part in writing. Just because Congress refused to sign the treaty doesn't mean Americans had nothing to do with it. In fact, when Japan proposed they received a majority votes supporting the clause, but the Chariman President Wilson (yes, the then POTUS) vetoed it by saying that something so important needs unanimous support. Privately he was afraid that by recognising Japan as equals to Whites, it will implicitly make blacks euqal too.

Or are you going to say that because America didn't ratify the Versailles Treaty, they were not involved in that either?

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going to say. Woodrow Wilson, probably the worst President of the 20th Century, was acting without support from the Congress, the American people or even his own party.
I'd suggest YOU read up on this man. He arroganted powers to himself he did not possess, got the US involved in a war we had no business being in, and in the end completely failed to bring about the main points of his Presidency. By 1918 he was a complete lame duck, with no support whatever at home.
Further, read deeper into the operations of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson received the Chairmanship because Britain and France wanted him to be in a position where he couldn't have any real influence on the treaty itself. He was marginalized, his ideas (even the good ones) were ignored, and he was made as much a lame duck there as he was bck home.
Yes, he was the POTUS. But that simply didn't mean as much in 1918 as it does now, and Wilson's status was clear for all to see.


I'm confused. If the US was feeling hostile towards Britain, as you said, they would naturally pressure Britain into NOT having allies. Exactly what I tried to tell you from the beginning. And I don't see how Japan's relationship with US comes into play, although I have to say things weren't all sweet on that front either. Racism causes resentment.

Of course it does. But I have severe doubts the Japanese government thought all that much of it - seeing as Japan was just as racist a country as the US.
Actually, in some ways it was worse. In the US of 1918, a Black man was pretty screwed. But a Hispanic or Asian man was able to avoid a lot of trouble by keeping his head down. It wasn't pleasent, and it wasn't nice, but it could be lived with.
In Japan, if you weren't Japanese, you were nothing. They had laws forbidding Koreans and Chinese from owning land or businesses, and socially, non-Japanese simply didn't exist.

And I reiterate, What possible pressure could the US have brought to bear? The US had no voice in British Politics of the time. Britain chose to end the Alliance for her own reasons. The US had nothing to do with it.


And you think losing their European mainland has no effect on the Dutch position?

Of course it did. But that doesn't change the fact that the US was their biggest customer for Oil and Rubber. Economics is economics - if it's a choice between your best customer and sombody else, you go with your best customer. To do otherwise is stupid, and the Dutch government was not stupid.

It changes whether Japan would target China, instead of say, oh I don't know, their traditional enemy Russia?

Russia was by no means the traditional enemy of Japan; China was. Japan had fought two short, not especially bloody wars with Russia over Port Arthur, and won both. They'd also outmanouvered Russia politically in Korea by murdering the Korean Queen. In contrast, Japan had been fighting China, on and off, for several thousand years.
In addition, Russia had nothing Japan wanted in the Far East. Siberia was vast, empty, and largely worthless; Kamchatka, a volcanic wasteland. China was wealthy (even after years of mismanagement by the Kuomintang), populous, possessed of good soil and water resources, and China was WEAK. Japan saw it as a cow to be slaughtered.

No, it probably didn't; they did have other options. But they had other options with the takeover of Korea and Manchuria too, and did not take them.

Like what? Russia was encroaching steadily on Korea, and she was Japan's biggest perceived threat. And I don't see why you keep on mentioning Manchuria, Japan didn't try to take it until the military went out of control in the 1930s.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, had Britain and Japan continued to work together for their respective interests in the Far East, I don't see Japan engagin in all out war for economic benefits. Back in the 20s they didn't invade Manchuria, did they?

Rather, Japan seem much more likely to try deal Russia, their mortal enemy, a death blow, especially since a victorious Germany probably meant a weaker Russia.



No, they did nothing of the sort. The Taisho Democracy continued all the way to 1945.

I have reiterate: go read a book. All semblance of a democractic state was destroyed during the 1930s. In 1932 the Prime Minister stopped being elected from the lower house, and the cabinet no longer formed from majority party. After the National Mobilisation Law in 1938, Taisei Yokusankai's formation in 1940 effectively ended party politics. The last general election was held in 1942.

The militarist faction came to office perfectly legally and democratically...Japan was both culturally and politically an expansionist, imperialist state, and had no reason to stop.

Yeah, right. March 1931, Imperial Japanese Army officers in the Sakura Kai planned a coup in the March Incident. October same year, the same group attempted another coup in the Imperial Colours Incident. 1932 saw assaination attempts in the League of Blood Incident. In May 15 Incident of the same year, the Prime Minister Inukai Tsyuyoshi was murdered and the civilian government came under military control. 1934, Teijin Incident forced the resignation of the liberal cabinet of Admiral Saito Makoto, who was chosen after May 15 to appease the military without being too provocative. 1936, the February 26 Incident saw rebel forces seizing control of Tokyo for several days before it was put down. Legal? I don't know what country you live in but murder is not legal in anywhere I've been too.

None of the military cabinets during this period were elected.



Woodrow Wilson, probably the worst President of the 20th Century, was acting without support from the Congress, the American people or even his own party... By 1918 he was a complete lame duck, with no support whatever at home.

He was greeted by cheering crowds, for crying out loud. The Treaty of Versailles (Lodge reservations) was voted down in the Senate by a vote of 39 against and 55 for. If just 7 of the Democrats went against their President and voted for the treaty, it would have passed. The total number of Senators who favoured the Treaty in some shape or form came to 71.

I'm interested in finding out what your threshold of having 'support' is; 90%? Or does it have to be unconditional, total 100% support of the population to count?



But I have severe doubts the Japanese government thought all that much of it - seeing as Japan was just as racist a country as the US... They had laws forbidding Koreans and Chinese from owning land or businesses.

And that's different from the Alien Land Law. How? Twisting historical facts is stupid, and double standards are disgusting.

Besides, whether Japan was racist or not have no bearing on what the Japanese people would feel if people discriminate against them. The racial-equality clause was a wildly popular move at home, because of the unequal treaties and past humiliation levied on Japan over the last few decades.

More over, the denial signaled to Japan's more extemist elementat that they have not been accepted into the league of European Great Powers, and that Japan could not expect much from the new world order.



Britain chose to end the Alliance for her own reasons. The US had nothing to do with it.

Repeat: Britain chose to end the Anglo-Japanese Alliance for the reason to cultivating closer ties with America.



But that doesn't change the fact that the US was their biggest customer for Oil and Rubber. Economics is economics - if it's a choice between your best customer and sombody else, you go with your best customer. To do otherwise is stupid, and the Dutch government was not stupid.

While what you are saying makes sense, it is totally irrelevant to the argument. Yes, America was a big buyer; but the Dutch had no reason to stop selling Japan oil just because the U.S. asked them not to. Rather, they joined in the Embargo because Japan looked to be getting more and more militant, and like the US the Dutch underestimated Japanese interests.



Russia was by no means the traditional enemy of Japan... Japan had been fighting China, on and off, for several thousand years. China was wealthy (even after years of mismanagement by the Kuomintang), populous, possessed of good soil and water resources, and China was WEAK.

Russia was the Imperial power that encroached upon Japan the most prior to the Meiji Restoration, particularly in the Sakhalin and Hokkaido. After Japan became a regional power, they competed over vital interests in Manchuria and Korea. Japanese dominance in the latter was established in the Russo Japanese War, BTW; the assassination of Empress Myeongseong did nothing to stop Russians.

And Japan hardly ever fought China. Before the modern era, all I could count is four times: 660, Battle of Baekgang in Korea; Mongol Invasions of 1274 and 1281 (but hardly China); and finally Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea, 1592-1598. Note how Japan never actually invaded (pirates don't count) China? You claims of thousands year long conflicts are ludicrous.

Lastly China was not wealthy. It was (and is) a huge market, and Japan could sell in that market without actually owning the country.

BTW that's gonna be my last post on this topic, so don't bother replying...

I always reply; whether you listen or respond is up to you.

Like what? Russia was encroaching steadily on Korea, and she was Japan's biggest perceived threat. And I don't see why you keep on mentioning Manchuria, Japan didn't try to take it until the military went out of control in the 1930s.

The military was by no means "out of control". But more on that later.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that, had Britain and Japan continued to work together for their respective interests in the Far East, I don't see Japan engagin in all out war for economic benefits. Back in the 20s they didn't invade Manchuria, did they?

The problem is, you're looking at it from purely economic perspectives. Now, economics plays a part in all wars, but some more than others. The invasions of Manchuria and China had more to do with seizing wealthy land and room than economics.
Also, Britain had it's own agenda in the Far East, one that pretty clearly would have ended up with them in control of China. This was clearly contrary to Japanese interests.


Rather, Japan seem much more likely to try deal Russia, their mortal enemy, a death blow, especially since a victorious Germany probably meant a weaker Russia.

Yes, it probably does. But there remains no reason for Japan to fight Russia again.
Japan won both previous wars, so there is no revenge motive. Russia has nothing Japan needs or wants. Russia's once great influence in the Far East has, by the early 1940's, dwindled practically to nothing. To Japan, Russia has ceased to be important.


I have reiterate: go read a book. All semblance of a democractic state was destroyed during the 1930s. In 1932 the Prime Minister stopped being elected from the lower house, and the cabinet no longer formed from majority party. After the National Mobilisation Law in 1938, Taisei Yokusankai's formation in 1940 effectively ended party politics. The last general election was held in 1942.

Yes. And the next one was scheduled for 1946. I agree that the Japanese Diet had altered things in ways we don't necessarilly see as promoting democracy, but it was still in charge, and the military was still taking orders from the civilian government, not the other way around.


Yeah, right. March 1931, Imperial Japanese Army officers in the Sakura Kai planned a coup in the March Incident. October same year, the same group attempted another coup in the Imperial Colours Incident. 1932 saw assaination attempts in the League of Blood Incident. In May 15 Incident of the same year, the Prime Minister Inukai Tsyuyoshi was murdered and the civilian government came under military control. 1934, Teijin Incident forced the resignation of the liberal cabinet of Admiral Saito Makoto, who was chosen after May 15 to appease the military without being too provocative. 1936, the February 26 Incident saw rebel forces seizing control of Tokyo for several days before it was put down. Legal? I don't know what country you live in but murder is not legal in anywhere I've been too.

It wasn't in Japan, either. The murderer of Tsyuyoshi was hanged for his crime.
Yes, all of those coups and events happened. And, they all failed.


None of the military cabinets during this period were elected.[QUOTE]

Nor has any American cabinet, ever. They were selected by the PM, who was either a member of the Diet, or selected by the Emperor - entirely legal under the Japanese laws.

[QUOTE]
He was greeted by cheering crowds, for crying out loud. The Treaty of Versailles (Lodge reservations) was voted down in the Senate by a vote of 39 against and 55 for. If just 7 of the Democrats went against their President and voted for the treaty, it would have passed. The total number of Senators who favoured the Treaty in some shape or form came to 71.

I'm interested in finding out what your threshold of having 'support' is; 90%? Or does it have to be unconditional, total 100% support of the population to count?

Wilson had cheering crowds for ending an unpopular and unwanted war. His actual popularity at the time was around 17%, the lowest of any President of the modern era.


Repeat: Britain chose to end the Anglo-Japanese Alliance for the reason to cultivating closer ties with America.

Repeat for idiot - You still have not shown how, in any way, this was America's doing, as you have previously stated.



While what you are saying makes sense, it is totally irrelevant to the argument. Yes, America was a big buyer; but the Dutch had no reason to stop selling Japan oil just because the U.S. asked them not to. Rather, they joined in the Embargo because Japan looked to be getting more and more militant, and like the US the Dutch underestimated Japanese interests.


But America wasn't just "a big buyer"; it was the buyer, especially for rubber, which brought a far higher profit margin than oil did at the time. And the US didn't just ask; they threatened to impose tariffs on Dutch rubber and oil. Bullying tactics, in other words, but they worked.


Russia was the Imperial power that encroached upon Japan the most prior to the Meiji Restoration, particularly in the Sakhalin and Hokkaido. After Japan became a regional power, they competed over vital interests in Manchuria and Korea. Japanese dominance in the latter was established in the Russo Japanese War, BTW; the assassination of Empress Myeongseong did nothing to stop Russians.

I can't agree with you there. Myeongseong invited the Russians into Korea as a counterweight against the Japanese, who were favoured by her father-in-law. After her murder ("assassination" is far too clinical for this act of brutality), the Russians had no political powerbase on the penninsula.

The Russo-Japanese war (both therof) were primarily about the strategically important Port Arthur.


And Japan hardly ever fought China. Before the modern era, all I could count is four times: 660, Battle of Baekgang in Korea; Mongol Invasions of 1274 and 1281 (but hardly China); and finally Hideyoshi's Invasion of Korea, 1592-1598. Note how Japan never actually invaded (pirates don't count) China? You claims of thousands year long conflicts are ludicrous.

"Pirates don't count"? Spain would NOT agree.

Japan and China, prior to the post-WWII era, simply hated one another. Both saw the other as the single greatest obstacle to hegemony over the Far East; both were expansionist and (on and off) militaristic; each saw themselves as the paragon of civilization, and the other as barbarians. It makes as little sense as the prolonged conflict between France and England (an and off, almost 800 years worth), but it still existed.


Lastly China was not wealthy. It was (and is) a huge market, and Japan could sell in that market without actually owning the country.

No, you've misunderstood Japan entirely on this. China WAS wealthy, in the wealth that Japan coveted: Land and room and raw materials. China wasn't much of a market in the 1930s - most people made enough to get by, and that was about it. But it was a net exporter of food (always a problem for Japan), it had space for Japan's surplus population, and it had local workers to be exploited. All apparently unguarded. A big, fat, helpless cow.

Then again, we did bring something across the Atlantic that was vital to the war effort: Influenza.
Indeed, followed in the second world war by MRSA. Cheers for that.

Again I have to correct a myth - the burden of the reparations which Germany had to pay.

In fact, the reparations Germany had to pay weren't really high. There were several treaties, so that the payments didn't hurt the German economy. Against the last one, (paying little amounts until 1980) there was a plebiscite - which wasn't succesful.

In the great depression, there was a moratorium, and finally there was a treaty which stopped all reparation payments. And this was before Hitler became chancellor.

The reason of the rise of the Nazis was mainly the economic crisis, and the weak constitution with a president almost as mighty as the emporer. Combined with a very old and senile president, this was enough to end the democracy.

Olmedreca;12287223']I personally think that best way for Central powers to win WW I would had been concentrating aganist Russia with all free forces from beginning. Belgium would had stayed neutral giving Germany quite short front to defend in west. Also british participation would had been a lot smaller in western front as defending Belgium and France aganist Germany was a lot more importnant for them then defending Russia aganist Germany, so if there wouldn't had been direct threat to Belgium then British would had smaller motivation to send forces to front. Austria-Hungary could had easily held the line aganist Serbia too. So both main countries of central powers could had concentrated on same target. With German fast mobilization fighting would had been on Russian territory from beginning meaning faster fall of Russia.
Strategists back then believed that wars were going to be real quick, with constant offensive manoeuvres. The fact that an entrenched army could inflict terrible damage on their opponent was not yet known
The Germans wanted to defeat France as fast as possible, because the French army could be mobilized pretty quickly and Paris was close. The Russians on the other hand had enormous masses of land and a much larger army, but it would take them a long time to mobilize. The German could concentrate on one enemy, while leaving a small force on the eastern front with a large front that could hold of initial Russian attacks with a flexible defense.

The Germans would have reclaimed Samoa and New Zealand would be a German dependancy.