Would a German victory in WW1 create a "better" present?

[django]

This WI scenario is inspired by historian Niall Ferguson's book The Pity Of War, in which he investigates and refutes a number of common misconceptions about WW1, and most famously (or infamously depending on your point of view) suggesting that Britain should have stayed out of the war and let the Germans overrun Belgium and France. He argues that this would have resulted in a shorter war, and that a victorious Germany would be much more peaceful than what we know happened in OTL.

So ... here's the question: as per Niall Ferguson's suggestion, Britain does not intervene in 1914, for whatever political reason you can imagine. Let's assume that, all other things being equal, Germany wins WW1. Would this create a "better" future for Europe? It would certainly butterfly away the rise of the Nazis, but might we still see the rise of the USSR, and the rise of fascism in Italy, or might we even see an extremist nationalist equivalent to fascism rise in a defeated France instead of Germany? Would WW2 and the Cold War be prevented entirely, or would it just take a different form than OTL? Would the European Colonial Empires still break up? How would culture, technology, politics, and so on all be different?

 

[zoomar]

Well, barring a Martian invasion, things couldn't have been much worse for Europe than they were in our time line, so my answer is a qualified "yes". I qualify my "yes" because I think there is decent reason to believe that Imperial Germany and its even more autocratic allies would be harsh masters over Central and Eastern Europe...certainly not like the Nazis, but not sweetness and light either. Also, beyond about 1930 it would probably be impossible to predict what other events might occur that could create a present just as bad as ours: Red Revolution and counter revolution in Germany, collapse of the Dual Monarchy and ethic ethnic strife in the Balkans, hostile cold war verging on hot between Britain (and/or possibly the US) Germany, and whatever Japan, Italy, the USSR, and China might also dream up. Of course Germany might become a fully democratic constitutional monarchy and have Angela Merkel as its chancellor today. Who knows?

But either way I think the odds for a better today are higher if the Central Powers had won the war - preferably in the early going.

 

[DamonHazen]

But either way I think the odds for a better today are higher if the Central Powers had won the war - preferably in the early going.

While i agree with the first part, I do disagree with the second.
The best time would probably be late 1917, since at that point the conservatives and monarchy largly discredited themselves and a more democratic Germany (nominaly monarchic) was all but garanteed.

An early victory however might have well strenghend their position and delayed said democratisation.

 

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I don't think we can say either way for sure. It could have equally led to a brutally reactionary French empire putting native movements in the colonies to the sword or a Russia of vicious warlords massacring workers and peasants movements or any of a multitude of dark scenarios. However, the Nazi regime was pretty fucking horrible and hard to 'top'.

 

[machine3589]

Ah, this discussion again. Tine for another round of inconclusive back-and-forth with no definitive conclusion.

 

[Bosemacher]

An early Central Powers victory would see Lithuania and Poland restored as client states of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Ottoman Empire may regain the territories lost to Russia in 1878. Germany would also make territorial gains of the west possibly including the Briey and Belfort regions as well as incorporation of Luxembourg into the Reich. In addition Germany would make some colonial acquisitions.

A longer conflict could result in a Brest-Litovsk like treaty with Russia and France subjected to a reversed Versailles. In an extended conflict Japan and Italy might decide to dogpile the Entente. In such a situation a revanchist Russia might seek to regain lost territory if it such find a powerful ally such as the British Commonwealth. This could set the stage for a second great war circa 1940.

 

[DamonHazen]

Ah, this discussion again. Tine for another round of inconclusive back-and-forth with no definitive conclusion.

Thats even more correct unfortunatly.

 

[kung Zog]

Butterflies whisper that the end result could've been nuclear annihilation.

In the short term one might argue that it would've been better (I'm a bit unsure about that though) but long term, butterflies create too much chaos to really determine.

 

[zoomar]

While i agree with the first part, I do disagree with the second.
The best time would probably be late 1917, since at that point the conservatives and monarchy largly discredited themselves and a more democratic Germany (nominaly monarchic) was all but garanteed.

An early victory however might have well strenghend their position and delayed said democratisation.

I may be rusty on my German history, but wasn't it after 1917 that the Hindenburg/Ludendorff military dictatorship pretty much took over from both the Kaiser and the Reichstag? If Germany wins the war under this regime, both the monarchy and the Reichstag (with any power at all) might go away. Also, the other reason I believe an early and quick victory (by either side) is better is because realistic war aims had not really crystalized and hatreds would not have been as strong. A Germany that scored a lightning victory over France in 1914 might have been willing to negotiate a final western border at roughly prewar limits (especially if it ended up with eastern Europe to play with). In 1917, Germans would have insisted on keeping a lot of territory millions of Germans gave their lives to secure,,,All or most of Belgium and much of NE France. And this would breed French revanchism and German occupation brutality.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

This is the problem with alternate history. Thing is, between the Central Powers claiming victory and the ATL 2015, any number of things could happen, with limitless butterflies. Sure, you might see Germany become a large democratic state, eventually freeing Eastern and Central Europe from its grasp, and the whole world turns into sunshine and lollipops. Similarly, after an exhausting war, you might see Bolshevism spread even to Germany, civil wars, revolutions, harsh crack-downs, and Europe 2015 could be an absolute shit hole.

Who knows.

 

[Alternate History]

Would anyone in 1920 have thought that the rest of the century would see a genocide against the Jews and various other groups, spearheaded by a man whose rise to power anyone here would have discredited as ASB, Russia's turn to communism taking a tragic turn that leads to many millions of deaths as well, and two superpowers would end up causing a lot more misery through their proxy wars? Probably not. Germanophiles are inclined to see the best possible outcome, but not the worst: among others, I can think of more genocides like the Herero & Namaqua genocide, a worse decolonization all over the board leading to more prolonged and bloody civil wars and possibly a failure to decolonize in some places, and social progress being stifled by the arch-conservative German imperial establishment. Oh, and once that order comes crashing down, Europe just devolves into war again. That, I say, is the worst-case outcome - or perhaps a "realistic" one? Hard to tell, but thinking Mitteleuropa would lead to a brighter future is as irrational and wrong as nostalgia towards "the good old days" in general.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Theoretically it could have compared to OTL if it prevented a WW1 and USSR. It could have also been worse depending on any number of variables. In terms of body count if the resulting total is less and the numbers of wars are less than yes its a better present, but its impossible to say conclusively. Arguably its more likely to be better because a victorious Germany is much more able to enforce a harsh peace that would prevent another war; without the disorder to the world order resulting from WW2 starting in Europe its unlikely Japan could do what it did in Asia. But much also depends on the circumstances of victory; if Germany wins early, say in 1914-1915 and there is a lot less destruction then France is finished as a great power, Russia's rise is blunted, but doesn't create the conditions for Lenin to return and create the USSR, while the economic distortions created by the war IOTL that caused the Great Depressions pretty much don't happen, so the recession when it comes isn't as bad. In that case is very probably there isn't another major war like WW1 or WW2 in intensity and the world is a much better place in terms of war and death.

 

[Halagaz]

Ferguson's a very...eccentric sort of historian. It's wise to take anything he says with a grain of salt.

I believe that the myth of "the Kaiser's EU" (not a very widespread myth, but Ferguson seems to like it) has been thoroughly disproved by the OTL behavior of the Central Powers. Germany employed quite brutal occupation policies, and its allies (Ottomans, A-H...) were generally even worse with the genocides and massacres they carried out. The future of Europe carved up and dominated by this gaggle of militaristic, mostly authoritarian and extremely brutal regimes is not going to be pretty at all.

In any case, we have absolutely no way of knowing if the end result will be better or worse than OTL. Just because certain specific atrocities will be avoided doesn't mean new atrocities won't take their place. Maybe, after the dust settles, the death toll would be higher than the one suffered by OTL's world. Or maybe it would be somewhat lower. Or maybe it would be exactly the same (but from completely different causes). Or maybe civilization would have collapsed in blood and fire because the Duchy of Courland misplaced its nuclear launch codes or whatever. We just can't know.

 

[DamonHazen]

I may be rusty on my German history, but wasn't it after 1917 that the Hindenburg/Ludendorff military dictatorship pretty much took over from both the Kaiser and the Reichstag? If Germany wins the war under this regime, both the monarchy and the Reichstag (with any power at all) might go away. Also, the other reason I believe an early and quick victory (by either side) is better is because realistic war aims had not really crystalized and hatreds would not have been as strong. A Germany that scored a lightning victory over France in 1914 might have been willing to negotiate a final western border at roughly prewar limits (especially if it ended up with eastern Europe to play with). In 1917, Germans would have insisted on keeping a lot of territory millions of Germans gave their lives to secure,,,All or most of Belgium and much of NE France. And this would breed French revanchism and German occupation brutality.

Part of the answer is how a late 17 Victory (with the fewest changes) would
have come to be, namely no ASW, no Zimmermann stupidity and maybe a little better showing on the field.
The most important parts here are finance and supplies. With Britan crossing
its US creditlimit by mid17 it was set to be reached. Combine that with bad
french morale and a desire for a peace would be a likely result.
On the German side that same could not be said for the conservatives, but
everyone else? Particulary the SPD that saw a sharp rise? Particulary after
the promised swift victory didnt materialise?
Add simple warexhaustion and the rest of Germany would be set on
accepting a peace that would be barly above a white one (just not a quite
white one) with the (western) Entente.

Furthermore a lot of people forget that Prewar Germany was actualy VERY
progressive for its time. Its started to show itself in the Reichstag too, the
only thing missing was putting it into law and procidure, for which there was
already a lot of pressure.
No the illusion is that the conservatives could have actualy made a strong
comeback once 17 rolled around.
At that point political realities like during early-mid Weimar Rep. were bound
to happen, regardless of the outcome.


But of course, retconning the heartpiece of the last 100 of history is going to
result in a hell of a lot of Butterflys.

Preventing the collapse of the Ottoman and Habsburgs Empires through, as well as the spread of the (at that point not garanteed to exist/survive) SU beyond modern day Russia and interwarchaos would however be a definite plus for at least 20 years.

 

[The B]

I found a very interesting essay on this in a book on WWI I found in the library... and then lost it.

The author seemed to think not, and was especially concerned with those under German control in the east. Unfortunately I've never been able to find the sodding book, AARGH I'm remembering it now, it was really good!

 

[Lateknight]

Yeah probably the world would be controlled by the twin heagmons America and Germany that really didn't have any reason to fight it would be more stable at the very least.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Someone sorta mentioned an interesting idea; OTL British Empire. Wouldn't they be extremely powerful? They make tons of profits selling weapons in WW1, Germany has a lot of enemies and has to keep a large standing army, likely having to waste treasure in destabilizing Russia continually to prevent them from getting too strong.

So, wouldn't the British Empire essentially sit as Europe's kingmaker, as they would be unmolested from the war and only be engaged in profitable occupations of colonial territories, while Germany would have domestic unrest enforcing bizarro-Versailles terms and building weapons to counter the British and the rest of Europe?

 

[Bleh]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but wouldn't we be likely to see something like *Nazi France as a result of this? There was already a lot of hatred and racism toward Germans as a result of Alsace-Lorraine; if this were compounded by war reparations similar to those placed on Germany IOTL and the annexation of even further land, I don't think it's a stretch to see a far-right France mobilize its large population and carry out a genocidal campaign of revenge against people considered to be German. The revenge mentality was already there in WWI; by *WWII it might be even worse than Germany's was.

 

[Lateknight]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but wouldn't we be likely to see something like *Nazi France as a result of this? There was already a lot of hatred and racism toward Germans as a result of Alsace-Lorraine; if this were compounded by war reparations similar to those placed on Germany IOTL and the annexation of even further land, I don't think it's a stretch to see a far-right France mobilize its large population and carry out a genocidal campaign of revenge against people considered to be German. The revenge mentality was already there in WWI; by *WWII it might be even worse than Germany's was.

Unlikely well the French are likily to go nazi there country was smaller and weaker then Germany it wouldn't be able to do as much damage.

 

[David T]

Well, barring a Martian invasion, things couldn't have been much worse for Europe than they were in our time line, .

Not true--there could eventually have been a thermonuclear war (whichever side won World War I)...