Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Apologies; it should have read 'German response to the Arab Slave trade'.

Apology accepted. Agreed, it did not speak directly to the German response to the Arab slave trade.

I'm constitutionally disinclined at the moment to help you with your research. See: 'l.o.t.m.'s response to molly's humour '.

Ok.

The trade treaties with Russia and Austria-Hungary were due to expire in 1914. Austria was immediately being threatened by whom, exactly ? Serbia ? (I mean in reality, not in propaganda terms)

Austria was being threatened by the combination of its own internal difficulties, and the growing strength of Russia. Growing Russian influence in the Balkans threatened Austrias trade outlet via the Danube.

In terms of figures I believe I've already given percentages for German trade.

and ive responded to them.

Quote ? Reference ? Which German bourgeois, exactly?

I dont have a quote. Ive never read Calleo all the way through. Im not very comfortable with his thesis, for a number of reasons. When I asked for a scholarly response to it, I was being sincere.

Have you ever read Calleo?

The political vacuum that appeared after Bismarck.

After Bismarck, German diplomacy and foreign policy become erratic, unpredictable and self-defeating.

Bismarck said (sensibly) that his Africa was in Europe; the Kaiser wanted (possibly out of a misplaced sense of inferiority) to have both a Mittelafrika and a Mitteleuropa (under German domination) .

But Calleos point (which again, I apologize I dont have specific cites for) is that the policy of trying to gain, or defend, markets in both Africa and central europe, was one asserted by the National Liberal party, the voice of the German industrialists.

[Wycoff]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by molly bloom That was, unfortunately, a rather big 'if'. The Second Reich was not quite an absolutist monarchy, but it came pretty close. Flatterers and sycophants surrounded the Kaiser, who always opted for advice from the Junker militarists in preference to anything that mere elected politicians might have to say.

Right. Kaiser Wilhelm listened to the Junker class. He wasn't some crazy free agent. Maybe he refused to bend for the Reichstag, but he listened to the aristocracy and the military elite. They served as a brake on his power. They'd still control him. If the Junkers and/or the military elite wanted to reign him in, then they would. You've implied that you agree here:

Only once war had begun in earnest did the Kaiser take a back seat, and by then the damage was done.

We're dealing with a scenario in which Germany wins the war. By "damage" I assume that you mean "Kaiser's big mouth and lust for Germany's place in the sun got Germany involved in a war with Britain, France, and Russia." I'm positing a world in which the U.S. never intervenes in the war and Germany gets at least a favorable stalemate in the West sometime in 1918 or 1919. The "damage" had been done by this point. The Kaiser would have long been put in his place by this point. In fact, the true struggle I envision in this particular scenario is a struggle between the General Staff and the Reichstag for political primacy in the post war Reich.

Both Friedrich von Holstein and Tirpitz went to some lengths to emphasise how personal pressure from the Kaiser was responsible for the aggressive development of the German Navy- and yet Tirpitz also had to suggest that a propaganda campaign be launched to convince the Reichstag and the German public of the necessity for this fleet, such was the general unenthusiasm for it.

You're the first person who has suggested to me that Wilhelm was one of the few who wanted a blue-water navy. Some prominent people opposed it, but it was always my impression that the majority of Germans favored it. Nationalists (like the German Naval League) wanted their place in the sun, capitalists wanted the profits associated with ship production, workers wanted the jobs. To me this represents the Kaiser putting pressure to pass a program that had significant support from key groups rather than an example of the Kaiser passing a program despite significant opposition of those groups.

There's an anecdote I can't find at the moment, about a German courtier who writes to the Kaiser about his joy at appearing before him dressed as a poodle, and how much the Kaiser will appreciate this; then there's the Kaiser's very close relationship with Eulenburg and his friends, which indicates that even if the Kaiser were not actively gay, he was certainly happy to be seen in the company of known homosexuals. And then there's his love of very tall military men in showy dress uniforms...

If taken as true, then this just implies that Wilhelm was gay/bi (and kinky), not that he was insane. It in no way helps substantiate an argument proposing that a victorious Kaiserreich would be just as terrible as the Third Reich.

The Conservatives weren't though, and with a Kaiser who grew increasingly more anti-semitic and a fashionable petit bourgeois antisemitism coupled with an ever present rural or peasant antisemitism, renewed annually by mystery or miracle plays, then add the new pseudo-scientific antisemitism supposedly based on Darwinian theory, and there was not only fertile ground for racial antagonism, but a section of the populace eager to resort to it when occasion rose- as it did in times of economic strife such as the so-called Long Depression of 1873-1896, and earlier in the 19th Century in the Rhineland, for instance.

I still don't see how this would lead to an inevitable Holocaust, or even smaller scale but widespread pogroms. Jews would have been discriminated against, but what makes you think that this means that they would be exterminated? What weight do you give to the severe socio-politico-economic stresses of the interwar years in contributing to the Holocaust?

But he would have been a victor in a winning Imperial Germany, not a disconsolate member of the far right looking back on what might have been. In any case, look at the publication date of his war memories- only 1920.

Then maybe he wouldn't have been as crazy. However, if he were to become just as crazy as he was IRL, then I have no doubt that he would have been ostraciszed by "polite society"- just as he was in our history. Afterall, he ran for President in 1925 and received only 1% of the vote even after the hyperinflation fiasco. If we assume that the Germany economy is relatively robust and the populace subsequently less radicalized, then I don't see why he would receive any more support in the victory timeline than he did in our own. I think that, in a winning timeline, Aryan mystics like Ludendorff would either have had to moderate their beliefs or be relegated to the fringe, as society would not have been as radicalized and thus would be less receptive to such ideals.

I could see a victorious Germany solving its Jewish problem by asking its partner, Turkey to cooperate in setting up a new Jewish homeland as part of the whole Berlin-Baghdad Railway Economic CoProsperity Sphere.

It would be a propaganda coup for Turkey and Germany and distract world attention from the Armenian troubles, and be useful for Turkey in that it would have a politically and economically beneficial counterweight to Arab nationalists in the region.

That's an interesting theory, and could make an interesting counterfactual timeline.

I don't think that Jews would have been in much different of a position in a post-war Kaiserreich than they were pre-war, though.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Austria was being threatened by the combination of its own internal difficulties, and the growing strength of Russia. Growing Russian influence in the Balkans threatened Austrias trade outlet via the Danube.

But Austria still had an Adriatic coastline and internal trade with Germany.

As for its internal difficulties, I should perhaps remind you that Russia had only recently dramatically lost a war with Japan and then undergone the 1905 October Revolution. It too had internal difficulties - during the war with Japan, Pilsudski had attempted to secure weapons to lead a patriotic Polish revolt against Russian rule (Pilsudski went on to raise a Polish Legion to fight the Russians when they attacked in Galicia).

Russia's social difficulties did not stop at democratic movements, anarchists, nihilists and communists; in the census of 1897 Russia's population of non-Russians amounted to 55.7% of its 122.6 million people, of whom over 13 million were Turkic Muslims

In 1910 Russia in Europe had only 10% the length of railway that either Great Britain or Germany possessed. Austria-Hungary surpassed Russia in coal production by 50%, and Russia's coal output amounted to less than 10% of Germany's.

Similar deficiencies were apparent in pig-iron and steel.

It was actually drawn towards both France and the British Empire by non-adroit German diplomacy and manoeuvring.

The real danger came from Kaiser Wilhelm offering the Austrians a 'blank cheque' for their dealings in the Balkans and with or against, Russia.

It was after all Bismarck who opined that ' the Balkans were not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier'.

Have you ever read Calleo?

Sho' nuff have.

But Calleos point (which again, I apologize I dont have specific cites for) is that the policy of trying to gain, or defend, markets in both Africa and central europe, was one asserted by the National Liberal party, the voice of the German industrialists.

The 'markets' in colonial Africa were just propaganda.

The Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft lost money hand over fist, and military interests perforce took over in East Africa and South West Africa with the grisly results I've previously mentioned. Germany already had markets in Europe and as I've said was a major trading partner with the British, and was enjoying a trade surplus in the two decades prior to 1914.

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would the world be a better place if Germany had won WWI?

Originally posted by Wycoff


Right. Kaiser Wilhelm listened to the Junker class. He wasn't some crazy free agent. Maybe he refused to bend for the Reichstag, but he listened to the aristocracy and the military elite. They'd still control him. If the Junkers and/or the military elite wanted to reign him in, then they would. You've implied that you agree here:

Actually no, I haven't. And in fact I've quoted directly two of his advisers (Tirpitz and Bulow) who admit that they were fearful to give him advice that he didn't want to hear because they were concerned for their positions.

Difficult to envisage that happening in the British Empire...

They served as a brake on his power.

If anything the military (especially Tirpitz and the navy) encouraged him- his erratic 'diplomacy' was giving them what they wanted. This was after all the Kaiser who could dismiss his best chancellor (Bismarck), dismiss the Reichstag, dismiss any and all government ministers as he saw fit.

Some prominent people opposed it, but it was always my impression that the majority of Germans favored it. Nationalists (like the German Naval League) wanted their place in the sun, capitalists wanted the profits associated with ship production, workers wanted the jobs. To me this represents the Kaiser putting pressure to pass a program that had significant support from key groups rather than an example of the Kaiser passing a program despite significant opposition of those groups.

The Naval League (which did attract middle class enthusiasts) was a creation of Tirpitz's, backed up with funds from industrialists. Who did, of course, stand to gain from fleet expansion at least in terms of armaments. Krupps had had some experience from profiteering from war by selling arms to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (where German observers managed to greatly offend the Japanese military with their remarks about the yellow race, but did gain new respect for the use of hand grenades and improved mortar bombs).

If taken as true, then this just implies that Wilhelm was gay/bi (and kinky), not that he was insane.

That's only part of the evidence I've presented, but it does in itself show a recklessness of attitude towards behaviour at court and in public, which is further backed up by such items as his own reference to his fits of mania and depression:

Wilhelm himself referred to the 'fits of depression' that assailed his father.

Wilhelm II 'My Early Life'. We now know that manic-depressive illness runs in families, and the Kaiser's mother explains

..Willy's grandiosity using words like 'impetuous' and 'noisy'; to rationalize his recurrent rages and restlessness, she pointed to the ways in which his grandparents and others had spoiled him; to excuse his occasional breakdowns, she referred to 'a tendency to be easily hurt' .

Hannah Pakula, 'An Uncommon Woman: The Empress Frederick'

The Kaiser experienced a nervous breakdown in 1897, and a violent outbreak in 1900. As hsi own doctor said to Eulenburg:

[ Dr. Leuthold ] 'the Kaiser's condition reflects a certain... weakness of the nervous system.'

Friedrich von Holstein also wrote to Eulenburg in 1896 :

The chief danger in the life of the Kaiser is that he is and remains absolutely unaware of the effect his speeches and actions have on Princes, public men and the masses. The life work of every government of his must be to counter this danger and as far as is possible to nullify those effects. A task which soon wears one out.

If one was allowed to stay in office long enough, presumably...

It in no way helps substantiate an argument proposing that a victorious Kaiserreich would be just as terrible as the Third Reich.

It wasn't intended to. It was designed to show how the German government was overawed by an unstable autocrat who was surrounded by sycophants (who knew enough of his tastes to suggest he'd find a courtier being paraded as a clipped poodle funny) and who also by his own personal failings in diplomacy managed to alienate countries with whom Germany had previously been on good terms, and in whom Germany had definite profitable trading interests.

I still don't see how this would lead to an inevitable Holocaust, or even smaller scale but widespread pogroms. Jews would have been discriminated against, but what makes you think that this means that they would be exterminated? What weight do you give to the severe socio-politico-economic stresses of the interwar years in contributing to the Holocaust?

I haven't suggested that a victorious Second Reich would 'inevitably' have prosecuted a Jewish Holocaust. I have suggested that (for instance) an African colonial holocaust was a possibility.

One reason being that a victorious Reich would have to reward the patriotism and suffering of the workers, peasants and middle classes with some kind of triumphal dividend and another that market fluctuations (as I've already touched on) were responsible for previous outbreaks of popular and intellectual antisemitism.

Combine this with the growth of racial hygiene theories in the Second Reich, racial anthropology and theories of Social Darwinism (the Politisch-Anthropologische Revue of 1902, the Archiv fur Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie, the Gobineau Society in 1902, the Society for Racial Hygiene 1905) and you have a victorious German people willing to accept Slavs or Africans (or any other lesser race) as a scapegoat should an economic downturn occur.

[Max Sinister]

Are you interested in discussing how history could've been if things went different than in our world?

(shameless commercial on)
Then you might be interested to visit http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php !
We've a got big discussion forum (not as big as apolyton, but still many hundred active users) just for this topic, with many completed Timelines, and recently even a wiki. There are some Civ fans there, too (except me).

Oh, and about the topic: I'm not sure things would turn out better. Who guarantees that no Hitler equivalent had come to power in France / Britain / Russia? The Germans would've imposed a peace on the losers that would've been worse than Versailles was for Germany.

In fact, at said forum we even have a Timeline for that: Look for "Fire Eagle, Snow Bear".

[Ecthy]

"Alternate" history is just storytelling and bull****ting. Some of you shuld think WHY things have turned out the way they did, and how unfree many decisions of individual actors were.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

But Austria still had an Adriatic coastline and internal trade with Germany.

Their rail route to the Adriatic went to Trieste, claimed by Italy, and threatened by south slav nationalism, backed by Russia. In any case, losing the Danube would have been a major blow, threatening Hungarian agricultural interests. I didnt say AH would have been subject to 100% siege - I dont think that was necessary.

As for its internal difficulties, I should perhaps remind you that Russia had only recently dramatically lost a war with Japan

After sending a fleet to the Pacific. Something Austria couldnt have done with any hope of success. That Russia had difficulty projecting power in the Pacific, doesnt mean it wasnt a threat to AH in SE europe.

and then undergone the 1905 October Revolution.

From which it emerged with a more modernized political system, and at which point it began a surge of economic growth.

It too had internal difficulties - during the war with Japan, Pilsudski had attempted to secure weapons to lead a patriotic Polish revolt against Russian rule (Pilsudski went on to raise a Polish Legion to fight the Russians when they attacked in Galicia).

Russia's social difficulties did not stop at democratic movements, anarchists, nihilists and communists; in the census of 1897 Russia's population of non-Russians amounted to 55.7% of its 122.6 million people, of whom over 13 million were Turkic Muslims

Many of Russia's non-Russians were felllow east slavs, and few aside from the Poles were at a level of consciousness that threatened the regime. AH was coming apart at the seams in 1905-1914.

In 1910 Russia in Europe had only 10% the length of railway that either Great Britain or Germany possessed. Austria-Hungary surpassed Russia in coal production by 50%, and Russia's coal output amounted to less than 10% of Germany's.

Similar deficiencies were apparent in pig-iron and steel.

But Russias economy and industry were growing rapidly, in textiles, in railroads, and in engineering industry.

Despite Russias "backwardness", the Russian army in 1914 was able to easily defeat Austrian armies, despite diversion of troops to fight the Germans. It was only when larger numbers of German troops were shifted east that Russia was defeated along the Austrian front.

It was actually drawn towards both France and the British Empire by non-adroit German diplomacy and manoeuvring.

The real danger came from Kaiser Wilhelm offering the Austrians a 'blank cheque' for their dealings in the Balkans and with or against, Russia.

Once Austria was Germanys only ally, it was that or diplomatic isolation.

It was after all Bismarck who opined that ' the Balkans were not worth the bones of one Pomeranian grenadier'.

Indeed. he preferred to stop Russian penetration into the Balkans with the threat of British force, as he did successfully at the Berlin conference.

The 'markets' in colonial Africa were just propaganda.

But markets throughout the colonial world were seen at the time as important, and not just by Germans.

Germany already had markets in Europe and as I've said was a major trading partner with the British, and was enjoying a trade surplus in the two decades prior to 1914.

and as ive already said, that trade surplus was creating tensions and a movement for imperial preferences before 1914.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

and then undergone the 1905 October Revolution.

From which it emerged with a more modernized political system, and at which point it began a surge of economic growth.

That's not correct. The industrial lift-off should rather be situated in the early 1890's, with Count Witte's investor-friendly policies. Economic growth actually slowed down after 1905.

But Russias economy and industry were growing rapidly, in textiles, in railroads, and in engineering industry.

Textiles were a dominant sector, but not engineering. In fact, Russia lacked a presence in most of the "new" economic sectors of the time: chemicals, electrical engineering, automobiles... The steel sector was surging though, along with raw materials extraction (Russia was the greatest oil producer of the time IIRC).
Industrialisation was very dependant on state intervention and foreign capital, for which Russia ran up a great foreign debts. Railroad mileage was indeed increasing rapidly, but its quality was lacking.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Excuse me? The entire justification for the Congo Free State, accepted by the powers in 1884 was to fight the Arab slave trade.

Many people do not realise that in the late 19th century the ivory trade was debilitating African culture as much, if not more, than the slave trade. The ivory traders of Zanzibar would organize giant expeditions on the mainland, forcibly impressing local tribesmen along the way. Bearers were treated worse than slaves, after all, the Arabs didn't pay for them. They were run into the ground until dead, then replacements were obtained locally. Those bearers who made it to the end of the journey on Zanzibar island were discharged without transport. The were forced to swim the distance between the island and the mainland, which I believe was about 2 miles. Most did not make it. The Zanzibar Arabs did not even lessen this harsh treatment for muslim natives.

German occupation of Zanzibar ended this horror.

[Blaupanzer]

Whether or not Germany "should" have entered WW I does not reflect on the post-war of a world in which the allies did not win. [I personally subscribe to the theme advanced in the 1980's that the mobilization process itself led to a rather "premature" launch of the war in the west. This is the contention that plans for later mobilizing troops required that the German troops originally in the marshalling areas had to move out over the border in order to accomodate the newly arriving troops. The invasion launch became a rather clockwork process, e.g., on day 24 the Fifth Grenadiers need to be in Luxembourg so that the 124th Bavarian Reserve Division can mobilize into their camp. (Notional units for example only.) Many historians contend that Wilhelm (and his advisors) did not realize that when the King authorized the mobilization that that would automatically trigger the invasions supported by that mobilization plan.]

In any case, if the end of WW I had included an intact Second Reich seeing itsef as a victor, would the world of today be better off? I believe that a war cycle existed in Europe based on reconstituting the militaries for another round, cycle after cycle. If this is true, then WW II was inevitable and the timeline might very well converge with our own.

One major thing that would probably have changed would be the Holocaust. Earlier I contended that pogroms might occur, but many here believe that the scale of the Holocaust seems unthinkable without madmen in power. Stop thinking that! That's how it happened without the world intervening when it could the first time. In the 1930's, allied politicians said, "It can't be that bad" and other such banalities. The nature, scale and location may have been somewhat different, but a major attrocity was building for the Jews in Europe. If not Germany, maybe France, maybe Russia. Other major attrocities also occured in the 30's in Russia (Ukraine, smaller sub-nationalities), Rumania (the Rom -- gypsies), Spain (the Basque) and elsewhere. Technology had made this scale of massacre possible. [Note, this point is not intended to be German bashing (or Jewish bashing either).]

Another major change would be the course of the history of Russia (the Soviet Union), which might have controlled less territory and population and might not have seen the Bolsheviks emerge as the lead revolutionaries (as opposed to the SR or the Mensheviks).

If the timing of World War II (not the fact of it but the when) had changed, then weapons developments might have very much changed the equipment structure and military destructiveness of that war. Who then fights on which side and who wins could have been different. Not sure if the ultimate outcome wouldn't still have been similar -- one major European power, one major Asian power, and one major peripheral power. In our time, it was the Soviet Union, China, and the US. In this other timeline maybe it is Germany, Japan, and the US. Hard to say who the exact players would be, but not significantly different in 1960 either way. Nukes ended the war cycle in our WW II with only two cities busted. In that other timeline it might be more and different cities, but the emergence of nukes would still finally end the war cycle just as it did in OTL.

[Ecthy]

A very insightful approach, Bp. I'm interested in your conception of war cycles, care to offer some reading hints?

[Blaupanzer]

The war cycles seem self- evident from the Seven Years War on, every 20 to 40 years more or less. I'm sure some of our military historians can help. Anyone got something intellectual about this pattern?

[Blaupanzer]

Thanks, Ecthy, BTW.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Colon™


That's not correct. The industrial lift-off should rather be situated in the early 1890's, with Count Witte's investor-friendly policies. Economic growth actually slowed down after 1905.

But Russias economy and industry were growing rapidly, in textiles, in railroads, and in engineering industry.

Textiles were a dominant sector, but not engineering. In fact, Russia lacked a presence in most of the "new" economic sectors of the time: chemicals, electrical engineering, automobiles... The steel sector was surging though, along with raw materials extraction (Russia was the greatest oil producer of the time IIRC).
Industrialisation was very dependant on state intervention and foreign capital, for which Russia ran up a great foreign debts. Railroad mileage was indeed increasing rapidly, but its quality was lacking.

Pardon the engineering reference - i was thinking the industries supporting rail building, like steel, and got sloppy (in US economic history the engineeering industry is very closely tied to rail building)

As for the slowdown, didnt it begin before 1905, and lead to Wittes dismissal, and didnt it pick up pace again with Stolypins ag reforms?

The following is from Wiki (few online sources on Russian hist econ growth, at least that i could find)

"Stolypin's boldest measure was his peasant reform program. It allowed, and sometimes forced, the breakup of communes as well as the establishment of full private property. Stolypin hoped that the reform program would create a class of conservative landowning farmers loyal to the tsar. Most peasants did not want to lose the safety of the commune or to permit outsiders to buy village land, however. By 1914 only about 10 percent of all peasant communes had been dissolved. Nevertheless, the economy recovered and grew impressively from 1907 to 1914, both quantitatively and through the formation of rural cooperatives and banks and the generation of domestic capital. By 1914 Russian steel production equaled that of France and Austria-Hungary, and Russia's economic growth rate was one of the highest in the world. Although external debt was very high, it was declining as a percentage of the gross national product, and the empire's overall trade balance was favorable."

[Dr Strangelove]

Was the colonial imperialist mentality the ultimate cause of WW1? Were repeated world wars inevitable until imperialism eventually died away? Personally I think so. So long as the vast majority of the Earth's surface was under the control of a few imperial powers the dynamic lesser imperial powers were faced with a situation that seemed hopeless. Their development was limited not by their own talent and capacities, but by the grip of the great powers on markets.

The succesful fight for freedom by today's developing nations has saved millions of lives in the "developed" world by freeing them from the struggle for access to colonies.