Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

[Marshal Murat]

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?

[conon394]

The fact that Germany of the era could not even conquer Europe seems to me at least to suggest – no.

[Avicenna]

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.

[AggonyDuck]

Also I doubt that the German people would tolerate several years of different wars following each other.

[The Stranger]

i dont think their military would be strong enough.

[Red Peasant]

No. Next question.

[DukeofSerbia]

Off course NO.

You need the strongest economy in the world for such, and German Empire didn't have this. And you need strong allies which Germany didn't have, too. Austria-Hungary coudn't even defeat Serbia until German troops arrived.

[Watchman]

WW1 Germany would probably have had about enough resources to actually conquer something like Alsace-Lorraine (which they had to begin with, I seem to recall) and similar border areas not entirely adverse to such a change of regime. As the fate of the colonial empires illustrates conquering countries for good has gotten a wee bit tricky (okay, nigh impossible) after the introduction of nationalism in its modern abstract form.

The Great War was not waged as one where the participants tried to actually conquer one another. That wasn't how people thought of Great Power wars at the time. They were out to sort out their pecking order, whose contested claim to somethingorother was stronger under ultima ratio regnum, colonial interests and suchlike. This would have been - and indeed was - done by trouncing the other guy's army (no, they really didn't quite comprehend it was going to be an industrial war; they were still thinking in essentially Napoleonic terms) so soundly he had to sue for peace and you could dictate the terms.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Germany didn't stand a chance against Russia:

for all, let us remember that since that war broke out the population of Russia (due to Soviet regimes, and both World Wars) didn't actually grow much.

I've seen figures telling that a good 200 milion people lived in the Russian empire at that time about 4 times as much as in Germany in those days.

That just tells the whole story of the German Chance for Power: initially their Industrialized nation would have some advantage from a larger an more efficient economy system compared to the largely agricultural Russians.

But just as the Americans eventually couldn't compete with the Chinese 'Volunteers' in the Korean War, the Germans couldn't subdue a four times larger nation. By the time they had finally mangaged to start the October Revolution, by funding Lenin and his comrades, they had been almost broken in this way that the German economy was nearly exhausted.

This can be seen in the larger Germand death rates during the first influenza epidemia: these indicate that the German soldiers were less equiped and fed compared to the other front wich suffererd considerable less from the plague. The two front War had exhausted them completely, and they were forced to pay 4,5 times the world gold reserves, about 132 bilion golden DMark (Versailles).

[Watchman]

I was always under the impression that unlike on the second round, in WW One Germany actually did pretty damn well on the East Front. Or at least what one reads of the state the Russians were in by the time the Czar got the boot, and how they'd gotten there, tends to be pretty awe-inspiring in its own way.

In the Great War, the bloody quagmire that bled the Germans dry was the Western Front.

[AggonyDuck]

Yeah, if I remember correctly German troops were quite deep in Russia before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

[DukeofSerbia]

Germany didn't stand a chance against Russia:

for all, let us remember that since that war broke out the population of Russia (due to Soviet regimes, and both World Wars) didn't actually grow much.

I've seen figures telling that a good 200 milion people lived in the Russian empire at that time about 4 times as much as in Germany in those days.

That just tells the whole story of the German Chance for Power: initially their Industrialized nation would have some advantage from a larger an more efficient economy system compared to the largely agricultural Russians.

But just as the Americans eventually couldn't compete with the Chinese 'Volunteers' in the Korean War, the Germans couldn't subdue a four times larger nation. By the time they had finally mangaged to start the October Revolution, by funding Lenin and his comrades, they had been almost broken in this way that the German economy was nearly exhausted.

This can be seen in the larger Germand death rates during the first influenza epidemia: these indicate that the German soldiers were less equiped and fed compared to the other front wich suffererd considerable less from the plague. The two front War had exhausted them completely, and they were forced to pay 4,5 times the world gold reserves, about 132 bilion golden DMark (Versailles).

I agree almost 100%.

The main problem of Germany was weak Austria-Hungary.

[AntiochusIII]

Erm, in World War I it was the Russians who didn't stand a chance against Germany...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Germany didn't stand a chance against Russia:

for all, let us remember that since that war broke out the population of Russia (due to Soviet regimes, and both World Wars) didn't actually grow much.

I've seen figures telling that a good 200 milion people lived in the Russian empire at that time about 4 times as much as in Germany in those days.

That just tells the whole story of the German Chance for Power: initially their Industrialized nation would have some advantage from a larger an more efficient economy system compared to the largely agricultural Russians.

But just as the Americans eventually couldn't compete with the Chinese 'Volunteers' in the Korean War, the Germans couldn't subdue a four times larger nation. By the time they had finally mangaged to start the October Revolution, by funding Lenin and his comrades, they had been almost broken in this way that the German economy was nearly exhausted.

This can be seen in the larger Germand death rates during the first influenza epidemia: these indicate that the German soldiers were less equiped and fed compared to the other front wich suffererd considerable less from the plague. The two front War had exhausted them completely, and they were forced to pay 4,5 times the world gold reserves, about 132 bilion golden DMark (Versailles).

I disagree with a good bit of this, Tellos.

Russia did, indeed, have a greater population than both of the central powers combined. They were, however, so poorly industrialized that they had difficulty providing sufficient rifles for all of their infantry, were chronically short of ammunition to a degree worse than any of the other powers, and had the least effective logistical system of any combatant power in the conflict. Despite their greater numbers and the bravery of the Russian soldier, they were never able to field a force that was anywhere near as effective, on a man-to-man basis, as those opposed to them.

Germany's industrial advantage was never surpassed by the Russian Empire. Germany did run low on some critical resources, and their food production efforts began to fall short toward the end of the war, but this was more a result of the blockade imposed by the Western Allies than anything effected by Russia.

Your Korean War allusion actually points to the inefficiency of a poor logistic support in modern war. The PRC achieved complete strategic surprise (MacArthur's Intelligence Chief virtually ignored the intial attacks of 1/2 November as well as numbering the Chinese at about 30k), attacked units that were all to often out of support range from one another and poorly dug in, and who had been facing weak resistance from the North Korean forces. Despite these advantages, Chinese casualties were often 10 times that of the US and British units they attacked. They may have pushed us out of North Korea, but their victory was Pyrhic at best. Chinese casualties to Frostbite and disease were often twice the total of combat deaths -- little food, little ammo, poor clothing for the weather. A properly equipped and supported force with the same advantages would have conquered Korea and virtually annhilated UN forces. The Chinese defeated us, pushed us back, but never routed UN forces.

In War One, Russia was similarly unable to sustain an offensive, scoring only one major success and fared poorly whenever they opposed German troops. Their successes came mostly at the expense of the AH crew -- who were hardly the most integrated fighting force.

The German troops still in Russia at the time of the pandemic were comparatively poorly equipped and supplied because they were there as occupation troops pursuant to the treaty of B-L. It is hardly surprising that they suffered more. Comparing the two fronts at this time-point is really inequitable, the Eastern Front was a shadow effort by Germany from the Winter of '17/18 through the Armistice.

Germany's economy, hampered by blockade, was ultimately unable to sustain the war effort. Morale collapsed, and Armistice was the only choice. It should be noted, however, that Germany fought the combined forces of the British and French empires to a standstill while providing enough support to Austria Hungary to stave off Russia and promote its collapse, consolidate a hold on the Balkans, and to nearly put Italy out of the war. Only the advent of fresh troops from the USA, along with the full power of the US industrial base, made German defeat inevitable.

[ChewieTobbacca]

Germany's economy, hampered by blockade, was ultimately unable to sustain the war effort. Morale collapsed, and Armistice was the only choice. It should be noted, however, that Germany fought the combined forces of the British and French empires to a standstill while providing enough support to Austria Hungary to stave off Russia and promote its collapse, consolidate a hold on the Balkans, and to nearly put Italy out of the war. Only the advent of fresh troops from the USA, along with the full power of the US industrial base, made German defeat inevitable.

It truly is amazing that Germany tackled 2 empires and another major power (France) at the same time and fought nearly all the sides to defeat and/or collapse.

Without the influx of fresh troops from the U.S. (as well as the British blockade), Germany could defenitely have forced favorable terms for peace on the Western front. Keep in mind that in 1918, they launched last gasp offensives along the Western front (with new tactics) that pushed the French and English back more miles than all of the fighting in the years before had done in total.

France was near collapse as well, with troop mutinies having already occured. The new German tactics of firesquads and organization at the squad level, not the company level, nearly brought Germany to victory but it was too little too late when fresh manpower came in from the U.S.