# What if German had won the war?



## olbrat (Dec 10, 2008)

Verganza had mentioned this in the last thread and I find it a curious question so I thought I would throw it out there. 

I suspect holding acquired territories would be a nightmare (somewhat like a certain middle east conflict today). But what of other results? Would WWII have happened sooner? Would it have been avoided? Remember also that Germany had not been defeated in Africa and could have made a lot of strong trade/political alliances there too if it won the war. Africa would have been sources for natural and stategic resources. That would have really changed the outlook of WWII if it were to happen.

I'm curious of other opinions and thoughts. How about it?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 10, 2008)

olbrat said:


> Verganza had mentioned this in the last thread and I find it a curious question so I thought I would throw it out there.
> 
> I suspect holding acquired territories would be a nightmare (somewhat like a certain middle east conflict today). But what of other results? Would WWII have happened sooner? Would it have been avoided? Remember also that Germany had not been defeated in Africa and could have made a lot of strong trade/political alliances there too if it won the war. Africa would have been sources for natural and stategic resources. That would have really changed the outlook of WWII if it were to happen.
> 
> I'm curious of other opinions and thoughts. How about it?



What do you mean by "Germany had not been defeated in Africa"? IIRC, they were run out of Afrika by the British 8th Army in 1943.

The only territory that Germany should've attempted to invade and secure were the Caucuses; IMO, the northern invasion into Russia, with Moscow as it's goal, was a mistake. They should've concentrated their resources on the southern sector of the Russian front, and captured the Ukraine, the Crimea, and the Caucasus where the natural resources were. This also would've effectively prevented the Allied forces in the Middle East from linking up with any Russian forces to the north.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 10, 2008)

I just read the novel "Fatherland" which describes exactly that situation, Germany won. Very interesting although fiction of course.


----------



## Thorlifter (Dec 10, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> What do you mean by "Germany had not been defeated in Africa"? IIRC, they were run out of Afrika by the British 8th Army in 1943.



Sod Stitch, I believe he is referring to WWI, not WWII. Correct me if I'm mistaken.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 10, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I just read the novel "Fatherland" which describes exactly that situation, Germany won. Very interesting although fiction of course.



Another good book along these lines is "SS-GB", by Len Deighton.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 10, 2008)

If Germany won WWI there is a good chance that they would've become followers of Lenin and Marx in the 1920s'.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 10, 2008)

Amsel said:


> If Germany won WWI there is a good chance that they would've become followers of Lenin and Marx in the 1920s'.



If not in the '20's, Amsel, then perhaps in the '30's, if the Great Depression had still happened. Remember that in the last freely-elected Reichstag, 1932, the Communists were the second largest party behind the Nazis. The moderate center and center-left parties like the Catholic Zentrum and the Social Democrats had been pretty much squeezed out. It was the so-called "stab in the back" and general  with the outcome of WWI and the Versailles Treaty that gave so much impetus to the Nazis. Without this impetus, the Communists might have come out on top.

Venganza


----------



## Amsel (Dec 11, 2008)

It could have been horrifying to find Germany in an alliance with the Soviet Union. If NSDAP did not gain power and the communist party gained control of the country WW2 might not have happened but if it did the results would have been horrible for the free world. The "cold war" resulting from such a strong alliance would be extremely tense to say the least.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 11, 2008)

Amsel said:


> It could have been horrifying to find Germany in an alliance with the Soviet Union. If NSDAP did not gain power and the communist party gained control of the country WW2 might not have happened but if it did the results would have been horrible for the free world. The "cold war" resulting from such a strong alliance would be extremely tense to say the least.



I was also thinking about that. If the Soviet Union had still been created, despite a German WWI victory, it might have helped the German Communists gain control of Germany and the cold war might have started in the 1930's, not the 1940's. With German retention of its colonies, and the French colonies it would have taken over in the wake of its WWI victory, the Communists would have started this Cold War with footholds around the world. The Depression-wracked Western "Powers" like the United Kingdom and France, and an isolationist U.S., would not have been in much shape to do anything about it. Not a pretty picture.

Venganza


----------



## Amsel (Dec 11, 2008)

No, not a pretty picture at all. I wonder if the U.S. would also lean toward communism in the face of such a strong foe. The socialist party was growing also.

The effects of the first half of the 20th century outcomes and decisions will be felt for centuries I believe.


----------



## olbrat (Dec 11, 2008)

Great information guys! Thanks! Good food for thought.

I hadn't thought about the rise of communism/socialism, but I agree. I also agree that considering the influence and push of socialist and communists after 1900 and into the 1930's the USA could have easily headed in another direction. If Germany had a good foothold in Africa, I can see an easy growth there as well. I also think the resulting "cold war" would have been an extremely nasty one that could easily have lead to another world war.

If another world war would have arisen under those conditions, would Japan have tried to remain neutral (or independant)? Allied itself to the USA? I don't think it would have joined the commusists. There still would have been a major war in the Pacific, but we may not have been fighting Japan. We may have allied ourselves with them so they were the "buffer" instead of California.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 11, 2008)

I would argue that a German victory in WW1 would have stopped Communism dead in it's tracks. If Germany had won, the Hohenzollerns would have undoubtedly have remained on the throne. Wilhelm was an authoritarian and a reactionary, and would have had a large, conservative and victorious army with which to enforce his will. Furthermore, he could have used this force to directly intervene in the Russian Civil War - an intervention that might have proved decisive. After all, the revolutions in Germany were stoked by dissatisfaction and privation resulting from the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany. If you assume Germany won, you must also assume that the blockade was broken - removing a lot of the social pressure which led to the political violence of 1919. If Germany had allowed the unoccupied parts of France to remain French after the war (unlikely IMHO), they may well have gone socialist or even Communist - but the Germans would have been in control of France's most vital industrial areas and natural resources, so any French state would have been very weak.

The US would undoubtedly stay very conservative, as they did in the history we all know. The willingness of American business to use extreme violence against striking workers was demonstrated in the WV coalfields - I can't see a German victory making such actions any less likely. The UK might have gone either way - the defeat of the RN and the Army would have been incredibly traumatic for the British public, and they might have gone either way.

Sorry if this is a bit messy, I have extrapolated a lot 'on the fly' as it were, but in a nutshell, I think a victorious Germany would have served as a rallying point for international conservatism, rather than fuel for Communism/socialism.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I just read the novel "Fatherland" which describes exactly that situation, Germany won. Very interesting although fiction of course.



Very good book, I have the movie as well.









Amsel said:


> If Germany won WWI there is a good chance that they would've become followers of Lenin and Marx in the 1920s'.



I do not think so, because the Depression was still bound to happen, if Germany had won it might even have happened sooner. Lets also remember that fear of Communism is something that fed the NSDP following.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 11, 2008)

You may be right.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Dec 11, 2008)

BombTaxi said:


> I would argue that a German victory in WW1 would have stopped Communism dead in it's tracks. If Germany had won, the Hohenzollerns would have undoubtedly have remained on the throne. Wilhelm was an authoritarian and a reactionary, and would have had a large, conservative and victorious army with which to enforce his will.



I would agree with your assesment, my only doubt would be the status of the Hohenzollerns. In my opinion, the Hohenzollerns would have become weaker and remained solely as symbolic figureheads of Germany. I believe the real power would have rested on squarely on the shoulders of Hindenburg and Lundendorf, the "victors" of WW 1. Ever since the great victory over the Russians at Tannenburg, the two generals became such huge national heroes, I often wonder how difficult it would have been for them to usurp near or complete totalitarian power in Germany? Probably not very difficult at all.

In the territorial sense, a German victory would have also meant the permanent annexation of Alsace and Lorraine provinces. It would also mean the loss of Belgian, French and British colonies in Central and Northern Africa and the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine), resulting from the shared spoils of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and particulary the Ottoman empire.

Lastlty, regardless of American intervention, the fact that the US was across the ocean and not one of Germany's traditional enemies, I believe the sudden accumulation of Germany's wealth and power in territorial concessions and in reparation payments, it is quite possible the US would have most likely become an international partner, if not an outright ally of Germany, seeing the huge economical benefits of such a relationship.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 11, 2008)

Would a German victory in the First world War have implications that bettered the world situation for the rest of the century? Especially without the revolution in Russia and its more famous counter-revolution led by Lenin? Also the NSDAP most likely unable to gain power due to the nonexistance of the treaty that crushed Germany?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Dec 11, 2008)

Amsel said:


> Would a German victory in the First world War have implications that bettered the world situation for the rest of the century? Especially without the revolution in Russia and its more famous counter-revolution led by Lenin? Also the NSDAP most likely unable to gain power due to the nonexistance of the treaty that crushed Germany?



I think the Communist revolution would have been easily contained in the West, unless of course the western industrialists became overwhelmingly monopolistic in their acquisitions and abusive of it's workforce. The Communist expansion to Russia's east could have been another story though. However, if we can assume that France would have also lost her far-East colonies of Indochina, Thailand, and etc., it's possible that Germany's influence would have had an toehold of Western influence there as well.

As for NSDAP, it's possible it could have still existed, but without it's cruel penchant for ethnic and/or racial scapegoating, as they would have found less reason in a govermental take-over in a post-war economic boom. It simply wouldn't have been supported by populace enjoying their newly found nationalwealth and international influence.



Amsel said:


> Would a German victory in the First world War have implications that bettered the world situation for the rest of the century?



This I highly doubt, since rule would have swung back and forth from autocratic to militaristic-totalitarianism. By 1919, other than the Parlementarian-Monarchy UK and Republican France (and perhaps Belgium and the lowland countries), there were few _real_ democracies in Europe. Communisism would have been contained, but at the expense of a Western-style democracy in all Europe, and possibly throughout the entire Eurasian continent. A scary thought actually.

Taking this one step further -who is to say that there would _not_ have been a 2nd world war? Perhaps naceant fascistic organizations would have come instead from countries like France and the UK?? It's not entirely impossible, but France still seething over that fact that Alsace and Lorraine were still in German hands after that massive loss of human lives? Or perhaps Great Britain smarting over the fact that German prospectors have just discovered unbelievably huge oil reserves in it's former zone of control, the Arabian penninsula? In both former powers, there could have been great momentum in extreme right-wing political movements in such groups as the Croix de Feu (FR) or Black Shirt Unions (GB).


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 11, 2008)

Prussia, and it's political power would have also remained intact, along with the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The Ottoman Empire and it's holdings in the middle-east would have been preserved, which would have changed things considerably compared to how it is today in that region.


----------



## Syclonus (Dec 12, 2008)

Germany might have kept its colonies in Southern Africa too.
maybe even in the pacific, remember they had New Guinea.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 13, 2008)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Taking this one step further -who is to say that there would _not_ have been a 2nd world war? Perhaps naceant fascistic organizations would have come instead from countries like France and the UK?? It's not entirely impossible, but France still seething over that fact that Alsace and Lorraine were still in German hands after that massive loss of human lives?



I think there might very well have eventually been some conflict between France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine and France's lost colonies. The question is whether it would have dragged in other countries, like the U.K., into the war, and started another world war. What would the U.S.'s response have been? And Russia (whether monarchic or communist)? I also wonder what would have happened with Austria-Hungary after WWI. Even with victory, how long could this patched-together conglomeration have lasted? The Soviet Union lasted for over 70 years, but the ethnic Russians were always in the majority (albeit barely at the end), and its control over its restive ethnic minorities came at the cost of a brutally repressive totalitarianism. The Austrians were in the minority, and Austria-Hungary was already partially decentralized by the dual monarchy, with Hungary as the junior partner. The other minorities might have demanded the same deal Hungary got after the 1848 revolutions, and this might have quickly lead to Austria-Hungary's dissolution.

Venganza


----------



## Freebird (Dec 14, 2008)

Wir würden wahrscheinlich alle auf Deutsch schreiben. Englisch würde verboten werden. Der Me109 würde alle „das beste Flugzeug“ Abstimmungen gewinnen. Der Adler hätte noch die meisten Posten.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 14, 2008)

Ich würde das Messerschmit 109 siegreiche Abstimmungen nicht bedenken. Es ist mein Liebling.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> Wir würden wahrscheinlich alle auf Deutsch schreiben. Englisch würde verboten werden. Der Me109 würde alle „das beste Flugzeug“ Abstimmungen gewinnen. Der Adler hätte noch die meisten Posten.



Que dices? No comprendo ninguno que se habla (no comprendo Aleman). Habla en Ingles por favor! Hablamos Ingles aqui. Gracias.

Venganza


----------



## Freebird (Dec 14, 2008)

Venganza said:


> Que dices? No comprendo ninguno que se habla (no comprendo Aleman). Habla en Ingles por favor! Hablamos Ingles aqui. Gracias.
> 
> Venganza



I use "Free translation", it works fine for short sentances

Free Translation and Professional Translation Services from SDL



freebird said:


> Wir würden wahrscheinlich alle auf Deutsch schreiben. Englisch würde verboten werden. Der Me109 würde alle „das beste Flugzeug“ Abstimmungen gewinnen. Der Adler hätte noch die meisten Posten!



Translation:

We would write probably everyone in German. English would be forbidden. The ME109 would win all "the best airplane" votings. The Eagle {Der Adler} still would have the most posts!


----------



## renrich (Dec 14, 2008)

There have been some historians who have postulated that if the US had not entered the war in 1917, the warring powers, exhausted by war, would have put together a negotiated peace and the Russian Revolution would have been stymied. Not the same as a German victory but I found Bomb Taxi's post persuasive.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 14, 2008)

freebird said:


> I use "Free translation", it works fine for short sentances
> 
> Free Translation and Professional Translation Services from SDL



Thanks FB for the translation site. I'll have to check it out. It might help make my feeble attempts at Spanish (and irony) a little more accurate. Renrich, I think what might have stymied the Russian Revolution would have been a quick enough German victory so Russia didn't suffer the huge losses in men and land.

Venganza


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 16, 2008)

renrich said:


> There have been some historians who have postulated that if the US had not entered the war in 1917, the warring powers, exhausted by war, would have put together a negotiated peace and the Russian Revolution would have been stymied. Not the same as a German victory but I found Bomb Taxi's post persuasive.



I think that if the US had not intervened, a negotiated peace would have been almost inevitable - Pershing was by far the most vocal of the "On to Berlin" chorus, and US manpower did much to sustain the Allies through the Peace Offensive and the final Allied counter-offensive. A negotiated peace would probably have been much more favourable to Germany than Versailles was - after all, the British were becoming war-weary, the French army was still recovering from the 1917 disorders, and Russia would probably still have been out of the war, if the Bolsheviks had survived past 1917 or not. There is no doubt in my mind that Germany would have crushed the Left in it's own country then moved east to deal with the Bolsheviks. And I am fairly sure that the British and Americans would have set aside recent differences to help them crush the "Red Menace".


----------



## Venganza (Dec 16, 2008)

Well said, BombTaxi. I agree. If Germany had gone ahead with the spring offensives in 1918, the terms might have been very favorable indeed to Germany. This brings up the question - would the spring offensives have succeeded without American intervention, or was Germany so exhausted that it was doomed to failure anyway? Of course, the spring offensives themselves seem to have been the result of two factors - the collapse of Tsarist Russia (and later the Kerensky government) which freed up huge numbers of German troops, and the threat of massive American intervention on the continent. Without that U.S. threat, the spring offensives might not have taken place at all, and after disposing of the Russians, the Germans and the French and British might have been willing to find some kind of "honorable" peace - maybe just a return to the status quo ante.

Venganza


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2008)

Venganza said:


> Well said, BombTaxi. I agree. If Germany had gone ahead with the spring offensives in 1918, the terms might have been very favorable indeed to Germany.



I agree, considering the fact that the Germans were on French soil and the allies had not set foot on German soil.


----------



## renrich (Dec 17, 2008)

Most interesting posts and well thought out. Interesting how history unfolds. The Germans declare unrestricted submarine warfare and Wilson finally goes to war to save the world and the result perhaps is a Communist dominated Russia, another year of bloodletting in France, The Treaty of Versailles, WW2 and the 45 years of the Cold War. Maybe the ramifications are not over with yet.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 17, 2008)

I think the ramifications of that assassination in summer 1914 might not be over in my lifetime (I'm just gone 25 now). The social change that WW1 bought about in Europe, particularly Russia and Germany (obviously), and France and the UK (less obviously), is monumental, and I would go as far as to say that WW1 was more significant than WWII in that respect. A whole system of government, a whole way of life, and most importantly a whole set of values and attitudes went out of the window between 1914 and 1918, and I think we are still living with the consequences today. As renrich said, most of what is going on in the world today can be directly traced to WWI - and I would add the origins of the current situation in the Middle East, to that list as well. 

I know that last point is highly controversial, and I really don't want to start something here that should be in the 'Politics' forum, but I believe that the partition of Ottoman territories among the Allies post-WWI was a catalyst for Middle Eastern antagonism toward Europe. Let's not forget, the RAF was bombing Iraq in the 1920s, and British troops fought Iraqi rebels in 1941. Recent events in Iraq therefore have a somewhat familiar ring to them for students of British military history... And arguably, the fact that the Allies nominally controlled Palestine before, during and after WWII was one of the factors that helped to establish Israel in the first place, by providing a ready source of disposable territory. 

Like I say, not trying to start a political row here, just want to put that line of thought up for your consideration 8)


----------



## fly boy (Dec 17, 2008)

olbrat said:


> Verganza had mentioned this in the last thread and I find it a curious question so I thought I would throw it out there.
> 
> I suspect holding acquired territories would be a nightmare (somewhat like a certain middle east conflict today). But what of other results? Would WWII have happened sooner? Would it have been avoided? Remember also that Germany had not been defeated in Africa and could have made a lot of strong trade/political alliances there too if it won the war. Africa would have been sources for natural and stategic resources. That would have really changed the outlook of WWII if it were to happen.
> 
> I'm curious of other opinions and thoughts. How about it?



I am sorry but I had to point this out german


----------



## renrich (Dec 18, 2008)

Bomb Taxi, agree and fascinating line of thought. Maybe you should be the next Harry Turtledove and write an alternative history series of books about that subject. I am too old and besides want to write an alternative history where Texas does not join the Union.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bomb Taxi, agree and fascinating line of thought. Maybe you should be the next Harry Turtledove and write an alternative history series of books about that subject. I am too old and besides want to write an alternative history where Texas does not join the Union.



Although I haven't got round to reading any Turtledove yet, I am flattered  8) I trained as an early modern historian but I have always been drawn to the 20th century, by the sheer violence and scale of change that occurred, and by the huge range of possible histories that it could have produced. Maybe if I can extend my talents to choosing winning lottery numbers, you will see some books


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2008)

renrich said:


> Bomb Taxi, agree and fascinating line of thought. Maybe you should be the next Harry Turtledove and write an alternative history series of books about that subject. I am too old and besides want to write an alternative history where Texas does not join the Union.



Harry Turtledove is a great author. I own all of his books. My fovorites from him are:

The Guns Of The South

The World War Saga
_World War: In the Balance
World War: Tilting the Balance
World War: Upsetting the Balance
World War: Striking the Balance_

Colonization
_Colonization: Second Contact
Colonization: Down to Earth
Colonization: Aftershocks_

How Few Remain

And I am currently reading his alternate series about World War 1 (The North joins the side of the Germans and the South the side of the Allies  ) which is 5 books so far:

The Great War
_The Great War: American Front
The Great War: Walk in Hell
The Great War: Breakthroughs_

American Empire
_American Empire: Blood and Iron
American Empire: The Center Can not Hold_


----------



## Freebird (Dec 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Harry Turtledove is a great author. I own all of his books. My fovorites from him are:



I just read "Agent of Byzantium", a very interesting story.


----------



## renrich (Dec 19, 2008)

Chris, me too. Bomb Taxi, I hope you give serious consideration to expounding upon your hypothesis about the impacts of WW1 in a novel. The 20th century, from a historical point of view with regard to events and the pace of "modern" development is fascinating. This was brought home to me recently by my experience with an elderly mother. She was born in 1908 and in 2004 I reflected on the changes and world events she had seen and experienced in her lifetime. The Wright brothers had barely flown when she was born but late in her life she flew in a jet to visit a son in Saudi Arabia. She drove a horse and buggy to teach school in South Texas. World Wars, you name it. Unfortunately, by the time I mentioned these subjects to her it was too late to have a conversation. She passed at the age of 97 in her sleep. We live in interesting times.


----------

