Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

[King Henry V]

That was then, without the old problems of resistance movements and others.

[IrishArmenian]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[The Stranger]

3 world wars?

[Duke Malcolm]

Perhaps the extra one is in reference to the Napoleonic Wars...

[Avicenna]

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.

[Duke Malcolm]

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.

The Battle of the River Plate?

[Aenlic]

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.

Actually, it did include South America; although all of the actions were naval or espionage in nature.

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.

[The Stranger]

That was then, without the old problems of resistance movements and others.

they had rebellions 2. and the comunication was very bad.

[King Henry V]

they had rebellions 2. and the comunication was very bad.

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.

[The Stranger]

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.

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.

and yes youre right that it wasnt as sophisticated as now, but what was?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Weren't the English in really big trouble at one point early in the blockade because they only had a few weeks of supplies for the island, at most?

I remember hearing this in my US History class, but I don't really remember the specifics.

[Marshal Murat]

My history teacher told us that once, Russia and Germany had a sort of non-aggresion pact, Bismark and his tenure.

Also, on a one-to-one basis, the German navy was superior to a Royal Navy dreadnought. The Sedyilitz (butchered) took multiple hits but managed to limp back to Germany while another British warship took a hit forward turrets and blew apart.

Also, there might have been a possibility that the British could be taken over if the Germans did strangle it, give Irish rebels support (draw troops away) and then invade.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My history teacher told us that once, Russia and Germany had a sort of non-aggresion pact, Bismark and his tenure.

Also, on a one-to-one basis, the German navy was superior to a Royal Navy dreadnought. The Sedyilitz (butchered) took multiple hits but managed to limp back to Germany while another British warship took a hit forward turrets and blew apart.

Also, there might have been a possibility that the British could be taken over if the Germans did strangle it, give Irish rebels support (draw troops away) and then invade.

Bizmarck was, indeed, a strong proponent of keeping Russia "de-coupled" from any other European power. Young Wilhelm managed to malf that up.

I'd argue against your assessment of German Naval superiority. German and English dreadnoughts were largely equivalent in power and defense. Germany may have had a slight edge in optics, but only marginally. German Battlecruisers were better protected by the time of the Battle of Jutland, but the modifications and doctrine changes used to minimize the risk of magazine explosion from a turret hit were enacted after the Seydlitz was nearly sunk (Helgoland Bight?) earlier in the war. Moreover, the British "fast battleships" -- Warspite class -- were state of the art and had better main guns, equal or better armor, and a far better motive plant than anything the Kreigsmarine floated. British superiority was not simply a question of numbers.

Britain could only have lost the naval war by allowing her Home fleet to be beaten in detail -- the High Seas Fleet hammering one or two squadrons at a time -- a fact of which they were well aware. Jellicoe was painfully conscious of being, as Churchill said, the "only man who could lose the war in an afternoon." He worked hard to keep his forces from being out of support of one another.

Invade? Even if we give the KM the benefit of the doubt -- defeating the Home fleet in detail -- where would the troops have come from? It's not like Germany had lots of spare battalions just hanging about the Hamburg docks singing Lilli Marlene.

[Avicenna]

That was because of the October Revolution in Russia, and the establishment of the Bolshevik/Communist party in Moscow and Petrograd. Lenin realised that he'd have to make arrangements with the Germans, to avoid being crushed. Also, he would lose a huge chunk of Bolshevik support if he continued war, and the Bolsheviks weren't that popular at the stage.

[AntiochusIII]

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.

and yes youre right that it wasnt as sophisticated as now, but what was?

Well, Rome took centuries to pacify it if that's what you mean. And the oh-so-brave Roman heroes actually were quite scared to serve in Iberia; Rome suffered a continuous manpower shortage there despite many more men serving in other, less active fronts; Africa, for example, drew a massive Roman army for the Third Punic War whereas Iberia in the same timeline was suffering a serious lack of soldiers to fight. The resistance lasted from the Punic Wars to Augustus, to think!

However, the Mongols never came to meet such conditions as Roman Iberia. If there was ever a chance they would've just genocided their way through anyway.

Did the Germans have centuries to pacify Europe before somebody comes in and "liberate" a large number of now very angry people?

Kaiser Germany had neither the resources nor the will to conquer the world. It wanted to dominate Europe ala Napolean, perhaps, and it came as close as it could to succeed in those early days before the French managed to stabilize the Western Front. Of course, I doubt before the start of the general war that they actually planned to take over Europe step-by-step and act on it like the later Nazi Germany did.