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.

[Aenlic]

Agreed. Although, I think Russia would eventually have been out of the war regardless of Lenin. By the time Lenin ended it, there really wasn't much left of the Russian army. The desertions and mutinies were rampant well before the October revolution. Kerensky was already resigned to ending the war, because of the lack of manpower from the desertions. Ending the war seems to have been more of a propaganda tool than anything else.

I did see an interesting episode of The First World War series, on the History Channel I think, which made the point that Germany initially engaged to the east merely as a way of drawing Britain into the war. I'm not sure how true that was. In the end, I think it turned out to be a huge mistake. Making the same mistake a few decades later just boggles the mind. Perhaps, in the end, it all comes down to a certain amount of anti-Slav arrogance on the part of the German military that got them in trouble in two consecutive wars.

[Avicenna]

Did Germany actually want to go to war with Britain? Anyway, I doubt that war between Britain and Germany was possible to avoid. I think that Russia was part of the Schlieffen plan simply because Russia was the ally of France and Britain, and declared war on Austria-Hungary.

The mistake of attacking Russia was probably Hitler's fault. He might have been a political genius, but it doesn't seem that he's a military one, seeing that he makes a few ridiculously stupid decisions in the war against Russia, and the simple fact of engaging them in the first place. You'd think that looking at Napoleon's war, Hitler would not engage in a war with Russia, or at least provide his troops with some form of warm clothing when attacking them.

[Aenlic]

Well, according to this TV show, Germany was confident that it could beat Britain and France together; so they wanted to ensure that Britain did enter WWI, and attacked Russia to draw them in. I'm rather skeptical on that point; but they did make a good case for it.

As far as the attack in WWII, it was almost all Hitler. He just couldn't overcome his rabid hatred for communists and Slavs. None of the general staff thought a 2 front war was a good idea. It also went against the whole idea of a pan-Eurasian alliance as envisioned by Karl Haushofer, who was the source of Hitler's philosophies of lebensraum, an Aryan master race, the occult (he was a major influence on Himmler as well), the idea of an Axis treaty and a lot more. Haushofer was one of the main proponents of geopolitik, and was the one who envisioned an Axis of Germany, Russia and Japan to counter the power of France, Britain and the US. But Hitler's insistence on attacking Russia went against everything Haushofer had taught to students like Hess. The advent of a two front war led to Haushofer's student, Rudolph Hess, flying off to Britain seeking an agreement which would at least make it a one front war again. Haushofer went from being one of Hitler's mentors to a dedicated enemy, even so far as plotting an assasination. His son, Albrecht was chief aid to Hess and was implicated in an assassination plot after Hess flew to Britain and failed. Haushofer later denied ever influencing Nazism, even though it was a matter of record that almost all of the contacts between German and Japanese diplomats prior to the Axis treaty took place in his own home. He was not charged at Nuremburg. He committed suicide with his wife in 1946.

Luckily for the world, Hitler ignored all advice. But that's all rather off-topic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

An interesting thesis they're putting forward, but I just don't see it supplanting the accepted assessments.

In War 1, Germany did not really seek war with England so much as accept it as the price to be paid for manuevering -- they actually thought the Belgians would quit after token resistance rather than fight -- through Belgium. Schleiffen always thought a BEF would be involved, and just figured it would have to be netted in with the rest of the French left wing. They were even pretty close to accurate as to the number of divisions the Brits would land.

All along, Germany never believed that Russia could begin an offensive in the first month, which they believed gave them just enough time to break France before shifting troops to stave off Russia. They were well aware of the long-term dangers of Russia's huge manpower base (however poorly led/trained), a British blockade, the mobilization of British Empire resources and so on -- they just felt that the decisive blow would have been made before such factors became important. Russia's early offensive, though a debacle tactically, really did take away important troops just before the Marne. Had Germany won at the Marne, it is distinctly possible (though maybe not probable) that the BEF would have withdrawn and France would have been broken in the field.


In War 2, Hitler was merely proceding with the primary agenda -- Lebensraum in the East -- an agend he'd laid out at least as early as Lansdorf Prison. At the time of the Assault, he felt that there was no 2nd front, because English efforts to launch one in France would have been laughable and the fight in the Med was one largely staffed by Italians. Now, why he felt the need to bring the USA in actively -- and thereby give the allies the resources needed for a real 2nd front -- has always been beyond me. Perhaps because he was a drug-addled whack job?

[Avicenna]

Because the Yanks were helping the British, selling them valuable resources such as guns and food. Then, there's the battle of the Atlantic where they are fighting even though techincally not at war, and plenty of American cargo ships get sunk by U-Boots because they've got goods bound for Britain. There's also the factor of supporting Japan against America. The guy was a loon after all, and probably didn't think he would be defeated.

[Aenlic]

In the end, he was just, as you put it, a drug-addled loon. I like that. Heh. You could add syphilitic. A drug-addled syphilitic loon.

As for Lansdorf, there are some who suggest that most of Mein Kampf was inspired, if not outright written, by Haushofer, who was a frequent visitor of Hitler's while he was imprisoned.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Because the Yanks were helping the British, selling them valuable resources such as guns and food. Then, there's the battle of the Atlantic where they are fighting even though techincally not at war, and plenty of American cargo ships get sunk by U-Boots because they've got goods bound for Britain. There's also the factor of supporting Japan against America. The guy was a loon after all, and probably didn't think he would be defeated.

The last sentence you put forward is key. Anybody with real insight would have put up with the undeclared naval war -- Britain lacked the "boots" to do much more without the USA (note: comment on resources, not pluck, the Brits had plenty of that).

[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.

[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.

[Salazar]

Afaik there werent really plans to conquer the world, originally that war was just about assisting the austrians against the russians who were pissed because of how stupid the austrians dealt with serbia (the serbians proposed a treaty of which even the germans said that it should be accepted, but the austrians just refused to do so), of course the french didnt like that, which prompted war against them too, and then the attack on belgium brought the british in. To me that sounds like no side actually wanted such a war, but all sides had no problem with taking the risk of it, if need be.

[DukeofSerbia]

Afaik there werent really plans to conquer the world, originally that war was just about assisting the austrians against the russians who were pissed because of how stupid the austrians dealt with serbia (the serbians proposed a treaty of which even the germans said that it should be accepted, but the austrians just refused to do so), of course the french didnt like that, which prompted war against them too, and then the attack on belgium brought the british in. To me that sounds like no side actually wanted such a war, but all sides had no problem with taking the risk of it, if need be.

Actually, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, then Russia on A-H because they were our allies. Then Germany declared war on Russia as A-H ally. After that France declared war on Germany as Russian ally and Germany attacked France via Belgium and UK went in war. Little complicated?!

[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...

[Avicenna]

A few corrections:

The Germans DID want an Empire, one that could rival Britain's or France's.

Salazar: Pretty unusual if Germany's objective was to help AH against Serbia and Russia, but then chose to attack France, wouldn't you say?

Russia didn't stand a chance in the war. The incompetent fools of Russian officers just mucked the whole thing up. That's what you get if officers are given their positions on the basis of wealth as opposed to merit... I'm not saying militarily they couldn't face Germany, it was just that when you suffer defeat after defeat while your country is messed up, getting worse and you are all the way at the front line, and the people are protesting due to just about everything, something's bound to happen, and make it impossible to defeat Germany while retaining the country. Also, the Russians had to face the Austro-Hungarians as well.

[Salazar]

Actually, as DukeofSerbia said, france was allied with russia. And of course they wanted an Empire, but it's not like germany started that war, they were mostly interested in Colonies (of course they came a bit late with that idea, i mean every halfrespectable european state had some kind of colony somewhere on the planet)

[ChewieTobbacca]

On the topic of World War I not being really a big World War (as in WW2) - keep this in mind:

In World War I, there were five major and very old empires (along with other nations that also held colonial power such as France) involved in the fighting in Europe - the British, Ottoman, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian empires. The war had a huge impact on the world since much of the world was divided either colonially or through spheres of influence by these powers (along with France and then the U.S.). The destruction of four of these empires distrupted world order to this very day.

And end my rant which wasn't really directed at anyone here, more of a rant against U.S. history classes who seem to skim over WW1 as though it were nothing more than the first salvo of WW2.

[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.