What if Interactive History V had happened? - German WWI victory

[Flavius Clemens]

For those of you who haven't followed Kraxis' excellent Interactive History V - The Duel of the Sea ( https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=59564 ) , in it an aggresive campaign by the German Navy, combined with errors by the Royal Navy allow the Germans to block Calais, Dunkirk and Boulonge at a key moment in the 1918 offensive. The lack of supplies to the BEF allows the German army to push them back to Calais and threaten Paris, and the allies request an armistice.
In the course of the campaign the Kaiser developed some affinity with the Navy having been sidelined by the generals.

So, in these circumstances, what would the likely developments be? Could the Kaiser have continued in power in peacetime? The German economy would still have been in a poor state after the war, how would it have coped? What would the effect of this humiliation have been on Britain and France, especially given the magnitude of their losses in the war. Would they have been the cradle of fascism rather than Italy and Germany?

[King Henry V]

It is my opinion that if Germany had won the First World War, the world would be a happier place today with 60 million more people.
The German economy managed to recover after the war, and that was with the crushing terms of the Treaty of Versailles, thanks to American loans to the Weimar Republic. The peace terms with the Allies and the Central Powers would have been favourable to the Germans, and would have allowed their economy to recover rapidly. The Imperial Monarchy, strengthened by its victory, would have continued for at least several decades. Rebellios rif-raf such as the Nazis and Communists in German would not have been tolerated.
Germany would also have conserved the territories it had been granted under the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk, which would further have helped the German economy. The Kaiserliche government would not have regarded the turmoil in Russia with a favourable eye, and would probably have given much support to the White Russians and would maybe have committed its armed forces to the region. The fledgling Bolshevik republic would have fallen, and communism in Russia would have been nipped in the bud.
The Ottoman Empire was pretty much doomed anyway, and would have crumbled soon or later. Austria-Hungary would have taken its place of the sick man of Europe, however it could have survived as a constitutional monarchy with a sort of federal government with the Kaiser being the binding figure between the different nationalities.
Britain would probably not have been affected by communism or fascism, as the British are not all that keen on such religious politics.
France, on the other hand, was affected by a fairly strong communist movement in reality, so it would not be implausable to say that the commies would have garnered much support after the country's defeat in the war. As the rise of communism invariably leads to the rise of fascism, there would have been the same conflict between the two groups as that which had marked Italy and Germany. Like the latter, France could have gone fascist. Italy would probably have gone fascist in defeat as it did in victory. However, the duo of France and Italy would have been the military equivalent of Laurel and Hardy, so I doubt the world would have had much to fear from these two nations.
Germany would have superseded the Royal Navy under the terms of any treaty and colonies would also have been given over, such as perhaps Nigeria, Zanzibar, Kenya and chunks of French West Africas, as well as Asian possesions such as British New Guinea.

So, no communism, no naziism, and no holocaust.

[Csargo]

I agree with King Henry.

[Gurkhal]

I myself do mostly agree with Henry, however I still think that a second major war would shake Europe. The sheer humiliation of defeat might well lead both and France and Italy to fascism (sp?) and Great Britain seeking revange to find each other in a new major war with Germany. Also combined that all those countries do have a military potential, in particiler France which is very often overlooked it would mostly like be a very bloody war. Who would win that war is hard to say, although it's possible it could've gone either way. My beat would however be on Germany with increased resources in the east.

[King Henry V]

France was traumatised so much by the two wars, even when the last one was a victory, that it collapsed like a house of cards when Germany invaded in 1940. I think the effects of a second defeat would have been disastrous for French military morale and added an aura of invincibility to the Germans which would have been tough to overcome.
I believe that Great Britain, on the other hand, would have been somewhat repulsed by any notion of further involvement on the continent after such a defeat and would have turned increasingly isolationist. The country would have licked its wounds and vowed to regain its naval superiority. However, whether it would have been able to do so is another matter.
A second war could have flared up, though in such an instance I believe that Britain would only have been prepared to offer token assistance to the French and concentrated its efforts at defeating Germany at sea. It may or may not have won, but on land Germany would have been the undoubted master.

[Gurkhal]

I do not agree with your statements about France. First and foremost France would be in a kind of similer situation like Germany was after the WW1. Germany changed their military machine and with forthinking generals like Guderian and Rommel they changed the way of warfare and manage to overcome severe econimical problems, I see no reson as to why France couldn't manage the same.

France, Britan and Italy had forth thinking men like Germany. Yet the old school generals didn't want to lisen to their arguments about the new time. The old school won the WW1 (although with a certain degree of modernization), why then change a winning concept which worked in the last war? The reactionery military thinking which prevented the former victorers of WW1 from going forward like Germany would most likly disappere from the ranks of France, as well as England while it would most certain prove much stronger in the noble-dominated generalship of Germany. It's even entirly possible that the Germans wouldn't even evolve a tank corps, thinking that since they did without it in the last war, they could do without it again.

The trauma that is mention could also be evolved into many things, bitter hatred is one which given the patroitism of France during the war is a very likly evolution. Something which a skilled demagog might use to drive the people forward, similer to Hitler. Also lets not mistake the French initial involvement in the WW2 with the French involvement in WW1. During 1914-1918 the French bore the brunt of the fighting on the western front. To my knowledge never rivalled by any other of her allies except Russia in the number of troops committed and the casulties sustained.

Regarding Great Britain I think that London might happily engage themselves again if possibly if they thought they could win, most likly armed with the weapons of the new age, to win back their lost colonies.

[The Wizard]

There could have been so many possibilities. Certainly, for the East it would've meant little, except perhaps that the Reds would not have been able to profit from the momentum they would've gained following the Russian Civil War (what with German garrisons and kinglets still strong in Eastern Europe).

I've seen one scenario which was incredible appealing to me. It was a mod for Paradox Entertainment's Hearts of Iron, and in it the maker(s) speculate that a Central victory could've (if we believe Murphy's Law, would've ) led France to become syndicalist (the Western European version of being a soviet republic), the USSR to come under Trotsky's tutelage instead of Stalin's, and other incredible alternative historical outcomes. Check it out!

On the comments of Henry V: make it simpler. What if the United States had been able to reign in the vengeful and ruthless demands of the French regarding Germany's after-war fate? Surely, as the post-WW2 period proved, it would have led to a far less vengeful German populace and thusly a far smaller supporter base for the NSDAP? Speculation, especially considering the fact that Black Thursday would probably still have happened, but interesting nevertheless.

[King Henry V]

On the comments of Henry V: make it simpler. What if the United States had been able to reign in the vengeful and ruthless demands of the French regarding Germany's after-war fate? Surely, as the post-WW2 period proved, it would have led to a far less vengeful German populace and thusly a far smaller supporter base for the NSDAP? Speculation, especially considering the fact that Black Thursday would probably still have happened, but interesting nevertheless.

Though the exactions of the Treaty of Versailles was a major catalyst for the rise of Hitler, it would be foolish to put the blame solely on that treaty. There were many other factors involved, such as as the rise of communism (one extreme provokes the growth of another) and the economic turmoil of 1930s. Of course the reparations could have been a lot more limited, Northern France, the industrial heartland of the country, was afterall devastated by four years of war and the US would not have been able to restrain the French that much. Therefore, there would still have been reparations for Germany to pay, which would still have caused resentment.

[The Wizard]

Note the fact that I said it was pure speculation, as well as the fact that I acknowledged that Black Thursday (the 1929 Wall Street crash) still would've happened.

But consider this. What if Germany had won? What would they have done with their implacable enemy, France? The United Kingdom would've likely escaped the dance with a serious dent in their international prestige (giving serious momentum to anti-colonial movements), but what about France?

Germany joined the war so quickly to try and smash Paris's head in. So, say France got the same treatment from Germany that Germany got from France in real life. What would we have seen? What I linked to -- a communo-syndicalist France? Fascist? Or just weak?

Oh, the possibilities...

[Csargo]

I think that the war would have ended up differently if the Germans wouldn't have invaded through Belgium. Like in the AAR Bopa posted. Britian would have most likely stayed neutral in the conflict and therefore the US would most likely have stayed neutral the entire conflict but still would have sold arms to both Germany and France. The Germans would not have had the RN blockading their ports then they would have been able to sustain the war longer with food imports and other imports.

If they would have turned their attention towards Russia instead of France. I think Russia would have been defeated in 2 to 3 years. Then being able to turn their full attention on France then could have defeated them. If this were to happen then Europe would be a very different place today.

[King Henry V]

However, German would then have lost the advantage in outflanking the French and bypassing their major fortresses built along the Franco-German border.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I think it would have saved a lot of lives.