Lord Bertie couldn’t prove 1 + 1 = 2 unless you let him beg the question, and took 3 volumes to come to that conclusion. We don’t know what would have happened if the UK didn’t get into the war. The suggestion that history would have been peach pie ignores the universal law of history: history is just one damned thing after another.
Right, good point. Yes, the USA would likely never have entered, it was the Submarine War and British propaganda which brought us in, not to mention fumbling German diplomacy.
The US and Japan would inevitably have gone to war, regardless of what happened in WWI. Would Japan have attacked British interests in the Far East? What would have happened to French possessions in the Far East and the Pacific? Would there have been a Far East World War, with or without Russia/with or without Germany?
Germany would have defeated the French. Where history flows from there no one can say.
There was a young man from the UK who was killed in the early months of 1915. If England hadn’t entered the war, he would have survived.
He was an intense, charismatic son of a noble family who would have used his connections to enter parliament. Once there, he would have orchestrated moving the British Parliament and the British public to accepting communism, leading to close brotherly ties and an alliance with Russia. Following the successful war which defeated Germany in the 1930s, all of Europe became communist (under the leadership of the UK/USSR faction), leading to a massive war of annihilation with the US, which was won by the Japanese using the tactic of prudently staying out of it.
Well, it’s as likely as Germany being controlled by a homeless street painter with no skills and a fanatical nationalism, leading the country into more and more wars until eventually they HAD to lose, while killing millions of otherwise harmless civilians because they didn’t fit his crackpot master plan.
That’s what people forget when they say ‘If only Hitler had been killed in WW!’ - well, maybe someone worse (hard to imagine) was.
I’m reading the Guns of august and have been reading a few other histories. The strong impression I get is that this was Germany was fully intent on dealing with France once and for all. It was not going to be like the Franco-Prussian War. That outcome was a mistake to be corrected.
The French had no plans for moving troops.
Their entire war plan was based on an offensive thrust into Germany that would cut off the german right thrust. Their military doctrine was entirely built on taking the offensive through the centre in the event of war.
France did not believe the Germans would come through Belgium because they did not believe Germany had enough divisions. Despite all the warnings they simply did not believe Germany would use reserve forces in a main attack.
still better than Thatcher
The problem with alternate histories is that we know the specific bad things that followed WWI–the Russian Revolution, which led to Stalin, and the crushing German defeat, which led to Hitler.
We don’t know, and we’ll never know, the bad things that would have followed a German victory. But, we can be pretty sure they would have been there.
The Junkers, militarists, and ultra-nationalists who ran prewar Germany were not nice people. As victors they would not have gotten any nicer. They would have had to prop up the embalmed corpse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, guaranteeing continued ethnic rebellion among the Empire’s minorities. They planned to set up puppet monarchies with petty German princelings in Poland, Finland, and the Baltics, and we can only imagine how much fun that would have been.
Quite possibly much of Europe would have been in flames with ethnic/guerrilla conflict, overlain with industrial conflict in any country which managed to retain heavy industry. Who knows what leaders might have emerged from such a world?
If that had happened, we might be saying, “Why didn’t the British and Americans do something while they had a chance?”
Freddy is right. The German rulers were not nice people. It’s somewhat shocking from our perspective to realize how people thought in those days, particularly concerning racial types. German rulers really, really hated the ‘slavic race’ (as did the austrians) and they pretty much hated France for a whole bunch of reasons.
Plus war was not a last resort tool. Germany in particular pretty much intended to have a war with France and Russia at some point. Preferably not at the same time but they weren’t too bothered if it turned out that way because they were totally confident they were racially and militarily superior. Which in the latter case, they were.
There was always going to be a war. Germany wanted one. Austria-Hungary wanted one. France wanted one. Russia wanted one. none of them wanted the one they got. They all wanted the one in their heads - the one where they win easily in a matter of months.
The only ones that come out looking half-way sane are the befuddled and reluctant British and the overly quixotic Belgians. At least those 2 countries didn’t want a war.
Germany, France, A-H and Russia were just spoiling for a fight.
Again, I do not accept that with Britain staying out, France would have lost.
But yes, the Imperialist Germans were not nice people. Neither were the Imperialist French, Imperialist British, Imperialist Belgians…
The difference was, the Germans were shooting for superpower status, which they did not yet have.
The French did a pretty good job of losing as it was. without the British blocking the German advance on the unprotected left it’s hard to see any other outcome. An essentially unprotected left flank (with no BEF delaying the German advance and probably no Miracle of Marne to halt the offensive) and a beaten French offensive on the main front.
The army would likely have been enveloped and destroyed as the German plan intended.
Right. Without the British setting up camp in the trenches of northern France the game was over.
Well, he’s completely wrong. Germany didn’t start WWI. You could say Serbia did by assassinating the Archduke (actually a Independence/Anarchist group backed by Serbia). Or you could say it was started by AH over-reacting to the assassination. Or Russia declaring war on AH. You could then say German caused it by reacting to Russia’s declaration , or by France’s Mobilization in reaction to Germany’s…
He’s basing his theory on the Septemberprogramm a document penned by a Staffer, which was never adopted or even (as far as we know) seriously considered. This the document which Captain Amazing claims “laid out German war aims” which it did not. It was a idea written by a assistant to the German Chancellor, and that’s about all we know. There is no evidence it was ever even presented to the Kaiser or considered by anyone higher than the author himself. Note that Germany won a crushing defeat over France recently and only demanded Alsace-Lorraine, a highly disputed territory which did have a population of which 86% spoke German as their first language.
Now yes. Germany could have put a stop to WWI. So could France, Russia, or AH, and perhaps even Serbia.
I see how Serbia could have stopped it by knuckling under to A-H’s list of demands (or preventing the assassination somehow) but I fail to see how France could have stopped it. By making some kind of alliance with Germany so that the Kaiser could go off and fight the Russians in the east? Even that’s not stopping it, just making it (a little) smaller.
Germany asked France not to Mobilize, and in return would only mobilize in the east.
I don’t think that a short war, fought only in the East, would be quite a World War. And it’s quite possible Russia would have backed down if France demurred. If Russia backed down, the Germany would have also.
I recall reading on Paul Johnson’s Modern Times that letters of Kaiser Wilhelm discovered after the war show clearly that he was bound and determined to have a war with France and/or Britain sooner or later, to win Germany its “place in the Sun,” i.e., global-superpower status equal to Britain’s, and he was just waiting for a pretext. Also, that Imperial Germany was already the most thoroughly militarized society in Europe. (That was why the Nazis’ “stab-in-the-back myth” was later so readily believed by the people – all the press being thoroughly state-censored or self-censored against defeatism, the people actually believed Germany was winning the war right up until the point when it sued for peace. How could such a stunning defeat have happened unless traitors were undermining Germany from within?)
You might consider it already covered by “British propaganda” or “fumbling German diplomacy”, but let’s not forget the Zimmermann Telegram sent by Germany to Mexico, suggesting Mexico distract the US by taking back formerly Mexican territories.
I doubt it. Germany really did want a war. The minutes of government meetings and diplomatic exchanges have been declassified. It’s true that the French and Russian records show some signs of tampering. But the overall intent is clear: the governments of Britain, France, and Russia were all trying to avoid a war. Meanwhile in Germany, the government was trying to avoid a peace. This is literally true - one of the biggest concerns the German government was discussing in the weeks leading up to the war was the possibility that some last minute peace proposal might stop the war and how they could avoid it.