Would the World Have Been Better if Germany Had Won World War I?

[Dissonance]

@Doughbag

You are aware how WW1 started, right? Germany did NOT declare war on France or Brittain. They declared war on Germany, because Austria declared war on Serbia- Russia. Germany was an Ally of Austria.

The British did not want Germany to become another colony power, that’s why they joined and told Germany to stay put… well it’s really complicated as such. They where all at fault for WW1

…read up

Complete and utter bullocks. Read your own cite.

[ol]July 29: Russian general mobilization is ordered, and then changed to partial mobilization.
July 29: Sir Edward Grey appeals to Germany to intervene to maintain peace.
July 29: The British Ambassador in Berlin, Sir Edward Goschen, is informed by the German Chancellor that Germany is contemplating war with France, and furthermore, wishes to send its army through Belgium. He tries to secure Britain’s neutrality in such an action.
July 30: Russian general mobilization is reordered at 5:00 P.M.
July 31: Austrian general mobilization is ordered.
July 31: Germany enters a period preparatory to war.
July 31: Germany sends an ultimatum to Russia, demanding that they halt military preparations within twelve hours.
July 31: Both France and Germany are asked by Britain to declare their support for the ongoing neutrality of Belgium. France agrees to this. Germany does not respond.
August 1 (3 A.M.): The King of Great Britain personally telegraphs the Tsar of Russia.
August 1: French general mobilization is ordered.
August 1: German general mobilization is ordered.
August 1: Germany declares war against Russia.
August 1: The Tsar responds to the king’s telegram, stating “I would gladly have accepted your proposals had not the German ambassador this afternoon presented a note to my Government declaring war.”
August 2: Germany and The Ottoman Empire sign a secret treaty.[37] entrenching the Ottoman-German Alliance
August 3: Germany, after France declines (See Note) its demand to remain neutral,[38] declares war on France. Germany states to Belgium that she would “treat her as an enemy” if she did not allow free passage of German troops across her lands.
August 3: Britain, expecting German naval attack on the northern French coast, states that Britain would give “all the protection in its powers.”
August 4: Germany invades Belgium according to the modified Schlieffen Plan.
August 4 (midnight): Having failed to receive notice from Germany assuring the neutrality of Belgium, Britain declares war on Germany.
August 6: Austria-Hungary declares war on Russia.
[/ol]
And before you make an issue about the German demand for French neutrality that preceded Germany declaring war on France

Note: French Prime Minister Rene Viviani merely replied to the German ultimatum that “France will act in accordance with her interests.”[38] Had the French agreed to remain neutral, the German Ambassador was authorized to ask the French to temporarily surrender the Fortresses of Toul and Verdun as a guarantee of neutrality.

In other words, unless France agreed to surrender its border fortresses to German occupation and thereby leave itself naked and defenseless to Germany, Germany was going to declare war on France. It was an absurd ultimatum, no nation would accept it.

[Little_Nemo]

@Fuji

Personally, I would assign about a third of the blame to Germany, a third to Russia, and a third to Britain & France.

I feel that’s letting Germany off way too easily. They were the only power in 1914 that wanted a general war.

Austria wanted a short war against Serbia (and had a legitimate cause for fighting). Russia was unofficially committed to protecting the minor Balkan powers like Serbia so it felt obligated to side with Serbia against Austria. Britain was committed to defending Belgium and felt obligated to declare war on Germany when they invaded that country. And France got into the war when Germany declared war on France - hard to see what they did to acquire any blame.

Germany, on the other hand, wanted a war. They felt that a general war was inevitable at some point and the strategic situation was turning against them year by year. So they figured they might as well start a war now before the odds against them got any worse.

Germany encouraged Austria in its confrontation with Serbia, declared war on Russia and France, and invaded Belgium. Germany pulled all the triggers that led to a general war.

[Guinastasia]

@Doughbag

the Japs would have had the A-Bomb.

Can we PLEASE not use the word “Japs”?

[tomndebb]

@Doughbag

. . . the Japs . . . the Japs. . .

The use of the ethnic slur “Japs” is considered inappropriate on this board. I recognize that it was not used with the intent to slur, but you would do well to refrain from using that term in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Kobal2

But that is because whoever was willing to clobber the Hun in those occupied parts simply moved to the remaining free parts to join the actual, official fight & armies. Partisan action makes little sense when there’s an actual logistic powerhouse, coordinated infrastructure & hierarchy and so forth that you can easily get involved with.
The nature of the game changes when the whole army is soundly beaten, the whole country disarmed and dismantled and the government subdued.

There was massive partisan activity in German occupied territories in the Soviet Union during World War II due to the brutality of the occupier even though large Soviet armies were fighting on. On the other hand when the Allies occupied the Rhineland after World War I there was no violent resistance.

Puppets for freedom ! I’m sure the locals were enthused

They were not complete puppet states and some freedom under the Germans would be better than no freedom under the Russians.

But that’s the thing. You seem to figure out a most optimistic scenario, assume it’s a near certitude and start projecting new optimistic scenarios from there. That didn’t work all that well for the Bush administration, if you remember ;).

Not the most optimistic scenario. I could have said there will be no wars after World War I and it’ll all be flowers from then on. But history has shown the optimists are usually right-often beyond their wildest dreams.

Again with the optimism. Especially considering this very imperialism and the principles it embodied would likely have been strenghtened by victory. Even more so if, as you assume, this victory brings immediate prosperity and wealth to the Germans themselves - why change what seems to work so well ?

Because even as World War I was going on the Social Democrats demanded a peace treaty without annexations when and if the war ended.

As a citizen of a country directly neighbouring Germany, I’m absolutely fine with that. How is that a bad thing, exactly ? I’d be more than happy if every country and ethnic group in the world had its aggressive ideals neutered.

But its not just aggressiveness but any sort of military action that the Germans are averse to-even collateral damage in airstrikes.

@Guinastasia

Can we PLEASE not use the word “Japs”?

I think its more comparble to “Nazi” or “Red” in this context.

[Guinastasia]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I think its more comparble to “Nazi” or “Red” in this context.

No, it’s not.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Fuji

You’re presumably aware of Russia turning a regional war into a World War by needlessly mobilizing against Austria-Hungary, right?

Russia didn’t turn a regional war into a World War. Russia was part of that regional war. Aside from defending Serbia, who they were allied with, the Russians also felt a moral duty to defend fellow Slavs. What started World War 1 was Germany’s invasion of Belgium, which brought Britain and its empire into the fray. What was still a regional war involving only parts of Europe ended up involving North America, the Indian Subcontinent and Australasia, precisely because Germany recklessly and needlessly invaded a country that was completely uninvolved in any war in the Balkans.

Further, it’s bullshit to claim that the British weren’t at any threat from a German invasion of Belgium, so they needlessly entered the fray. They were treaty bound. If treaties with the UK were actually to mean something, they had to get involved.

Look, it’s ridiculous to throw up your hands and say “all Great Powers must share equal blame”. That’s bullshit. The British were Treaty bound to defend Belgium’s neutrality, which the Germans new full well, yet they still invaded Belgium in order to strike at France. The German leadership were also working behind the scenes in Austria, getting the Austrians riled up to a state of fever pitch in wanting war. It’s debatable whether Austro-Hungary would ever have invaded Serbia in the first place if not for the Germans sending them doolalley.

Indeed the general idea of German leadership, both civilian and military alike, wanting a war of aggression in Europe to expand territory had been floating around since a general council in 1912. Tirpitz then was the one who saved us from a World War in 1912. Eventually the German leadership got their way. The Lebensraum idea, also familiar from WW2, ultimately descended from German WW1 plans to expand German territory to the east, wiping out ethnic minorities in the east of Europe.

It was Germany who wanted war, and it was Germany who transformed a regional, European war that may never have escaped Central and Eastern Europe (or indeed, started in the first place) into a war that involved the best part of the civilised world.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

It was Germany who wanted war, and it was Germany who transformed a regional, European war that may never have escaped Central and Eastern Europe (or indeed, started in the first place) into a war that involved the best part of the civilised world.

And, let’s not forget, Britain and France as well.

[Doughbag]

@Guinastasia

Can we PLEASE not use the word “Japs”?

@tomndebb

The use of the ethnic slur “Japs” is considered inappropriate on this board. I recognize that it was not used with the intent to slur, but you would do well to refrain from using that term in the future.

[ /Moderating ]

Sorry about the use of “Japs” it was not intended as an insult or slurr.
I wasn’t aware that it is a negative term for Japanese, but now I am. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

[Latro]

And “Huns” is not ?

[Doughbag]

@Capitaine_Zombie

And, let’s not forget, Britain and France as well.

The Brittan’s have been a peace loving nation for it’s whole existence and has committed absolutely NO atrocities or invaded any other country. The effect of Brittan has absolutely noting to do with Ireland, India, Africa, the Middle east… that is just blasphemy to say that they had any interest in having a war in Europe.
Their choice in joining the war had absolutely nothing to due with their efforts to crush the German Economy and colonisation program to maintain their economy.

France and Germany have been enemies for like forever, any excuse for a war with Germany was good enough for them and vise-versa.

Germany was not this evil Evil, that it got after WW2. Don’t use the Nazi stigma for WW1.
There was always war in Europe. In hindsight it was a good way to play out as it did, since we got finely peace in Western Europe. France, Britain and Germany are now very close and economically connected. War between those states these days is unthinkable.

As a German I have no problem in admitting that Germany is 100% to blame for WW2, but not for WW1 – Germany is part at fault there, but not the only one to blame for it.

I cannot say if things would have been better if Germany would have won WW1, but they certainly would be different and maybe we still would be stuck in this warmongers mindset, because WW2 would properly still have happened, just differently and maybe later. At which point weapons would have been much more developed with catastrophic consequences.

[Fuji]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Russia didn’t turn a regional war into a World War. Russia was part of that regional war. Aside from defending Serbia, who they were allied with, the Russians also felt a moral duty to defend fellow Slavs. What started World War 1 was Germany’s invasion of Belgium, which brought Britain and its empire into the fray. What was still a regional war involving only parts of Europe ended up involving North America, the Indian Subcontinent and Australasia, precisely because Germany recklessly and needlessly invaded a country that was completely uninvolved in any war in the Balkans.

Spin, spin, spin. I love how the Russians get a free pass in your version of history, because they “felt a moral duty to defend fellow slavs”. Yes, the Russians were certainly known for their altrusitic good-feelings towards their fellow Slavs in their respective struggles for freedom. Why - you can just go ahead and ask the Poles, the Ukrainians, or the Belarussians. I’m sure they had no base motives, such as the destabilization of their primary European rival, Austria-Hungary, or a desire to secure access to the Mediterranean. :rolleyes:

Further, it’s bullshit to claim that the British weren’t at any threat from a German invasion of Belgium, so they needlessly entered the fray. They were treaty bound. If treaties with the UK were actually to mean something, they had to get involved.

First, you are conflating two separate issues: military threats and treaty obligations. In precisely what way would German occupation of Belgium in 1914 pose an existential threat to Britain, whose Royal Navy was the world’s supreme maritime military force at the time?

Second, ah yes - the British Empire certainly did love its treaties. Like the ones which allowed them to shove opium down the throats of the Chinese, or the one which let them force foreign merchants not subject to local law upon the Japanese. Of course, those were treaties that they actually honored, unlike deals they had agreed to with the Afghans, Turks, East Indians, Americans, Boers or Norwegians.

Look, it’s ridiculous to throw up your hands and say “all Great Powers must share equal blame”. That’s bullshit. The British were Treaty bound to defend Belgium’s neutrality, which the Germans new full well, yet they still invaded Belgium in order to strike at France. The German leadership were also working behind the scenes in Austria, getting the Austrians riled up to a state of fever pitch in wanting war. It’s debatable whether Austro-Hungary would ever have invaded Serbia in the first place if not for the Germans sending them doolalley.

Ha. I’ve already addressed the laughable issue of the UK being “treaty-bound” to defend Belgian neutrality above. What’s not debatable is that Serbian intransigence to Austro-Hungarian pressure in the years leading up to WW1 was largely contingent upon both open and covert Russian support.

Indeed the general idea of German leadership, both civilian and military alike, wanting a war of aggression in Europe to expand territory had been floating around since a general council in 1912. Tirpitz then was the one who saved us from a World War in 1912. Eventually the German leadership got their way. The Lebensraum idea, also familiar from WW2, ultimately descended from German WW1 plans to expand German territory to the east, wiping out ethnic minorities in the east of Europe.

I have never seen any mention of Wilhelimine Germany pursuing a strategy of “wiping out ethnic minorities in the east of Europe,” pursuant to the Nazi ideal of Lebensraum. This is a serious accusation of diabolical intent. Do you have any evidence to support this calumny?

It was Germany who wanted war, and it was Germany who transformed a regional, European war that may never have escaped Central and Eastern Europe (or indeed, started in the first place) into a war that involved the best part of the civilised world.

It was Britain who wanted to maintain the status quo of its world-spanning empire gained through conquest and treachery over the prior two centuries, who gave implicit endorsement to French revanchism, who presumptuously guaranteed Belgian neutrality as a pretext for Continental belligerence, and who helped to fan the flames of a regional Balkan war into a global conflict.

[Fuji]

@Capitaine_Zombie

And, let’s not forget, Britain and France as well.

Now, now - don’t go throwing reasonable assertions around. Everbody knows it was all the evil Germans’ fault. :rolleyes:

[Doughbag]

@Latro

And “Huns” is not ?

I got no idea, but no “Hun” complaint, so…

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Fuji

I have never seen any mention of Wilhelimine Germany pursuing a strategy of “wiping out ethnic minorities in the east of Europe,” pursuant to the Nazi ideal of Lebensraum. This is a serious accusation of diabolical intent. Do you have any evidence to support this calumny?

See Fischer, who uncovered the documents. This (well cited) Wikipedia article on the Historiography of the cause of WW1 gives a good overview. To whit:

Fischer’s discovery of Imperial German government documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of Russian Poland and the subsequent German colonization in order to provide Germany with Lebensraum (living space) as a war aim, has also led to the widespread acceptance within the historians’ community of a basic continuity between the foreign policies of Germany in 1914 and 1939.[14][15]

In 1961, the German historian Fritz Fischer published the very controversial Griff nach der Weltmacht, in which Fischer argued that the German government had expansionist foreign policy goals, formulated in the aftermath of Social Democratic gains in the election of 1912, and had deliberately started a war of aggression in 1914. Fischer was the first historian to draw attention to the War Council held by the Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Reich’s top military-naval leadership on December 8, 1912 in which it was declared that Germany would start a war of aggression in the summer of 1914.[8] Both the Kaiser and the Army leadership wanted to start a war at once in December 1912, but objections from Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, who while supporting the idea of starting a world war, argued that the German Navy needed more time to prepare, and asked that the war be put off until the summer of 1914.[9] The Kaiser agreed to Tirpitz’s request.[10] In 1973, the British historian John Röhl noted that in view of what Fischer had uncovered, especially the War Council meeting of December 8, 1912 that the idea that Germany bore the main responsibility for the war was no longer denied by the vast majority of historians[11], although Fischer himself later denied ever having maintained that the war was decided upon at that meeting.[12]

Crucial line:

In 1973, the British historian John Röhl noted that in view of what Fischer had uncovered, especially the War Council meeting of December 8, 1912 that the idea that Germany bore the main responsibility for the war was no longer denied by the vast majority of historians

So, as early as 1912 Germany was itching to ignite a continental-wide war in Europe but was put off by Tirpitz until 1914! Oh, John Rohl by the way is:

He is a leading expert of the Wilhelmine German Empire, having written a two-volume biography of Emperor William II.

Perhaps the perfidious British and revanchist French had a hand in German plans to ignite a world war in 1912?

[Doughbag]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

So, as early as 1912 Germany was itching to ignite a continental-wide war in Europe but was put off by Tirpitz until 1914! …Perhaps the perfidious British and revanchist French had a hand in German plans to ignite a world war in 1912?

Read up on that lovely history of the British Emipre here - it’s a peacefull one.

Or the involment of the British here… read the something about secret meeting from 1905 bit

[Little_Nemo]

All these arguments about who was worse: Germany, France, Russia, Austria, Britain. Let’s seek some common ground and find something we can all agree on: the United States is perfect.

[Latro]

Well, I must say I have never heard of this 1912 meeting before.

Will have to do some reading up! This is quite some “news”.

[tagos]

@Latro

And “Huns” is not ?

No. Because it isn’t in current usage as a slur against Germans. It was confined to WW1 with a small revival in WW 2.

And it came from their own lips so to speak: (quote from wikipedia Hun entry)

*On July 27, 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion in China, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany gave the order to act ruthlessly towards the rebels: “Mercy will not be shown, prisoners will not be taken. Just as a thousand years ago, the Huns under Attila won a reputation of might that lives on in legends, so may the name of Germany in China, such that no Chinese will even again dare so much as to look askance at a German.”[38]

This speech gave rise to later use of the term “Hun” for the Germans during World War I. The comparison was helped by the Pickelhaube or spiked helmet worn by German forces until 1916, which was reminiscent of images depicting ancient Hun helmets. An alternative reason sometimes given for the use of the term was the motto Gott mit uns (God with us) on German soldiers’ belt buckles during World War I. It is suggested that the word uns was mistaken for Huns. This usage, emphasising the idea that the Germans were barbarians, was reinforced by Allied propaganda throughout the war. *

[XT]

@Little Nemo

All these arguments about who was worse: Germany, France, Russia, Austria, Britain. Let’s seek some common ground and find something we can all agree on: the United States is perfect.

Well…compared to those others…

(Personally, I think that all of the major European powers were ready and even eager to fight…and all of them are roughly equal to blame for what happened. They let a little brush fire incident ignite a conflict that killed literally millions of their people and pretty much broke the Europeans power world wide. And they managed to drag us into it…into something that we had no business sticking our nose and our poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly lead army into)

-XT