Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

[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.

[Marshal Murat]

Lenin was actually exiled, and Germany would have kept it that way. The Allies would have sent him to Russia. However, the internal dissent would be low since Russians wouldn't be losing, and their wheat shipments would be secure going through Turkey.

[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.