Printable View
I was curious about this, having a brainstorm about a book setting.
Could WWI Germany, victorious, conquered most of the world, and then crashed under the strain?
I would think it possible that Germany would have annexed France, maybe invaded Britain, struck Civil War Russia, conquered British lands, then taken America?
The fact that Germany of the era could not even conquer Europe seems to me at least to suggest – no.
If Germany had more steadfast allies, the Russians pulled out earlier and the Americans never joined, perhaps. However, once Germany goes on a conquering spree, I doubt even WWI era America would ignore it and stay in isolationist mode.
Also I doubt that the German people would tolerate several years of different wars following each other.
i dont think their military would be strong enough.
No. Next question.
No country, especially one the size of Germany, can conquer the world, or even large parts of it. I don't think even a nation the size of China could conquer much more than Asia. Germany may have become the dominant power in continental Europe, muhc like Napoleon did a century before, but it is doubtful how long this would have lasted.
ehm, i thought the mongols came pretty darn close. not the world but they had more than asia.
ehm, i thought the mongols came pretty darn close. not the world but they had more than asia.
That was then, without the old problems of resistance movements and others.
No, no matter how good your generals, technology, weapons are, you will run out of troops. Crossing the atlantic would also be quite a costly move that, if America was half-aware of, could've swatted the planes like flies. Plus, even if they had, an empire that big would break with all the resistance groups that would form.
they had rebellions 2. and the comunication was very bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Perhaps, if they hadn't invaded Belgium, then Britation likely would have come down on Germany's side. As to resistance movements etc, there have always been gurrillas, even in ancient Rome.
Had they been benevolent rulers, had UK and hence Commonwealth support then yes. They could have done it, at least Europe.
Think on this, there have really been three world wars already and the UK has always been on the winning side. The reasons? Money, Naval Power and being safe on a island.
In WWI Germany was facing Italy, Belgium, France, Russia, the UK and her Commonwealth all at once. They still held out for four years. The UK brought most of the troops, without them the French would have been outflanked and out thought.
3 world wars?
Perhaps the extra one is in reference to the Napoleonic Wars...
Napoleon's was largely a European + Mediterranean. I don't think there has ever been a true world war, to be honest. Even WWII didn't include South America, at least not that I know of.
Umeu: The Mongols didn't conquer Asia, at least not the whole of it. No single state has ever controlled a whole continent, apart from Britain controlling Australasia, and perhaps anyone who first claimed the barren wasteland of Antarctica.
The Battle of the River Plate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Actually, it did include South America; although all of the actions were naval or espionage in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Brazil was an ally of the U.S. at the beginning of the war. Brazil was a major source of supplies for Britain and France during the early years of the war. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, when the U.S. declared war on Japan, Brazil had a problem. They had a very large number of Japanese immigrants living there (as was also the case in Peru, Chile and other countries in the area). They resisted declaring war on Japan in concert with the U.S. at the time. But they agreed to declare war on Italy and Germany following the U.S. response to Germany's declaration of war. I believe Brazil even sent some troops to fight in the Italian campaign on the side of the Allies.
The large Japanese population turned out to be quite a problem for Brazil. Some of the immigrant groups had been infiltrated by the right wing militarist Japanese secret society called the Black Dragon. There were various acts of sabotage at Brazilian ports, and German U-boats had an uncanny knack (probably the result of shared intelligence between Japan and Germany) for finding Brazilian merchant ships ferrying supplies to the UK. There were quite a few Brazilian ships sunk by U-boats in the Atlantic.
So, except for Antarctica (and there is some controversy regarding reports of possible Nazi bases built in Queen Maud Land in the Antarctic too!) every continent either had direct military action in WWII or sent troops.
I'm sorry, how does WWII have any bearing on the FIRST WORLD WAR?
We're talking about WWI, yes my reference was to the Napoleonic Wars, which did include some squabbles over Africa, no reall fighting thoughbut Napoleon was in Egypt, in reality WWI was all about Europe, the rest was a side show.
WWII was different because Japan was trying to carve out an Empire as well.
WW 1 Germany did want to conquer the world! So what is this threat about?:help:
Oh well, back on topic I guess.
A bit of thinking has led me to think this way: if even American fails at Vietnam and the Soviets are defeated at Afghanistan, I can hardly imagine Germany succeeding at both these places, especially with an already very large empire since in this situation Europe is theirs.
That's a very good point, Tiberius. There is, perhaps, some critical mass point also, beyond which empires simply can't function due to size or distance or geography or some other factor finally outweighing the ability of the empire to maintain control.
If UK was taken over, in all likelyhood the Royals, Nobles and Government would have escaped to Canada or another Commonwealth country.
At this point Germany would have had to cross the Atlantic or further to continue the War.
Also it would have to beat China and Japan to conquour the world... at that point an alliance of Commonwealth and US countries would certainly step in.
I don't think Britain controlled the entire land mass of Australasia. After WWI Britain was in possession of Papua while Australia was given the mandate of adminstering German New Guinea. So at no point did Britain control the entirety of Australasia.Quote:
No single state has ever controlled a whole continent, apart from Britain controlling Australasia
Rebellions are very different to a continuous guerilla campaign, sabotaging supply lines, communications and generally pinning down soldiers. Nationalist identity was not as marked during the time of the Mongols as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Conquering most of Europe might have been a possibility had the Kaiser seen the wisdom of avoiding a second front with Russia whilst exploiting, integrating & mastering new military technologies (i.e. tanks) early on in the conflict. Despite the fact that Germany (and to a lesser extent its allies) possessed a modern & effective army throughout the war it still failed to break the stalemate.
Conquering the world? Not a chance. First you have to overcome the Royal Navy which was as large as it was effective. Qualitatively speaking the Kriegsmarine might have been more modern & effective than the Royal Navy but it simply didn't have enough ships to do the job. Even if the Kriegsmarine managed to decisively defeat the Royal Navy the monumental task of projecting power overseas would have been extremely difficult as the US & Japan already had impressive navies of their own and would have certainly stepped up their respective naval programs to fill the vacuum.
Also the military mentality at the time. Germany wasnt trying to make France part of its empire it would just take the juicy bits like alsace and lorraine. They would probably also take the oversaes empire and leave the european countries so weakened they couldnt fight back. I also agree with spino the germans would have had a tough time with the royal navy. "We want eight and we wont wait" Britain was just a much larger naval power.
A single front war was never possible after the Russian-French alliance. Both countries, despite the officially "defensive" nature of the alliance, were committed to an assault on Germany in support of the other beginning on the 15th day of mobilization. Germany's plan, which assumed that Russia could not launch a meaningful offensive until day 41+, was to smash France with a powerful right hook and then turn to face the "Russian Steamroller." Russia did launch their offensive on time as promised and -- though their forces were slaughtered at Tannenberg -- the scare did cause the withdrawal of roughly 3 corps worth of troops from the West. Would the Marne have been different had these forces been present? Possibly, but even with a decisive victory in the West in 1914, Germany would not have had the forces or werewithal to conquer Europe in its entirety, much less the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Integrating and mastering new technologies was done as rapidly by Germany as by any of the powers of the day -- and more so than most. Engine technology was years away from the kind of war-tools you imply, even given the development crucible of the conflict to speed things up.
Agreed. Absatively impossibubble. The central powers may have been able -- with great fortune and a series of successful wars -- to dominate all of continental Europe to the West of the Smolensk land-bridge, but England was flat-out impossible and Scandanavia (aside from Denmark) highly unlikely given the need to operate across the Baltic and the fighting skills of the Finns [Haaka Palle!], Swedes, and Norse in their home terrain/climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
Mithradates, Alsace and Lorraine were already German territories, since the Franco-Prussian war the century before. Also, everyone thinks the former navy was a huge advantage. It actually wasn't since the new Dreadnought which the British and the Germans were building in the arms race preceding WWI had been far more effective than any other ships. Destroy the British Dreadnoughts, and there would be a far greater chance of defeating the Navy. The RN wasn't invincible in the war anyway, as you should see. If it was, how did Britain almost get blockaded to starvation and surrender? Twice?
What i didnt make clear was i meant if Germany defeated France then they would prbably get land concessions rather than some kind of German european imperium. As for those blockades i know there was U boat trouble but they were few in number, at least to mount an effective blockade. There were shortages but im pretty sure surrender was never on the cards. Not until the second world war atleast when things had changed. As for dreadnoughts being destroyed it would take something special for the germans to gain a dreadnought majority in the first world war.
how about the spanish. they fought a guerilla war against the romans. in the medieval times they fought a guerilla war against the french and almohads (in charlemagnes time). guerilla wars arent just from after napoleon.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
and yes youre right that it wasnt as sophisticated as now, but what was?