ITT: /tg/'s armchair generals and historians speculate on what might have happened if events had turned out differently.
Today's Episode: What if Germany won the FIRST World War?
On the plus side, No WWII and German Imperial Hegemony in Central Europe means peace and stability for generations. On the negative side, Colonialism is still going strong, Monarchy is still the dominant form of Government and no Holocaust means Racism and Anti-Semitism are still respectable belief systems.
That depends in large part on how they won. If you say, have an operation Michael that succeeds in breaking the French, you actually probably wouldn't get that much of a macrohistorical difference, because by then Germany was so battered and broken by the costs of the war, it probably would have had a lot of the same civil problems and financial collapse that it did historically, albeit not quite as bad.
If you say, have the schlieffen plan work, (Possibly going the Lisle Rose route of a suicide cruise with the High Seas Fleet to the Channel), then we have a very, very different story.
Possibly Eugenics too.
We know Germany wasn't afraid to go big with its sanctions (look at their front-ending treaty with Russia), but do they try and hammer Britain and the US as much as they will France?
Not so sure I agree. The U.S. was actually the dominant world power at that point in time by metrics of things like naval power, overall population and wealth, and some basic military indexes like wheat and steel production.
Sooner or later they'd realize their strength, and the U.S. was pretty anti-hard colonialism anyway, and had enough pull to do some serious policy-changing in that direction.
And even the German monarchy was in many ways a fiction. The military establishment ran a lot of the country, not the Kaiser.
I can't envision any sort of history where the Ottomans and the Austrians don't collapse under their own weight.
Depends on how they won.
>No US involvement?
That's a given, once the US got involved the war became much more difficult for Germany. Not WWII levels of unwinnable, but still tough.
>Italy stays Central Powers (without somehow pissing off Austria)
Somehow, I think Italy's actions would be irrellevant to this discussion. I get the feeling that Bennito Mussolini would have taken over anyway win or lose.
>Does the Ottoman Empire not collapse?
What happens to the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires is the big burning post-war question in any "Germany Wins" WWI scenario. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in decline long before the war even started. It is entirely possible that a victorious Germany could get bogged down in a Vietnam-like quagmire trying to prop up their Eastward ally. A situation that would drain their resources and make them a tempting target for a resurgent, Fascist France.
Interestingly to this day the part of Poland that was part of Germany is the richest, most peaceful, and most developed part of Poland
This map shows political parties, with the more liberal, European parties to the left and in the big cities of the East, and the conservative parties dominating the poorer East.
The Racism and Anti-Semitism are big things. They had human zoos in Belgium until the 50's and France was more anti semetic than Germany pre Nazi's.
I imagine this also spurring quite a lot of competition between Germany and Britain, Russia still collapsing into communism, and America not getting the huge boost it got IOTL from WW2.
Japan would probably develop the same but would be less troubled by a weaker America.
Britain might have developed it's Asian holdings more as a German dominated Europe means German dominated Africa. Britain would also win the Great Game by default as Russia would be in no shape to compete in Central Asia.
So basically if you're European or Japanese, things are pretty good. If you're American, things are ok, but not as good.
If you're African or other Asian, you're kinda boned.
And yet they more or less badgered a lot of the European powers to abandon their enclaves in China, and later still, were THE push behind the eventual abandonment of Africa.
Yeah, the U.S. had its own boots on the ground, but by and large, they were pushing to end European colonialism, and replace it with a more corporate style interaction with the developing world.
And I can't see any sort of WW1 where the U.S.'s power is broken, so no matter what happens, they're going to be a largely anti-colonial force in the world, and a strong one.
The US might stick to just selling to both sides if that ship (Lusitania?) hadn't been sunk.
It's important to remember that after people of British decent the next most populous ancestry was from Germany, and there was a lot of pressure to keep out of the war
Did you seriously miss out on the massive naval buildups that the U.S. was embarking just on the possibility that Japan might do something hostile?
Sure, if open war a la WW2 never breaks out, they probably won't catapult themselves into superpower status, but I'm not so sure that won't happen anyway. I don't see how WW1 is going to affect the political collapse in China, or Japan trying to take advantage of it, or the U.S. getting mad about that, culminating in hostilities.
It might not be a world war, but a Pacific war between Japan and the U.S. was probably pretty likely and not born out of WW1.
The U.S. might have been selling to both sides in theory, but in practice it was selling to the British. The Germans could only send submersibles across the Atlantic (Cash and carry's a bitch that way) without getting blown up by the Royal Navy, and they just don't have the same tonnage capacity as a real cargo ship.
And most of the resistance to the U.S. was because it was a problem "Over there". The U.S. was not friendly with the Kaiser's government, and it wasn't a "Do we like the British more or the Germans more?" It was "Do we hate the Germans enough to justify all the expense and blood it will take to go fight them."
I can't see the U.S. being friendly towards a Monarchic, uber-militarized Germany, especially one that just overran half of Europe.
You guys are forgetting the most often-ignored Wild Card in any Alternate History WWI/WWII scenario.
WW2 still happens, but it's basically just everyone in the world vs the Soviets. If Monarchist governments still predominate, I really don't see them tolerating the existence of a strong Communist state for very long.
The Schlieffen plan had already failed by the time Italy entered the war. And they never committed more than a token number of troops to the Italian front anyway, it was mostly Austria-Hungary fighting that war.
And given that the two went more or less evenly, and how badly the Austro-Hungarians did against literally everyone else, like the "I have no ammo" Russians, I'm not sure how much help the Italians would have been.
The US has spent most of it's history being friendly with despots, because it suited them.
Pretty sure if Germany won the US would have a "special relationship" with Germany instead
You know, I had a discussion like this with a friend of mine. This guy is a reformed Weeaboo who gained a real appreciation for authentic Japanese culture ( along with a healthy distaste for Otaku culture) and majored in Japanese history.
We foresee a scenario where the Empire of Japan, upon seeing a massive build up of Germany forces in East Asia as a victorious German Empire gobbles up English and French colonies, might conclude the German Empire is a bigger threat than the United States and ally with the US against Germany.
I take this with a large grain of salt because he is a Japanophile, but it is food for thought.
Also, I think I just wrote an Anime.
>upon seeing a massive build up of Germany forces in East Asia as a victorious German Empire gobbles up English and French colonies
Pretty unlikely. Germany never had any major holdings in Asia. It's more likely they'll take over the French/Belgian/etc holdings in Africa and pressure the British holdings there.
They'd put pressure on Asia too but the British would probably push that shit even more in the face of a Germanic Africa
I could see it, Japan was primarily concerned with other Imperial powers sticking their dick into what Japan considered its sphere of influence, with the Americans a close secondary concern
Between the two, and with an eye on the leverage a victory would give them, a US-Japanese pact would be the preferable option
If an Empire doesn't have major holdings in an area, that only increases the likelihood they'll take colonies in that area given the chance
Germany missed out on the South East Asian market, grabbing up French and British colonies there would help them a lot
The thing is, I personally don't think the consequences of a German victory in WW1 would be that far ranging. Huge consequences in Europe, but I don't see Germany fully occupying all of Russia (They didn't get that at Brest Litovsk, after all), and marching across it to the far east. Their navy would still be considerably inferior to the British, and those old coal powered ships have vastly limited range at which point they need to stop and refuel, and all the good spots are taken by France and England.
Maybe they'd be able to strongarm France into handing over some of their possessions in Africa and the Americas, but I doubt Britain would be averse to occupying them at that point, and I consider it very unlikely that Germany could batter the UK into submission.
So I don't really see how you'd get a big buildup in the Far East which would threaten Japan.
Not entirely sure they could, even if they did win they'd be in about as terrible a stare as their opponents, whereas the colonies would be relatively untouched b the war and thus better able to fight off incursions.
Please tell me what attempts the U.S. made to colonize Africa.
But the U.S. was the other power that was sticking its dick the most into what Japan considered its sphere of influence, especially with regards to China.
Yes but those colonies wouldn't be fighting, they'd be traded away in the settlement in exchange for something else. A German led peace conference would be much more traditional and essential boil down to a colonial swap meet, trading colonies you can afford to keep the ones you want
>What if X?
You enormous tool. You have to specify HOW. HOW makes a tremendous difference, you're asking about the development of the whole world, after all.
Your question is like asking "How would the universe be different if pi was exactly three?" WHY it happens that way is pertinent.
Thats why I said they were a secondary concern, a close second to the first problem of other colonial powers. The US is less of an issue than an expansionist Germany. If nothing else, the US are primarily economic imperialists which are easier to deal with, often literally
Agreed, I can easily see France getting hammered at the Treaty of Potsdam negotiations. It would be like Versailles in reverse. Germany, wanting French colonies for themselves, blames France for provoking the war and a humiliated Great Britain, eager to wash their hands of the whole affair, eagerly agrees. France is forced to cede nearly all of her colonies to Germany and pay debilitating reparations to Germany, a la real life Germany.
Germany ends up owning Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, which gives Japan a pretty good reason to be angry.
Not really a colony, more a US government sponsored territory to allow former slaves to go back to Africa, as that was a popular movement amongst African Americans at the time. Obviously the entire thing failed abysmally to the point the US got turned off African involvement for quite some time
Not sure what point the original anon was trying to make
The biggest problem is imagining a scenario where Imperial Germany conclusively defeats Britain and France in the field.
I suppose you could hinge it on the Battle of the Marne, but the exact hows and whys would be a problem
France, minus most of its colonies and paying reparations (worse than the OTL German ones, seeing as there's not going to be anyone calling for restraint like Woodrow Wilson).
Does it go Facist, or Communard?
IIRC the main problem both sides had was that they couldn't consolidate victories. Their supply lines were to slow to allow them to effectively resupply after a major push, so they get pushed back.
Maybe if Germany had a crack corp of engineers rapidly assembling rails for resupply by train? Or maybe >>35814119
Not him, but it's easy to imagine a how or why.
At the start of the war, the main British fleet is up by Scapa Flow. The Germans are in Kiel. The blockade hasn't been declared, and of course, England enters the war a bit later than the other powers.
As Germany is marching into Belgium, instead of stupidly thinking Britain will do nothing, you send the High Seas Fleet out on a suicide cruise. They've got no observers worth mentioning, and it takes about 31 hours for a dreadnought to steam from Scapa to Dover, and that's if they respond instantly. Your fleet sails along, sinking anything they see, and more impiortantly, shelling harbors, moving generally westwards through the Channel to maximize destruction.
This, at least according to Lisle Rose in Power at Sea, will delay the landing of the BEF by at least 2 weeks, possibly more, depending on how widespread the harbor damage is and how quickly it can be repaired.
Take away the British at Mons, and you get a much quicker collapse of the Belgians. And with far fewer Brits holding up the left at the Marne, (to say nothing of the fact that the Germans will be in a superior position beforehand in all likelihood) means that they should prevail quite easily.
Of course, this still leaves Britain mostly undamaged, and you've just sent the High Seas Fleet to its doom, but it would almost certainly beat France.
I'm guessing it goes fascist and does just about everything Germany did in WW2 under the leadership of Marcel Bucard
>On the plus side, No WWII and German Imperial Hegemony in Central Europe means peace and stability for generations
How does Germany winning prevent WW1? Germany doesn't offer a stabilizing influence any more than the Anglo-Frankish alliance following WW1. Combine that with the fact that any defeat is likely to destabilize France even further and the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary aren't forcibly disassembled and you have a perfect breeding ground for communism. Honestly a German victory is much more likely to result in a global revolution than an Entente victory since the Entente forcibly disassembled the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire largely destroying the biggest issues in those regions.
Fascist, if nothing else several of the French High Command in WW2 had Fascist sympathies, and pretty much everyone hates the Communists
Germans bring their own railway network through Belgium, allows them to consolidate and break through the Marne, leaving the French army and BEF limping back towards Paris?
I'd lean towards them going fascist. They're definitely in a much better position to aid/be aided by Fascist Spain.
Which could make for a very interesting WW2. Spain, France, fascist Italy and Russia trying to vs Germany. I could even see the U.S. and U.K. jumping in to help Germany, if the alternative is a Europe divided by Fascists and Soviets.
An alternate Moltov-Ribbentrop pact would also be more likely to hold, since the main players would be to far away to stab each other in the back.
>Franco-Spanish-Italian Fascists ally with Soviet Russia.
I can't really see that happening. Fascists absolutely HATED Communism, the most that could be hoped for is something akin to the Moltov-Ribbentrop pact which is basically just "Don't bother us, we won't bother you." Agreement.
I can, however, see a combined Spanish, French and Italian force trying to invade Germany to reclaim the Coal-rich Alsace Lorane , with predictably hilarious results.
I could see the whole region dissolving into a Veitnam style conflict, 20-30 years earlier. With bloody civil wars between Fascists, Communists, and other factions, all being propped up and supplied by outsiders.
>a combined Spanish, French and Italian force trying to invade Germany
It didn't stop Russia and Germany from playing nice when dividing Poland.
More "Allies of convince" then an actual alliance. Probably when one group tries to take a bite out of Germany, the other would jump in and try and catch the krauts with their pants down.
Many reasons. For one Fascism and Nationalism hold a special appeal to people who feel that "their side" got cheated out of the victory they rightly deserved because "MY country are ALWAYS the Good Guys!" thinking is just human nature. I would also say that any post-defeat France would see a similar rise of Anti-Semitism to what happened in Wiemar Germany. It's easy today, in a post-Holocaust world to forget that Anti-Semitism was a powerful force in European politics really right up until the Concentration Camps were liberated.
France is no exception, I mean remember the Dreyfus Affair?
The Spanish Civil War spreads across the border, as a teetering democratic France becomes officially involved only to have the army command mutiny in favour of fighting alongside Franco. Lower ranks form soldier's Soviets and the situation devolves from there
Actually, now you say that, a White victory in the Russian Civil War would be a possibility if Germany now longer had to worry about France or Britain. They could easily send some battle hardened units to assist and help create up a new Tsarist state
Czar Nicholas II and his family are rescued on the eave of their execution in a daring rescue mission planned and carried out by a dashing, gentleman Mercenary Pilot fighting for the White Russians.
Yes, this DOES actually happen in Crimson Skies
Imperial Germany. The Kaiser and the Tsar were cousins after all, and the possibility of a Communist Russia was enough to convince even the United States to send troops to assist the Whites
>with predictably hilarious results.
I'm not sure it would be all that one sided. WW2 France had more heavily armed and armored tanks then Germany did at the start of the war. There's a chance that a fascist take over of France might result a big enough shake up that somebody who actually knows how to utilize them gets in a position to do so.
Even their inaction would've been of help. Those Austrian troops would no longer need to fight the Italians and could be deployed elsewhere, and the allies wouldn't have been able to use Italy itself as a front to strike at the CP.
Well if Germany can consolidate after blitzing France before the British can land, the British would be forced to either call things off, focus war efforts elsewhere besides continental Europe, or perhaps the worst option: A D-Day equivalent landing with ww1 level tech, no air support and no american participation.
>armored tanks then Germany did at the start of the war. There's a chance that a fascist take over of France might result a big enough shake up that somebody who actually knows how to utilize them gets in a position to do so.
But the Austrian troops were terrible. And there weren't any significant strikes I'm aware of up out of Italy.
I'm assuming that if Germany can break France, the war on the continent is over. But yeah, I think the most likely result at that point is the blockade continues, the British do their stuff against the Ottomans, and they glare at each other for about a decade and skirmish and then sign a peace treaty when it becomes clear that neither power can really defeat the other.
Yeah, but Stalin had also been trying to forge an anti-German alliance prior to the Polish partition. But those efforts fell through so, the Soviets figured they might as well get something out of it.
Also no one ever mentions that Poland got a piece of Czechoslovakia.
Not him, but don't see that as likely. Pro-German sentiment was relatively muted in WW1, and of the peace element in the states, far louder were the voices against war in general or against involving themselves in a European problem than were based in "we like Germany".
Had the Schlieffen plan succeeded (and it was honestly a very real possibility) you would merely have a more impactful franco prussian war.
Where France is relegated to 2nd tier power status and the german sphere to now include Belgium and more African holdings. But the seeds for the second world war not so much.
If the war ended later however, its hard to see how a second world war would not occur regardless.
Nationalism was on the rise and even a central power victory could not stop Turkey and Austria Hungary from collapsing. They showed to all the world just how weak they really were.
Communism and the russian revolution was jumpstarted by Germany's involvement during WW1. The western powers (and even GERMANY) tried to help the Whites but in the end gave up and it had to do with how incompetent the white leaders were in rallying the masses and coordinating their efforts on a broad strategic level.
The massive far right movements fueled by disaffected veterans would occur regardless. Even France and England had strong fascist movements.
The great depression will occur regardless
The roots of the so called decadent Weimer culture, its great works and thinkers/artists were inspired before and during the war.
The differences however would be the reversal of Germany and France's role. I think that Britain would end up okay if the mainland was lost since Germany only seriously tried to contest the seas once. Another French generational war lost would be a blow to the psyche of France as a nation. Revolution and strife would break out and communism has always had a very powerful hold in the French since its conception.
Its hard to predict what events would unfold from there but I think it might end up where the German Super State being surrounded by French and Russian communists while an apprehensive UK and apathetic US look on.
If the Canadian Military isn't called to fight in continental Europe, I'm not sure the U.S. would win that one. At best it would be an extremely costly American victory. At worst it would be akin to invading Russia but with the British Navy sinking almost every American ship trying to support from the Atlantic. The American Navy could control the Pacific coast but that wouldn't count for much.
I was under the impression that it wasn't that close a deal. Would a war weary Imperial Germany put enough skin in the game to keep the whites in power?
I like this. Double points of it's Baron von Richthofen.
I see a portion of the Russian Family making it out alive more likely then the Whites winning. If the Soviets end up losing the alternate WW2, maybe the Germans could try and re-establish a Russian Monarchy.
The anti war movement was very strong in the US. Baring the UK sinking a dozen passenger ships, theres no way America would invade Canada. Especially not to annex another fellow white nation.
1910s America was a very different political landscape than the one today.
The Whites lacked anything resembling a central leadership, they just sort of gravitated towards who'd been most successful that week. Given a strong leadership, or had one particular faction been backed by someone as strong as a victorious Germany there is the real possibility all the non-Red rebels would have been aligned behind them
I think the interaction between Britain and Germany would be interesting.
If Germany won on the continent then you've got two large European empires with the same goals: maintain/expand the colonial empire, manipulate the successor states in Europe, stop communism, don't let your position as a superpower be challenged.
Neither can really take out the other, so you could see an early sort of cold war develop.
If Germany won through the Schieffen Plan and kept the English on their side of the channel for long enough to stall out that front they would.
With a quick victory over France they would be more energized than war weary. Granted they wouldn't send too much but it would still be a significant contribution.
The survival of the Tsar and his family are irrelevent
Their sheer incompetence (especially when the Tsar was leading the war effort and leaving his GERMAN wife behind didnt help) led to their abdication far before some of the fiercest fighting in the revolution.
Canada didn't have anything near the population or the wealth to compete with the U.S. In a year, the U.S. would have built up an enormous army that would have reduced the Canadians to a guerilla camapign if they were serious about mobilizing.
And while taking the northern hinterlands isn't really feasible, overrunning that first 100 or so miles in a wide band is, and that's where the bulk of the population and the economic power lay.
And I'm not so sure that the British would have been able to beat the American navy, certainly not easily. They were more or less as powerful as the German navy, which was certainly strong enough to avoid outright destruction, if not be able to carry victory against the British. And they'd be far harder to bottle up, what with the U.S. having a much longer coastline than the Germans did into the North Sea.
If France is handed a major defeat, I think the major question would be if they would have a Fascist or Communist take over, or if they dissolved into a Spanish style civil war.
I don't know enough about 1920s and 30s France to say.
They might have been able to hang on to an enclave or two long enough to get the family out (and I like the idea of an empire in exile), but the rule post WWI seemed to be that if you abdicated or got deposed then you stayed deposed
Germany participated on the whites side, as well as France, UK, America and surprisingly alot of Czechs who stole the tsar's gold and performed a Xenophon style march to the pacific.
In anycase. A russian revolution would not have taken off had Germany not in desperation sent Lenin (in an armoured train and millions of reichsmark) middle in the war. This means a victorious Germany would still be a late war weary Germany. And which means France and UK unable to contribute as much to the Whites.
Its really a trade off. Unless they repalced every single general on the whites side and found a common supreme leader I dont see a difference.
>akin to invading Russia but with the British Navy sinking almost every American ship trying to support from the Atlantic.
Really not sure if this is comparable. Most of Canada's population is settled along the border, and the country is aligned across a wide east-west axis without a whole lot of development.
Sure, you could retreat to the interior, but a potential front is much bigger, and there's no infrastructure at this time up north. BC probably goes poof instantly too, due to being separated by the Rockies. The Western provinces are likewise sparsely inhabited and will probably be overwhelmed.
Likely a US invasion of Canada will be a speedy conquest of the western half, leaving Ontario/Quebec and the Maritimes bottled up in an Eastern pocket. Unlike Russia, Canada just doesn't have the population to keep sending men into the field.
You still haven't found an adequate motive for all that trouble though
The US was not interested in foreign affairs, and certainly had no desire to fight a war for something as ephemeral as supposedly 'liberating' a country.
Oh, it's enormously unlikely, there is no motive. I was just disputing what this anon>>35815035
said, about being "unsure" that the U.S. could overrun Canada if war somehow broke out.
Maybe Germany promises to send them some Hover Boards if they agree
A revolution would have happened. In fact it was already starting when Lenin was put on the train, that's the entire reason why Lenin was packed off back home, so Germany could take advantage of the chaos he'd cause
A Russian Revolution without Lenin would be a much slower burning affair though
I love how the Germans put him in a sealed train, like he was an infectious disease they couldn't risk spreading in their own lands.
Fucking Canuck Propoganda. Can't trust those bastards. They've managed to convince everyone they're polite! Despite being the most violence nation on Earth!
It's not the direct size of the military so much. In 1914, the U.S. had a smaller army than fucking Portugal. Canada actually probably could go on an offensive if you lined up what they had right then and there and told them to fight.
The problem is that the U.S has about 13 times the population and enormously more of an armament industry, it won't stay balanced for very long.
I think you're pretty close to the truth.
People always talk about fascist France or communist France rising to be a threat to Germany, but they always forget that a WWI winning Germany and a WWI losing France are two completely different beasts from a WWI losing Germany and a WWI winning France.
Such a blow would break France as a great power and though a fascist/communist France might dream of challenging a victorious Germany their chances would be slim
Assuming that a Defeated France goes Fascist, and Russia goes Red, after an even bloodier civil war.
How do things shape up for WW2? And more importantly, who's the first to build the bomb?
Question: Would a victorious Germany consolidate the occupied France into the German Empire or would they return their sovereignty after taking their colonies and money? Would they consolidate Belgium, Luxembourg etc.?
America is still overwhelmingly the most likely to build the bomb.
How things shape up in WW2 depends in large part on what France does after it goes facist. If it can have that operational and tactical revolution that Germany did historically, they can do some real damage, depending on how much of their former strength they retain.
Widespread infighting, about a hundred or so clashing nationalist movements as tribes and nations try to carve out their own territory, an upswing in Islamic fundamentalism as some try to recreate the Caliphate
The usual shit that happens when a large nation with a substantial muslim population collapses really
Almost certainly returning sovereignty. I don't see a long term occupation as being economically feasible, and I mean, the Germans didn't do it when they actually took Paris back in 1871.
Less sure about Belgium and Luxembourg, I know less about them. But probably unlikely. A lot of political fallout for a culturally distinct and almost certainly hostile population that would need to be suppressed more or less forever is a bad deal.
A fascist france led by a then unknown belgian colonel? :)
I think a communist france is more likely than a fascist one. But a facist one would be in a weird position of ideologically closer to Imperial Germany but forced to work with Russia (which the nazis and commies did in poland)
Who would get the bomb depends if America cares enough to intervene. The ability to attract great thinkers and people was America's most powerful asset I think. Although an imperial germany would also not be anti intellectual either, America just has access to more resources and talent to work with.
France, Span and Russia vs. the British and German Empires
A monarchical Germany adopts the Schlieffen Plan 2: Eclectic Boogaloo; 20% of the army defends the east while the rest bulldozes France then goes east to launch a counter-offensive on Russia. A decent force would defend against a Spanish land incursion through southern France.
Since England's monarchy would be related to the German one, they would probably help in France and Spain and most likely secure naval supremacy in the Atlantic forcing Spain to stick to the land. Then they try to invade Russia and either lose or become Mongolians.
I think Kaiserreich does a very nice job of a German victory in ww1
I'm thinking that America would be the best bet too, if they jump in the war. They might not depending on how things shape up with Japan.
That being said, Imperial Germany would be allot more likely to develop nukes then Nazi Germany.
I think they would take Belgium and Luxembourg under the pretext of the germanic influence in those countries and to make it even EASIER to strike back at Paris should the French even think about rising up again.
Belgium colonies would be forfeit but I think Germany has alot less sway over French colonies and absolutely none over Britain due to a lack of a real world ranging armada. But German Tanzania would grow larger. I think Germans would lose their Tsingtao factory regardless though.
I suspect France would move to a new capital however. Or at least make a war time capital in the west or south if they lost again in almost the same way as the last war. Paris loses its importance in the world stage.
Not a single one of their big scientists working on the Manhattan project came from Germany. I mean, Einstein was around, but he didn't have anything to do with it directly aside from Relativity being published ages ago.
Most of the scientists that fled Europe either did so looking for nice university research placements (Fermi) or came from outside Germany itself and still likely to want to leave a turbulent political climate. IIRC, you had 4 Hungarians on the team that cracked the final equations about neutron distribution that was key to getting the critical mass.
And besides, the U.S. was throwing money at the problem. If you put the resources around, smart people are going to show up trying to grab a piece.
The russian army of WW2 if ineptly commanded was not a bad one. Simply one that was caught surprised in Barbarossa. It had very good (at the time) equipment and good troops (Stalin was afterall planning to attack Germany, why else would he have all his troops in a forward attacking position on the border as opposed to defensive positions?)
Of course a victorious germany would have an even better army for WW2 but still, it wouldnt be the same case where Von Hindenburg took on the russian armies with a pinkie blindfolded.
>(Stalin was afterall planning to attack Germany, why else would he have all his troops in a forward attacking position on the border as opposed to defensive positions?)
Icebreaker plz go. That was Soviet doctrine for defense, put everything up at the border to show your indomitable revolutionary spirit and make them bleed for every inch of land. They did exactly the same thing against the Japanese incursions in 37 and 38, and yet I don't see Suvarov claiming they were intending to invade Manchuria.
Besides, if they were really planning on an attack on Germany, you'd think they'd do some basic stuff, you know, like massing reserve infantry near railheads, putting their organic transport with those big 152 mm guns, actually issuing ammo from the supply depots to the troops, you know, those things they did when they got ready to invade Finland.
Yeah, the Eastern front would turn into a complete blood bath but the only way Germany could hope to win a two front war (or for any country to win a two front war really) is to hope to quickly win the weaker front while fighting a desperate holding action on the other front..
It wouldn't surprise me if the eastern front in this ww2 turned into a complete clusterfick of trench warfare, meat grinders and armored pushes going back and forth.
That sounds about right. I don't see the Brits adding a whole lot more to the equation other then naval power.
I think you might be underestimating France though. At the begging of WW2, France was in a position to put a major hurt on the Germans. Their downfall came when they were planning a defensive war, that just didn't happen. They poured allot of time, money and startegic thinking into the Maginot line. When it collapsed, so did they.
I think even a defeated France, would put up allot more fight, if they had originally planned on an offensive war. Or even just learned how to tank.
>That sounds about right. I don't see the Brits adding a whole lot more to the equation other then naval power.
I would say the most important factor for the victory in Europe was that the Allies could pump men and material from across the world into the meat grinders of europe. Both from their colonies and from neutral arms dealers like the US.
The British and French imported millions of colonial troops and workers. Ready access to any resource at the time (even if it was expensive) And had a worldwide advantage that far outstripped Germany's.
I'm not so sure. The eastern front is so much wider than the western front. The main reason trench warfare developed is that in WW1, you didn't have the capacity to muster up more force per square mile past a certain point, and putting more troops together just meant they got killed by the artillery that much faster.
You'd need much, much huger armies to do the same thing on a front that runs from the Baltic to the Black seas, and I don't' see the armies getting that big, which leaves room for a lot of maneuvering.
I can see it. I think they might end up being an American equivalent in another World War. IE, lending heavily to one side, but not getting involved unless someone fucks up.
How would the Pacific turn out, if the Brits weren't worried about Germany in Europe? I imagine things would go badly for Japan, having to deal with the U.S. and an actual major commitment by England.
Would combined US, and UK forces be enough to convince Japan not to do something stupid?
> On the negative side, Colonialism is still going strong, Monarchy is still the dominant form of Government and no Holocaust means Racism and Anti-Semitism are still respectable belief systems.
That's not a negative side at all
Not him, but probably not.
After all, if the U.S. industrial advantage of 8:1 or so and the complete inability of Japan to strike the U.S. with a blow hard enough to knock them out of the war wasn't enough to deter them, I don't see what adding the British to the equation would do.
I mean its hard to tell with the amount of factors we throw into the mix but I think the Japanese would still run roughshod over the British. At least initially.
Their navy and airforce in the beginning of the war was good. And they were heavily invested into carriers and the potential those things bring.
Britain would also be presumably alone, without Free France and other allies helping in the pacific. At least until they fuck up by attacking Pearl Harbour.
Now, there are several important questions: When?
Did the Schifflen Plan Work? Did Zimmerman keep his fucking mouth shut about the telegraph? Did Balfour get pushed off a cliff before he made that illegal declaration?
In short, does Germany defeat the western powers first, or (as came close to actually happening) do they get a big chunk of Russia and then win in the west?
Heres what I dont get
Why didnt the Japanese perform a land invasion over Hawaii as well? The garrison there would be there to basically die but removing such a crucial pacific base would have extended the war.
Well, saying "We'd have the British Empire and the Americans arrayed against us" would have more psychological impact than just saying "We're facing down the Americans," even if rationally the Americans alone are already more than enough enemy for anyone.
Probably because Hawaii would be at the end of an extremely long and tenuous supply line and would be infested with crazed, gun-toting Americans ready to do whatever it took to drive "the Japs" off "our land!"
Gentlemen, I think we've reached the point in this discussion where we work on a timeline.
23 July 1914: The July Ultimatum is sent to Serbia
28 July 1914: Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia
Have at it.
Because just performing a brief air raid was already taxing their logistics to the limit. The buildup for an actual invasion would also be much harder to hide, increasing the chance that the Americans would notice and sally the fleet, leading to said invasion force resting on the bottom of the sea before even coming within sight of Hawaii.
With what? It's close to 3000 miles from Eniwetok to Honolulu, and I don't think the Japanese had any landing craft that could go that far in one go.
And if they did, they'd still have to build up at least a division or so to have a reasonable chance of success, and even as stupid as the precursor CIA was back then, they wouldn't have missed something like that.
If you want to invade Hawaii by land, you're more or less stuck by putting a few extra marines and your naval policemen on your cruisers and attacking with that. Extremely chancy at best, and as you said, you'll never hold the islands, what with it being so far away from your lines of communication.
It's a lot of effort for something that will buy you 6 months tops.
Not him, but it's enormously unlikley that the fleet in Honolulu could have beaten off the Japanese force attacking it. If they sortied out, they'd probably have lost even more ships, because of the inability to do in harbor recovery.
As soon as the United States gets directly involved, it's game ogre for Germany. In order for Germany to win in the west, one of the factors that leads to US intervention needs to go away, OR they need to accept Allied peace feelers in Late 17-Early 18.
If that happens, the likely outcome is Germany+Brest-Litovsk+Belgium (Either a puppet government granting Germany exclusive military access, or annexed outright.)
Belgium was a major sticking point for Germany, as the German High Command saw it is a potential staging ground that Britain and France could use for an offensive against Germany and, conversely, a buffer zone that could be used to deter such an offensive.
Assuming that Germany wins, the obviously become the preeminent power in Europe, and the taste of victory allows them to reduce the effects of calls of liberalization domestically.
Britain and France, on the other hand, were extremely worried about the possibility that a major defeat would lead to populist uprising, so that could end interestingly.
The ONLY thing that would make sense about a land invasion of Hawaii would be if they were going to adopt a scorched earth strategy.
Land some troops, spend a week or three REALLY tearing the place up, ensure the ships that were sunk in shallow water were irrecoverable, pound the fuck out of the ones that weren't sunk, shatter the docks, break the fuel storage facilities, and steal or discard all the food.
Basically, make it so that America has to start from square 0 when considering using Hawaii.
That won't stop them from using it, but it will buy the Japanese that much more time.
On the one hand, it would give the Japanese more credibility in US eyes, since it goes from "cowardly raid" to "serious action".
On the other, it might enrage the US even more than they already were, whatever that might mean.
Hard to call.
The big question of the war is whether Germany win at the beginning or after a few years of horrible warfare that tires the fuck out of everyone involved.
That massively effects how the next stage goes
Alt-history going back THAT far is extremely hard to deal with, because of the butterfly effect.
Also, people work with the history they know, because it's easier, and those are much more common knowledge.
That won't even slow them down. Those Seabees built crude but functional airfields and harbors in a matter of days. If you wreck and pull out, you probably destroy any ship that can't get away, but those are mostly obsolete battleships anyway, and you deny them the base of Honolulu itself, but that's not going to last much longer than your occupation.
The only way it conceivably makes sense is if you try to hang onto the island for as long as you can with your suicide squad.
Can't see it changing all that much, to be honest. Carthage had been the strongest power in that part of the world since before Rome rose, and hadn't really shown any real expansionist or world changing ambitions.
The Romans, on the other hand, had an almost ridiculous resilience. Even if they had lost the first or second Punic wars, they'd almost certainly had bounced back and tried again 30-50 years later.
There might be a slight rise in Anti-Semetism, but not to the same extent as in Germany. It's important to remember that the stabbed in the back myth was born of several factors, including:
>The Balfour Declaration
>The German Revolution of 1918 (led by prominent middle class jews)
>The fact that German Veterans had gotten really, really close to winning, and then after the armistice were told that they lost.
This last one is an important point, as they then latched onto the idea that someone must have betrayed them inside Germany. Right as they're looking for someone to blame, a group of Liberal/Bolshevik Jews tries to overthrow the government. This coupled with several big newspapers being owned by Jews makes them say "I bet the Jews did this!"
A defeated France on the other hand, doesn't have the same groundwork for a stabbed in the back mentality. They would have been out and out beaten by an apparently superior military. They start blaming their soldiers, particularly because of the mutinies. They start blaming Britain for not doing enough, and crack down on Bolsheviks for taking Russia out of the game. Barring something like the German Revolution painting a bulls-eye on the local Jews, antisemitism doesn't become a factor.
It's VERY difficult to work that far back just because of how many unknowns there are about the period and just the Butterfly Effect as another Anon pointed out.
Really, the farthest back you can go and still have a cohesive, theoretically plausible alternate history is the Napoleonic Wars. Any father than that and you're just making stuff up.
Yeah. I'd go for late war. Since that would mean Communist Russia, and Fascist/Communist France.
The problem is that if we go to far back, it becomes harder to predict as time goes on. The same with if you go too recently, there's to little compounded change to get any noticeable effects.
>What if the Egyptians had invented the printing press?
>What if Bush lost the 2004 election
Don't tend to lead to allot of discussion.
>Any father than that and you're just making stuff up.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But that's about the point where you have to admit that everything is pure fantasy without any grounds in historical "fact".
>everyone assuming that Germany would build up a hugeass army in the period before WWII
Wouldn't Germany be affected by that massive recession, though? And without the raging hateboner they had in reality against the rest of Europe from getting smushed in WWI would they even have the cash to sustain an army like that? I know the economic crisis was one of the reasons the British army at the start of the war didn't do so good, at least. They were coming up with some damned good stuff, but it was too expensive for the cash-strapped government to put into mass production.
For example, imagine the Battle of France but now the British have replaced most of their infantry tanks with Matilda IIs before the outbreak of war.
In germany jewish assimilation was working very well in fact.
Before the Nazis and in comparison to other powers at the time.
Some peole didn't like that.
Jews and Anti-semites.
Who would know who was jewish anymore if everyone behaved the same and many jews converted to christianity?
No victorious Britain makes British Palestine less likely to happen.
Without Israel serving as a rallying point for the Middle East against the west, America and Europe happily trade oil with them until the wells run out.
It absolutely did
And yet they managed to build a credible army from basically scratch in 20 years. The one thing that might be important is that the whole concept of blitzkreig, mechanical warfare was born out of the german fascination on "WHAT IF WE DID THIS SHIT INSTEAD?". Leading to radically different war doctrines. Without the same conditions, it would be difficult to predict how their war doctrine would change. The french for example adopted a purely defensive war, but thez didnt have anything to gain. They just wanted to maintain what they had. Wheras the Germans wanted revenge.
That was against a Germany that got cock-slapped by Versailles. In this scenario, it's a France that may well have been facing similar reparations and military restrictions vs. a Germany that just got a chunk of land that held a third of Russia's population, with all the wheat, iron, and other resources going with it.
Why did germany get so fucked by history.
I mean, two lost world wars in succession, this huge amount of territroy lost...I mean core territory.
Because they were the biggest threat to the status quo at the time?
I was taught that the German economic plan was basically unsustainable without invading other countries, which is mighty convenient for Hitler. So you remove the 'invade everyone' motive and Germany is suddenly having to make their economy sustainable without resorting to war.
Also IIRC the idea behind the Blitzkrieg was actually invented by a pair of British officers, Fuller and Liddel Hart I think.
Indeed. Perhaps a militant France, conscripts hundreds of millions of men across Africa and Asia and blitzes Germany from the lowlands. Striking a hard alliance with the new USSR.
For all its might. Germany is just struck by being in an extremely sitting location in Europe. France ill always be able to access the seas and the colonies. Russia has vast swathes of untouchable land and resources. Neither can be blockaded by Germany.
France, by itself, had nowhere near the manpower or industry needed to defeat Germany even when Germany had been beaten down by Versailles. There's no way that they could defeat a victorious Germany after WWI, especially since Germany would probably force some sort of reparations onto them,
Basically it was because England, France, and Spain were all old time colonial friends who had pretty much divided things up (through a ton of wars) then Germany shows up with a European land empire and wants a part of the colonial pie.
So yeah, they were the biggest threat to the status quo basically.
No we don't.
If you look at history, allot of what Germany did in WW2, comes off as extremely unlikely.
Surrounding whole Russian army groups, or having the invasion of France bogged down by French soldiers surrendering in such numbers that they're clogging up supply lines.
Allot of things went horribly right for Germany to have done as well as they did. Which makes allot of those "What if Germany one WW2?" questions implausible.
Because Versailles was a fucking mess.
There were two camps - treat Germany like a respected but defeated opponent, or trash Germany to the point they can never be a threat again (they won the Franko-Prussian war before WWI)
Either one, if pursued wholeheartedly, would be highly unlikely to create an angry, vengeful and capable Germany, at least not for a long time.
The compromise between the two was the worst of both worlds, and even at the time people knew it. Political commentators said shit like "I weep for the children of 1939", in 1919.
Keep in mind, in any WWI Germany Wins scenario, France is almost certain to be forced to seed the Alsace-Loraine to Germany. Alsace -Loraine contained nearly all of France's domestic Coal and Iron ore production. The economic devastation of a post-war treaty to France would have been doubly compounded by the French having to import nearly all of their industrial raw materials.
The Madagascar thing was a Nazi fantasy that was improbable even then. If Germany won the war and the nazis never came to power, then Jews would probably remain in Germany and very slowly assimilate into the population, there would be tensions and probably riots and so on, but eventually it would calm down and they'd gradually become accepted.
Not the guy you're responding to, but that's very largely dependent on what you mean by "idea behind blitzkrieg".
Fuller and Hart were all about the failure of the tactical/operational stuff about WW1, and the potential of tanks to break a trench warfare model.
It was really German guys, esp Guderian, who turned that into a practical, "Here's what we do plan", which integrated air power as much as armored power when it came to how they prevent stalemates. (Something the British tended to regard as its own kind of war, and akin to how we view nuclear war today)
I am always hesitant to discount the French. Poor strategy doesnt dismiss the fact that they have certain unreplicable advantages over Germany.
France is an imperialistic (and i would say still) country. With a massive colonal empire and millions of colonists and natives across the globe. They are able to funnel in soldiers and resoures as well as actively pursue trade with the rest of the globe. They wont suffer from resource exhaustion and rationing before the germans do.
French industry is also good. It used to produce really high quality stuff. Their planes and tanks were superior to the german ones of 1939. And the obscene amount of money spend on the maginot line over modernizing the entire army.
What they fail in was the grand strategic vision. Even the Maginot line worked at its expressed purchase to prevent the germans from crossing the front. The diversion attacks they did caused large casualties just as planned. The French just never thought that that small piece of land in Luxemburg could ever be crossed.
Germany already owned Alsace-Lorraine since 1871 anon.
It'd be like 1940 but faster, especially since Britain would propably oppose a communist alliance of that magnitude.
And France in this case would only be there for the early German-British victories before the slugfest in the east warms up,
Not necessarily, perfidious Albion would fight to keep the balance of power in Europe. If Germany is stronger than France then Britain would side with the French, politics be damned.
They had a bigger and more mechanized army when they clashed historically in 1940 you realize. And while it's true that severe enough reparations might make their position untenable, if they're the one who have the tactical revolution, and it's the Germans who are still operating on semi-WW1 principles, you could see a very different war.
Germany already had Alsace-Lorraine in WW1.
This. A quick war ends with all the same pieces on the board, except a few are moderately more pissed than they were a few months ago. No one is getting pushed to the breaking point that makes the next part interesting.
The thing is, that colonial empire would be German in a WWI German victory scenario.
And their industry was able to recover from WWI because they received German payments.
Remember the battlefields of Northern France were right in the middle of the French industrial heart.
A France that lost WW1 is a second tier power at best.
I know Fuller and Hart made a completely mechanised army that could basically do the ground part of Blitzkrieg, but the higher-ups dismissed it as being too advanced or some other stupid thing. I will concede the point about air power, though.
This is not an alternative ww2 thread, this is an alternative ww1 thread that has been expanded to how would ww2 go down if Germany won ww1.
In this alternate universe, by ww2 France has:
-Crippling economic sanctions
-drastically reduced economic power
The entire reason France wanted war was because of that region.
In fact, Schliefen planned his entire strategy around the French stupidly sending everything they had for that region. It was the core of his plan to entrap. And they did fall for it, hook line and sinker. If Moltke held his nerve and not reinforced the east and not given the crown prince the okay to counter attack, it would have worked beautifully.
Literally another Franco Prussian War
I seriously dont know what the french war planners were thinking. The gemans also wore funny hats and bad uniforms but they had a real strategy to win it all. The french just seemed to want to charge again and again,
In 1903, The Brits offered to create a jewish state in Uganda.
In 1922, after an Allied Victory, the League of Nations supported the Palistinian Mandate. A German victory might not have lead to such a declaration.
Theres no way Germany would get those colonies. Or that France couldnt block german colonial traffic with even a small naval force.
The reason why is that Germany would never be able to maintain a global imperial empire no matter what the Kaiser thought. Bismarck was against the idea entirely.
>And more importantly, who's the first to build the bomb?
That's hard to answer. Remember that Germany theoretically could have researched a bomb first, but Hitler didn't think it was plausible enough to merit serious funding until later, when he was forced to admit the war would not be short, and gave the okay to fund long term projects.
More than most things, the Manhattan project is more in the hands of individual leaders than institutions.
>The thing is, that colonial empire would be German in a WWI German victory scenario.
And you know this how? Without the naval might to maintain it, and a presumably hostile and till very navally power Britain opposing it, how long do you think Germany can keep their empire.
>And their industry was able to recover from WWI because they received German payments.
Not necessarily, and of course, France might balk at actually paying them.
>Remember the battlefields of Northern France were right in the middle of the French industrial heart.
Patently untrue. Paris and its suburbs had a fifth of the French population and a huge chunk of the industry.
>A France that lost WW1 is a second tier power at best.
People were saying that about Germany in the interwar years.
The thing is, a completely mechanized army was outside the resources of the time and was more or less science fiction. And Germany actually had one of the least mechanized armies of WW2. The thing is, they would concentrate a huge chunk of their most mobile forces in one point, and they used them as the exploitation force, not the breach the lines force as Fuller in particular envisioned. The Germans generally broke a line with infantry, air power, and artillery, and then exploited the gap by flooding in the armor and the mechanized infantry, who were supposed to be able to roll all the way through the enemy's rear.
That was very much different from what the British boys envisioned, which was big fleets of tanks whirling around like a modernized conflict of medieval knights.
One of the biggest death-knells for the Fuller-Hart theories was the attack on Tobruk: Infantry actually could fight and hold off against armor, what armor had was a combination of speed and power, which is wasted for the most part if you just go barreling in.
The British monarch was a figurehead by WWI, foreign policy was done by parliament. And people in Britain were very worried in the run up to WWI that one day Germany would invade and conquer Britain, if Germany won WWI then their entire foreign policy would probably be based around containing Germany as much as possible.
If Germany won by the means stated in this thread (Schliefen and suicide cruise in the channel) there is no major war of attrition between the English and Germans, just angry glances across the channel and some naval conflicts. I'm sure they would patch things up by relying on each others economies more than the isolationist America.