What would the world look like If Germany would have won WWI?

[just_me]

(1) Would there have been a European union long before It did in the present timeline and doing so provide a countermeasure against America as our economy became better

(2) Would America become industrialized as quickly as it did in response to WWII and not have had to help Europe rebuild if WWII had never happened?

(3) Would the Ottoman Empire had fallen in the way it did and allowed the France and Britten to carve up the middle East in their own fashion?

(4) Would WWII ever have happened and with the atrocities of the Nazis?

(5) Would the UN had have been created and in being not doing so, Would Palestine have been carved up to create the state of Israel?

(6) Would America have become the superpower it is now if Europe had not devastated itself in WWII and would nuclear power have seen the light of day in a devastating bomb?

(7) Would a united Europe, not engaged in their own war and an America set back and watched Japanese aggression in China and if not would China have become communist?

(8) Would Russia have grown into a super power if they hadn't have had to fight Germany during WWII and not have had Eastern Europe as the spoils of war

 

[steve_bank]

Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic misses. They were working on ICBMs to hit the YSA.

Heisenberg was working on the German atomic program but post war it was found they were far behind the USA. They would have gotten it eventually.

After that world domination.

It would be genocide in Europe beyond the death camps. The plan was always to depopulate areas for expansion of German population. Ukraine initially treated the Germans as liberators from Russia.

The original VW Bug was meant to be cheap transportation on a new highway system.

 

[just_me]

Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic misses. They were working on ICBMs to hit the YSA.

Heisenberg was working on the German atomic program but post war it was found they were far behind the USA. They would have gotten it eventually.

After that world domination.

It would be genocide in Europe beyond the death camps. The plan was always to depopulate areas for expansion of German population. Ukraine initially treated the Germans as liberators from Russia.

The original VW Bug was meant to be cheap transportation on a new highway system.

All of your replies are post WWII. The thread is about the first world war, not the second.

 

[bilby]

Are we talking Germany succeeding with the Schlieffen Plan in 1914; Or winning after years of attrition, say in 1919 or 1920? Do the US get involved? What form does the German victory take - an armistice with France and England? Occupation of France, or part of France? Do they defeat Russia before the revolution? Do the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia at all? Does Germany support the white russians against the reds?

What about Austria-Hungary? Do they win too? Do the Ottomans?

The question as asked doesn't have enough detail to give a sensible answer given the vast number of variables.

 

[just_me]

Are we talking Germany succeeding with the Schlieffen Plan in 1914; Or winning after years of attrition, say in 1919 or 1920? Do the US get involved? What form does the German victory take - an armistice with France and England? Occupation of France, or part of France? Do they defeat Russia before the revolution? Do the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia at all? Does Germany support the white russians against the reds?

What about Austria-Hungary? Do they win too? Do the Ottomans?

The question as asked doesn't have enough detail to give a sensible answer given the vast number of variables.

You are reading into this far more than you should. It would stand that if Germany would have won World War I they would have set the details of that victory and none of those allied against her would have won any concessions. Why would you have to know if Austria-hungry or the ottoman empire had won if Germany were to have won, since if they would have dropped out of that war anything they had given up would have been taken back by Germany when she won. America is inconsequential. She did not get anything for her part in the war except the experience of fighting it. I don't think.

 

[bilby]

Are we talking Germany succeeding with the Schlieffen Plan in 1914; Or winning after years of attrition, say in 1919 or 1920? Do the US get involved? What form does the German victory take - an armistice with France and England? Occupation of France, or part of France? Do they defeat Russia before the revolution? Do the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia at all? Does Germany support the white russians against the reds?

What about Austria-Hungary? Do they win too? Do the Ottomans?

The question as asked doesn't have enough detail to give a sensible answer given the vast number of variables.

You are reading into this far more than you should. It would stand that if Germany would have won World War I they would have set the details of that victory and none of those allied against her would have won any concessions. Why would you have to know if Austria-hungry or the ottoman empire had won if Germany were to have won, since if they would have dropped out of that war anything they had given up would have been taken back by Germany when she won. America is inconsequential. She did not get anything for her part in the war except the experience of fighting it. I don't think.

America got taken seriously on the world stage for the first time. She also almost certainly was the source of the influenza pandemic of 1918-20, and that pandemic had major impacts on Europe.

A quick victory in 1914 would have found both victors and vanquished in a VERY different mood regarding both war in general, and the behaviour of each other in the war, as compared to their attitudes after years of trench warfare.

I honestly can't see how the result of a German victory in 1914 could have even vaguely similar results to a German victory in 1918 or later.

Although either way, WWII would surely not occur (in any recognisable form) if Germany wasn't defeated in the Great War.

 

[DrZoidberg]

(1) Would there have been a European union long before It did in the present timeline and doing so provide a countermeasure against America as our economy became better

(2) Would America become industrialized as quickly as it did in response to WWII and not have had to help Europe rebuild if WWII had never happened?

(3) Would the Ottoman Empire had fallen in the way it did and allowed the France and Britten to carve up the middle East in their own fashion?

(4) Would WWII ever have happened and with the atrocities of the Nazis?

(5) Would the UN had have been created and in being not doing so, Would Palestine have been carved up to create the state of Israel?

(6) Would America have become the superpower it is now if Europe had not devastated itself in WWII and would nuclear power have seen the light of day in a devastating bomb?

(7) Would a united Europe, not engaged in their own war and an America set back and watched Japanese aggression in China and if not would China have become communist?

(8) Would Russia have grown into a super power if they hadn't have had to fight Germany during WWII and not have had Eastern Europe as the spoils of war

We like to think that Nazism was the result of their defeat in WWI. Modern historians think that things would probably have played out in a similar fashion. Authoritarian and anti-democratic ideals were found all over the west. Social-Darwinism was all the rage. The Catalyst for German Nazism was the attempted communist coup 1918, which was almost successful. Well.. both Nazism and Communism was the zeitgeist, no matter what either side would have done.

1) The European Union was a direct result of WW2. So probably not.
2) Wars are expensive. As a general rule, an economy expands faster the fewer wars a country it is in. I don't think USA's economy sped up as a response to WW2. Their GNP went up. But GNP isn't the same thing as an economy. It's just a metric we use for simplicity. Because measuring the real economy is hard.
3) Nope. It would not. The Ottoman empire might have reformed and come out quite healthy.
4) Probably. It was the Zeitgeist all over the west. We've just gotten a collective amnesia regarding the Nazi type ideas in the non-German part of Europe. Churchill himself was a raging white supremacist. He was guilty of much the same kinds of things when he was a soldier in the colonies. He had very much the same values regarding race as Hitler.
5) Nope. The UN was created as a direct result of WW2 and the failure of the League of Nations. The League of Nations would still have failed. So perhaps something similar.
6) USA was also in WW2. So the answer is, yes, they would. USA became as rich as they did because in the first half of the 20'th century USA was the Saudi Arabia of the world. USA reinvested that money which created an enormous boost to the economy USA is still enjoying.
7) Remember that China was free money for Europe. It was their little plaything they were bleeding dry. Which gives them a incentive to defend China from Japan. And since Europe was rabidly racist, they were unlikely to sit idly by while Japan created an empire. If it wasn't for German aggression in WW2 Japan would have been stopped in their tracks by Europe. Not many people remember this. But before WW2 (and WWI) Germany was allied to China/Guomindang. As was USA. Because both Germany and USA were allied in their quest to stop Western exploitation of China. While Japan just wanted to be part of the France/England and Russia party.
8) What caused the Russian Tsar to fall, and communism to happen, was Nikolaj II's obsession with Russian getting Constantinople. He bled Russia dry to win that victory. That would have played out the same if Germany won the war. If Nazism would have come anyway, Germany would probably have attacked Russia, just like before. Because no matter if Hitler was in power or not German industry still needed oil. So the Baku oil fields would always be a tempting target. Germany being forced to sail past enemy France and England for oil was like having Germany's balls in a vice.

The big unknown here is Austria-Hungary. Europe's biggest empire and most populace European power. If they would have won that would have changed German politics a lot. Since Germany would have been dominated by Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary would still control Croatia and parts of northern Italy, so would have ports in the Mediterranean. That would have changed much. Instead it was turned into a bunch of ineffectual quarrelling kingdoms. Who knows what they would have done?

 

[untermensche]

None of us would be alive.

 

[bilby]

Nazism wasn't a single idea; It was a whole platform of policies.

The rise of eugenic and genocidal ideas in Western Europe would likely have occurred regardless of the Great War, but you can have pogroms (and even extermination camps) without invading your neighbours.

The militaristic and expansionist policies of the Nazis were driven by their feelings of betrayal, and disbelief that the Great War had been lost in a military sense. A German victory would have eliminated a large part of this.

A quick victory in 1914 would likely have had few major consequences; like the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, it would have been a spat amongst the various extended family members of Queen Victoria, leading to a change of management in a handful of border territories like Alsace-Lorraine, but ultimately business as usual. The early 20th Century would have looked much like the late 19th, and populist ideas such as eugenics would have remained fads amongst the gentry, while labour driven revolutions were crushed before they even got started.

It was the long war, with its massive casualties, huge demand for materials, and massive influence on technologies that laid the ground for the rise of labour as a force (both political and revolutionary), and for the influence of demagogues from the lower classes of society, including Hitler and Mussolini.

Anti-semitism in the 20s and 30s would probably still have been a big issue, and may even have become genocidal, though more likely it would have led to a larger migration of jews to the USA, and fewer deaths in Europe. Probably it would have been more widely supported, but less intense, with places like the UK not shying away from it without Hitler's example to make it unfashionable; While in Germany it would have been less deadly with official action to clamp down on the worst excesses, rather than fanning the flames.

The development of atomic weapons may well have been significantly delayed - maybe to the 1960s or '70s - and would almost certainly have occurred in Germany. Their development during peacetime would potentially be disastrous - WWII ended with just two nukes being used in anger, and that example was sufficient to prevent WWIII, but had two or more nuclear armed states arisen without that example, a much more extensive first nuclear exchange would seem likely to have occurred.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It was the long war, with its massive casualties, huge demand for materials, and massive influence on technologies that laid the ground for the rise of labour as a force (both political and revolutionary), and for the influence of demagogues from the lower classes of society, including Hitler and Mussolini.

That's interesting. Socialism as a reaction to just the amount of pain the working class had to endure. Makes a lot of sense imho. I am sceptical though. Socialism was a major political force from mid 19'th century onward. While I'm sure WWI gave it a push. I wonder if this boat wasn't heading straight for the iceberg. The question was where it'll hit, rather than if.

The development of atomic weapons may well have been significantly delayed - maybe to the 1960s or '70s - and would almost certainly have occurred in Germany. Their development during peacetime would potentially be disastrous - WWII ended with just two nukes being used in anger, and that example was sufficient to prevent WWIII, but had two or more nuclear armed states arisen without that example, a much more extensive first nuclear exchange would seem likely to have occurred.

9'th March, the fire bombing of Tokyo. Casualities 100 000
6'th August, nuclear bombing of Hioshima. Casualities 120 000
9'th August, nuclear bombing of Nagasaki. Casualities 80 000

While nuclear weapons have a huge psychological impact. We're fully able to kill people just as well with conventional means.

I don't think we're out of the woods when it comes to WWIII. The rise of China seems hard to stop at the moment and Russia is taking every chance they get to grab more land.

 

[bilby]

It was the long war, with its massive casualties, huge demand for materials, and massive influence on technologies that laid the ground for the rise of labour as a force (both political and revolutionary), and for the influence of demagogues from the lower classes of society, including Hitler and Mussolini.

That's interesting. Socialism as a reaction to just the amount of pain the working class had to endure. Makes a lot of sense imho. I am sceptical though. Socialism was a major political force from mid 19'th century onward. While I'm sure WWI gave it a push. I wonder if this boat wasn't heading straight for the iceberg. The question was where it'll hit, rather than if.

Not so much as a reaction to the trauma, though that's part of it; More that so many were absent that those who remained - even women - realised their value. That so few of those who left for war returned home able to work only added to this.

Add to this that the security forces were badly weakened with their best men at the front; And then the fact that the class division between senior officers and the junior officers and enlisted men was made so stark at the front, causing even the more faithful to question their place in society, and the progress of labour against the establishment was at the very least hugely accelerated by the war.

The development of atomic weapons may well have been significantly delayed - maybe to the 1960s or '70s - and would almost certainly have occurred in Germany. Their development during peacetime would potentially be disastrous - WWII ended with just two nukes being used in anger, and that example was sufficient to prevent WWIII, but had two or more nuclear armed states arisen without that example, a much more extensive first nuclear exchange would seem likely to have occurred.

9'th March, the fire bombing of Tokyo. Casualities 100 000
6'th August, nuclear bombing of Hioshima. Casualities 120 000
9'th August, nuclear bombing of Nagasaki. Casualities 80 000

While nuclear weapons have a huge psychological impact. We're fully able to kill people just as well with conventional means.

Not with one plane per city though. That's the real deterrent with nuclear weapons - the impossibility of preventing or mitigating the total destruction of a city. Ballistic missiles make the situation even more stark. The V2 was unstoppable, but it only carried a couple of tons of high explosives. It's the combination of the two that lets things get so scary that even the war hawks think twice.

I don't think we're out of the woods when it comes to WWIII. The rise of China seems hard to stop at the moment and Russia is taking every chance they get to grab more land.

Perhaps. But deterrence remains a factor. Nobody wants to use nukes first, knowing that to do so would lead to massive retaliation.

India and Pakistan might nuke each other in a limited exchange without causing a world war, but even there the leaders on both sides know that their personal survival is far from assured.

It's a LOT easier to order aggression that might get millions of your troops or even civilians killed, than it is to order aggression that will damage your entire nation beyond repair, and almost certainly lead to your own death, and that of your family.

 

[steve_bank]

Germany would have developed nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic misses. They were working on ICBMs to hit the YSA.

Heisenberg was working on the German atomic program but post war it was found they were far behind the USA. They would have gotten it eventually.

After that world domination.

It would be genocide in Europe beyond the death camps. The plan was always to depopulate areas for expansion of German population. Ukraine initially treated the Germans as liberators from Russia.

The original VW Bug was meant to be cheap transportation on a new highway system.

All of your replies are post WWII. The thread is about the first world war, not the second.

My mistake. If the Germans had won until an eventual WWII that swept away the aristocratic systems the chronic quest for hegemony and empire would continue.

As weans technology advanced eventually there would have been an apocalyptic scale conflict. Germany and neighbors were a tangled mess of political, aristocratic, and military factions until Hitler brutally suppressed it all.

Up until WWII the Europeans in a sense enjoyed war. As it became clear war was coming there were parades. Men put on old uniforms and medals on the eve of WWI. That mentality would have persisted.

People thought there would be battles, a treaty, everybody would shake hands and go home. Parades and parties.

When Goering was in custody post WWII he thought he'd have dinner and drinks with his British captors and then go home. That was the aristocratic cavalier WWI attitude.

Both sides were spent. European royals and aristocrats were all linked by blood. The same nonsense and arrogance would continue until the next war or the rise of new authoritarian regimes. Like the Soviets.

The best book I read on it was Diplomacy by Kissinger. He went through all the swirling currents in the 19th and 20th century up to WWI.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that eastern Europe is the most interesting place in such a scenario.

The Central Powers will likely control some additional territory there. Most likely Poland, and likely also the Baltic states, eastern Ukraine, and/or Belarus. Will Germany and Austria-Hungary annex any of this territory? Or turn it into puppet states?

Something like  Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or  Mitteleuropa

That, I suspect, would likely be a setup for further strife and war, since those people may not appreciate German rule, and since Russia might pose as their "liberator".

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that eastern Europe is the most interesting place in such a scenario.

The Central Powers will likely control some additional territory there. Most likely Poland, and likely also the Baltic states, eastern Ukraine, and/or Belarus. Will Germany and Austria-Hungary annex any of this territory? Or turn it into puppet states?

Something like  Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or  Mitteleuropa

That, I suspect, would likely be a setup for further strife and war, since those people may not appreciate German rule, and since Russia might pose as their "liberator".

But the Central Powers did win in Eastern Europe. So not sure what you think would be different?

 

[bilby]

I think that eastern Europe is the most interesting place in such a scenario.

The Central Powers will likely control some additional territory there. Most likely Poland, and likely also the Baltic states, eastern Ukraine, and/or Belarus. Will Germany and Austria-Hungary annex any of this territory? Or turn it into puppet states?

Something like  Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or  Mitteleuropa

That, I suspect, would likely be a setup for further strife and war, since those people may not appreciate German rule, and since Russia might pose as their "liberator".

But the Central Powers did win in Eastern Europe. So not sure what you think would be different?

I think the critical differences only arise in the event of a quick win by the Central Powers. If Germany defeats France in 1914, and then demolishes the Russian imperial forces in 1915 (or even by the end of 1914), the Romanovs could sue for peace (indeed they would have no other option), leaving the Bolshevik movement stillborn. And Russia remains an imperial autocracy well into the twentieth century.

That totally changes the Eastern European picture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that eastern Europe is the most interesting place in such a scenario.

The Central Powers will likely control some additional territory there. Most likely Poland, and likely also the Baltic states, eastern Ukraine, and/or Belarus. Will Germany and Austria-Hungary annex any of this territory? Or turn it into puppet states?

Something like  Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or  Mitteleuropa

That, I suspect, would likely be a setup for further strife and war, since those people may not appreciate German rule, and since Russia might pose as their "liberator".

But the Central Powers did win in Eastern Europe. So not sure what you think would be different?

I think the critical differences only arise in the event of a quick win by the Central Powers. If Germany defeats France in 1914, and then demolishes the Russian imperial forces in 1915 (or even by the end of 1914), the Romanovs could sue for peace (indeed they would have no other option), leaving the Bolshevik movement stillborn. And Russia remains an imperial autocracy well into the twentieth century.

That totally changes the Eastern European picture.

The Bolshevik/Russian communism movement didn't arise as a result of WWI. They were the result of Russia's loss to Japan in 1905. Or rather, it's rapid rise in popularity. The Russian communist party (which later became the Bolsheviks) was founded in 1898 for the same reason communist parties were formed all over Europe. Russia was late on the ball. The Russian communist party already had a lot of support well before WWI. Anarchist attacks was an epidemic. Tsar Alexander II had been assassinated by anarchists in 1881. He was the most liberal Tsar Russia had had. Nicholai II's response was to become extremely conservative. Which was exactly the wrong thing to do.

I think most historians agree that Tsar Nicholai II was on the wrong side of history, and everybody saw it. He was strangling his own country. He also, very much, lived in a bubble. Unwilling to see reality. If it hadn't been the Bolsheviks, it would have been some other communists. If it hadn't been during WWI, it would have been some other time. Very likely the results would have been similar. Quite possible with less land losses. It's also quite possible that a revolution in Russia could have triggered WWI.