Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

[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.

[Avicenna]

A-what? The Germans arranged for Lenin to take a train back to Russia. They wanted a Russian revolution, to get the Russians out of the war. The allies most definitely did not like Lenin, since they attacked him shortly after the war, siding with the Whites in the RCW against Lenin's Reds.

[Aenlic]

I agree with Tiberius. In fact, the Germans actually put the nail in their own coffin by allowing Lenin to go to Russia. Lenin didn't instigate the revolution, he and the Bolsheviks merely took control of something that was already inevitable. Had Lenin not returned and used his influence to control the Bolsheviks, who then took control of the revolution despite being the minority (Bolshevik actually derives from the Russian word for majority, and was something of clever propaganda tool to actually take the majority when they didn't really have it). Without Lenin, the moderates under Kerensky and Kropotkin might have consolidated their rule with the help of the independent factory soviets and the anarchist farmer's collectives of the east and southeast and possibly even Makhno in the Ukraine.

Without Lenin, I doubt there would have been an October revolution to follow the February revolution. Without Lenin there wouldn't have been a consolidation of power by the more radical "War communism" Leninist statists, the Bolsheviks, and there wouldn't have been Stalin as a successor to Lenin. World history would be very much different. So Germany's gamble to send Lenin to Russia was ultimately responsible for a great many things, some of which would later come back to bite them in the ass, like Stalinist Russia in WWII.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Without Lenin, I doubt there would have been an October revolution to follow the February revolution. Without Lenin there wouldn't have been a consolidation of power by the more radical "War communism" Leninist statists, the Bolsheviks, and there wouldn't have been Stalin as a successor to Lenin. World history would be very much different. So Germany's gamble to send Lenin to Russia was ultimately responsible for a great many things, some of which would later come back to bite them in the ass, like Stalinist Russia in WWII.

Of course, Lenin did end Russian participation in War 1, so their short term goal was achieved. You're on point about the unintended consequences though.