Bertrand Russell and others have argued that Britain should have stayed out of WW1 which would probably have led to a German victory but would have avoided the horrendous bloodshed of the war as well as the rise of Communism and Nazism and the second world war.
It seems to me that this argument assumes a dichotomy: either accept German domination or the horrendous consequences which resulted from the world war. The issue is whether those consequences were inevitable or whether there were smarter policies which would have defeated Germany in a much less costly way.
Some questions:
What would be the long-run implications of German domination of Continental Europe. Would Germany have tried to annex the rest of the continent or would it have been satisfied with a position of political and economic dominance?
Could the war have been fought more intelligently reducing its duration and cost?
Given the reality of the war as it happened could the Allies have done more to prevent the rise of Communism and defeat the Reds in the Russian civil war?
Could they have prevented the rise of the Nazis or at least contained them through robust military action in the 30’s?
Well, Imperial German hegemony in Central Europe (perhaps in this direction, possible fusion with the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was something already emerging.
What do you mean by Annex the Rest of the Continent?
Annex France? Belgium? Netherlands? Fusion with A-H Empire?
With the benefit of the lessons of the war itself, yes, but given the actual leaders of the time, I do not believe the sheer enormity of technological change and what it meant for war could really be imagined.
I doubt it, although perhaps the Mensheviks could have been strengthened, if support of the old system had been thrown out the window.
This is unclear, do you mean by a victorious set of Allies in 1918? Avoidance of the most punitive and humiliating measures imposed on the Weimar regime, such as war reparations, an engagement by France and Britain to help build a democratic regime in Germany (sort of an earlier version of post-WWII policy) would have, I think, certainly avoided the Nazis as such. Would it have avoided a collapse of the Weimar regime and the rise of some anti-democratic movement inspired by rightist authoritarianism, maybe not (see Italian example, which was an Allied Power, but saw the emergence of Mussolini).
As such, I think Nazism qua Nazism was avoidable. Rightist Authoritarianism or the worst option, Left Dictatorship, much harder to avoid.
Yes. Basically the issue is how bad German domination would have been for the rest of Europe. Germany domination which allowed other European countries to govern themselves for the most part would obviously be preferable to a German empire which annexed other countries and ruled them. I don’t believe the latter was part of the German plan in 1914 but that might have been the long-run outcome of prolonged German domination of Europe without any counter-weight.
Yes.
You seem to be arguing that the rise of the Nazis could have been reasonably prevented but not the rise of the Communists or the enormous costs of the war. In that case was WW1 really worth fighting from the pov. of Britain? Of course they couldn’t have known all this at the time but in hindsight?
I suppose it all depends on how much a threat a German-dominated Europe would have been to Britain. Given the vast industrial power available to Germany they could probably have built a significantly bigger navy than Britain in which case Britain would have been dependent on a US alliance to defend itself.
Without the UK’s entry into the war, it would have been just another 19th-century conflict - the Franco-Prussian War, redux. France would not have been annexed, but it probably would have been forced to cede some colonies, most likely in North and West Africa.
The UK would clash with Germany eventually, of course - a rich, victorious German Empire would accelerate its fleet-building to expand its global presence. Remember, it was the High Sea Fleet that *really *brought the UK into the war. Britain would never let another power rule the waves.
Another thing that no-one has noted - British neutrality would leave the Ottoman Empire intact. Setting aside the impact this would have on *my *country’s history, would the Turks have succeeded in keeping hold of the Middle East, with its increasingly valuable oil deposits? Or would they collapse later on their own?
For Britain to stay out well she would have to stop being Britain. Since around 1500, it has been the policy of England/Great Britain/ United Kingdom, that there cannot be one power on the continent, England/Great Britain/United Kingdom have all gone to war over that. It would require a fundamental rethink of centuries of policy.
Well, one of the main reasons behind WWI was Britain trying to curtail Germany’s economic growth. Espescially the rise of the german navy and Germany’s foothold in Africa were something the Empire would not tolerate.
So was it all worth it from the pov of the British Empire?
What empire?
Would the empire still exist today if Britain had refrained from escalating the conflict to a World War?
Hard to say. A clash between Britain and Germany seems pretty much unavoidable, as Germany was seen encroaching on terrain Britain saw as hers.
But a private German-Britain war would probably not have resulted in the actual loss of the Empire. IMHO
Also, regarding Nazism and the Sovjets. If not for WWI the ‘modern’ movements of communism and the offsprings socialism and fascism would hardly have been as virulent, I think.
Interresting point.
One would have to take the 1911 freedom struggles of the Balkans into consideration, I think. As the Ottomans were unable to prevent them seceding.
How would they have fared against the British and/or French trying to get hold of some oil rich territories? It would seem inevitable that they would try something in that direction.
So a ‘Turkish War’ would seem very likely. It would perhaps also play out the way it did, only later. Who knows, maybe even a Jewish state would not be totaly unlikely.
A totally different World War I essentially re-rolls the dice that determined the world’s ffate after 1918. I really don’t believe we can even begin to guess how history would have unfolded.
I don’t really have anything on the first question, but my answer on this is pretty much no. Unless you massively change things beforehand. The technology for much of a different type of war simply didn’t exist. In the end, Germany had to be bled white. Given that they could fight a defensive war, and had chosen the terrain, that was going to be bloody and long. Especially as more and more of the burden moved to the British, who didn’t have sufficient trained NCOs to make other tactics feasible.
Without a mass standing British Army in 1914, or significantly different results for the French in the first few months of the war, the path of the war was pretty much set. While technology was very suggestive of a static attrition war in 1914, it is amazing how fast it developed. Things like the creeping barrage were unimaginable at the start of the war, and would have saved a lot of lives had they come earlier.
Tough one. I don’t see either as working. Intervention was massively unpopular and actually pushed Britain pretty close to the edge with regard to worker discontent. I seem to remember there being a docker’s strike refusing to load munitions, and even a police strike over the matter. Full scale intervention, which is what it would have taken to save the (corrupt, incompetent, and not very pleasant) White army would have led to social breakdown back home, I think without doubt a General Strike, and mutinies in the army, who weren’t that keen on fighting any more.
Two choices I think might have worked. One is the common idea that Versailles was too harsh. Trouble is, being nice to Germany wasn’t going to be popular back home, and a politician would have gotten his balls nailed to the wall for suggesting it.
The other option is that Versailles was significantly too light on Germany. While it was bad enough to humiliate, it left Germany as a country. Unification wasn’t set in stone by 1919, and there was still rivalries between the individual states. Splitting everyone else off from Prussia, stamping on Prussia heavily, and treating the others noticeably better might have been an interesting way to deal with it. But I have no idea what the long term effects would have been.
This is pure speculation…but a WWI German victory would probably have been a lot like the German 1871 victory v. France…except that France would have probably paid lots of reparation like Germany after WWI.
Ironically/fatalistically, fascism might have arose in an economically wrecked France in the 1930s especially as the far left and far right were significant influences in French politics in the 30s.
In terms of what the Germans wanted in the east, we can look at what happened at Brest-Litovsk. As for the rest of their plans, there’s always Bethmann-Hollweg’s September Program, which laid out German war aims. Their goals:
Dismantling of French border fortifications, annexation of Briey and possibly the western Vosages, reparations high enough to keep France from rearming for at least 20 years, and a commercial treaty making the French economy dependent on Germany.
Annexastion of Liege, Verviers, and the frontier of Belgian Luxemburg. Possibly of Antwerp. If Belgium is to exist as a state, it should be a vassal of Germany and allow German occupation and use of its coasts and military ports. French Flanders (Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne) to Belgium.
Annexation of Luxemburg as a new German state.
A central European Economic Zone, consisting of Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria Hungary and possibly Italy, Sweden, and Norway, all of which have nominally equal power, which is, in reality, dominated by Germany.
Colonial acquisitions in Africa, to be figured out later.
Economic treaties signed with France and Belgium.
The Netherlands to be brought under closer German control and made dependent on Germany, but carefully, so as not to offend them. Maybe an alliance or a customs union? Maybe offer them Antwerp in exchange for the right to station troops in a fortress around there?
Nazi policies on Lebensraum and anti-semitism did not arise with them. In fact, though it existed, anti-semitism was far less significant in Germany than in Austria. The treaties of Brest-Litovsk gave huge amounts of the western Russian Empire to Germany though they came to nothing with Versailles. That might have been too harsh in the wrong way (mainly due to France) and not harsh enough in the right way so that it left Germans feeling betrayed (since they were not getting the full facts). We see WW1 very much as the 1916 stagnation and courtesy of Oh what a lovely war but once the German resistance broke it was a rout that might have done better to demand unconditional surrender. If Germany had kept fighting, Germans would have had no doubt that they had lost and not been betrayed and very likely gone the same way as Russia though whether the victors would have allowed a more Socialist government than Weimar’s is a different matter. There would be nothing Germans could do about it.
If Britain had kept out then France would probably not have lasted for long or might never have got in and the result would be an east European conflict tied up with Balkan independence which Germany and Turkey would probably have won but quite possibly ended up fighting each other over the Balkans or bogged down in independence uprisings throughout eastern Europe. The Ottoman Empire was fairly sound at its core but the Austrian was not. It would have been faced with independence uprisings from Bohemia south and quite possibly so would a successful Germany be faced with Bavarian and other independence moves.
That’s what I was thinking. Captain Amazing’s link reinforces this thinking. There was plenty of antisemitism in France (remember the Dreyfus Affair?). Odd to think of, but might have seen Charles de Gaulle, Le Chef de la 3rd Empire Francais.
I don’t know the answer to that. I believe the French talked about splitting Germany up.
Part of the problem was, I imagine, that the German Army wasn’t fully broken, unlike in 1945. Reversing unification would, I guess, have required occupation of Prussia, and that level of occupation would have taxed the treasury and manpower of Britain and France too much.
Well, they did split Germany up. Almost all of West Prussia and Posen became part of Poland, Danzig, the Memel territory and the Saarland became Liege of Nations protectorates, Alsace and German Lorraine became part of France, Northern Schleiswig became part of Denmark, and there was additional territory given to Belgium and Czechoslovakia. This is all in addition to the loss of their colonial territories. Germany lost about 25,000 square miles and 7 million people from territorial concessions.
Well yes and no. By split up, I meant dismember. Reverse unification. Return to the days of Saxony, of Bavaria, and in particular of Prussia. Then work on destroying the power of the Junker class in Prussia.
I need to dig a book out to see what areas the Nazis ever achieved a majority in.
If you scroll down onthis board you’ll see a map showing how the various parties did in the Reichstag elections, as well as the two presidential elections.
The areas where Hitler beat Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election were Brandenburg, Thuringia, Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein.
