Would the world have been better off if the German Empire had won early in World War I possibly without Britain getting involved or Germany quickly defeating France and than going on to crush Russia? Consider this: Without Germany losing World War I Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists wouldn’t have taken over in Germany nor would Germany have had to support the Bolshevists on the Eastern Front meaning no communist revolution in Russia and no USSR. This means all the horrors of the 20th Century may not happen: trench warfare in World War I, Stalin’s forced collectivization and purges, World War II, the Holocaust, Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, the Cold War, Mao’s mass murders, Pol Pot’s mass murders, and no Islamist terrorism. Of course it may be argued World War II may still happen and that may well be true but the war could have been a less ideological war and a more “civilized” war simply over traditional reasons rather then ideologies and thus less atrocities and fight to the death.
Obviously a completely unanswerable question. But certainly Germany winning WWI would not lead to the direct and immediates horrors that Germany winning WWII likely would have.
It’s not inconceivable that the Nazis would have taken over anyway. And the October Revolution would probably have been successful even if WWI had never happened.
Eh? How, without the war’s destabilization? I doubt the February Revolution could have happened.
It is not. Even in Weimar Germany, the Nazis only gained popularity in the combination of massive unemployment, and the humiliating Versailles Treaty. A surviving Imperial Germany would be economically more stable and prosperous. It is not too much to say the Nazis barely gained power in our world. In addition the October Revolution only happened because the Germans brought Lenin to St. Petersburg to take Russia out of the war which wouldn’t have happened if the war had ended earlier. And Russia only collapsed after three years of bloody fighting against Germany.
Why wouldn’t there be Islamist terrorism? What does that have to do with WWI?
Maybe Germany would have become a new superpower then and the Cold War would have been between the States and Germany… I am sure there will be some reason for people to kill each other in bulk whatever happens.
The truth is that the OP might well be right. Germany’s defeat and the aftermath of WWI absolutely did lead to Nazism. If Germany wins, Adilf Hitler is never heard of, psychotic nationalism probably never takes hold to the extent it did, and the Holocaust doesn’t happen.
However, you just open up the possibility of some other equally horrifying thing happening. Maybe France turns into a Nazi state, or Russia, or maybe all of Eastern Europe. Maybe history is changed such that England becomes like it did in “1984” or the USA goes Communist. Maybe World War II doesn’t take place until the belligerents have a small stockpile of nuclear weapons and instead of two cities being vaporized, it’s 40.
German victory in WWI is such a fundamental reset of world history that the only thing you can be certain of is that things since then wouldn’t have happened the way they did.
Well, the Germans keep the Romanovs in power as puppets, young Alexei dies of hemophilia-related problems, and eventually Empress Olga imagines herself as a latter-day Catherine the Great, starts a rebellion against German rule, kicks off World War 2.
Presumably because the Ottoman empire wouldn’t have collapsed, and the region wouldn’t have been artificially divided up by the British.
The Ottoman Empire was already dead before WW1, and European powers were taking control of large chunks of it.
“Humiliating Versailles Treaty”? Germany reaped what it sowed. Both from the “humiliating Franco-Prussian war” aftermath conditions and its desruction of a sizable part of France. No room for a crying game there.
But that’s not the point, is it? It’s whether that treaty led to the rise of Hitler, not whether it was unfair on Germany.
heh, next you’re going to deny that it was France’s fault these wars happened…
Doubtless a (quick) German victory in WW1 would lead to hurt French national pride, again. Which would probably lead to yet, another Franco-German war.
Some items, such as who might become socialist or national-socialist, are variable.
Probably Britain would again be on the side of the French, fearing German economic competition. Now, if that could be avoided the scale of the next war might not amount to another World War II.
Maybe just The Kaiserreich against a new French Empire (the nationalists having overthrown the republic).
With maybe Italy plus some balkan states as French allies and of course the still reasonably intact Austro-Hungarian Empire, on the German side.
Russia would probably engage itself again, half-heartedly, if Serbia were involved again…
Hmmm, it starts to look more and more like just another repeat of WWI.
A lack of the horrors in the trenches in WWI would certainly stop or severely hamper the growth of the modernist movements of communism and fascism. It would probably also forestall a lot of independance movements in the colonies.
The Turks would have kept Islamism in check, I guess. Although there just might have begun an ‘anti Turkish Secularist’ movement of another stripe of Islamist.
So, I guess, depending on how the alternative WWII (or rather 3rd Franco-Prussian war ) would go, Britain might still be an Empire, Africa would still consist of European colonies and flourish. And would the USA still be isolationist the rest of the world might flourish too.
Or we could be fighting in the second Euro-Japanese war on the beaches of Batavia.
Nope, France started the war and got served. I just dont get the “humiliating Versailles treaty” bit.
The problem with the aftermath of WW1 was that Allies got stuck in a middle of the road position that led to terrible results. Either be lenient on the reparations, and bury the hatchet (though considering the massacre and the damage done, that would have been hard to sell). Or go full throttle and invade and occupy Germany, probably what should have been done.
P.S: didnt notice it at first
I dont understand the plural there.
Do you reckon the people in the territories and countries victoriously conquered by the Kaiser would have just gone “Good game Willy, fair’s fair, we’ll do as we’re told from now on” ?
Stability, yeah, right.
It would have been infinitely better. Look at Europe today - Germany’s economically and politically dominant on the continent. It’s not that bad, is it? Certainly not worth millions dying in wars, a Holocaust and generations caught behind the Iron Curtain.
The nazism as we know it wouldn’t have existed. However, there is no knowing whether similar reactions to lost war had been present in other countries, say, France or Russia. Simply an impossible question.
Sorry it was plural because I was still thinking of the Franco Prussian war.
I do find the Versailles treaty ‘humiliating’. Apart from Germany getting blamed for the war and all the horrors, the loss of land, occupation of the Ruhr etc.
the main humiliating, or rather infuriating aspect (for Germans) remains that at the moment the truce was called to start negociations Germany still held a militarily strong position.
It still had not actually lost.
The Allies misused/exploited the truce and negotiations. When the German army withdrew they then made new demands from a much stronger position.
That is certainly unfair and it was the beginning of the ‘Dolchstoss’ grudge where the Germans felt they (the politicians) had given away far too much, while Germany hadn’t even actually lost the war.
That was my point, apart from the Franco-Prussian war, I dont recall France starting either WW1 or II.
Germany had no problems with exacting a humiliating peace from France following the Franco-Prussian war. When it becomes humiliating because you’re on the receiving end is where total hypocrisy starts. As I said, maybe it would have been better for everyone had defeat been thrusted into the German population’s face by having the Allies actually invade and occupy.
A lot of the problems came from Germany not being a democracy and still stuck up in Prussian militarist thinking. Had it been a democracy prior to the war (ok I know it’s a dumb point, as war probably would not have happened had that been the case), post WW1 Germany would not have been in full denial mode. That’s also the reason I dont believe a quick German victory in WW1 would have led to a proto fascist France.
Winning wars does not guarantee stability and prosperity. Look at Britain, for example - the winner of WWI and WWII, and yet a shadow of its former self after both.
Assuming that a different WWI means no WWII, there would be no Holocaust and probably no modern state of Israel.
That removes the largest stated reason for Middle Eastern instability. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily mean the locals wouldn’t be antsy over some other cause.
Germany is neither economically nor politically dominant in Europe. It has the largest single economy, but it’s not much larger than the UK or France. Plus the UK and France both have larger militaries.
I dunno. Rampant nationalism died at the end of WW I, a war fueled heavily by nationalism with ultimately no real victor. If Germany wins then does nationalism get a further boost? Does Germany start another war to get better control of Africa?
What happens with Austria-Hungary? If it still controls the Balkans then there are still tensions between the Central Powers and Russia.