Could Kaiser Germany have conquered the world?

[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).