Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2014, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Colorado
1,523 posts, read 2,852,090 times
Reputation: 2220

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
In such a scenario, World War I as we know it would not have occurred. Also, considering that Russia performed much better against Austria-Hungary and against the Ottomans than it did against Germany in World War I, I don't think that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia would have occurred in this scenario.
Why not? Revolution had been the air of Russia since the late 1800's. It's not as if Russians suddenly became revolutionary in 1917. There only reason that the Russian government had not been toppled is because the previous rebellions had been squashed. Whether Russia won or lost the war, the revolutionary spirit would still be ever-present. Territorial gains or loss, or attainment of national prestige would not solve the crushing poverty and overbearing oppression under which the Russian peasant lived. Only political change could dissuade revolutionary fervor, and a Russian victory would not have solved any of the peasant's grievances.

The presence of revolutionary activity directly relates to the level of autocracy exerted by a government. The countries with the most progressive governments - France and Britain - are the ones who did not see massive social and political upheaval, while those governments intent on staunch conservatism and closed to change - Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Italy - saw mass revolutionary activity. For example, France, the most progressive major power, did not see the massive social and political upheavals that these other countries saw, despite suffering more than Germany through the war. Germany on the other hand, saw communist revolution within her borders, and Bavaria even declared independence.

All in all, it is highly unlikely that revolutionary activity would have been quelled with a different outcome to the war. The gains of the Russian or German governments did not solve the fundamental grievances expressed by their peasant classes. They wanted freedom and representation, not more territories or national pride.

 
Old 03-19-2014, 09:13 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,528,912 times
Reputation: 14621
Too many variables to really think about, but the one not mentioned is that a victorious Germany most likely would face some major internal strife in the decades following a victory. There is ample evidence that the German Labor Movement which had been gaining steam since 1848 would have exerted great force on the new nation and most likely brought down the monarchy or enforced some sort of consitutional monarchy upon the German state. So, a democratic and powerful Germany would never have been viewed by the US as a threat and the two would have most likely developed deeper bonds as time went on. Their geopolitical interests lay in different spheres and where they conflicted, a solution could be reached. Germany could have easily replaced the UK as the US's major ally versus becoming some sort of quasi-Soviet Union style enemy.
 
Old 03-19-2014, 06:20 PM
 
2,329 posts, read 2,904,372 times
Reputation: 2344
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
You're thinking of the wrong war drro. Germany defeated Russia in WWI.
My bad, sorry.
 
Old 03-19-2014, 09:11 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,767,033 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbesdj View Post
1. This idea is extremely unlikely. As Grandstander has already pointed out, the concept of a "cold war" was foreign to the minds of the era in question.

2. In addition to this, the United States was a very isolationist country and happy to keep her affairs within the western hemisphere.

3. The United States was also just one great power among many; and the youngest one at that.

4. Also, technology was still primitive enough to make long distance travel and communication relatively difficult, and establishing control over far away or remote areas could be complicated. For example, the most modern ships in the world would take several weeks to sail from London to Sydney.

5. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that if Germany somehow managed to defeat France, she would have become, or aspired to become, a superpower as we understand the term today.

6. The Germans did not leave us any ideas of what their plans for a victory would look like with the exception of the Septemberprogramm. This rough draft suggests that Germany could have annexed Belgium, part of northeastern France, some African colonies, and created some puppet states in eastern Europe. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Germany would somehow become a superpower, let alone engage in a cold war with the isolationist United States.

7. If Germany was even capable of controlling such vast territories and establishing global hegemony is highly questionable. Even one million active soldiers of the German army were not enough to occupy the conquered territories of eastern Europe through 1917-18

8. and a victorious Germany would still have had Britain, a weakened France, Italy, Japan, and Russia to contend with.
1. Well, there did appear to be some "cold wars" even before 1914: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_w...erm)#Cold_wars

2. Yes, but this is because European countries generally respected the Monroe Doctrine. This might not necessarily be the case in a German-win-WWI scenario.

3. Yes, but it already had a lot of influence, power, and potential back then.

4. And yet this didn't stop the Europeans from conquering large parts of the world between 1884 and 1914.

5. What about Kaiser Wilhelm II's Weltpolitik combined with traditional Prussian/German militarism?

6. No, but the two Wikipedia articles which I linked to above show what Germany's views in regards to the U.S. and to the Western Hemisphere were before World War I. Thus, I am simply building up on this with my speculation here.

7. How exactly do you know that one million active German soldiers wasn't enough to occupy Germany's vast gains in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty? Do you have a source for this?

8. Agreed--such a world would be multi-polar, rather than bi-polar. For the record, though, I think that only Britain, Japan, and Russia (after it fully recovers from World War I) would have been major powers in such a world. France's demographic situation relative to other countries back then was dismal, and another defeat by its neighbors in the 1910s after two previous defeats in 1870-1871 and in 1814-1815 might downgrade it to a second-tier power. As for Italy, no offense, but Italy's military appears to be pretty weak. Thus, it is incapable of becoming a major power on the scale of some other European countries.
 
Old 03-19-2014, 09:14 PM
 
Location: SoCal
5,899 posts, read 5,767,033 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
1. Too many variables to really think about, but the one not mentioned is that a victorious Germany most likely would face some major internal strife in the decades following a victory.

2. There is ample evidence that the German Labor Movement which had been gaining steam since 1848 would have exerted great force on the new nation and most likely brought down the monarchy or enforced some sort of constitutional monarchy upon the German state.

3. So, a democratic and powerful Germany would never have been viewed by the US as a threat and the two would have most likely developed deeper bonds as time went on. Their geopolitical interests lay in different spheres and where they conflicted, a solution could be reached. Germany could have easily replaced the UK as the US's major ally versus becoming some sort of quasi-Soviet Union style enemy.
1. Do you mean due to the economic problems caused by World War I?

2. Couldn't a victory in World War I temporarily empower German hawks and conservatives, though? Also, while the German labor and social democratic movements did have wide support, I am wondering if they would be able to even make the German monarchy a fully constitutional one, let alone to do things such as to rein in the German military.

3. Yes, this is very possible if one accepts your initial premises here in your post above.
 
Old 03-20-2014, 05:46 AM
 
Location: Colorado
1,523 posts, read 2,852,090 times
Reputation: 2220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
1. Well, there did appear to be some "cold wars" even before 1914: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term)#Cold_wars
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
2. Yes, but this is because European countries generally respected the Monroe Doctrine. This might not necessarily be the case in a German-win-WWI scenario.
Not really. The British owned Canada, which they expanded to the Pacific ocean. Then there was Belize, and numerous islands in the Caribbean. Not to mention the French attempt to conquer Mexico and install a puppet; the French meddling in Brazilian affairs. America invoked the Monroe Doctrine when protesting the Spanish attempt to assert control over the Dominican Republic, and Spain simply ignored them. Britain meddled and the affairs of Argentina and the La Plata region and came to control much of it's economy. In the 1890's Britain's Lord Salisbury even declared the Monroe Doctrine illegitimate. The Monroe Doctrine was just a set of words which were violated time and time again. Germany simply didn't have the capability to project power across continents like the aforementioned countries. To top it off, what would Germany have to gain by trying to extend power into Latin America - especially since in your scenario there would still be Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and Japan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
3. Yes, but it already had a lot of influence, power, and potential back then.
The United States is the last great power in the world, save Japan, which would have come into a cold war with the Germany in your scenario. Even if Germany did become some sort of incredible power and dominator of all of Europe (I find this extremely unlikely) would she not have a cold war with Britain or Russia rather than the United States on the other side of the world?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
4. And yet this didn't stop the Europeans from conquering large parts of the world between 1884 and 1914.
Yes, it didn't stop them from setting up military garrisons and exerting a level of control over the populace that rarely affected the common native. It also didn't stop their colonial ventures from being a burden on their economies and a financial net loss. The ability of Germany to project military power on a far away country with a modern military like say, Argentina or Colombia, is extremely doubtful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
5. What about Kaiser Wilhelm II's Weltpolitik combined with traditional Prussian/German militarism?
What about it? All evidence suggests that Germany would not have gone on a warmongering rampage, but would have simply expanded her borders and influence as victorious European had always done. A victorious Germany would see herself still surrounded by increasingly hostile competitors, who now would have many more grievances than in 1914. How would she defeat Britain? What about Russia ten years on, a rump state France, Italy and the United States? What about the other countries of Europe - is it likely that they would sit back and watch themselves become increasingly dominated by Germany - a country that attacked and annexed neutral Belgium?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
6. No, but the two Wikipedia articles which I linked to above show what Germany's views in regards to the U.S. and to the Western Hemisphere were before World War I. Thus, I am simply building up on this with my speculation here.
Fair enough - if the Germans had the potential to become a superpower following an unlikely victory in WWI. But again, the only contemporary evidence illustrating possible German plans for a victory illustrate a Germany that is far from being a super power, let alone a superpower that would have been ready to engage in hostilities with the United States on the other side of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
7. How exactly do you know that one million active German soldiers wasn't enough to occupy Germany's vast gains in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty? Do you have a source for this?
Yes. Liulevicius, Vejas Gabriel (2000). War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I. pp. 281-294.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
8. Agreed--such a world would be multi-polar, rather than bi-polar. For the record, though, I think that only Britain, Japan, and Russia (after it fully recovers from World War I) would have been major powers in such a world. France's demographic situation relative to other countries back then was dismal, and another defeat by its neighbors in the 1910s after two previous defeats in 1870-1871 and in 1814-1815 might downgrade it to a second-tier power. As for Italy, no offense, but Italy's military appears to be pretty weak. Thus, it is incapable of becoming a major power on the scale of some other European countries.
Fair points. However, it in the event that Germany emerged victorious, it is likely that she would simply face a new coalition. Except this time, who would be her allies? Britain, a weakened France, Italy, Russia, and the US would all detest Germany. After all Germany was perceived as a warmonger before and during WWI, how would she be perceived if she won and annexed new territories? Any European country interested in maintaining their independence would join the coalition against Germany.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
1. Do you mean due to the economic problems caused by World War I?
Economic problems caused by WWI, a changing society, and a rigid and inflexible government. This is literally the recipe for revolution. Remember that every single country in Europe faced widespread instability during this time period. Only three European countries directly involved in the war didn't see their governments topple: Belgium, Britain and France.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
2. Couldn't a victory in World War I temporarily empower German hawks and conservatives, though? Also, while the German labor and social democratic movements did have wide support, I am wondering if they would be able to even make the German monarchy a fully constitutional one, let alone to do things such as to rein in the German military.
Regardless of what they could or couldn't achieve, these political forces would have contributed to large-scale instability and the rift between the common people and the ruling elite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
3. Yes, this is very possible if one accepts your initial premises here in your post above.
NJGoat's suggestion is quite realistic. It is virtually impossible to imagine a Germany that isn't rife with social, political, and even economic instability.

Interesting debate Futurist. You should take a look at this forum: http://historum.com/. You will find much more stimulating discussion there compared to City Data. Many there have degrees in history or are studying the subject.
 
Old 03-20-2014, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 922,638 times
Reputation: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
7. How exactly do you know that one million active German soldiers wasn't enough to occupy Germany's vast gains in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty? Do you have a source for this?

They had about a million men in the occupied parts of Russia, but not primarily because they were needed there. Indeed quite a few were moved to the West in the second half of 1918.

They were left in Russia because they were mostly "second-line" troops not really suitable for the grand offensives Ludendorff was planning for early 1918. So bringing them west would have served only to throw an additional burden on German food supplies.

Given the virtual non-existence of Russian armed forces in 1918, there is no reason why Germany couldn't have controlled (or even increased) the occupied territories with a considerably smaller force.
 
Old 03-20-2014, 10:52 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,528,912 times
Reputation: 14621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
1. Do you mean due to the economic problems caused by World War I?
I mean that WW1 temporarily derailed the labor movement and in a victory "won on the backs of the working man" they would have looked to assert their influence and achieve their aims.

Quote:
2. Couldn't a victory in World War I temporarily empower German hawks and conservatives, though? Also, while the German labor and social democratic movements did have wide support, I am wondering if they would be able to even make the German monarchy a fully constitutional one, let alone to do things such as to rein in the German military.
I would actually count their "empowerment in victory" as the catalyst that helps spur the social democratic and labor movements into greater action. A victory in the Germany of ~1915 was perfect for the creation of class warfare.

Quote:
3. Yes, this is very possible if one accepts your initial premises here in your post above.
I think my premise is as probable as any other.
 
Old 03-20-2014, 07:11 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,435,230 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by drro View Post
If Germany would not have made the mistake of invading Russia where they basically were beaten by the harsh climate, the whole world would have been speaking German today. They were so much advanced in just about any technology at that time(like they still are today) that no country would have managed to beat them.
How would the whole world be speaking German today without them conquering the U.S. or Russia? Nevermind Japan, Asia, or the rest of the world. Maybe all of Europe would be speaking German, but not all of the world. Germany was incapable of invading the U.S., and incapable of defeating the Soviets. At the very worst, the U.S. would be isolated to the North American continent, but we would not be speaking German.

In terms of technological advancements, the U.S. invented the A-bomb. The Germans had no such weapon of mass destruction.
 
Old 03-22-2014, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,407,431 times
Reputation: 24780
Default A Cold War Between the U.S. and the German Empire Had Germany Won World War I

Who cares?

What really would have been cool is the Cold War between the US and the Mongol Empire if they hadn't dissolved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top