Would the world be a better place if the Germans had won World War I?

  • Registration is closed without referral. This is a website about Internet drama.

    We need a 3PL

Would the world be better if Germany won?

  • Yes, things would have been better if the Germans won

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • No, the correct side won the war

    Votes: 16 57.1%

  • Total voters
    28

Chexxchunk

Take it off the rack, if it's wack put it back
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Probably not. WW1 had already caused too much deep pathology that had to be dealt with some way or another.
I do fervently think the world would be MUCH better off if WW1 hadn't happened, though.
 

cuddle striker

met our dead severely deformed baby in jail
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Probably not. WW1 had already caused too much deep pathology that had to be dealt with some way or another.
I do fervently think the world would be MUCH better off if WW1 hadn't happened, though.
this I agree with. the flu during that time, alone, killed more people than the war- and that was because of the war. the resources being piled up in muddy fields could have been used to quarantined, clean, care for the sick. that epidemic could have been contained in the Midwestern US and France if it hadn't been splattered worldwide by that war.

however, plastic surgery, prosthetics, surgical tools and techniques might be less advanced. that war taught us to rebuild human ruins. to fix the irreparable. there's a lot of knowledge of grafting techniques, maintaining blood flow, healing wounds, scar maintenance, and deep organ closure that we might not benefit from if it hadn't been for those bombardments.

of course the right side won both wars. and I'm ambivalent about the horror of WWI. WWII was a stupid travesty spawned by an exceptional failed artist, though.
 

verissimus

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
the Russians didnt want to ally with the Germans in the first place. They wanted to take Pomerania from them

...no they didn't. They rather have Istanbul and the straits. Wtf good would it have been for Russia to have, never mind, want more Polish territory?

Also this

"Still, it is impossible to accurately predict how the world would look like today in such an event. WW2 in the exact form we know today would not have happened, but that does not mean it would not have happened in some other form either - there would still have been territorial disputes between the great powers, there would still have been ethnic tensions, and marxism (although it probably would not have taken over russia in 1918) would also still exist as a movement that would try to incite revolutions and uprisings wherever possible. and in the east, japanese imperial ambitions would be mostly untouched by the situation in europe. while russia would be more up to the challenge, there would still be nothing preventing the japanese from invading and conquering large parts of china and nearby pacific territories."

Completely agree with this. If WW1 had ended in 1914 with fairly little blood spilt, there would have been at least 1 sequel or several spin-offs to it. There also would have been no guarantee whatsoever that either fascism or marxism wouldn't have sprang forth in some capacity. This is what was so re-tarded about Ben's dumbass scenario. He tried to make the claim that somehow fascism in Germany and communism in general wouldn't have risen if we had intervened in the Russian Civil War when there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Russia couldn't have later succumbed to communism later on never mind to something akin to fascism which would have been extraordinarily likely had the "White Generals" won. There was also no guarantee Germany wouldn't have followed at least Italy's brand of fascism either as opposed to Hitler's.
 
Last edited:

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Fascism arose because of the devastation inflicted on Europe's economy through the course of the First World War,

From A History of Fascism, 1914—1945, Stanley G. Payne:

Many of the forces that helped to generate such conflict had undergone long gestation during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as in the cases of nationalism, imperialism, socialism, communism, and anarchism. Only one major new force-fascism-was novel and seemingly original, a product of the great conflict generation itself. Yet no major force suddenly emerges without prior development; the roots of fascism lay in the innovations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and particularly in the new doctrines and concepts produced by the cultural changes of the 1890s and the years that immediately followed.

I never said that events would unfold EXACTLY the same (I was being facetious with the Hitler comment). I even agree that there are many variables to consider. But fascism wasn't just an ideology that sprung up out of nowhere. The winds of change were already blowing before the 1900s.
 

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Thoughts?

How does the war end? Are we talking just before the Americans arrived in 1917-1918 or in 1915?

I'll assume the latter.

Germany - Germany prevails in a short war and continues to build up its navy to challenge the UK. The question is: What kind of Germany do we see? The socialist movement was huge before the war and the German government was conservative and authoritarian. The war being a win wouldn't change that and I suspect we'd see some kind of revolution or reform movement.

Austria Hungary - Prevails but is a dysfunctional mess as it was before the war. Inbred cabinet ministers would probably fuck up and cause a bunch of crises that slowly breakup the Empire. Germany would literally not give a fuck and just add these new countries to their sphere of influence. Or perhaps this goes the route of Yugoslavia on a much larger scale...

Russia - The peasants need starvation to rise up and that doesn't happen. The "woke" urban populace revolts and we possibly see some liberal reforms or a liberal revolution but not likely.

USA - Less centralization due to less Wilson. Mexico is still a clusterfuck on the border so maybe he uses that to justify his plans. Dunno. Regardless, the USA neglects its military even further but still develops a powerful navy.

Ottoman - They probably have a coup rather than a series of bloody genocides and civil wars. Or perhaps the Caliphate continues. I could see a huge impact here because the Caliphate not existing is pretty central to Salafist extremist Islam. The Saud family and others remains "loyal" vassals but Britain will meddle later. The Empire is revitalized by the Baghdad railway that binds the country together and brings in enormous wealth.

France - Is anally raped and devastated. Germany probably wouldn't pin the war on them due to them obviously being a defender and it would likely end with Germany taking a bunch of colonies. France is literally too weak to be a threat to anybody and their "great past" is liberal - stop the fascist France memes.

UK - Their idea is the balance of power so the UK just continues to support France and Russia as a counterweight to Germany. This is assuming a white peace rather than some kind of spectacular German naval victory. The UK would probably have to spend more on its navy for the next few decades. Irish relations are better off due to the UK just letting them leave instead of prolonging the breakup due to the war.

Canada - Canada likely puts off independence a bit longer. Their huge contribution to the war made them really want control over their own affairs. The country became socially liberal post-war due to women getting the vote and vets wanting help not being landless/homeless cripples. It likely stays more conservative.

Japan - Very little changes but they feel much less inclined to challenge the west due to the colonial powers still doing well for themselves. However, rising leftism and rising nationalism will lead to colonial conflicts that can't be won. Does Germany seize Vietnam and take a more proactive role in the region? Dunno.

China - Still fucked - Idiot declares himself Emperor, dies and shatters the country. Europe may exploit this more.

Africa - Colonized... by more Germans

South America - Less war economy and also less European immigrants or more French immigrants.


A 1917 or 1918 where Germany is still economically and socially broken is still a bad end. The German inflation crisis was caused by poor fiscal policy during and after the war, not by reparations. The post-war ills were not caused by losing the war but by the war itself. Germany winning just means the entente countries also experiencing the what Germany historically had. Does this mean no Hitler? No, now the Jews just made it so that Germany couldn't exploit her victory. Germany is still economically broken by this war and stealing grain from Ukrainian and Belorussian peasants (who would likely burn it instead of giving it up, also - how would you transport this?) is not going to fix it. If Germany insisted on continuing war by crushing eastern-European nationalists they'd be doubly fucked - imagine the feelings of the Vietnam war on steroids.
 
Last edited:

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 12, 2018
After hearing people meme about how the wrong side won WWII for years, it finally got me wondering; assuming the war was an inevitability, how would the world be different if the Belgians didn't resist the Germans at the outset of the war? What if Von Schlieffen's Plan had been successful in crushing the French military before they could mobilize and forced the French and British to sue for peace?

I'd argue yes for several reasons:
  • It would have prevented the appalling casualties incurred by both sides on the Western Front
  • Britain and France wouldn't have over-expanded their colonial holdings by tearing apart the Ottoman Empire
  • The Soviet Union is never formed and, arguably, no major world governments end up Communist
  • Continental Europe would have a clearly dominant power, which would help to ensure stability
  • The British and French don't have the opportunity to completely cock up the Middle East's borders
  • The Japanese are not emboldened to continue seizing Chinese territories beyond the ones they grabbed from the Germans
  • The peace terms would almost certainly be less harsh due to the shorter duration of the conflict
  • You don't end up with the Treaty of Versailles, which guarantees a Second World War
  • Israel doesn't exist because the British and French don't promise Palestine to (((them)))
Thoughts?

The Imperial houses of Europe would still fluctuate and some would still dissolve, most likely now through direct involvement of the Germans or through the institutional issues that pre-existed during the war.

While the time scale is longer, some of the results are still the same.

The Ottoman empire either democratizes or is preserved in a reduced size as Arab uprisings cause the fall of the middle east.

The Austro-Hungarian still breaks apart due to weak leadership and a bolster nationalism among the Magyar speaking populations, and so the house of Hapsburg still exist, but is now expressly Austria's imperial house.

The French Colonial Empire would cease as the territory was ceded to German control completely or within a very reduced and demilitarized France, where all colonial holdings would be ceded to Germany.

Britain would probably suffer some territorial exchanges in parts of colonial Africa.

Russia would likely still have a civil war or internal conflict, though due to German territorial expansion and annexation of Russian territory such as the Ukraine for the it and it's East European allies, diminishes Russia's power immensely. It still is under the threat of communism, and other uprisings as the instabilities existed before Russia joined the Great War.

Romania and Bulgaria are bigger countries, as they annex the remains of Serbia that the Hapsburg's don't take for themselves.

China still suffers from Japanese intervention, though this is still seen as a force for good by some, as the Japanese are fighting communism, they still likely crash out of the league of nations.

America focuses on South America and following the Monroe doctrine.

Major differences.

German trade is still the major competitor to a now reduced American industrial output. (War prep wasn't needed, so industry in USA is not as organised.)

The houses of Hohenzollern and Hapsburg are guaranteed to continue to be in power. German speaking settlers would continue to expand into Eastern Europe.

The British Empire has to deal with a reduced navy and war reparations but continues to be one of the three great powers, as it's not strapped with as much war debt. The Irish would get home rule, which means that the ROI remains part of the UK. Other colonial holdings of the Empire would not be given independence. (fueled by war debt and weak adminstration.) Britain would keep India, and the Suez Canal. It would also have to deal with social upheavals at home, as workers and socialist movements that agitated for labor would come to the political front and center.

Africa and Asian ends to colonialism takes much longer possibly mid 80's if they ever do, (loss of all European colonial power came from pressure from national movements, the US and war debt) as well as the potential for a Korea and most of China dominated by Japanese administration. (It used China for opium trading as Manchuko was outside international conventions.)

France is the biggest loser. Dispossessed of it's future and colonial holdings, with a crumbling economy and limitations on it's army size, plus a zone where there is no military allowed, would go through massive periods of economic instability and hardship, blaming Germany. (basically mirroring Weimar Germany.)

And somewhere in all of this an Austrian corporal in the German Army stays in the Army after the war long enough to get a nice discharge with a pension and a Captain's rank, he eventually eschews his career in the army for one in politics and stands as part of a moderate conservative movement that wants a constitutional monarchy and an active house of government in Germany.

He is a great orator, but is removed from the party for his radical views on Jews, and his more revolutionary leanings towards socialism.

He takes the failure on the chin and moves in 1923 to Argentina to try and make it there as an artist and landscape painter.

In 1930 he reads in the German newspaper that Herman Goring is elected the first chancellor of the new German parliament, answerable only to the Kaiser himself, and wonders what could have been. In 1960 he dies from Parkinson disease in an Argentine hospital surrounded by his wife and children. A few of his works will survive into the new millennium though they aren't worth a lot as he was an artist of little note.

Edit: Further thoughts

The Ottoman Empire or Secular Turkey is likely to become a stronger world power if they don't cede the territory in the middle east, as once oil exploration shows the vast quantities of crude reserve, the Ottomans/Turkey exploits that wealth for itself and not the separate Arab gulf states. What effects this would have on world politics who knows, as either the oil hungry countries of the world including Europe would either seek to exploit alliances or fuel separatist movements in order to exploit oil.

Though with the retention of oil interests in SE and Canada for the British and Africa for other European powers means that the middle east doesn't reach the level of importance it has post war, as the nations that became heavily dependent on oil are less so. (The war fueled the expansion of automobile and other modernization, these would still likely happen but at a slower rate of expansion.)

Also as an interesting aside Churchill in this alternate timeline would likely have fulfilled (in his own words) his ultimate political ambition of becoming Viceroy of India. He doesn't suffer from the political set backs caused by the failure of the Galipoli, and thus the political exile and fighting that followed throughout the 1920's. Also Kitchener survives the war, and so has an effect on world politics in this way.
 
Last edited:

Übertroon

Gotta go fast
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
In the end I think alternate history is too convoluted to make an accurate guess. For example disarmament after WWI was supposed to cripple any future German war machine. Instead it strengthened it by invalidating the old guard and creating a small and relatively inexpensive professional army that could choose between the cream of the crop that would become the officers leading the new army once Germany began mobilizing again.

Better question to ask is if the world would be better if the allies never aligned themselves with the Comintern and routed out the communists in its midst as much as they did the fascists
 

Lemmingwise

Amber Alert: I Heard a Turd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
It would have prevented the appalling casualties incurred by both sides on the Western Front
In the grand scheme of things, the casualties are not even a blip on the population of a country.

717622